It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If one were to think of current candidates for the most disastrous of faux pas, surely none could be greater than “The Man Who Expressed Skepticism About Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming.” Not merely do mouths gape, but eyes roll at any dimwit’s failure to grasp that there is “consensus” on the issue. Indeed, to dissent is seen not merely as evidence of mental deficiency but moral turpitude.
It conforms to a broad view — long and fondly promoted by fans of Big Government — that capitalism is essentially short-sighted and greed-driven (just look at the subprime crisis!). This stance is not merely appealing to activist politicians and bureaucrats, it is pure gold for the vast and growing army of radical NGO environmental lobby groups, whose raison d’être — and fundraising — are closely related to the degree to which nature is seen to be “endangered.” It is also appealing to rent seeking businessmen who see the profit potential in the vast array of controls and subsidies.
Nevertheless, most ordinary people reasonably imagine in the face of such a weight of “authority” that the case must be closed. It isn’t. For a start, the weight of authority is based on the political doctoring of studies that are in any case designed to countenance no other conclusion than that man-made carbon dioxide drives the climate. Moreover, the very fact that the theory’s promoters are so reluctant to actually engage in scientific debate (No time to talk. Must act!) is highly suspicious.
However, once you get people believing in “authority,” then you’re pretty much home and dry. Authority relieves us of the anxiety of uncertainty and the pain of thought. If the issue can also be portrayed as “moral” (millions of poor people dying from biblical droughts and floods!) then to question it is not merely cause for rejection but censure. Skeptics must be either crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal.
However, once you get people believing in “authority,” then you’re pretty much home and dry. Authority relieves us of the anxiety of uncertainty and the pain of thought. If the issue can also be portrayed as “moral” (millions of poor people dying from biblical droughts and floods!) then to question it is not merely cause for rejection but censure. Skeptics must be either crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal.
I recently had what I tried to make a level-headed exchange with somebody who was visibly agitated at my daring to quote science, facts and sources. This person — dredging up material from the conventional noosphere — finally told me that I was like “a holocaust denier,” or somebody who believed in UFOs! Their conviction, like the Walrus correspondent, was based on the fact that “Nobel prize winners” had declared that catastrophic global warming was a fact.
Now it’s certainly true that Al Gore has a Nobel, but it is equally certain that it isn’t for science. The nations of the world are currently involved — ahead of the next giant climate shindig in Copenhagen in December — in rancorous discussions about sharing the economic self-mutilations that are claimed to be needed as part of a successor to the egregiously-failed Kyoto Accord. No issue has more divided the rich and poor, and pitted the West against India and China.
Originally posted by mikerussellus
“Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.”
Euripides quote
More and more people are coming to the realization that the emperor has no clothes.
Originally posted by kingoftheworld
What are you people talking about? Of course Global Warming is real! If it wasn't why would the Government tell us so. The Government would never lie to the people.
P.S. WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
The problem with the anti-man made global warming proponents is that they are usually from a think tank funded by businesses that have a stake in it not being man made
Burson-Marsteller
B-M's environmental services have benefited industrial polluters, such as the following:
Ontario Hydro, an industrial concern, headed by Earth Summit secretary general Maurice Strong, which is the biggest source of CO2 emissions in Canada. This corporation is currently selling nuclear reactors to Argentina and Chile....
B-M is a key player in the nuclear industry lobby. According to Canadian journalist Joyce Nelson, B-M has for years represented top nuclear power/nuclear weapons contractors such as General Electric, AT&T, McDonnell Douglas, Asea Brown Boveri and Du Pont. In fact, Canada's first Candu [nuclear] reactor sale to Argentina in the early 1970's was later renegotiated during the reign of the military junta, for whom Burson-Marsteller did an image-cleanup from 1976-1981. In addition to this, since 1993 B-M subsidiary Black, Manafort, Stone & Kelly (see sidebar) has been representing Nordion International, a newly-privatised subsidiary of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., Canada's state-owned nuclear power company. www.hartford-hwp.com...
Are these the same Rockefellers who advocate for a One-World Government?
JOHN PERKINS: Basically what we were trained to do and what our job is to do is to build up the American empire. To bring – to create situations where as many resources as possible flow into this country, to our corporations, and our government, and in fact we’ve been very successful. We’ve built the largest empire in the history of the world. It's been done over the last 50 years since World War II with very little military might, actually. It's only in rare instances like Iraq where the military comes in as a last resort. This empire, unlike any other in the history of the world, has been built primarily through economic manipulation, through cheating, through fraud, through seducing people into our way of life, through the economic hit men. I was very much a part of that....
AMY GOODMAN: How closely did you work with the World Bank?
JOHN PERKINS: Very, very closely with the World Bank. The World Bank provides most of the money that’s used by economic hit men, it and the I.M.F.
AMY GOODMAN: You're actually called economic hit men – e.h.m.s?
JOHN PERKINS: Yeah, it was a tongue-in-cheek term that we called ourselves. Officially, I was a chief economist. We called ourselves e.h.m.'s. It was tongue-in-cheek. It was like, nobody will believe us if we say this, you know?....
And in Iraq we tried to implement the same policy that was so successful in Saudi Arabia, but Saddam Hussein didn't buy. When the economic hit men fail in this scenario, the next step is what we call the jackals. Jackals are C.I.A.-sanctioned people that come in and try to foment a coup or revolution. If that doesn't work, they perform assassinations. Or try to. In the case of Iraq, they weren't able to get through to Saddam Hussein. He had – His bodyguards were too good. He had doubles. They couldn’t get through to him. So the third line of defense, if the economic hit men and the jackals fail, the next line of defense is our young men and women, who are sent in to die and kill, which is what we’ve obviously done in Iraq.
Originally posted by Animal
there is enough evidence to support that the plethora of chemicals humans add to the atmosphere impact planetary function, to deny this is to choose to be willfully ignorant.
the jury is still out on the scale of this impact, making the claim of catastrophe a bit much. the jury us also out on the scale to which humans are responsible.
Originally posted by jdub297
Originally posted by Animal
there is enough evidence to support that the plethora of chemicals humans add to the atmosphere impact planetary function, to deny this is to choose to be willfully ignorant.
the jury is still out on the scale of this impact, making the claim of catastrophe a bit much. the jury us also out on the scale to which humans are responsible.
"Impact" is not equal to causation, or did you not know that?
Originally posted by jdub297
Are you saying that there is no need for further research? The "issue" is now settled? By you? For you?
Originally posted by jdub297
Causation has been established?
Originally posted by jdub297
Name calling betrays a lack of substance. Or projection as a mask for underlying insecurities and lack of faith in the merits of the argument.
Originally posted by jdub297
Straw men, such as "people say," "those who believe," and "the jury" only emphasize the utter lack of factual basis, and an argument based solely upon opinion, faith, bias, prejudice or belief.
Originally posted by jdub297
You state an opinion as if it were fact itself. You are wrong.
Originally posted by jdub297
"Enough evidence?" For you, perhaps. But not for those scientists and lay people who are STILL engaged in vigorous study and debate about what impact, IF ANY, man has on global climate change.
Originally posted by jdub297
Do you presume to say that the debate stopped recently? That the multi-year studies and models have been called off?
Originally posted by jdub297
To say man has "an impact" begs the question: How much?
Ever heard of the 'butterfly effect?' The 1st and second laws of thermodynamics? Of course we have an "impact."
That does not in and of itself equate to CAUSE.
Originally posted by jdub297
Take issue with "the source" all you want. But try to do so with factual support rather than philosophy. Your "issues" do not make anyone stupid, willfully ignorant, or of questionable intelligence.
Originally posted by jdub297
You've obviously placed your own into question. And now ATS readers can form their own answers, beliefs, and ideas.
Originally posted by jdub297
Deny ignorance.
If one were to think of current candidates for the most disastrous of faux pas, surely none could be greater than “The Man Who Expressed Skepticism About Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming.” Not merely do mouths gape, but eyes roll at any dimwit’s failure to grasp that there is “consensus” on the issue. Indeed, to dissent is seen not merely as evidence of mental deficiency but moral turpitude.
...
Nevertheless, most ordinary people reasonably imagine in the face of such a weight of “authority” that the case must be closed. It isn’t. For a start, the weight of authority is based on the political doctoring of studies that are in any case designed to countenance no other conclusion than that man-made carbon dioxide drives the climate. Moreover, the very fact that the theory’s promoters are so reluctant to actually engage in scientific debate (No time to talk. Must act!) is highly suspicious.
However, once you get people believing in “authority,” then you’re pretty much home and dry. Authority relieves us of the anxiety of uncertainty and the pain of thought. If the issue can also be portrayed as “moral” (millions of poor people dying from biblical droughts and floods!) then to question it is not merely cause for rejection but censure. Skeptics must be either crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal.
Originally posted by A Fortiori
reply to post by jdub297
The problem with the anti-man made global warming proponents is that they are usually from a think tank funded by businesses that have a stake in it not being man made;
Originally posted by jdub297
reply to post by Animal
The thread is NOT about global warming or climate change or the causes of them. It is about those who resort to name calling and denigration of opinions that do not adopt AGW theory as conclusively or scientifically "proven."
I've put forth no theory on AGW. I've put forth no opinion on causation.
I merely point out that those who do so, and do so in contravention of the "consensus," are met with vitriol bordering on slander and personal attack rather than legitimate debate.
Originally posted by jdub297
On topic:
If one were to think of current candidates for the most disastrous of faux pas, surely none could be greater than “The Man Who Expressed Skepticism About Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming.” Not merely do mouths gape, but eyes roll at any dimwit’s failure to grasp that there is “consensus” on the issue. Indeed, to dissent is seen not merely as evidence of mental deficiency but moral turpitude.
...
Nevertheless, most ordinary people reasonably imagine in the face of such a weight of “authority” that the case must be closed. It isn’t. For a start, the weight of authority is based on the political doctoring of studies that are in any case designed to countenance no other conclusion than that man-made carbon dioxide drives the climate. Moreover, the very fact that the theory’s promoters are so reluctant to actually engage in scientific debate (No time to talk. Must act!) is highly suspicious.
However, once you get people believing in “authority,” then you’re pretty much home and dry. Authority relieves us of the anxiety of uncertainty and the pain of thought. If the issue can also be portrayed as “moral” (millions of poor people dying from biblical droughts and floods!) then to question it is not merely cause for rejection but censure. Skeptics must be either crackpots or in the pay of Big Oil or Big Coal.
Originally posted by jdub297
Peter Foster's article directly addresses your posture and position.
In fact, if it were an exposition or an offer of 'evidence' about the debate, your posts would be Exhibits "A" and "B."
Originally posted by jdub297
This thread is NOT about the realtiy of climate change or the causes thereof. It IS about the venality of those who refuse to engage in substantive debate, relying instead upon tagging the opposing argument as "stupid," "willfully ignorant," et c., et c.
You fit the picture to a "T."
Originally posted by jdub297
Thanks for a living exemplar. Foster couldn't have done this better himself!
(This is a joke, right? He didn't put you up to this did he?)
Originally posted by jdub297
Deny ignorance.
Originally posted by Animal
...
I have seen enough evidence to establish a link between human activity and warming.
...
I am not saying humans are the root cause of global warming I am only saying they apparently contribute to it.
...
It is incredibly ignorant if not idiotic to deny the link humans have t this cycle. That is to say, it is plain dumb to claim humans are not effecting this cycle.
...
not recognizing that our actions are exacerbating this cycle (CC) potentially to the point whee the planet becomes increasingly unable to support us is DUMB.
...
I will say your willfully ignorant or dumb to deny that we are effecting climate change.
I only used the 'ignorant' and 'dumb' terms to highlight the point of the author of your article and my disagreement with him.
Originally posted by jdub297
As for your "position," you really can't say what it is, can you?