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.

 

To dissent on the man-made global warming ‘consensus’ is seen as evidence of mental deficiency

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Peter Foster: The man who doubted Al Gore


network.nationalpost.com...


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.


Peter Foster, of Canada's "National Post" newspaper, has correctly summed up the thought and process of the AGW debate; or, more accurately, the lack of legitimate debate.

Foster points out that the AGW advocates are more likely driven by an affinity for government intervention and the lure of the money that flows with it, than any reliance on "scientific" analysis of climate change and its causes:

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.


Of course, once you confront the AGW advocates with the truth, you face the usual ad hominem attacks or the impugning of suspected motives. That is, you must be "bought out" or uninformed.

Foster describes the process nicely:

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.


This characterization is probably the must eloquent description of why there is no real debate of AGW on ATS or in the halls of government, where it will affect everyone.

And not for the better.

Deny ignorance!

jw




posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I couldn't envision a better time to be alive.

Not an Obama supporter = racist

Don't believe in man-made global warming = mental deficiency.

Coming soon under Codex, those that ingest vitamins = nutrient deficient.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   
“Question everything. Learn something. Answer nothing.”
Euripides quote

It's apparent that the people are waking up. No longer happy with their daily dose of pablum fed to them by state run media mouthpieces, the people aren't happy with what they have been told.

In the UK, they want you to turn in your neighbor if they use the old standard lightbulbs.

In the US, they want you to turn in your neighbor if they say/print/blog something against the president.

More and more people are coming to the realization that the emperor has no clothes.

It's about bloody time. . . .



[edit on 29-8-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
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; that they propose we keep living life as though the world has infinite resources because that's what keeps their money trucks rolling.

You talk about non-profits as though they are evil and out for money. Name one whose CEO makes a bonus anywhere near Ford, Exxon, Goldman Sachs, or AIG. Having worked for both non-profits and for-profits I can tell you that the people who work there are dedicated to making the world a better place to live in, they are willing to work for less pay to make a difference, and when times are tight you do not see mass, heartless layoffs with the cherry on top being a bonus to the CEO.

Now, I think carbon trading is a scam, so don't clump me in with that crowd. I'm just saying that the science in this instance does not lie. Water takes longer to heat up and cool down. The global water temperature is up in some instances ten to fifteen degrees. It takes only 2 degrees to blight coral. The arctic sheets are spreading wider because they are losing depth, they are essentially re-freezing. That is not a sign of global cooling, that is a sign of global warming. It is the thickness, not length that counts.

*pauses...waits...continues*

What I can't understand (beyond it being a product of a Republican blitz campaign to get the middle and lower middle class to believe that tree huggers are crazy so that they'd continue to buy SUVs they don't need) is why people are so offended and angry that someone dare suggest that humans contribute to the problem. It's basic math. Math isn't left or right. The fact is we have billions of humans, billions of animals, and all of them create organic waste, which creates methane gas which contributes to global warming. Cars, freezers, electricity, yes, yes, bad, too, but honestly most scientists will admit its methane that's the real culprit.

Once we can admit that we are part of the problem we can be part of the solution and innovate. Create new business that put new jobs out there. Environmentalism isn't bad. It's good because it can put people to work. Economies grow by creating new jobs not sustaining old ones.

BTW, Democrats aren't innocent lambs. When it is potential wind power (excellent free and waste free energy) off the coast of their summer hot spot they aren't so green anymore.



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   

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.


The public is fed a global cooling/global warming/climate change mythology and told that bigger governement and greater intervention and control is the answer. And many believe it, or are happy to capitalize on it to their advantage.

Does anyone really believe that BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) is going to give up future growth to help the West as it stifles its economies? They are thumbing their collective noses at the AGW crowd, and rightly so!

World's Largest Polluters Unite Against 'Carbon Schemes'


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Has ANYONE read what Chu (Energy Sec'y) and Holdren (Science Advisor) have said about their idea for the future of America?

I have never seen so many so naive or gullible in my life. It's almost as if critical thought and free will just disappeared over the last 10 to 20 years.

But, I think that those who can still reason are able to speak up and speak out more effectively today. At least we have a bigger (WWW) soapbox.

Is anybody listening? Are there enough?

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 

This thread has nothing to do with politics. It has nothing to do with charities or capitalism It is entirely about the fraud of anthropogenic global warming. (The term "non-profit" only has relevance to the IRS. Anyone can form a 501(3)(c) corporation. It is still a corporation and is beholden to its benefactors exactly as any other corporation answers to its shareholders.)

I am a life-long environmentalist. I was born to the son of a farmer. My father farmed in "retirement." I have livestock and crops of my own.

I believe man can poison his local environment, and can remediate his errors.

Man can not change the climate.

It IS simple mathematics. The entire biomass of the Earth, not to mention man and his domesticated livestock, will not have any lasting effect on the climate. Remove it all, and the Earth will heal herself. It is a continuous process.

What little effect man may have is entirely local and temporary. Look at any environmental "disaster." The Earth repairs our stupidity if left to herself. Even Chernobyl is being 'reclaimed' by nature.

We give ourselves way too much credit for how "important" we are to the global ecosystem. It's called "hubris."

If we spent a fraction of the money that is intended to be diverted to CO2 "remediation" to local environmental issues, we would all be better served.

The path that many industrialized nations have taken and propose to take in the future will have no effect other than to enrich those involved in their "pet projects" and wreck everyone else's economies.

There is NO WAY to "remediate" CO2 on a global scale without global participation. That will NEVER happen! The West can take ALL of their carbon out of the equation. Will that stop China? Will Russia cripple its economy to help anyone else? Will India abandon 8% growth to appease American industry? Do you really believe that Brazil, Indonesia and sub-Saharan Africa are ready to stop or even delay growth just for everyone else?

Face reality. Then work smart toward achievable ideals.

Anything else is a fraud.

jw



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

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


You left out the biggest fallacy:

"We're here to help you. We're from the Government."

AGW advocates are quick to note that 'big oil' and 'energy companies' contribute to institutions that have produced countervailing science.

They fail to note that their own benefactors are the very ones that stand to profit the most from the proposed courses of conduct.

Foster says it perfectly clearly in his article. A recent post noted how strongly G.E. is pushing for "alternate energy" and "cap and trade." It also included excerpts from internal G.E. memos detailing how much it will profit from the AGW agenda. Same with Al Gore and his carbon-trading corporations.

The IPCC? A political organ of the U.N.? How mant ATSers, many of whom are AGW faithful, INSIST that the U.N. is part of a "New World Order" cabal seeking global domination?

How better to accomplish it than through "global crises?"
(The Obama Administration's favorite method of achieving "reform" is through its responses to "crises:"
"Obama Social Agenda Moving Forward By Crisis "
www.abovetopsecret.com...# )

I don't know, maybe a pandemic? A global "climate" emergency?

Deny ignorance.

jw


[edit on 29-8-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 





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


Please get educated

First “Follow The Money”:the "debate" has been decidedly one sided when it comes to funding.

I strongly suggest you at least read about Maurice Strong

No one ever mentions the oil money that funds "environmental" activists. Of course the father of "environmentalism" is Maurice Strong, Chief advisor to the World Bank and the UN and on the board of directors of The Rockefeller foundation. How does HE stack up on the CO2 pollution department?




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...




How about the money from STANDARD oil, World Bank, Chase Bank, puppet masters? I strongly urge you to look at this thread so you understand what is actually behind all this manipulation ATS - The FED

Top Grants Made by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund www.activistcash.com...
(There are several Rockefeller foundations besides this one.)

Funding To Activist Groups Total Donated Time Frame

International Forum on Globalization $390,000.00 1999 – 2003

National Environmental Trust $1,950,000.00 1997 – 2002
Natural Resources Defense Council $1,522,510.00 1991 – 2002
Friends of the Earth $1,427,500.00 1994 – 2001
Greenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005
Environmental Defense $994,363.00 1993 – 2001
Ocean Conservancy $970,000.00 1997 – 2001
American Oceans Campaign $865,000.00 1996 – 2001
Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001
Environmental Media Services $672,000.00 1995 – 2001
Rainforest Action Network $600,000.00 2000 – 2003
World Resources Institute $580,000.00 1993 – 2001
Consumer's Choice Council $570,000.00 1998 – 2001
Earth Island Institute $562,400.00 1995 – 2001
Environmental Working Group $560,000.00 1990 – 2000
Oceana $550,000.00 2002 – 2006
Wilderness Society $520,000.00 1997 – 2000
U.S. Public Interest Research Group $485,000.00 1998 – 2000
National Wildlife Federation $445,000.00 1993 – 2000



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Are these the same Rockefellers who advocate for a One-World Government?

Is that the same Greenpeace that admits it lies about global warming?
The same Greenpeace that opposes reforestation and preservation because they do not enrich it?

They're not biased, are they?

jw



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 





Are these the same Rockefellers who advocate for a One-World Government?


Of Course and they are also the ones who advocate "socialism" Their brand of "socialism" because the banking/corporate elite wish to set-up a World Government. They decided that “socialism was an excellent vehicle for seducing the “unwashed masses” into cooperating. “What unites the many different forms of Socialism.. is the concept that socialism (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) must be handed down to the grateful masses in one form or another, by a ruling elite which is not subject to their control...” The bankers have found socialism very useful in manipulating political activists as they set up their world government. The state is the ultimate monopoly, by controlling that, they control everything. the New World Order and the Rockefeller's new war are all part of the same picture: a ruthless, insatiable drive for world resource monopoly. jimsimmons-author.blogspot.com...

"Environmentalism" and "global Warming" have a two fold purpose. First they give political activists something to do, something to focus their attention on carefully lead by leaders hand picked by the elite, leaders such as Maurice Strong and Al Gore. Second the "worship" of mother earth allows the villifying of the middle class and acceptance of a drastically lowered standard of living by the masses. It allows laws to be passed that blocks true competition and allows legal attack of corporations not among the chosen. It all makes sence once you understand the elites view point.

If you start digging (googling) the Rockefeller - Saudia Arabia connection and the Saudi Arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi and Maurice Strong , then follow the careers and connections of these men, the world wide minipulation become very clear. I can not understand how any Liberal looking into the World Bank SAP's could possibly believe Maurice Strong, Davide Rockefeller, the UN and their mouth pieces Al Gore, the Clintons and Obama are interested in anything but money and power.

Whirled Bank gives a good picture of what the World Bank/IMF does to countries (we are next after Obama bankrupts the USA) John Perkins, a former respected member of international banking, in
“Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” and in interviews, tells how the banking elite used men like him to push third world Countries into IMF/World Bank loans and manipulate world politics.




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.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I've read Perkins' "Economic Hit Man," but knew what to expect going in. The sheep either will not read it or will dismiss it (and the modus operandi of the World Bank/IMF/WHO) after doing so, woithout considering the implications of apathy.

And that's what counts, right? Motivate as many "faithful" as possible, and rely on the indemic apathy of the remainder.

Sooner or later the "voice in the wilderness" will come through. Maybe it is happening now ... .

Did I hear just something?

jw



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
i take issue with the idea presented by the source. i do not think people who doubt 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' are stupid but i do question the intelligence of someone who doubts the anthropogenic contribution to 'climate change'.

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.

so there you have mho, it is dumb to assume we are the soul cause of an impending catastrophe, but it is also equally dumb to assume we play no part.

enjoy flaming me.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

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?

Are you saying that there is no need for further research? The "issue" is now settled? By you? For you?

Causation has been established?

30 years ago, "everyone" agreed the CFCs "caused" ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere. The ozone "hole" expanded, contracted, and held steady without correlation to the actions of the signatories to the Montreal protocols. Today, we learn that it's not really CFCs so much as it is NO. From microorganisms.

30 years ago, "everyone" agreed that man was causing an impending global ice age. The aerosols and particulates were on the verge of tipping the scale toward dimished solar radiation and disastous cooling of the troposphere.

Who was "willfully ignorant" then? "Everyone?" Do you question their intelligence? Was it just some "dumb" scientists, meteorologists, ecologists and geophysicists?

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.

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.

You state an opinion as if it were fact itself. You are wrong.

"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.

Do you presume to say that the debate stopped recently? That the multi-year studies and models have been called off?

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.

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.

You've obviously placed your own into question. And now ATS readers can form their own answers, beliefs, and ideas.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 30-8-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

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?


my point is VERY clear. your work here is mere word play. do you need help in comprehending what i am saying?


Originally posted by jdub297
Are you saying that there is no need for further research? The "issue" is now settled? By you? For you?


did i say anything of the sort?


Originally posted by jdub297
Causation has been established?


there is plenty of debate on this issue. at the moment the prevailing scientific belief is that the 'causation' is human. there is also more 'fringe' (not used as a derogatory term) research that suggests that climate change is a result of natural cycles. in either case these is ample evidence that humans play a roll in the severity of climate change.

leading to my main point, denying this reality IS ignorant if not stupid.


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.


if my belief that anyone who disagrees with the evidence that humans are effecting planetary climate systems is ignorant or unintelligent that is your problem, not mine.


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.


actually the majority of research on the topic is on MY side of the argument.


Originally posted by jdub297
You state an opinion as if it were fact itself. You are wrong.


i am stating an opinion based on research. while i support continued research and am willing to change my opinion based on new evidence, at the moment there is little reason to question the fact that we play a roll. to ignore this at the moment is dangerous and stubborn.


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.


while it may some day be proven to a satisfactory degree that humans do not play a roll at the moment we are faced with the opposite.


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?


no, where did you get this idea?


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.


i don't disagree with this idea of 'cause' at all. what i do think is a demonstration of incredible stubbornness is the fact you admit we have an 'impact' yet you seem opposed to do anything about it.

even more of an example of this stubbornness is that fact that i agree with you in so many ways yet you seem so obsessed with the CC / GW debate you can't let go of any amount of disagreement what so ever.

you are stuck on 'cause / impact' debates which really have so very little merit when the planets, and therefore humans, well being is at stake.


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.


sorry but as you yourself said we 'of course' have an impact. choosing to ignore this fact is pure ignorance an if not that stupidity.


Originally posted by jdub297
You've obviously placed your own into question. And now ATS readers can form their own answers, beliefs, and ideas.


no mate, i was very clear in what i had to say while there is still research to be done the issues are clear.


Originally posted by jdub297
Deny ignorance.


you say this a lot, yet you seem so hung up on conflict and sticking to 'your side' of the argument you overlook our common points of view on the issue.

in this post for example, you had a lot to say yet you said so little.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
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.

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.


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."

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."

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?)

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 30-8-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 07:10 AM
link   

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;


That's what the want you to believe. Prove your statement. More baloney.

Most non-AGW are simply people who honor the truth, no matter what. I hear so many AGW say "Well, even if it weren't true, we're saving the world, so it's OK if a few lies are told". Very dangerous thinking.

I have dealt with wind companies...they have employed the cream of the crop in snake oil salesman. Those who insist on thinking...green GOOD...everything else BAD are simply sheep being led to slaughter.



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

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.


How comical. You pick apart my comment and when I don't bow to your criticism you 'change the subject'.

Okay fine I will play along.


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.



This is what was posted in the OP. Lets see what do I say to this? How about what I sadi the first time:

i take issue with the idea presented by the source. i do not think people who doubt 'catastrophic anthropogenic global warming' are stupid but i do question the intelligence of someone who doubts the anthropogenic contribution to 'climate change'.

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 is also out on the scale to which humans are responsible.

so there you have mho, it is dumb to assume we are the soul cause of an impending catastrophe, but it is also equally dumb to assume we play no part.

enjoy flaming me.



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."


Really? How so? You see I see his article as a rather simple analysis of the issue at hand. It is IMHO a common type of behavior in the CC debate. It looks at the issue from one perspective (that of the disbeliever) and critiques only one point of view (the believer). His argument has no room for any OTHER type of thinker such as myself.

I personally see Climate Change as real. I do not know for certain what the ROOT (causation, as you like to say) is but I have seen enough evidence to establish a link between human activity and warming.

Now listen very closely, this is where you seem to have gotten your ba-dunk-a-dunk covers in a bunch last time too: I am not saying humans are the root cause of global warming I am only saying they apparently contribute to it. While the studies continue so to does this hypothesis's validity until it is satisfactory dis-proven.

What I have said in response to the man's article you have linked is that I do not have any problem with any persona in the world disbelieving that humans are the soul cause of climate change, in fact I support such people and their idea. I also appreciate their research.

I do think 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. Once again as you yourself have noted due to the laws of thermodynamics there is hardly anyway for us NOT to have an impact.

Becasue we are TOTALLY dependent on the planet earth to support us in every way (Air, Water, Food, and all other raw materials to build our place on this planet) 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.

So you see I am not saying your dumb if you decry the statement that humans are the soul cause of catastrophic climate change, I really don't care how you view this issue. But I will say your willfully ignorant or dumb to deny that we are effecting climate change.


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."


No I did not approach this as a debate about the reality or cause of CC, did I?

You say that I refused to engage in a substantive debate, well I disagree. i think I made some very clear and logical arguments and I only used the 'ignorant' and 'dumb' terms to highlight the point of the author of your article and my disagreement with him. Knowing your not dumb I am pretty sure you can see this you just are one of the many who can't let go of the 'fight' o this issue and must prove me, the disbeliever (in your point of view) to be wrong. So be it.


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?)


W/E.


Originally posted by jdub297
Deny ignorance.


Sadly, you are not living up to your motto here mate.

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Animal]

[edit on 31-8-2009 by Animal]



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   

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.


OK. At this point I have to ask: "Did you even read the article?"

If so, then this HAS to be a joke.

As for your reply:

Flaming? Me?
(Pot, meet kettle; kettle, pot.)

As for your "position," you really can't say what it is, can you?

1st, you've "seen enough evidence to establish a link" between A and GW.

Then your 'waffle' genes express themselves and "I am only saying they(men) apparently contribute to it (warming).

Feeling guilty about this hedging, you then return to ad hominem (as Foster precisely describes in the OP):
"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."

'Well ... , there you go again.'

Of course, merely "effecting" (you should review Eng. 101 if you meant 'affecting') the "cycle isn't good enough, is it? No, it hardly says what you mean.

What DO you mean?

"our actions are exacerbating this cycle (CC) potentially to the point whee the planet becomes increasingly unable to support us."

Wow! So we've gone from having some (unquantified) 'impact' to merely "effecting," all the way way to extinction!

And ANYONE who disagrees with our 'potential' self-immolation is "DUMB?" (your words and emphasis, not mine, 'mate')

And I'm "flaming?"

(My God! I hope Foster reads this thread to see how right he was. I am truly amazed ... . It's almost like a game: I push X button, and flames come out. I push Y button and ad hominem drops into the dialectic.)

Pretty good job of not advocating, there "mate." (BTW, I am NOT your mate; mine know who they are.)

So, if I disagree that man is affecting "climate change," I'm mentally defective?

Your words: "your willfully ignorant or dumb to deny that we are effecting climate change."
(again, in Eng. 101 or 2 they'll show you how to use certain words correctly)

And so, to prove that Foster is somehow misguided or narrow-minded, you give us yourself as PROOF that he is spot-on absolutley right in his observation (i.e., to question AGW is akin to insanity):

"I used 'ignorant' and 'dumb' to highlight the point of the author and my disagreement with him."

If this wasn't so funny, it would be spooky. I am truly sorry for you, and hope that you are able to enjoy a fruitful life despite the awful burden you carry.

Deny ignorance.

jw



posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297


As for your "position," you really can't say what it is, can you?



if you can not see my 'position' you have a serious problem. it has been presented to you in such clear and concise terms that your above statement is proof positive that you just can't accept anything but YOUR truth, how small.

but we both know you can in reality see my position, you just can't stand it because it is contrary to what you believe.

the article you presented is crap. it is fundamentally flawed in that it, like you, views the world black and white and has no ability, or at least makes no effort, to see the finer shades.

your reply's to me have been nothing more than petty games at trying to 'defeat' me with subtle jabs and insults. as if i was 'fighting' you.

i am sorry you take disagreement so seriously, honestly my disagreement with the article you used was nothing personal.

i am sorry the fact that i do not subscribe to one of the black or white stances you have so full heartedly subscribed to has left you floundering because you can't attack me as a 'gore loving enviro-wacko'. its hard to know what to do when the formula breaks down and you actually have to think about the issues and not just spout the same old crap.

what i really find so comical about your desperate attempts to discredit me is that i halfway agree with you. but, because i see humans as a contributing factor to CC you just can't deal.

fine, you and your cohort can post here alone, pat each others backs and feel 'right'.

'deny ignorance' my ba-dunk-a-dunk.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join