Stevie Wonder thinks YOU are blind and or stupid.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: CJCrawley

It would be like saying Democrats are the only smart party that exists, if you can't see that, you are blind and or unintelligent. I realize that's hyperbole, but the way AGW is politicized and has become a left vs. right thing, that is how that came across. Leaving it out of a fundraiser would have been the smart move. Alienating anyone when you are asking for donations is stupid.(IMHO)

No. That is not a good comparison.

There is no data, that I know of, to suggest the Dems are the only smart party. But there is data in regards to CC/GW.

Too often that data is questioned because of political and conspiratorial reasons, not scientific reasons.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
And yet, no viable solution.

A room full of jet setting, mansion owning energy hogging celebrities preaching gorebull warming.

When will they practice the religion they preach?

Maybe if we didn't have to spend so much effort trying to convince people such as yourself thinking that not having a viable solution to a problem is a valid reason to disbelieve the problem actually exists to believe in the problem we could be discussing solutions instead?

What do you win for converting him, or me for that matter? Do you get a prize for every 10 converts?

I'm not trying to win anything. This isn't a contest. It's my home planet, and the only one I can live on. I'm trying to build support so that those people can turn around and make sure they support politicians and businesses who also support measures to promote climate friendly policies.

As it stands, there are too many people with their heads in the sand refusing to look at the evidence and listening to pundits on tv telling them it is fake. Those people are effecting policy with their votes during elections. That mentality needs to change.

As I said, would coming up with a solution that might fix things, but offered in a non-shove it down your throat way, still be just as effective?

How about joining the discussion with solution ideas? All you seem to do is look for ways to criticize the Climate efforts, but you don't do anything to change things yourself. You are so fake.

Im being honest here. Do you ever read and comprehend my posts? If you look at this thread alone, and try to understand what I have said, I'm trying to help. Hell, I'm trying to help you, and you irritate the # out of me.

Ask yourself this, has the message of AGW become clearer to all over the years, or is there more seemingly against it now than before? I don't know the numbers, I'm stupid and don't grasp derivatives, but what I do understand is human nature.

If the AGW, Climate change people abandoned the drive to FORCE everyone to accept their views, and a new effort to help the environment, make the planet a better place, fix the things we can see that we clearly #ed up, I think a much more positive result would be had.

But it seems like that isn't the outcome desired. It seems like the will to be more correct overshadows the need to fix the planet.

a reply to: network dude

Let me ask you have people on the coasts notices the rise in sea level?

Are you saying thermal expansion and glacier melting isn't happening?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: CJCrawley

I think the complaint is, he should have been more PC about how he said it. Or at least there should have been a trigger warning.

He just shouldn't have said it. There was no need. It didn't do anything positive for the cause.

A bunch of rich celebrities asking us ordinary folk to give up what little money we have.

WHAT A JOKE!

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: CJCrawley

I think the complaint is, he should have been more PC about how he said it. Or at least there should have been a trigger warning.

He just shouldn't have said it. There was no need. It didn't do anything positive for the cause.

If a person is so shallow they won't help others for a celebrity opinion chances are they aren't going to be donating.

Like hey I hate Gregg Abbott therefor I am not going to help anyone in Houston.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
A bunch of rich celebrities asking us ordinary folk to give up what little money we have.

WHAT A JOKE!

More than a few of those celebrities have donated more than you or I will make in our lifetimes.

If that is a joke, it's got quite a punchline.

originally posted by: introvert
Well, he is correct.

One must be blind or stupid to at least not consider the information in regards to global warming/climate change.

But that's not what he said--he said if we don't subscribe to the belief system, then we're unintelligent or blind.

Giving the AGW science consideration is completely different than subscribing to the belief system that envelopes the theory.

Wait hes still on the "warming" kick? Did he not get the latest memo??

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Preach to those still in denial, so that the Truth shall set them free (and maybe save their grandkids butts!).

Preach, ? Really ? I would have expected an informed person to use the term teach . Teach , dont preach...unless it truly is a religion

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: CJCrawley

It would be like saying Democrats are the only smart party that exists, if you can't see that, you are blind and or unintelligent. I realize that's hyperbole, but the way AGW is politicized and has become a left vs. right thing, that is how that came across. Leaving it out of a fundraiser would have been the smart move. Alienating anyone when you are asking for donations is stupid.(IMHO)

No. That is not a good comparison.

There is no data, that I know of, to suggest the Dems are the only smart party. But there is data in regards to CC/GW.

Too often that data is questioned because of political and conspiratorial reasons, not scientific reasons.

Yeah , highly questionable data. Didnt Australia suspend a group from showing their data until they "cleaned up their act" ?
Yes , they did....
And ., temps dropped once they were allowed back in the mix
Sorry , Charlie....

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But that's not what he said--he said if we don't subscribe to the belief system, then we're unintelligent or blind.

Giving the AGW science consideration is completely different than subscribing to the belief system that envelopes the theory.

That's not exactly what he said either. He said nothing about a belief system. His use of the word "believes" is in a general sense and could be interchanged with many other words, and the same sentiment would be implied.

There is no reason to have to "believe" in CC/GW/AGW. The data is there for people to see for themselves.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: CJCrawley

It would be like saying Democrats are the only smart party that exists, if you can't see that, you are blind and or unintelligent. I realize that's hyperbole, but the way AGW is politicized and has become a left vs. right thing, that is how that came across. Leaving it out of a fundraiser would have been the smart move. Alienating anyone when you are asking for donations is stupid.(IMHO)

No. That is not a good comparison.

There is no data, that I know of, to suggest the Dems are the only smart party. But there is data in regards to CC/GW.

Too often that data is questioned because of political and conspiratorial reasons, not scientific reasons.

Yeah , highly questionable data. Didnt Australia suspend a group from showing their data until they "cleaned up their act" ?
Yes , they did....
And ., temps dropped once they were allowed back in the mix
Sorry , Charlie....

From what I understand, there has been some questionable data in the field, but there has also been a lot of reliable data sets that have been produced.

The best example, that I know of, would be the ice core CO2 samples.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Good grief that's sophomoric. At least as far as the US is concerned. "Our Representatives" don't represent for us, they represent for the Corporations and Banks that fund their campaigns. IN the US, at least, you have to try to exert influence on the Corps and Banks to achieve anything.

a reply to: luthier
Well, to be fair, many of us have already donated many things, including time, money, clothing, and even opened our home for old friends getting away from the hurricane.

With the "shaming" (I hate that word) that these celebrities do on behalf of people who don't think like them, it alienates some who may have been considering donating to that specific cause. I think the point is that it does nothing positive for the cause that they are representing/fighting for, other than to push an agenda that is known to be divisive if approached incorrectly.

Network Dude is right on that account. Also, there have been many times that I have decided to donate to a different organization because of one's choice of representation--if I disagree with their message, I choose someone else to go with or find a way to personally do things myself and not through an organization (which is my preferred route anyhow).

originally posted by: introvert
His use of the word "believes" is in a general sense and could be interchanged with many other words, and the same sentiment would be implied.

My apologies--I was unaware that you consulted with him about his use of the word and know his exact intention and other synonyms that could have been considered.

On the same note, I believe that "belief" indicates a faith aspect, and that's what he meant--and it's true, as much of the AGW science must be taken on faith, especially its digital modeling and predictions.

But if that's not what he meant, maybe he should have used a word with less ability to be misinterpreted. Regardless, his opinion on the topic is irrelevant to real life, so it really doesn't matter.

There is no reason to have to "believe" in CC/GW/AGW. The data is there for people to see for themselves.

Climate Change, Global Warming, and Anthropogenic Global Warming are not all the same thing, and lumping them together via slashes does reality a disservice. But regardless, like I noted, there absolutely is a need to "believe" when it comes to AGW, whether you want to accept/admit it or not.

But again, Stevie Wonder's opinion is tantamount to superstitious writings on the wall.

I had to slip that in somewhere...

Who in their right mind would give a shat what Stevie Wonder say's ? Except those who garner a paycheck from Mr.Wonder.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

But that's not what he said--he said if we don't subscribe to the belief system, then we're unintelligent or blind.

Giving the AGW science consideration is completely different than subscribing to the belief system that envelopes the theory.

That's not exactly what he said either. He said nothing about a belief system. His use of the word "believes" is in a general sense and could be interchanged with many other words, and the same sentiment would be implied.

There is no reason to have to "believe" in CC/GW/AGW. The data is there for people to see for themselves.

True enough...there is data (I am referring to the data that has not been modified to slant it more toward the desired consensus results) which suggests that man is a material contributor to climate change. All of this is readily available, and people are encouraged to review it (or, more accurately for most, to read the media reports about the reports generated from it) and then to ascribe to it.

On the other hand, there is data available that suggests that man is having a more minimal effect on what is part of a larger global (or even solar system wide) long-cycle of climate change. Much of this is readily suppressed, and people are discouraged from reading it (or, more accurately for most, to mock and vilify the scientists who generated the information/opinion), and then to dismiss it out of hand.

The problem with your idea that we should engage in a dialogue with the aim of coming to common solutions (if I have characterized that accurately), is that one side of this debate already insists that they have all of the answers - and they have no interest in hearing from the other side (most particularly they do not want to entertain counter-consensus ideas, data or conclusions).

This science-by-consensus attitude/approach leads to unqualified people (sorry Stevie), when handed a microphone, who feel empowered to say demeaning things like "Anyone who believes that there’s no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent."

Because he is backed by the grand-pseudo-consensus, and the constant drum beating of the celebrity / MSM / leftist / globalist / PC class, a very healthy percentage of the equally unqualified right-fighting population - who certainly do not want their favourite singer or movie star to think that they too are "blind or unintelligent" will fall in line and stand up and cheer "Yeeaahhh!! Global Warming!!! Humans suck!!!!"

This whole repression of dissention of opposing ideas, as it relates to climate processes is similar, in some ways, the patriarchal attitude of men before women were given the right to vote. "There there Dear. It is a scientific fact that men are smarter and more capable than women. Just go on back to your domestic duties and leave the thinking and decision making to us. I know you mean well, but we men do not really need your input on any anything of importance - and if you continue to insist on voicing your opinions we are going to have to punish you in some way."

Perhaps there should be a minority-opinion-scientist suffrage movement...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But regardless, like I noted, there absolutely is a need to "believe" when it comes to AGW, whether you want to accept/admit it or not.

Except that we have huge amounts of data in support of this hypothesis and there isn't any alternative around to work with. Is it? Our sun doesn't seem to be the culprit and I can't see the alleged second sun entering our solar system again, can you? Where is your Nemesis hypothesis to work with? Anyone?
We can see the shipping lanes in sulfur dioxide maps by now, it's just ignorant to think that there wont be any impact due to industrialisation. Why do you think animal species die off like never before? Cuz humans can't influence their environment with massive pollution?

You seem like a nice guy who wants to debate facts and differentiate issues, that's fine with me. Put something up?

a reply to: network dude


Did they give a million bucks each like Trump did?