Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

In addition, Mr Plod (et al.) knows that scarcely anyone "denies" that climate changes. In fact I have personally outlined many many times on this forum the extent to which I believe humans have influenced climate (i.e. roughly along the lines of Pielke Snr).

The argument is both qualitative and quantitative IOW on the causation and extent.

 

[wayneL]

BTW

I hope you all are keeping abreast of developments in the Heartland saga

On February 20, Peter Gleick confessed to stealing documents from The Heartland Institute with the intent of exposing its funding sources and damaging its reputation. He also disseminated a fake “climate strategy memo” that he and other environmental activists on the left claim describes Heartland’s “secret strategy” to mislead the public about the true nature of climate change.

At first Gleick claimed he obtained the fake memo along with other documents from The Heartland Institute. Now he claims it came from an anonymous source before he stole the documents. Heartland has consistently and unambiguously said the memo is a forgery and was not produced by anyone associated with The Heartland Institute.

On February 14, DesmogBlog and ThinkProgress posted on their Web sites the stolen documents, plus a forged document allegedly describing the “secret plans” of The Heartland Institute. One day later, the Huffington Post joined the gang.

A flagrant violation of ethics

Amazingly, members of the Fakegate Gang refuse to take down the false and defamatory documents, even though almost everyone admits they are either stolen or faked.

http://fakegate.org

 

[explod]

Hmmm, "deniers" is not a nice thing to call other ASF members (or anyone for that matter) just because they don't agree with you.

It's actually very rude and on another forum, it is now a banned word. Maybe that should be so here too.

Your use of "denier" is far more offensive than anything Wayne put in his post.

And equally to what I may allude, but the insinuation is that I may be hysterical if I put the case for man made climate change.

Not liked when the boot is transferred to the other foot.

Are not all ASF'ers equal, or are some "...more equal"

 

[wayneL]

Are not all ASF'ers equal, or are some "...more equal"

That would be socialism. :

 

[explod]

That would be socialism. :

Which we may indeed need a lot more of.

Maslow's basics for all and then perhaps we could move forward.

But if we keep burning the nest at the current rate, in my view, then all are going to lose this game.

 

[wayneL]

Which we may indeed need a lot more of.

Maslow's basics for all and then perhaps we could move forward.

But if we keep burning the nest at the current rate, in my view, then all are going to lose this game.

Well we're getting off topic, but pure socialism has shown not to be very successful as providing basics... unless you're talking a tin shanty and a bowl of rice a day.

Socialism has always required capitalism to prop it up financially.

To keep it on topic, Socialism would not solve environmental problems... would exacerbate them IMO.

 

[wayneL]

And equally to what I may allude, but the insinuation is that I may be hysterical if I put the case for man made climate change.

Just on this point... have you considered that you may be suffering some degree of hysteria?

Just a few posts back, you assigned the cold European winter to a failure of the Gulf Stream without a shred of evidence or even citing any recent speculation from warmists.

When this was pointed out to you, you played the man, not the ball.

Then a suggestion of totalitarian socialism to mitigate some imagining.

Not so long ago, the first documented cases of Global Warming Hypothesis induced psychosis were reported.

Just a thought Plod.

 

[explod]

=wayneL;687522]Well we're getting off topic, but pure socialism has shown not to be very successful as providing basics... unless you're talking a tin shanty and a bowl of rice a day.

My last sentence?

Socialism has always required capitalism to prop it up financially.

There are degrees, in fact the US Fed's capitalisation of collapsing housing industry was just that so the concept as you indicate has precedents but in this case it was capitalism (expansionism) that may have failed here.

To keep it on topic, Socialism would not solve environmental problems... would
exacerbate them IMO.

Agree to the degree that it may not exacerbate, if the utilities of power for example, became public and greened up so to speak in preference to or at least alongside the efforts of the carbon tax then we are right on topic.

 

[wayneL]

There are degrees, in fact the US Fed's capitalisation of collapsing housing industry was just that.

That had nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with several years of statist interference.

 

[explod]

=wayneL;687525]Just on this point... have you considered that you may be suffering some degree of hysteria?

Of course.

Just a few posts back, you assigned the cold European winter to a failure of the Gulf Stream without a shred of evidence or even citing any recent speculation from warmists.

Anecdotal, at best I admit.

When this was pointed out to you, you played the man, not the ball.

Oh, so you never do mon ami.

Then a suggestion of totalitarian socialism to mitigate some imagining.

That style is nearer communism, big difference.

Not so long ago, the first documented cases of Global Warming Hypothesis induced psychosis were reported.

Now that would be open to some wild misinterpretation. There would be no possibility of cases on the deniers side of course. Phwew spare me.

Just a thought Plod.

 

[wayneL]

Oh, so you never do mon ami.

I highlight behaviour that jeopardizes the quality of debate. It's not really playing the man.

The Christians term it - Lover the sinner, hate the sin.

 

[explod]

I highlight behaviour that jeopardizes the quality of debate. It's not really playing the man.

The Christians term it - Lover the sinner, hate the sin.

There are very different standards of qualification and in fact some on this forum get away without any. And of course full qualification would inhibit good discussion so how about being more liberal on all sides.

Of course it seems to just depend on which side of the popular consensus table one sits.

There is a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence that global warming is going to be a problem due to man's footprint but it gets absolutely no truck on this forum at all. The debate is continually stymied by ridicule or sacasim at best in my view.

And the science, we are not scientists so how can anyone be certain .

 

[Calliope]

There is a tremendous amount of anecdotal evidence that global warming is going to be a problem due to man's footprint but it gets absolutely no truck on this forum at all. The debate is continually stymied by ridicule or sacasim at best in my view.

And the science, we are not scientists so how can anyone be certain .

Yes the arguments are a bit on-sided, but your twisted logic needs to be treated with respect, even if it is hard to keep a straight face. You seem to be the only supporter of Global Warming Hysteria left standing. Where is Basilio when you need her?:dunno:

 

[basilio]

Someone mention my name ?? Oh just you Calliope - our little one eyed non scientist.

I can no longer see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum. It's clear that those who don't want to know or can't/wont examine the evidence for manmade climate change will go to their graves denying the obvious. On reflection that is probably a better mental health option. After all why worry about what we can no longer change.

I noticed the droll discussions on the insult of being called a "denier". Quite right indeed. How can you merely be called "deniers" when you are all absolutely certain that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climate science are totally wrong or corrupt or self serving or whatever.

Nope - denier is far too polite a term for such views.

 

[Calliope]

Someone mention my name ?? Oh just you Calliope - our little one eyed non scientist.

I can no longer see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum. It's clear that those who don't want to know or can't/wont examine the evidence for manmade climate change will go to their graves denying the obvious. On reflection that is probably a better mental health option. After all why worry about what we can no longer change.

I noticed the droll discussions on the insult of being called a "denier". Quite right indeed. How can you merely be called "deniers" when you are all absolutely certain that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climate science are totally wrong or corrupt or self serving or whatever.

Nope - denier is far too polite a term for such views.

Good for you . Sorry that I ruffled your feathers and brought on a hissy-fit and head banging. Yes I am a non-scientist. What are your scientific qualifications?

Incidentally I agree with Sails advice to Knobby;

When Basilio stops posting delusional rubbish, I will stop pointing out his nonsense. If you consider that rude, you need toughen up...lol

 

[wayneL]

Someone mention my name ?? Oh just you Calliope - our little one eyed non scientist.

I can no longer see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum. It's clear that those who don't want to know or can't/wont examine the evidence for manmade climate change will go to their graves denying the obvious. On reflection that is probably a better mental health option. After all why worry about what we can no longer change.

I noticed the droll discussions on the insult of being called a "denier". Quite right indeed. How can you merely be called "deniers" when you are all absolutely certain that the vast majority of scientists who work in the field of climate science are totally wrong or corrupt or self serving or whatever.

Nope - denier is far too polite a term for such views.

Well now, it turns out that this "vast majority" are continually and increasingly being proven wrong.

How are all those Hansen predictions going basilio?

Anyways, what do you call someone who hold your increasingly untenable views and still has the lavish western lifestyle?

 

[basilio]

Well now, it turns out that this "vast majority" are continually and increasingly being proven wrong.

How are all those Hansen predictions going basilio?

Anyways, what do you call someone who hold your increasingly untenable views and still has the lavish western lifestyle?

This discussion has been a fact free zone for ages now. Wayne and co endlessly repeat untruths in the same way that other groups use when attempting to misguide people. That is what is meant by denier.

It is easy to prove your first two statements are untrue Wayne. Go to any scientific body that researches the whole body evidence around climate change and check it out.

Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

 

[moXJO]

This discussion has been a fact free zone for ages now. Wayne and co endlessly repeat untruths in the same way that other groups use when attempting to misguide people. That is what is meant by denier.

It is easy to prove your first two statements are untrue Wayne. Go to any scientific body that researches the whole body evidence around climate change and check it out.



http://www.skepticalscience.com/

There are a lot of scientists that dispute MMGW and the alleged evidence in the comments on that site with references to other studies, it doesn’t really clear much up either way for the average punter. And thats on a pro GW site

 

[basilio]

There are a lot of scientists that dispute MMGW and the alleged evidence in the comments on that site with references to other studies, it doesn’t really clear much up either way for the average punter. And thats on a pro GW site

I just don't know how you can say that Moxjo. Certainly there are other points of view expressed. But what makes the site stand out is the way it takes each anti global warming argument and compares it against the peer reviewed research and scientific principles. It is at stage that the overwhelming nature of the evidence comes through.

The site is also particularly effective at dissecting the statements of Monchton, Carter, Plimer etc and showing where they have misrepresented papers, made up facts and ignored evidence.

It is all in bite sized chunks as well and written at at least 2 levels so people can read the information at appropriate levels.

It's obviously not true to say we know everything about climate change. But what is understood and so far proven at the moment says we have a critical problem to deal with.

 

[Calliope]

I can no longer see any point discussing the science and reality of climate change in this forum.

Welcome back basilio. Your "scientific" links are badly needed. Explod was running into trouble trying to sell your message with his "anecdotal" evidence.