U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-22-2010, 03:40 AM
 
108 posts, read 114,126 times
Reputation: 32

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Add extortion to the list of the AGW agenda.

Never mind the fact that these insane climate change policies ARE what is destroying economies in the first place. These thugs want to dictate this upon the world so they can profit from their climate change schemes. They would make trillions from this redistribution scheme and it would be the populations of the world to which would be under the foot of their fascist dictation.
Extortion?

Hmm that's the same thing we get to hear from the tiny group of deniers-on a steady basis becasue of the medias 'so called' 'fair & Balanced' views. they (the media) have become politically confused about 'balanced' and the irrefutable evidence if science.

But then is the media free today? That is open to conjecture on what they are evidently told what to say by the oil industrial complex and their subsidiaries. After all they have to keep their profits intact- right>? but at what price?

Also I may add you use the term fascism-- Fascism in a 20th century context has never embraced the hard science.

Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right. Fascism is also 'anti intellectual......

Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology.

Fascism invariably burns books and victimizes artists, scientists, intellectuals, writers whom which do not promote the fascists ideals; and are seen as “decadent.” Fascism is hostile to broad learning and interest in other cultures, since such pursuits threaten the dominance of fascist myths.

Above is a standard definition of Fascism-

Neo-Fascism is a post WW 2 political ideology seen in the USA

Neo-fascism usually includes nationalism, anti-immigration policies or, where relevant, nativism, anti-communism, and opposition to the parliamentary system and liberal democracy. Allegations that a group is neo-fascist may be hotly contested, especially if the term is used as a political epithet. Some post-World War II regimes have been described as neo-fascist due to their authoritarian nature, and sometimes due to their fascination with fascist ideology and rituals. Neo-fascist movements are more straight-forwardly right-wing than the pre-WWII movements, and have become intertwined with the radical right

Last edited by shelby93; 11-22-2010 at 04:01 AM..

 
Old 11-22-2010, 03:42 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,426,057 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Extortion?
I don't care about your media rant, its a waste of time and avoids the comment.

Yes... Extortion. When you threaten retaliation because people do not blindly accept some fanatical ideology, you attempt to extort them into conceding your position.

It is also an obvious sign of a weak position. The science isn't "settled" and there is no conclusive position (far from it). To claim so is at the height of ignorance and shows an extreme bias to a position. The only people claiming the science is conclusive are those who are pushing their own research and the blind followers who worship at their feet.




Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Also I may add you use the term fascism-- Fascism in a 20th century context has never embraced the hard science.
*snaps finger* *waves hands*

Back over here, follow my finger.. paying attention now? Good.

Nice rant, but the fact is your position does not provide a grounds for proper scientific validation and then demands conformity to a political ideal using any means necessary (threat of monetary extraction, social and political condemnation, and as has been going around in your circles, the threat of violence).

That is, unless you finally want to answer that question I asked you so many posts ago...?

Can you explain the scientific method? Can you show us how the processes and the conclusions made in your movement hold to such?

Yeah, thought so.

Waiting for the next rant, just give me a second to grab some popcorn.
 
Old 11-22-2010, 03:49 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,426,057 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post


My thoughts exactly the moment I read the post. But I felt no need to post right away because I knew that you would articulate it better than I. And sure enough....

The extortion term is perfect.

Shelby continues to serve up fast balls in the center of the strike zone despite the fact that she knows as well as anyone that the ball is going to sail over the 420' mark in center. Time after time after time. Sad, really.
They are grasping.

They are so convinced by their own assumptions that they have solidified them into absolute truths and so they aren't even bothering to hide the directness of their intentions and motivations anymore. The good thing is, the more blatant they get, the more fanatical they look and the more sanity that returns to the general populations opinion on the issue.

What else can they do though? They can't defend themselves in traditional scientific process, they only have politics and we can see that didn't turn out very well for them on that front. The movement is dying. I say the sooner the better and maybe that field can salvage a bit of its dignity the sooner it does.
 
Old 11-23-2010, 09:07 AM
 
108 posts, read 114,126 times
Reputation: 32
Something of interest

Sea Ice 1979 (C02 at 345ppmv) Sea Ice 2007 (C02 at 383ppmv)

Scroll down and see the NASA Photos 350 Science | 350.org

Fascism is no ordinary word - is it?
 
Old 11-23-2010, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Toronto, ON
2,333 posts, read 2,508,057 times
Reputation: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
The story of Climategate begins and ends with the sordid tale of dirtier and dirtier—of how Big Oil and Coal sold (and continue to sell) themselves as environmentally green and squeaky clean, and of how the mainstream media ate the whole thing up. Having done that, the media then dutifully passed the “news” on to “consumers,” who also bought it—and, of course, ate it up. Let’s see how, in not much more than about 1500 words (comprising exactly 33 sentences arranged in 12 paragraphs) of detergent strength, we can compress the story into an account both as slamming and as damning as it needs to be to do full justice to the “dirt.” Climategate, as it turns out, is only the biggest heap of media-spun denialist nonsense in the dirty-energy dogpile-----

_____________________________________
With the threat of CO2-driven climate change beginning to be widely recognized in the late 1980s, the fossil-fuel industry faced the question of how to continue doing “business as usual” while still selling itself as ethically oriented and environmentally responsible. Taking hints (and actually the entire playbook) from the tobacco industry’s long and (it seemed at the time) successful war of denial and cover-up against the charge that its products were addictive and responsible for lung cancer, heart disease, and shortened life spans among smokers, Big Oil and Coal realized that the standard industry practice of “Pollute now, pay later—and hopefully never” would work much more reliably if you could convince the public that “pollution” isn’t actually pollution or (failing that) at least raise enough doubt about the issue to have people scratching their heads.

Thus was born the best-organized and -funded campaign of disinformation, denial, deceit, and dirty tricks the world has ever seen, designed to pull the wool over the public’s eyes and hide the truth about global warming—a truth that even the fossil-fuel industry’s own scientists knew. Major planks in this campaign were that carbon dioxide was blameless, that the scientific evidence for man-made warming was weak and contradictory at best, and—as deceptive a lie as any ever told—that the climate was always changing and consequently that we should just get used to it. A perennial buzz saw was that humans were too small to affect anything as large as the earth, such an idea being said to represent hubris: humans lack the power to change climate, the public was told.

The oil-industry attack on the anthropogenic-warming idea resembled nothing so much as a saturation-bombing campaign. Working through a wide variety of spokespeople and bullhorns including paid and unpaid industry boosters, Right-wing political leaders, influential “public personalities,” media operatives, conservative pundits, armies of everyday bloggers, outright dupes, contrarian “scientists” of questionable credentials and/or motives, PR spinmeisters, well-paid congressional lobbyists, and ExxonMobil-funded conservative “think tanks” like the Heartland Institute, the industry game plan called for nonstop airing of these and similar denier “talking points,” which were typically packaged for convenient delivery as sound bytes (“Global warming science is junk science!!!” and “Carbon dioxide—they call it pollution, we call it life!”) intended for repetition ad infinitum—recalling the ‘principle of the lie’ enunciated by Joseph Goebbels to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s: “if a lie, no matter how unbelievable, is repeated often enough, it will be believed.”

To carry the lie to the ends of the earth, oil industry-supported propaganda of the most egregious kind (mostly mindless drivel but often masquerading as rational skepticism and even serious science in its own right) was blared out over the years from countless media, academic, and government sources. These include or included the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post columnist George F. Will, the Washington D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, Fox News, conservative leaders in Congress, and the Bush White House. Since such disinformation was part and parcel of an aggressive campaign to justify and promote the addition to the global atmosphere of what the U.S. EPA now classifies as a dangerous global pollutant—viz. fossilized carbon—its intentional airing is more or less the moral equivalent of advising mothers to feed cyanide to their babies to improve the little ones’ health.

The most brazen single example of oil industry deceit was that the “CO2 greenhouse effect” was an invention out of whole cloth—something pulled out of a hat quite recently and thus entirely without scientific merit or support—sort of like flying saucers or teleportation. To use a metaphor, essentially the main line of industry defense against the charge of callously enriching itself by knowingly causing grave long-term environmental harm was to paint itself as the victim—arguing that CO2, the major by-product of fossil-fuel burning, was being made the fall guy in a nonexistent crime called “global warming” for the purpose of running a colossal scam, and that anybody who fell for it was a fool.

That the deception largely succeeded was due to the credulousness and scientific illiteracy of a majority of the public in the United States, where a rising anti-science trend had become dramatically apparent by about 1980 and most of the media, itself largely ignorant of science save for a few reporters and editors who have since been fired, was only too happy to feed the trend.

That ignominious cultural slide into what can only be termed ‘bottomless ignorance and stupidity’ has been aptly named “the dumbing-down of America,” and it made the fossil-fuel industry’s job of selling itself (the hungry fox) as a reliable guard for the nation’s and the world’s environment (the unprotected henhouse) vastly easier. In order to raid the henhouse as freely as it wished, the industry needed to get carbon dioxide off the hook and above all prevent its being officially classified as a dangerous pollutant, which would subject it to government regulation (i.e., taxation and/or other controls) at Big Oil and Coal’s expense. The nation’s environmental cops—from the U.S. Attorney General to the EPA itself—had to be kept off Big Oil and Coal’s case. The disinformation campaign’s unceasing “strategy of denial” was tailored and fine-tuned accordingly.

The vast scope of this strategy becomes apparent once we realize that global-warming denial is much more than a denial of the facts as known to science. From the first, it was also a form of psychological warfare intended to spread damaging lies and manufacture a false social and political reality. This included the invention of conspiracies and the imputation of underhanded motives where none existed. In this war of innuendo and insinuation, as shameless as it was ruthless, ExxonMobil and its industry partners worked tirelessly behind the scenes to persuade a majority of the public that the spread of “global warming alarmism” represented a left-wing conspiracy between socialists, one-worlders, and scientists to destroy national sovereignty and bring nations under U.N. control. A key tactic all along was to seize every opportunity to smear the reputations of leading scientists, making it appear that there was a scientific conspiracy to overstate the case for human-caused global warming and even to falsify data outright. If the so-called Climategate scandal had not happened, it would have been necessary to invent it—which of course is exactly why it WAS invented. Its existence was solely a product of clever PR-style spin—the smoke-and-mirrors manipulation of easily-swayed public opinion to make it appear that something was in the stolen e-mails that wasn’t, eliciting a response akin to the mindless stampeding of bulls.

The media, for its part, ever beholden for revenue to industry advertisers (including, needless to say, the fossil-fuel giants) and obsessed with sensationalism in news reporting—worse yet, hiding behind a journalistic ethic of fairness to create the illusion of “balance” in its actually very unbalanced presentations of the global warming story—was an all-too-willing accomplice in the perpetuation of anti-science drivel and denialist nonsense. “Climategate” was simply the most spectacular example of the lights going out in the media’s collective brain—a media power-failure by any definition. Brown-out, perhaps?

Most damaging of all, the media continued to convey the impression of continuing disagreement among experts long after the scientific controversy over global warming had been conclusively settled. Much of the media still reads by this same playbook, dimming the prospects for the public’s getting a straight story about global warming anytime soon—before, that is, the end has come for very many of those in the line of fire, meaning along vulnerable coasts and in interior regions prone to the global-warming era’s increasingly extreme storms, flooding, heat waves, droughts, and wildfires.

The truth, of course, will eventually “out.” But waiting for that to “just happen” the way lightning strikes or hurricanes form condemns us to wait until civilization itself is crumbling before the onslaught of warming’s effects. The historic Charney Report, titled “Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment,” issued in 1979 by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences at the request of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, soberly summed up the global-warming threat in these words: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible…. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”

Global warming deniers and skeptics, as clever but underhanded—even morally contemptible—apologists for the fossil-fuel industry, have perpetually staked their “reputation” (if that is the right word) on the claim that carbon dioxide is climatically unimportant—as such, easily trumped by minor “factors” such as the sun and natural variability. The facts as known to science are otherwise: the heat-trapping ability of carbon dioxide is and always has been of fundamental importance to climate and life, helping to shape the earth as we know it. The planet is in the process of being re-shaped now, and the great question is whether the much hotter Earth that our descendants will inherit is one that will be hospitable to humans at all.

Was this a mortal foe? Or a foe you deserved to hate for some love problem in your life? My opinion is for the climate change conferences to focus upon social progress as well as capatalistic anti-nationalistic rhetoric. I believe in old money supply principles using the bond market to improve one's causes. And that the listening of these issues is never too late. But these foe-dom type people demonstrate at the subject too. Usually it is mortal animosity for the ignorance of how to teach other's to their religions and their appropriate social conscience. Thus they would be fascist in their outlook if they left their scientific mode of focus.

The planet is far away from the true nature of the carbon-cycle; the carbon cycle is making it sensible that people just move away from that; like the people of New Orleans move to Baton Rouge.
 
Old 11-23-2010, 12:06 PM
 
108 posts, read 114,126 times
Reputation: 32
Your posts adds nothing to the current scientific data and observations-does it.??

I suggest you look at the NASA Photos 1979 and 2007- and the difference between the C02 levels in 1979 and some 30 years later- from 345ppmv to 385ppv

the change perhaps may be enlightening- and in the end-knowledge might be a deadly thing.
 
Old 11-23-2010, 03:43 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,426,057 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Your posts adds nothing to the current scientific data and observations-does it.??

I suggest you look at the NASA Photos 1979 and 2007- and the difference between the C02 levels in 1979 and some 30 years later- from 345ppmv to 385ppv

the change perhaps may be enlightening- and in the end-knowledge might be a deadly thing.
Your post adds nothing to the current scientific data and observation concerning the effect of such an increase. You see, you skip over that detail to conclude using assumptions that an increase of such has any significant effect on our climate system. That hypothesis hasn't even remotely been substantiated and is argued against at all levels concerning it, nor does displaying to us models as evidence of such serve anything other than to insult the integrity of traditional scientific process. You get back to us when you can properly explain the effects of Co2 increases without pulling out the magic number generator.
 
Old 11-23-2010, 04:32 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,426,057 times
Reputation: 2608
Quote:
Originally Posted by shelby93 View Post
Something of interest

Sea Ice 1979 (C02 at 345ppmv) Sea Ice 2007 (C02 at 383ppmv)

Scroll down and see the NASA Photos 350 Science | 350.org

Fascism is no ordinary word - is it?
First, its 2010, not 2007. The premise of your site is that Co2 is the link to sea ice loss. This has not been substantiated, its a unsupported claim that has political motivations surrounding it. Lets consider it though for a moment.

The premise is that Co2 is the cause. Lets throw all of the factual knowledge concerning the current evident aspects of Co2 observed trends in relation to climate and go along with this little fantasy for a moment though.

So below is the dire picture and Co2 is the ice pick chipping away at the ice (oh noes, the poor polar bears!).

So, if your information is correct of 345ppmv for 1979 and 383ppmv for 2007 and the premise is that there is a correlation to the two (warming due to increased Co2 which is melting the ice), then logically it would be appropriate to see a progression of decline based on the increase of Co2, correct?



Here is the current comparison to 2010 with 390.58ppmv.





And below, 2007 compared to 2010. Well, that sure is odd. Shouldn't there be progressively less ice than 2007?




Maybe we should look at 2008, 2009?




Wait one minute.... Something is wrong here. It looks as if the sea ice grew in 2008 above 2007 and then above 2008 in 2009 with 2010 falling back to 2008 levels.

So, if the premise that Co2 was the cause of ice melt due to that correlation, would not there be less ice than 2007? Or do we have to ignore observed results and pay attention to a computer model for the real facts?

What about Antarctica? shouldn't it show a progression of loss?




Lets see, it is WELL above the 1979-2000 average. Is Co2 somehow prejudice of the north pole and so ignores the south?


Well, I guess you may need to throw out that hypothesis and start with a new one. Or, well... as per climate science standard, you can simply force the data to fit your hypothesis, after all, it works wonders for Hansen.
 
Old 12-15-2010, 11:12 PM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,426,057 times
Reputation: 2608
I thought this important to share.

This is a "hacked" email taken from the Fox News concerning their position on reporting on Global Warming.

This is straight from the AGW reporting sites (its a snap shot of their site so they can't edit it and claim otherwise later), so if you disregard Climate Progress (which honestly, I don't blame you if you do), then you can disregard this as well. Though this will be difficult as the AGW proponents here wait with baited breath anytime this propaganda site pushes air.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...s_12-15-10.jpg

Quote:
…we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.
The above is their complaint of bias.

Seriously, these people are honestly too stupid to breathe. These are the idiots we are up against? These are the complete fools to which are calming anyone who disagrees with the current garbage being spewed out of the administrative (paid for by your local government and advocacy group) lines is biased?

Think long and hard people. Is it Biased to state the above? To require that your reporters refrain from reporting conclusively on issues that are contested? It is a FACT that these hypothesis are contested, it is a FACT that they are simply opinions. Any reporter that would report otherwise is an idiot and a tool for some propaganda machine.

But apparently, this is hot news in the "Fascist Climate Science Division" as they see that there are dissenters from their mandated view! How dare a news agency not toe the line of the "OMG SPECIAL ED CONSENSUS".

Seriously, if it wasn't so dangerous of an issue, I would laugh my arse off at how STUPID these people are. How on earth they can get up and feed themselves each day and still manage to even come up with the power to form a basic sentence. /smacks head
 
Old 12-28-2010, 09:31 AM
 
13,072 posts, read 11,426,057 times
Reputation: 2608
Gotta love the climate science peer review process. It is like a bunch of monkeys trying to horde over the bananas.

If you have read the climategate emails, then you are familiar with the poor practices of those involved to which stonewalled, bullied, and used severe bias to obstruct and block any research that did not fall into line with the AGW position.

Here they are again, up to their old tricks and dirty politics to try and put down any work that doesn't toe the line of the consensus ™.

McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article « Climate Audit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top