London News, Explosive climate film bombs with viewers

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

So on one side you have a "fascist environmental organization" using violent propaganda and "advocating total annihilation of all those who oppose"...

Ok, I will go along with you. So yes, a group of such which is pushing such actions of extreme based on their "belief" that through inaction, dire consequences will result.

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

and on the other hand, for the sake of argument and another perspective, you have a lot of environmentally unfriendly people whose continued disregard for sustainable practices could endanger us all... essentially pointing a loaded gun at our heads by their steadfast refusal to make changes in their consumeristic disposable and wasteful lifestyles.

And a group who refuses to accept the dire predictions of the other group due to various reasons. Some may be because they simply do not care, though many are in objection of the validity of the position of the other group.

In the end though, neither groups predictions are evident and the issue surrounds "belief" that each is right with no valid position to be had to a definitive on either. Basically a differing of oppinions, yet the first group is the one suggesting eradication of the other. Not really a defensible position?

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

And those people go around telling anyone who doesn't toe the line to that kind of world is deluded, misguided, crazy, and/or an extremist who are a threat to the very their very life and the way of life that we all hold so dear and should be shunned and stoned at every opportunity?

Stoned? Are you saying that those who disagree with the hardliner green position are making claims of attacking them? I find that as a bit of projection, considering we just finished discussing a very blatant video describing how the green position believes to attend the problem of disagreement through graphic violence? Make no mistake, the aggressor is not those who disagree with AGW, it is those who are pursuing its position.
As for the other side disagreeing and making such known of their opinion, if that is a crime, then well... we have a bit of a problem and I might suggest you don't bother attempting to argue your position to me as it would appear to be a bit... contradictory to itself.

Originally Posted by MissingAll4Seasons

See what I'm saying here? The blade of "do as I say or perish" is used by the extremes on both sides of every argument. Each side feels they are entirely justified in their beliefs and actions because they are "right". Extremism and zealotry in any form for any reason and any cause is just plain BAD for everyone, each side will do whatever they deem necessary to enforce their ideal onto everyone else.

Not really, you seem to be stretching to make them appear equal when they are not. Do you remember when this issue started? Every time someone who had an objection to the science started to speak up, they were shut down with "The debate is over, the conclusion is evident!" and dismissed. People still spoke up and this of course drew condemnation from those who were set in moving on with the issue. This wasn't merely evident in the political realm, but was also witnessed in the scientific realms (much of the CRU email scandal revolved around them trying to shut down McIntyre's audits as well as suppressing any research being published that did not meet the AGW position).

The aggressor from the start has been the green movement. They have made the accusations, they have made the extreme attacks, and they have pushed the political environment. most of the AGW position has been fought in the political realm while evading the scientific realm.

They are not the same and trying to compare a group who blew up children into chunks for not agreeing with the green position with those who have disagreed and objected to the movement is nowhere in the same ball park.

The green movement was aggressive as they have always been and they pushed too far, maybe letting their own frustrations become a factor in their position. Do not misplace blame. It lies very solidly at their feet. There is no comparison here, only attempts to soften one sides grievous error by yet again blaming the other to make it appear equal.

Now certainly I am not saying that the skeptic side has been completely honorable, but show me some evidence of them being a promoter of physical violence that is even remotely as public as the group 1010? The fact is, you can't.

The damage is done and excusing it will simply bring even more disapproval of the movement.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Nomander

The aggressor from the start has been the green movement. They have made the accusations, they have made the extreme attacks, and they have pushed the political environment. most of the AGW position has been fought in the political realm while evading the scientific realm.

I'm reading this right now:

Amazon.com: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (9781553654858): James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore: Books

The book is available new for $10, used it's cheaper.

I encourage people to really dig a bit and learn more about who has been caught crafting spin and who pays them to do so.

But the "aggressors" in my book are the companies who knowingly have been polluting for decades, and who have used lawyers, lobbying & loopholes to continue that practice. I'm in the "sticks and stones" camp - people can insult me all they want.

When they continue putting toxins in my water, the air, etc. even when they have been told what they're doing, we have a problem.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I'm reading this right now:

Amazon.com: Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming (9781553654858): James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore: Books

The book is available new for $10, used it's cheaper.

I encourage people to really dig a bit and learn more about who has been caught crafting spin and who pays them to do so.

But the "aggressors" in my book are the companies who knowingly have been polluting for decades, and who have used lawyers, lobbying & loopholes to continue that practice. I'm in the "sticks and stones" camp - people can insult me all they want.

When they continue putting toxins in my water, the air, etc. even when they have been told what they're doing, we have a problem.

It is rather pretentious to think that because I may disagree with your movement that it is because I have not looked into matters in detail.

This is the problem with the green movement. They can not and will not accept a differing view point on the issues. Everyone who disagrees with them must either be part of a nefarious plot or simply stupid. It is that very line of thinking to which has led them to the display of such graphic violence against those who disagree and it is that extreme position and unwillingness to accept anything but complete conformity to which is driving their very movement into the ground.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Nomander

It is rather pretentious to think that because I may disagree with your movement that it is because I have not looked into matters in detail.

This is the problem with the green movement. They can not and will not accept a differing view point on the issues. Everyone who disagrees with them must either be part of a nefarious plot or simply stupid. It is that very line of thinking to which has led them to the display of such graphic violence against those who disagree and it is that extreme position and unwillingness to accept anything but complete conformity to which is driving their very movement into the ground.

LOL. Whereas being unwilling to address the fact that your now-debunked "Climategate scandal" was predicated on criminal hacking activities is a sign of a moderate, objective view?

there's no "movement," just a Conspiracy Theorist fantasy you've bought hook, line and sinker.

for the undecided out there, simply follow the denier "movement" money to the fossil fuel industry. it's well-documented, in their own memos and literature.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

LOL. Whereas being unwilling to address the fact that your now-debunked "Climategate scandal" was predicated on criminal hacking activities is a sign of a moderate, objective view?

there's no "movement," just a Conspiracy Theorist fantasy you've bought hook, line and sinker.

for the undecided out there, simply follow the denier "movement" money to the fossil fuel industry. it's well-documented, in their own memos and literature.

It was debunked? That is funny considering there are now investigations into the investigations to which whitewashed the issue. Also, the CRU investigation found them guilty of violating the FOIA, but the statue of limitations was up so they couldn't press charges. The only people dismissing the relevance of the CRU emails are the fringe activists and those that are accused. The rest of the community is a bit disgusted by it and it has led to the IPCC essentially being picked apart with many suggestions of dismissing it entirely to create a new organization. Not to mention those respected in the field canceling memberships to societies that hold such radical non-scientific stances on the issue and disregarded the CRU emails.

As for the CRU being hacked? Please, show me the server logs of the activity from the CRU or heck, even from RC to which Gavin refused to release any evidence of such.

There is no evidence of a hack, this is a fact.

This is amusing, here you are in a thread where your groups have suggested blowing children up, blowing up anyone who disagrees with them and you think calling me a denier and throwing out the tired old "money from the oil companies" line is going to work?

For sanity's sake, they just made a movie about killing people who disagree with them. Does this not phase you? Are you not even in the slightest offended by it? Do you hold this view?

Seriously, you need to get a grip on reality here.