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.
No evidence to support the right's claims of fraud.
It's certainly not science. How do we know that? Scientist don't engage in social justice conversations when speaking about about something like science.
"The traditional economic approach to resource allocation has been based on utilitarianism, in which a policy is considered to be desirable if no other policy or action is feasible that yields a higher aggregate utility for society.
An alternative approach to allocating resources, which is derived from an ethical perspective and has existed for at least as long as the utilitarian approach described above (which has its modern origins in the late 18th century by Jeremy Bentham), is based on the view that social actions are to be judged by whether or not they conform to a ‘social contract’ that defines the rights and duties of individuals in society.
As an alternative to social-justice-based equity methods, eco-centric approaches assign intrinsic value to nature as such (Botzler and Armstrong, 1998). This value can be specified in terms of diversity, avoided damages, harmony, stability, and beauty, and these values should be respected by human beings in their interaction with nature. In relation to climate change policies the issue here becomes one of specifying the value of nature such that it can be addressed as specific constraints that are to be respected beyond what is reflected in estimates of costs and benefits and other social impacts."
That's not science, that's political and politics plain and simple. That invalidates the entire IPCC when itself and its backers claim it's a scientific institution.
And in case you thought that was just some random link to the IPCC:
"The ecological dimension seeks to protect the integrity and resilience of ecological systems, and the social dimension focuses on enriching human relationships and attaining individual and group aspirations (Munasinghe and Swart, 2000), as well as addressing concerns related to social justice and promotion of greater societal awareness of environmental issues (O’Riordan, 2004)."
"Hi Mick,
It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular
thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and
the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation
agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question
is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything
particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?
My second question is that I am invovled in a working group
organising a climate justice summit in the Hague and I wondered if
you had any contacts, ngos or individuals, with whom you have
worked especially from the small island States or similar areas,
who could be invited as a voice either to help on the working group
and/or to invite to speak?
All the best,
Paul"
So you have members of CRU, IPCC and the WTO clearly showing you their political agenda. Now how objective do you think any of those organizations actually are when they report on their "scientific" findings?
I am not a climate change denial. What my problem climate change is it cause by AGW? Look at the cheerleaders for global warning: Al Gore and Obama. What have they done personally? They live in big mansion, own multiple home. Own multiple cars and planes. Did they downsize? Did they grow their own food??? But, one thing is obvious, they get very wealthy through global warming.
More denialist bull crap....The source of their wealth is not through global warming.
money has corrupted the so called science, and made it political. and when that happened, and people started saying the science is settled, that is when you know there are real issues to discuss here. something is amiss and the disciples of AGW warming are ignoring all the evidence against man made climate change.
So you think the scientists should work pro-bono? What evidence against? There is no verifiable evidence against the cause of AGW....If there is, then man up and show me....I guarantee I won't ignore it...I'll wait.
More denialist bull crap....The source of their wealth is not through global warming.
Gore's lifestyle does not reflect his rhetoric regarding climate change. And he has certainly enriched his already hefty bank accounts through investing in business related to climate change.
No evidence the earth is warming, or that it's caused by humans? It's hard to keep track with the goalposts moving around so much.
Let me clear that up for you...There is no evidence that the earth is NOT warming, and no evidence that human activity is NOT contributing to that warming.
Just the fact that the ice caps and glaciers are losing billions of tons of ice annually should say something to you.
Gore's lifestyle does not reflect his rhetoric regarding climate change. And he has certainly enriched his already hefty bank accounts through investing in business related to climate change.
Who told you that everyone, including Gore (The denialist's favorite whipping boy) should live in caves? Telling lies about the man is not productive for the denialist's side, because they are easily checked.... Lie #1 Gore's energy use... snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use
Lie #2....Gore does not own any jets, mostly he flies commercially, but does charter one occasionally.
Prove this by showing the work these scientists did for the money is in fact fraudulent. I'd like to see the papers that show what the facts really are, and what these scientists did that was so fraudulent. I don't want to see your blogs, they're worthless.
And there you have it. He wants to see proof, but admits he will deny any proof that doesn't come from a source he approves of.
That's how these people keep going on about the wage gap, even though studies have shown the wage gap is due to career choices and there is no evidence of gender discrimination.
That's how these people keep going on about racism being the cause of unemployment and crime in the black community, even though the problems in the black community are worse now than they were prior to the civil rights movement.
That's how these people keep saying that the rich must pay their fair share, even though the top 20% already pay 70% of the taxes.
That's how these people keep saying that voter ID is all about suppression of the minority vote, even though districts which already require ID do not show any lower turnout of minority voters than districts which don't.
That's how these people keep saying that gun control is necessary, even though areas with stricter gun control have no less violent crime than areas without it.
That's how these people keep saying we need to invest more in education, even though test scores are lower now than they were before the last increases in education funding.
They simply reject anything they don't like. All facts, science, history, and morality agree with their political ideology or is dismissed if it doesn't. People who don't agree with global warming are just motivated by Big Oi, even though no evidence has ever shown that. The Tea Party is racist, even though the Tea Party candidate for President was a black man. Fox News lies, even though no examples of Fox News lying have ever been produced. No need to actually show that an argument is false, you just dismiss the source of that argument and you can ignore the argument itself. Seabass has already built in his way around any response to his challenge. He can simply dismiss any proof that is brought up as not coming from a trustworthy source, and then doesn't have to show how the proof is actually wrong.
Who told you that everyone, including Gore (The denialist's favorite whipping boy) should live in caves? Telling lies about the man is not productive for the denialist's side, because they are easily checked.... Lie #1 Gore's energy use... snopes.com: Al Gore's Energy Use
Lie #2....Gore does not own any jets, mostly he flies commercially, but does charter one occasionally.
I don't care if he owns the jet or not, he constantly flies. His carbon footprint in regard to his home is ridiculous. The man uses far more of the Earth's resources than entire neighborhoods. He is a FRAUD.
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.
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.
