Climate Change and Politics

[JerrySeinfeld]

“The shift to climate being a major focal point came about for two very distinct reasons. The first reason was because by the mid-‘80s the majority of people now agreed with all of the reasonable things we in the environmental movement were saying they should do. Now when a majority of people agree with you, it’s pretty hard to remain confrontational with them, and so the only way to remain anti-establishment was to adopt ever more extreme positions. When I left Greenpeace it was in the midst of them adopting a campaign to ban chlorine worldwide. I said “you guys, this is one of the elements in the periodic table. I’m not sure if that’s within our jurisdiction to be banning a whole element. The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was that because world communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-marxism with them. They learned to use “green language” in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they had to do with ecology or science” – Patrick Moore Co-Founder, Greenpeace

Now play nice. Without using ad-hominem arguments (attackig the source, not the argument), discuss the above passage.

[jdobbin]

Now play nice. Without using ad-hominem arguments (attackig the source, not the argument), discuss the above passage.

The reason for Moore leaving Greenpeace is listed are not the same thing as the scientific community pointing out their conclusions about climate change based on research.

Greenpeace may be moving to farther extremes but that doesn't mean that Moore is suggesting science has done so. In fact, I don't read that there. He is saying that global warming is not happening? It is hard to judge based on the quote because we don't know what the source is.

Edited July 15, 2008 by jdobbin

[eyeball]

They learned to use “green language” in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they had to do with ecology or science”

Ditto for the clever language cloaking the pro-capitalist pro-globalization agendas that have more to do with corporations than humans.

[Riverwind]

The reason for Moore leaving Greenpeace is listed are not the same thing as the scientific community pointing out their conclusions about climate change based on research.

You have got it backwards. The conclusions have been determined in advance and the research is conducted to support the conclusions. Research that does not support the predetermined conclusions is ignored.

Here is a sampling: http://climatesci.org/2008/07/15/recent-ig...entific-method/

[JerrySeinfeld]

The reason for Moore leaving Greenpeace is listed are not the same thing as the scientific community pointing out their conclusions about climate change based on research.

Greenpeace may be moving to farther extremes but that doesn't mean that Moore is suggesting science has done so. In fact, I don't read that there. He is saying that global warming is not happening? It is hard to judge based on the quote because we don't know what the source is.

Ok let's set the science debate aside here for a moment. This site is clogged with them. It's obvious the enviro-crowd doesn't want to discuss science, it wants to demonize and immediately discredit anyone who dares disagree with them. That's not science. That's religion.

The basics of science are to question, and openly discuss. With something with a many variables and difficult to mjeasure as climate, the immediate shut down of debate is not the characteristic of any scientists I've ever know - but it sure sounds like a lot of politicians I know!

So let's talk about this religious zeal for a while.

The intention of THIS thread is to talk about the possibility that climate change politics is a cloaked...and massive worldwide anti-capitalism, anti-american movement.

Just look at the pieces and put them together.

If - as Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace - arguable the largest environmental organization in the world) says - you were a big time anti american poltitical activist (and EUrope and Canada have a ton of those!) in the 80's...then your party kind of, well, fizzled throughout the '90s.

But yuo're hatred for capitalism and america festered on and VOILA: here comes climate change.

To argue the climate change dogma, we are basically told to:

-Stop or slow material consumption

-Reduce economic growth

-Surrender sovereign policies to one overriding global governing body

Do any of these things sounds like a great way to bring down the power of the great USA? OF COURSE.

And the bonus: GW Bush (most likely your biggest nemesis if you hate the USA and capitalism) is an OIL MAN.

Really, if Al Gore (or any other eco-nazi) wanted to seriously bring down the USA and GW Bush, THIS is the perfect trojan horse.

Thoughts?

[eyeball]

The intention of THIS thread is to talk about the possibility that climate change politics is a cloaked...and massive worldwide anti-capitalism, anti-american movement.

Just look at the pieces and put them together.

Thoughts?

A secret massive worldwide conspiracy? You're paranoid, completely and totally paranoid.

Where are these pieces anyway? Are they connected like dots?

[jdobbin]

You have got it backwards. The conclusions have been determined in advance and the research is conducted to support the conclusions. Research that does not support the predetermined conclusions is ignored.

Once again I disagree. On all counts.

[jdobbin]

The basics of science are to question, and openly discuss. With something with a many variables and difficult to mjeasure as climate, the immediate shut down of debate is not the characteristic of any scientists I've ever know - but it sure sounds like a lot of politicians I know!

The objective of some on the right is that science cannot be trusted and therefore, it is impossible to act on things like smoking, CFCs, carbon emissions. The same people become professional skeptics paid for my industries that are most likely to be affected by change.

[Riverwind]

The objective of some on the right is that science cannot be trusted

The science cannot be trusted because too many scientists have turned into advocates and have abandoned their scientific objectivity. More significantly these scientists turned advocates have attracted a large crowd of activists and rent seeking followers who see the science as an excuse to push their preferred political agendas.

The truth of my claim can be found whenever a GW advocate attempts to evade legimate criticism of the science by changing the topic. Your response is a textbook example. The links I provided above described peer reviewed scientific papers on the blog of a well established climate scientist. These papers cast considerable doubt on the role of CO2 in climate change yet they have been ignored. If you disagree then address the scientific arguments. Rhetoric means nothing.

Edited July 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

The science cannot be trusted because too many scientists have turned into advocates and have abandoned their scientific objectivity. More significantly these scientists turned advocates have attracted a large crowd of activists and rent seeking followers who see the science as an excuse to push their preferred political agendas.

That is just your opinion.

The truth of my claim can be found whenever a GW advocate attempts to evade legimate criticism of the science by changing the topic. Your response is a textbook example. The links I provided above described peer reviewed scientific papers on the blog of a well established climate scientist. These papers cast considerable doubt on the role of CO2 in climate change yet they have been ignored. If you disagree then address the scientific arguments. Rhetoric means nothing.

It is one scientist among many and many of his claims have been countered.

I have no problem with legitimate criticism but the right wing uses that as an excuse to do nothing on the subject. If only the applied that amount of skepticism to other subjects such as religion or military intelligence.

[Riverwind]

It is one scientist among many and many of his claims have been countered.

Really? You don't have a clue what has been refuted and what has been ignored because it is inconvenient for scientist turned advocates.

If only the applied that amount of skepticism to other subjects such as religion or military intelligence.

You love the labels when even though they are meaningless. I have been just as critical of the WMD claims and the various anti-gay arguments by religious groups. I look at the facts around each issue and for opinions accordingly. To me, the facts indicate that the CO2 scuence has been politicized and it is not possible to trust the word of the 'scientific consenus'.

[jdobbin]

Really? You don't have a clue what has been refuted and what has been ignored because it is inconvenient for scientist turned advocates.

He has made several points on climate change but his main point on how scientists have preconceived notions was countered by many including James Mahoney.

You love the labels when even though they are meaningless. I have been just as critical of the WMD claims and the various anti-gay arguments by religious groups. I look at the facts around each issue and for opinions accordingly. To me, the facts indicate that the CO2 scuence has been politicized and it is not possible to trust the word of the 'scientific consenus'.

Finny how you have used labels as well including associating those scientists who says there is global warming with zealotry. That means nothing? It isn't a political statement?

[Riverwind]

He has made several points on climate change but his main point on how scientists have preconceived notions was countered by many including James Mahoney.

People who have preconceived notions are obviously going to deny it. Their protests really do mean much. Pielke makes his case by presenting paper and paper that demonstrates how the role of CO2 is being exagerrated. www.climateaudit.org also documents numerous other examples of unprofessional behavoir on the part of climate scientists. The facts are there for those that are willing to look at them. Denying them will not make them any less true.

Finny how you have used labels as well including associating those scientists who says there is global warming with zealotry. That means nothing? It isn't a political statement?

I am not the one who responds to every post with mindless ramblings about the 'right-wing ya-da-ya-da'.

[eyeball]

That is just your opinion.

It is one scientist among many and many of his claims have been countered.

I have no problem with legitimate criticism but the right wing uses that as an excuse to do nothing on the subject. If only the applied that amount of skepticism to other subjects such as religion or military intelligence.

Or the economy, crime, morality etc etc etc...

[jdobbin]

People who have preconceived notions are obviously going to deny it. Their protests really do mean much. Pielke makes his case by presenting paper and paper that demonstrates how the role of CO2 is being exagerrated. www.climateaudit.org also documents numerous other examples of unprofessional behavoir on the part of climate scientists. The facts are there for those that are willing to look at them. Denying them will not make them any less true.

And he left in a huff from a position even when Mahoney said his insight would be useful. Guess it is better to throw rocks from his position now.

There are examples of how scientists have had reports re-written as well when it comes to support of climate change research. In some cases the reports have been re-written by non-scientists. We have gone over this before

I am not the one who responds to every post with mindless ramblings about the 'right-wing ya-da-ya-da'.

No, you simply repeat climate change religion yada yada yada.

Edited July 16, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

The other reason that environmental extremism emerged was that because world communism failed, the wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-marxism with them. They learned to use “green language” in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than they had to do with ecology or science” – Patrick Moore Co-Founder, Greenpeace

Well, that would certainly explain the Liberal "Green Shift". Marxists never like it when some have more than others (excluding themselves, of course), and the Liberal "environment" policy seems to have more to do with taking money away from those the Liberals think have too much of it - ie, middle class people - and giving it to people who have less. Marxists and Socialists can't seem to wrap their minds around the possibility that those who work harder and put more effort into their work and education ought to get more benefit than those who make poor life, education and career choices. The Liberal "environment" plan is all about correcting that.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Well, that would certainly explain the Liberal "Green Shift". Marxists never like it when some have more than others (excluding themselves, of course), and the Liberal "environment" policy seems to have more to do with taking money away from those the Liberals think have too much of it - ie, middle class people - and giving it to people who have less. Marxists and Socialists can't seem to wrap their minds around the possibility that those who work harder and put more effort into their work and education ought to get more benefit than those who make poor life, education and career choices. The Liberal "environment" plan is all about correcting that.

That's true. Actually, the "Green Shift" by the Liberals is a textbook example of what Patrick Moore was talking about: a socialist agenda cloaked in the the "do gooder" disguise of environmentalism.

If you look around the world, the people really pushing action are the very same people who would have been USSR apologists and anti-Reagan / USA back during the cold war; Liberal arts professors, social activists, euro-socialist elites etc. Sure, other groups, including the MSM etc. have been sold this bill of goods and bought it hook line and sinker, but the people really pushing the agenda are the same old commies of yore.

Might this be ther biggest sham ever perpetrated on the public? It certainly looks to be so.

I have a question about the infamous (and completely false) "hockey stick graph":

If you're not misleading us, why would you see it necessary to lie?