Global Warming Fascists

[Michael Hardner]

you have no foundation to support your assertions, particularly as you presume to (improperly) assess and make grandiose claims/suggestions in regards scientific foundation and the accompanying political/policy debate.

out of the inordinate number of climate change related threads you chose to resurrect this beauty... quite telling... indeed.

Waldo... this won't be a fair fight... you should excuse yourself.

[Yesterday]

Your words not mine. Did you know that in the mid 1600s the English Channel and the North Sea froze up every winter for about a hundred years(just one example and I could post actual links to more). It was a weather anomaly, one of many different types that happen regularly all over the world. Just one reality of the strangeness of this world.

I do not say that global emissions will not play havoc with our environment in the long run but the extent and urgency seems only to apply in media not in global mandates for pollution reduction and control. Why? Why would the government snowball us with fear and create hundreds of new taxes over nothing? Jeez, it's not like they've ever done this before. Dis-information/misrepresentation would have nothing to do with it. Heck, the war on Iraq is justified for pete's sake too. I don't know what I was thinking. Giggle...come on Michael you know as well as I know the realities of just about everything we are told, believe less than a quarter of what you hear and even less than that of what you see.

You are a very articulate writer when you want to be, I enjoy most of your posts, put some meat on the table for us to really lick our chops over. My contribution to this pot-luck dinner is the FCCC, what are you bringing?

PS This is not the first time in history that temperatures have climbed but it is the first time ever pollution has been the reason. Could it be that the current effect of pollution might actually be minimal in regards to greenhouse gasses and that perhaps some of this might be due to the fact that we are in a phase of abnormally high radioactivity from our sun which is playing havoc with everything from temperatures around the world to satellite performance? My point is...fear sways the masses regardless of validity and most taxes have been legislated because of fear based acceptance.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

Sorry about the repeat message, I'll try again

[Yesterday]

you have no foundation to support your assertions, particularly as you presume to (improperly) assess and make grandiose claims/suggestions in regards scientific foundation and the accompanying political/policy debate.

out of the inordinate number of climate change related threads you chose to resurrect this beauty... quite telling... indeed.

Ok, I quess the 2 references I have made to date the FCCC and the freezing of the English Channel aren't true. Are you looking for a fight? I was looking for a discussion. What grandiose claims have I made? Don't bother filling me in, I can read my posts even if you can't. Sorry for you I quess if this topic in not your particular flavour but you can always bugger off. And it is a beauty in my mind, a whopping cost of a beauty that is misrepresented, mis-understood. I was hoping for a logical debate over the actual validity of all aspects of this situation, chose here to start off the debate.

[Yesterday]

I think I read about it in one of those science blogs that debunks fake theories on GW.

I guess you have been living in a cave for 20+ years. The scientists believe that human activity is causing Global Warming, and that it could have adverse affects on us.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

Hmmmm... could be... but it's not. Radioactivity is factored into the models by extremely bright people who devote their lives to determining the factors that cause warming.

Do you not think they may have thought of that ?

Your fear about gullibility of the masses may well be an example of the phenomenon of 'projection'.

Oh my goodness, so this global warming phenomena is not controversial? Everyone agrees? I must be living in a cave. All you can give me is personal insults and put words in my mouth? I am disappointed. I quess I'll bugger off and look for someone with actual skills in the debate.

PS part of this discussion I had hoped would be debunking any myth including the radio-active one with articles and essays. This is too bad becuase I had thought there to be enough intelligence between you to actually teach me something, oh well.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Yesterday

[jbg]

This is a perfect example of what the global warming fanatics really mean about open and honest debate and discussion.

Precisely why I call myself a "liberal" and "left-winger" and those kinds of people fascists.

[Yesterday]

Precisely why I call myself a "liberal" and "left-winger" and those kinds of people fascists.

Teeheee....MLW security tried to take my microphone too. I am not a fear monger but instead of discussing who is a socialist or communist I prefer to discuss policy and the reasoning about it. Good video. I debunk conspiracy theory but I can see the political push for non-transparency and conspiracy people are working hard to make the world realise how the shift of power is being removed from your vote. This is true.

I've put a few things on this forum worth talking about like the FCCC, Global settlements, World bank vs ZIRP, future projections on Canada's dollar, CETA. I'm a policy debator, nothing more. I think everyone is smart enough to understand them and we should be discussing these.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Yesterday

[waldo]

My point is...fear sways the masses regardless of validity and most taxes have been legislated because of fear based acceptance.

you have no foundation to support your assertions, particularly as you presume to (improperly) assess and make grandiose claims/suggestions in regards scientific foundation and the accompanying political/policy debate.

out of the inordinate number of climate change related threads you chose to resurrect this beauty... quite telling... indeed.

Ok, I quess the 2 references I have made to date the FCCC and the freezing of the English Channel aren't true. Are you looking for a fight? I was looking for a discussion. What grandiose claims have I made? Don't bother filling me in, I can read my posts even if you can't. Sorry for you I quess if this topic in not your particular flavour but you can always bugger off. And it is a beauty in my mind, a whopping cost of a beauty that is misrepresented, mis-understood. I was hoping for a logical debate over the actual validity of all aspects of this situation, chose here to start off the debate.

FCCC? … you drop an unlinked reference to “Federal Council on Climate Change” and subsequently refer to it as “FCCC”… who knows what you’re really referring to? There’s an Australian entity called the “Federal Council on Climate Change” – surely, that couldn’t be your reference… but who knows since you can’t be bothered to supply an actual link/quote to allow anyone to substantiate what the hell you’re talking about. Of course, in a climate change context, there’s the UNFCCC… as in Framework Convention on Climate Change… but, again, who knows what the hell you’re talking about!

you offer some anecdotal reference to the English Channel freezing… you, yourself, label it a weather event… and we’re supposed to take you seriously in a discussion concerning climate change? Clearly you fall into the category of the noob with a naivety that doesn’t distinguish weather vs. climate. But don’t let that stop you from starting off with commentary about the, as you stated, “global warming craze”… in a thread you resurrect titled, “Global Warming Fascists”. Hence the response you’ve received – otherwise, why bother with you… you’ve certainly brought nothing towards any semblance of the “logical debate” you stated a hope for.

again, without any actual linked attachment, you throw out broad, unsubstantiated reference to a, as you say, “global production tax”. What is it? In what context? How was it arrived at? Who was involved? Is it/was it, presumably, intended as a part of negotiated settlement… is it simply one option (one of many)… to what end… and on, and on, and on. You appear to be one of those mad barking types who have latched onto the premise of a world government, one hell bent on playing off industrialized vs. undeveloped nations… at the expense of joe-public through taxation scheming.

you jump into the fray, presumably policy focused, while showing your absolute ignorance in terms of the scientific foundation. You keep referring to “pollution” – WTF? You keep downplaying any actual concerns, any actual problems… choosing to speak to the issue as inconsequential… one that’s appeared many times in the past… with a, as you say, scientific foundation to that end. Meanwhile, you want to postulate the “sun’s radioactivity” as a causal link. Oh really! There are quite literally, dozens of climate change related threads – that you chose this thread, and offered nothing but attitude, anecdote and unsubstantiated comment/reference, shows you have, as you stated, an, “Agenda, agenda, agenda”… one with a very unknowing and naïve foundation.

yes, I can, as you say, “bugger off”… I certainly won’t be giving you any more attention – we have enough unknowing, sceptical/denying fuckwads around here, as it is. Carry on!

[Yesterday]

FCCC? … you drop an unlinked reference to “Federal Council on Climate Change” and subsequently refer to it as “FCCC”… who knows what you’re really referring to? There’s an Australian entity called the “Federal Council on Climate Change” – surely, that couldn’t be your reference… but who knows since you can’t be bothered to supply an actual link/quote to allow anyone to substantiate what the hell you’re talking about. Of course, in a climate change context, there’s the UNFCCC… as in Framework Convention on Climate Change… but, again, who knows what the hell you’re talking about!

you offer some anecdotal reference to the English Channel freezing… you, yourself, label it a weather event… and we’re supposed to take you seriously in a discussion concerning climate change? Clearly you fall into the category of the noob with a naivety that doesn’t distinguish weather vs. climate. But don’t let that stop you from starting off with commentary about the, as you stated, “global warming craze”… in a thread you resurrect titled, “Global Warming Fascists”. Hence the response you’ve received – otherwise, why bother with you… you’ve certainly brought nothing towards any semblance of the “logical debate” you stated a hope for.

again, without any actual linked attachment, you throw out broad, unsubstantiated reference to a, as you say, “global production tax”. What is it? In what context? How was it arrived at? Who was involved? Is it/was it, presumably, intended as a part of negotiated settlement… is it simply one option (one of many)… to what end… and on, and on, and on. You appear to be one of those mad barking types who have latched onto the premise of a world government, one hell bent on playing off industrialized vs. undeveloped nations… at the expense of joe-public through taxation scheming.

you jump into the fray, presumably policy focused, while showing your absolute ignorance in terms of the scientific foundation. You keep referring to “pollution” – WTF? You keep downplaying any actual concerns, any actual problems… choosing to speak to the issue as inconsequential… one that’s appeared many times in the past… with a, as you say, scientific foundation to that end. Meanwhile, you want to postulate the “sun’s radioactivity” as a causal link. Oh really! There are quite literally, dozens of climate change related threads – that you chose this thread, and offered nothing but attitude, anecdote and unsubstantiated comment/reference, shows you have, as you stated, an, “Agenda, agenda, agenda”… one with a very unknowing and naïve foundation.

yes, I can, as you say, “bugger off”… I certainly won’t be giving you any more attention – we have enough unknowing, sceptical/denying fuckwads around here, as it is. Carry on!

I thought you gave up me yesterday, pretty nasty way to ask for a link. Let me see what I can do the copy I have is 181 pages and a pdf, I'll look for a link.

[Yesterday]

The link that I used many months ago is defunct. Did not realize myself that this was so. Thanks to Waldo's pointing this out to me. If anyone does want to read this pm me and I will send you a copy via email. Jeez Jbg I was just reading the climate gate thread...should I feel hunted? Giggle

[Michael Hardner]

Oh my goodness, so this global warming phenomena is not controversial? Everyone agrees? I must be living in a cave. All you can give me is personal insults and put words in my mouth? I am disappointed. I quess I'll bugger off and look for someone with actual skills in the debate.

PS part of this discussion I had hoped would be debunking any myth including the radio-active one with articles and essays. This is too bad becuase I had thought there to be enough intelligence between you to actually teach me something, oh well.

You were asking why there was urgency with regards to the calls for CO2 restrictions, which struck me as having put-upon naivety.

I don't like arguing the actual science on these postings because most of the time we don't know it well enough to answer each others' questions. As it turns out, radioactive forcing is one of the areas that some skeptics think there may be more an an effect than is thought.

I will find a paper for you, but you first: give me a link to the paper you are referring to. I only know of one serious paper, and that was rebutted and is awaiting reply.

And... if you are wondering why I took a dismissive tone with your post, it is because it reeks of conspiracy theory - talking of swaying the masses and so on. The Climategate email theft and subsequent leak is the best case for a conspiracy theory in this area - and even that only makes a temporary dent in things.

[BubberMiley]

Precisely why I call myself a "liberal" and "left-winger" and those kinds of people fascists.

Because you feel that words have no meaning?

[Yesterday]

You were asking why there was urgency with regards to the calls for CO2 restrictions, which struck me as having put-upon naivety.

I don't like arguing the actual science on these postings because most of the time we don't know it well enough to answer each others' questions. As it turns out, radioactive forcing is one of the areas that some skeptics think there may be more an an effect than is thought.

I will find a paper for you, but you first: give me a link to the paper you are referring to. I only know of one serious paper, and that was rebutted and is awaiting reply.

And... if you are wondering why I took a dismissive tone with your post, it is because it reeks of conspiracy theory - talking of swaying the masses and so on. The Climategate email theft and subsequent leak is the best case for a conspiracy theory in this area - and even that only makes a temporary dent in things.

Hi Michael, it is not put on. I really have never had the chance to talk about anything I've posted with anyone. This is my first go. No, I am not a conspiracy theory girl. Everything, every policy and proposal being tabled right now around the world regarding the global future are right in front of our eyes. No conspiracy, it is just complicated, obfuscated and massive in volume.

I am working hard at covering the whole forum but it really takes time I don't mean to be redundant.

I went looking for the link I used to get the FCCC document and surprise, surprise, its gone. I do however have it in pdf form, it's rather large over 180 pages. Other than emailing it I don't know how to get it to you. It is hard to get to the truth of things and I do value the chance to get so many opinions and research. There are things in this document that kind of make me wonder, along the lines of that chapter 11 referred to in the CETA thread. I would be happy to have the opportunity to get down and dirty with some other people over this paper to see what it really means. Perhaps in the understanding of this and its sister ( eg., European Counsel on Climate) proposals could help to determine what to believe overall.

Swaying the masses, well, you have to admit that government/banking/investment transparency leaves a lot to be desired and the motives behind this are not likely too angelic. But really, for me I just want to understand each of the links I've posted to their fullest because socialist or communist, conspiracy or just simple reality, I want to understand the policies that are going to shape our world. I love strategy, none of the decisions on the world table regarding the climate, industrial growth and finances are short term concepts and I have so much to learn. I am glad for your latest post.

[Michael Hardner]

I went looking for the link I used to get the FCCC document and surprise, surprise, its gone. I do however have it in pdf form, it's rather large over 180 pages. Other than emailing it I don't know how to get it to you. It is hard to get to the truth of things and I do value the chance to get so many opinions and research. There are things in this document that kind of make me wonder, along the lines of that chapter 11 referred to in the CETA thread. I would be happy to have the opportunity to get down and dirty with some other people over this paper to see what it really means. Perhaps in the understanding of this and its sister ( eg., European Counsel on Climate) proposals could help to determine what to believe overall.

If it's a published paper, you probably only need to post the title and the author here and we can find it elsewhere. I think Walso has already asked you about FCCC, and I don't remember hearing about it either.

You claim you're not a conspiracy girl (your words) but say it's hard to get the truth on things ? It really isn't - look for papers published in Science and reputable journals. Those are the best source. Wikipedia isn't the best source, but well-discussed topics get linked to good source material there.

Swaying the masses, well, you have to admit that government/banking/investment transparency leaves a lot to be desired and the motives behind this are not likely too angelic. But really, for me I just want to understand each of the links I've posted to their fullest because socialist or communist, conspiracy or just simple reality, I want to understand the policies that are going to shape our world. I love strategy, none of the decisions on the world table regarding the climate, industrial growth and finances are short term concepts and I have so much to learn. I am glad for your latest post.

Banking and investment are necessarily private, but those are different worlds than the world of science, and of free political discussion such as happens here.

If there were really such conspiracies, then things that threaten the powers that be would never even come to light - and yet here we are.

[Yesterday]

To be honest with you the media controversy has no interest to me. Regardless of what is being said, the words in this and other global proposals read the way they read. The media is no help, not really. The real meat is in the policies that are getting built. I don't like to argue either, that's why I like to look at these proposals when I can find them. No supposition or conjecture. Just the layout of strategies that go along way to show motivation and long term realities. Some good, some not so good, eh? Giggle.

[Yesterday]

You were asking why there was urgency with regards to the calls for CO2 restrictions, which struck me as having put-upon naivety.

I don't like arguing the actual science on these postings because most of the time we don't know it well enough to answer each others' questions. As it turns out, radioactive forcing is one of the areas that some skeptics think there may be more an an effect than is thought.

I will find a paper for you, but you first: give me a link to the paper you are referring to. I only know of one serious paper, and that was rebutted and is awaiting reply.

And... if you are wondering why I took a dismissive tone with your post, it is because it reeks of conspiracy theory - talking of swaying the masses and so on. The Climategate email theft and subsequent leak is the best case for a conspiracy theory in this area - and even that only makes a temporary dent in things.

Hi Michael, it is not put on. I really have never had the chance to talk about anything I've posted with anyone. This is my first go. No, I am not a conspiracy theory girl. Everything, every policy and proposal being tabled right now around the world regarding the global future are right in front of our eyes. No conspiracy, it is just complicated, obfuscated and massive in volume.

I am working hard at covering the whole forum but it really takes time I don't mean to be redundant.

I went looking for the link I used to get the FCCC document and surprise, surprise, its gone. I do however have it in pdf form, it's rather large over 180 pages. Other than emailing it I don't know how to get it to you. It is hard to get to the truth of things and I do value the chance to get so many opinions and research. There are things in this document that kind of make me wonder, along the lines of that chapter 11 referred to in the CETA thread. I would be happy to have the opportunity to get down and dirty with some other people over this paper to see what it really means. Perhaps in the understanding of this and its sister ( eg., European Counsel on Climate) proposals could help to determine what to believe overall.

Swaying the masses, well, you have to admit that government/banking/investment transparency leaves a lot to be desired and the motives behind this are not likely too angelic. But really, for me I just want to understand each of the links I've posted to their fullest because socialist or communist, conspiracy or just simple reality, I want to understand the policies that are going to shape our world. I love strategy, none of the decisions on the world table regarding the climate, industrial growth and finances are short term concepts and I have so much to learn. I am glad for your latest post.

[Yesterday]

Title "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" Ad hoc working group on long-term co-operative action under the convention, 15 September 2009. I've been on the UN website looking for this but just briefly. I'll look again.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Yesterday

[Michael Hardner]

To be honest with you the media controversy has no interest to me. Regardless of what is being said, the words in this and other global proposals read the way they read. The media is no help, not really. The real meat is in the policies that are getting built. I don't like to argue either, that's why I like to look at these proposals when I can find them. No supposition or conjecture. Just the layout of strategies that go along way to show motivation and long term realities. Some good, some not so good, eh? Giggle.

How about the title of this paper then ?

[Yesterday]

It does have a production based dividend collected across developed nations for use as high interest credit for un-developed nations. Like the social credit theory dividend (sort of). I would like to know if you thought the same thing. Thank-you for trying to get a copy and read it.

[Yesterday]

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/12.pdf

This is only 4 pages though and what I have is 181 or more pages...

Edited June 13, 2010 by Yesterday

[Yesterday]

Here it is

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca7/eng/inf02.pdf

I should get better at saving my links....

[Michael Hardner]

Well, yesterday - I asked you to post your paper because of this statement you made:

PS part of this discussion I had hoped would be debunking any myth including the radio-active one with articles and essays.

I was asking for you to post a paper about this radioactive theory, or whatever you were referring to in the post before that. The paper you posted seems to be about protocol for discussing climate change policies with various nation-stakeholders.

So, I don't know where we are with this.

In summary: We can talk about the science, but I would prefer to refer to the publications themselves. You referred to something about radioactivity, or solar activity (I don't remember which) having an effect on temperatures. I asked you to publish it, so that we can see where the science is on that discussion but we don't have the original paper here so...

None of the skeptics (climatology scientists) doubt that warming is happening, and a handful think there may be other causes but their view is far in the minority.

[Yesterday]

Well, yesterday - I asked you to post your paper because of this statement you made:

I was asking for you to post a paper about this radioactive theory, or whatever you were referring to in the post before that. The paper you posted seems to be about protocol for discussing climate change policies with various nation-stakeholders.

So, I don't know where we are with this.

In summary: We can talk about the science, but I would prefer to refer to the publications themselves. You referred to something about radioactivity, or solar activity (I don't remember which) having an effect on temperatures. I asked you to publish it, so that we can see where the science is on that discussion but we don't have the original paper here so...

None of the skeptics (climatology scientists) doubt that warming is happening, and a handful think there may be other causes but their view is far in the minority.

I don't want to talk about the science, I want to talk about this paper, I found you a link. Like you, I don't understand the science enough to debate it. I just used the controversy to defend my desire to discuss this paper. After reading this, I do feel rather more skeptical of what to believe scientifically however, this is in part, the global climate policy we are getting regardless of why.

[Yesterday]

Jumping in a little late again but here it is anyway...

IMO the global warming craze for the most part is an agenda to help gain popularity for the global production tax hinted at in the Federal Counsel on Climate Change. Underlying long term issues of continued pollution are very real but not exactly in the way this platform suggests. Big pictures shows very little interest in reducing pollution across developed nations but aims to seriously inhibit undeveloped countries from following the same path to industrialization as its developed counterparts using infrastructure loans as bait (of course at astronomical interest figures of 35% amongst other ridiculous amounts), the funds for these loans of course collected from the various production taxes already collected across the developed nations and the many more on the round table being discussed. This combined with the growing scientific evidence of the fact that most of what we are experiencing today has happened many times before with absolutely no connection to pollution. Agenda, agenda, agenda.

http://unfccc.int/re...lca7/eng/12.pdf

This is for Waldo, love ya babe. Keepin us all straight.

Edited June 13, 2010 by Yesterday

[Michael Hardner]

I don't want to talk about the science, I want to talk about this paper, I found you a link. Like you, I don't understand the science enough to debate it. I just used the controversy to defend my desire to discuss this paper. After reading this, I do feel rather more skeptical of what to believe scientifically however, this is in part, the global climate policy we are getting regardless of why.

Ok. I don't want to read the whole paper - I read the introduction and I have a sense of what it's about. What specifically do you want to talk about in the paper ?

The paper should have no impact on what you believe scientifically - they are entirely separate things.