Global warming skeptics send letter to Congress urging members not

[waldo]

University of Auckland's Chris de Freitas...

wow! An avowed denier... and a special kind of one... the special fringe type; one of those that actually denies warming has occurred - Freitas, a guy who is on record as stating, "global temperature has been steady since 1998, despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere". Oh my! On the fringe of the fringe... and... special consideration that Freitas is one of the so-called "global warming experts" of one of the paramount AGW denial machines, the Heartland Institute. Keep those unbiased quotes a coming, hey lukin!

hey now lukin! Given you've coughed up one of the fringe types in Freitas, this is really the point to get you to define your personal position. Outside of your overt denial, you've never actually qualified that denial, even on the most broadest of levels... just what is your position on AGW proper, on post 1850 warming, on the implications of rising atmospheric CO2... if you're not actually within the fringe of the fringe and you accept there has been significant warming, in the face of your AGW denial, just what do you attribute the warming to? C'mon lukin, inquiring minds need to know. Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

[lukin]

wow! An avowed denier... and a special kind of one... the special fringe type; one of those that actually denies warming has occurred - Freitas, a guy who is on record as stating, "global temperature has been steady since 1998, despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere". Oh my! On the fringe of the fringe... and... special consideration that Freitas is one of the so-called "global warming experts" of one of the paramount AGW denial machines, the Heartland Institute. Keep those unbiased quotes a coming, hey lukin!

hey now lukin! Given you've coughed up one of the fringe types in Freitas, this is really the point to get you to define your personal position. Outside of your overt denial, you've never actually qualified that denial, even on the most broadest of levels... just what is your position on AGW proper, on post 1850 warming, on the implications of rising atmospheric CO2... if you're not actually within the fringe of the fringe and you accept there has been significant warming, in the face of your AGW denial, just what do you attribute the warming to? C'mon lukin, inquiring minds need to know. Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

The typical tactic of Big Green. Demonize and resort to name calling of all those who disagree with AGW, perfectly displayed by the wyldo.

Skeptics are finding out that it is dangerous being right when the authorities are wrong.

When someone says "deniers" I hear "rationalist".

[waldo]

wow! An avowed denier... and a special kind of one... the special fringe type; one of those that actually denies warming has occurred - Freitas, a guy who is on record as stating, "global temperature has been steady since 1998, despite the continuing rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere". Oh my! On the fringe of the fringe... and... special consideration that Freitas is one of the so-called "global warming experts" of one of the paramount AGW denial machines, the Heartland Institute. Keep those unbiased quotes a coming, hey lukin!

hey now lukin! Given you've coughed up one of the fringe types in Freitas, this is really the point to get you to define your personal position. Outside of your overt denial, you've never actually qualified that denial, even on the most broadest of levels... just what is your position on AGW proper, on post 1850 warming, on the implications of rising atmospheric CO2... if you're not actually within the fringe of the fringe and you accept there has been significant warming, in the face of your AGW denial, just what do you attribute the warming to? C'mon lukin, inquiring minds need to know. Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

The typical tactic of Big Green. Demonize and resort to name calling of all those who disagree with AGW, perfectly displayed by the wyldo.

whaaa! "Big Green" keeping the poor, downtrodden denier man down!!! My how the whiney, pissant denier types rise to the top when they're actually challenged to define their positions... oh how they deflect, they scurry about, they run! Of course, don't hesitate to identify the, as you state, "demonization and name calling", you're replying to.

but really, c'mon lukin... is there a problem? Is there a reason you won't/can't simply define your position... why you won't answer the most fundamental (and benign) questions that would allow you to relate, loud and proud, your positions on just a few of the most basic aspects. Again:

hey now lukin! ... this is really the point to get you to define your personal position. Outside of your overt denial, you've never actually qualified that denial, even on the most broadest of levels... just what is your position on AGW proper, on post 1850 warming, on the implications of rising atmospheric CO2... if you're not actually within the fringe of the fringe and you accept there has been significant warming, in the face of your AGW denial, just what do you attribute the warming to? C'mon lukin, inquiring minds need to know. Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

Skeptics are finding out that it is dangerous being right when the authorities are wrong.

just who are the "authorities" that are wrong? Just how is it "dangerous" for skeptics?

When someone says "deniers" I hear "rationalist".

good on ya... you've just assigned reason, intelligence and logical, analytic thought to those uttering the denier label!

[GostHacked]

sudbury compared to the earth would be the equivalent of a bacteria in a zit on an elephants arse...

your approach would be like an MD ignoring a patients spreading melanoma and focusing on his ingrown toenail

Sudbury is but one example of thousands around the world. I am sure you can comprehend that and think of the bigger picture there. But keep letting yourself get distracted by the CO2 argument.

[Oleg Bach]

Humans are machines - but not perpetual motion machines - we are imperfect..we shit...all systems designed by human beings create waste...and waste is energy....it is a case of putting matter in the air - where it does not naturally belong...we humans do not let enough time pass to let the dust settle - we are greedy and the more dust we kick up..the hotter that dust becomes... as long as we are imperfect we will have problems...The first thing that we must understand to save our sorry asses is the fact that we are NOT capable of being perfect god like beings...we shit and shit is hot - especially when warmed by the sun.

[wyly]

Sudbury is but one example of thousands around the world. I am sure you can comprehend that and think of the bigger picture there. But keep letting yourself get distracted by the CO2 argument.

and all those thousands still don't add up to a whole lot in the big picture... just keep your head in the sand and focus on the pimples while the cancer grows to incurable size...

[jbg]

wow! An avowed denier... and a special kind of one... the special fringe type; one of those that actually denies warming has occurred ************* Surely there's more to you than bluster/fluster and insults, hey? What are your positions on the aforementioned?

Is all you can do call names?

[waldo]

jbg, names? What names? There's no name calling in the quote you've provided... is there a problem... did you misquote?

[jbg]

jbg, names? What names? There's no name calling in the quote you've provided... is there a problem... did you misquote?

1. Fringe type
   
2. Denier
   
3. Bluster
   
4. Fluster
   

[waldo]

1. Fringe type
   
2. Denier
   
3. Bluster
   
4. Fluster
   

certainly... let's explore your silly buggar routine. Obviously, "Bluster" & "Fluster" are actions - verbs... i.e., not names. Obviously, "Fringe type" is nondescript... benign... besides, you're reaching as it was used in conjunction with the second of your examples; i.e. a "fringe type... of denier" (as in one who is on the fringe of denialism; one who not only denies AGW, but also denies actual warming has occurred). So... that leaves us with with the actual reference you take objection to... the "denier" label. As follows, I've chosen but a few past relevant MLW quote exchanges:

r=I have a real problem with the epithet "denier" being used here. There is a real difference fo opinion i whether or not therere is antroprogenic global warmning. Only Jew-haters and/or conspiracy theorists deny the Holocaust. And I don't favor Holocaust denial being a crim.

There's no need to lace an already contentious debate with strong and offensive language, to little purpose.

like I said earlier today, that generic label is long established within the lexicon surrounding the climate debate. There's a veritable industry that's worked to spin a clear distinction between legitimate skeptics and those that absolutely deny the overwhelming consensus on the theory of AGW climate change. No one... no one... presumes to associate the generic label with anything other than those who deny - the science. On a very rare occasion, you'll see someone raise a concern similar to yours - invariably it comes from someone with a legitimate personal position (although, usually it's someone new to the debate), or... it comes from someone who truly denies the science and presumes to marginalize and/or obfuscate within the debate.

The use of the word "denier" is offensive and you know why.

as before, it's a long standing term - a part of the lexicon surrounding the debate on climate science. No one uses the term/label for any consideration other than towards those denying the overwhelming scientific consensus that accepts the theory of AGW climate change. Your continued beak-off rings hollow.

To people like him, probably being a Jew-hater, being a climate denyer is worse than being a Holocaust denyer. While I am against Holocaust-denial laws, I am quite offended at the use of a parallel term when it comes to climate.

probably being a Jew-hater? Wow! Thanks for coming out.

you've repeatedly tried to make the same long-tired attempts to conflate the denier label - the debate is long over on that point... no self-respecting climate change denier even attempts to make that association any more.

As many have advised you in the past, the term is a long-standing part of the lexicon related to climate change; a term/label that draws clear distinction between deniers and legitimate skeptics. Get over it.

let's be clear... precise. Are you (also) stating that the brazillion MLW past uses of the label "alarmist" also falls into your category designation of "calling names"? If not, particularly in relation to the label "denier", what comparative distinction(s) do you hold to? Let's be doubly precise... is there a term more suitable for those who distort and lie, for those who demonstrate no understanding of the science, for those who have no evidence or rational logic for their position but persist in denying the very existence of the overwhelming scientific evidence? Perhaps you/we need a Guide for dealing with the “Denier” label:

To convince them that you probably ARE a Denier:

Do:

* Quibble about the term, complain that it is offensive and an attempt link you with the Holocaust or some other such irrelevant nonsense;

* Keep insisting that the perfectly correct English word ‘Denier’ not be permitted, do not allow any discussion of whether it was used correctly or not;

* Insist that you are a “Skeptic” even though you don’t really know what that means;

* Call them names and accuse them of ad hominem attacks. Don’t worry if you don’t really know what ‘ad hominem’ actually means.;

* Go off on tangents, talk about anything except the actual issue;

Do Not:

* Discuss the actual topic or in any way refer to it except to repeat that you are right;

* Attempt to provide any actual evidence or even admit that it might be relevant;

* Respond to any request they make for evidence, logic, or evidence of sanity;

* Give a logical, rational argument;

* Admit to being wrong about anything, ever, especially when it has been shown beyond all doubt that you are.

[GostHacked]

Here is something to add to this thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/house-pursue-efforts-eliminate-funding-climate-group/

If House Republicans have their way, the U.S. may sever its fiscal support for the United Nations' climate group, reflecting the last lingering effects of the Climate-gate scandal that shook climate science and wobbled the world's confidence in the theory that man's actions are causing the planet to rapidly warm.

Wrapped into the many amendments recently passed by the House of Representatives -- a total of $60 billion in spending cuts that the president called a "nonstarter" -- was one by Republican Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer that would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the group whose occasional missteps have been the source of countless confrontations among climate scientists over the past year.

[waldo]

further examples of the Republican "war on science"... wingnut Montana Republican Rep. Joe Read introduced a bill to the state legislature intended to pass a law that says global warming is a natural occurrence that "is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana."

[jbg]

Here is something to add to this thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/house-pursue-efforts-eliminate-funding-climate-group/

Clearly that would be a good thing.

[waldo]

Clearly that would be a good thing.

and this... also a good thing?

House GOP Says ‘So Be It’ To Taxpayers, Votes Unanimously to Protect Big Oil Subsidies

House Republicans voted in lockstep this afternoon to protect corporate welfare for Big Oil, even as they call for draconian cuts to programs that everyday Americans depend on each day. As the House of Representatives moved toward approving a stopgap resolution to avert a government shutdown for another two weeks, Democrats offered a motion to recommit that would have stripped the five largest oil companies of taxpayer subsidies, saving tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds. The motion failed on a vote of 176-249, with all Republicans voting against (approximately a dozen Democrats joined the GOP). A similar vote two weeks ago to recoup $53 billion in taxpayer funds from Big Oil was also voted down, largely along party lines. The former CEO of Shell Oil, John Hoffmeister, recently said Big Oil doesn’t need subsidies “in face of sustained high oil prices.” From 2005 to 2009, the largest oil companies have made a combined $485 billion in profits.

[lukin]

Here is something to add to this thread.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/01/house-pursue-efforts-eliminate-funding-climate-group/

Finally some politicians with common sense. Excellent link gosthacked.

[waldo]

the Republican "war on science", fact free, science... runs strong... runs deep!

the rise of the Tea Party and its anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-elite worldview has brought both a mainstreaming and a radicalization of anti-scientific thought.

.

.

Whoever emerges as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012 will very likely have to embrace climate-change denial. Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Mike Huckabee, all of whom once expressed some support for action on global warming, have notably distanced themselves from these views. Saying no to mainstream climate science, notes Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow and director of climate strategy for the Center for American Progress, is now a required practice for Republicans eager to play to an emboldened conservative base. “Opposing the belief that global warming is human-caused has become systematic, like opposition to abortion,” he says. “It’s seen as another way for government to control people’s lives. It’s become a cultural issue.”

.

.

Some conservatives argue that the Republican war on science is bad politics and that catering to the “climate-denier sect” in the party is a dangerous strategy, as David Jenkins, a member of Republicans for Environmental Protection wrote recently on the FrumForum blog. Public opinion, after all, has not kept pace with Republican rhetoric on the topic of climate change. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted in January found that 83 percent of Americans want Congress to pass legislation promoting alternative energy, and a recent poll by the Opinion Research Corporation found that almost two-thirds want the Environmental Protection Agency to be more aggressive.

[Guest oiloforegano]

This is unsettling, so unsettling.

Slowly the pride of being Canadian is waning.

Sigh

[jbg]

This is unsettling, so unsettling.

Slowly the pride of being Canadian is waning.

Sigh

I've started a fiew threads on this issue where your post would be on topic:

1. Canadian Lack of Excitement Not New Hot off the New York Times July 2, 1867;
   
2. Why Doesn't the US Respect Canada More? Or, What is the Right Question?;
   
3. Canada - You Have a Country You Should be Proud Of!
   

You could usefully contribute to those, and other, similar threads.

Edited March 3, 2011 by jbg

[lukin]

I've started a fiew threads on this issue where your post would be on topic:

1. Canadian Lack of Excitement Not New Hot off the New York Times July 2, 1867;
   
2. Why Doesn't the US Respect Canada More? Or, What is the Right Question?;
   
3. Canada - You Have a Country You Should be Proud Of!
   

You could usefully contribute to those, and other, similar threads.

Here's another article that I found quite interesting. The alarmists are nothing more than hired scaremongers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

We need to get society off the alarmist bandwagon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

Edited March 5, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

*** yawn *** how difficult is it to cut/paste links... unrelated, irrelevant and lacking commentary, ala the lukinWay™

[lukin]

*** yawn *** how difficult is it to cut/paste links... unrelated, irrelevant and lacking commentary, ala the lukinWay™

Waldo, how come you TOLD on me? Your a mouse of a man.

Enjoy a fine Saturday putting in a 16 hour shift at your computer, ala the lonesomewaldoWay™.

Edited March 5, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

it appears you've decided to ignore the MLW rule... in your latest posts this morning, you've simply reverted back to your standard routine - dropping links with abandon, without quoting from them and/or offering any semblance of summary relevance, without offering any attempt to spur discussion... without any attempt to present an argument... without any attempt to foster meaningful debate. It is your way - it is the way of the lukin... the lukinWay™

Thanks Charles - without consensus science behind them, or an inability to articulate their "thoughts" as channeled via blindly dropped link references, the personal attack is, of course, one of their only remaining outlets... it is, effectively, their raison d'etre! I trust we will see a more strident enforcement of the MLW rule:

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

[lukin]

it appears you've decided to ignore the MLW rule... in your latest posts this morning, you've simply reverted back to your standard routine - dropping links with abandon, without quoting from them and/or offering any semblance of summary relevance, without offering any attempt to spur discussion... without any attempt to present an argument... without any attempt to foster meaningful debate. It is your way - it is the way of the lukin... the lukinWay™

[/indent]

Waldo, you are the master of the personal attack. I have more than enough evidence. Personal attacks are the common ploy of alarmists who can't deal with rationalists who see through the alarmist BS.

[waldo]

further examples of the Republican "war on science"... wingnut Montana Republican Rep. Joe Read introduced a bill to the state legislature intended to pass a law that says global warming is a natural occurrence that "is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana."

House GOP Says ‘So Be It’ To Taxpayers, Votes Unanimously to Protect Big Oil Subsidies

the Republican "war on science", fact free, science... runs strong... runs deep!

per the above partial post extracts and continuing to highlight the U.S. Republican "war on science"... recent spending cuts proposed by the Republicans as applied to the upcoming Continuing Resolution (CR) bill - the bill that will fund the U.S federal government for the fiscal years remaining seven months:

- Environmental Protection Agency -$1.6B

- Office of Science -$1.1B ; the U.S.' single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences

- National Institute of Health -$1.1B ; the U.S.' major medical research agency

- Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy -$899M

- Center for Disease Control -$755M

- National Aeronautics and Space Administration -$379M

- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration -$336M

- Food and Drug Administration -$220M

- National Institute of Standards and Technology -$186M

- Nuclear Energy -$169M

- National Science Foundation -$139M

- Food Safety and Inspection Service -$53M

- Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability -$49M

- Energy Information Administration -$34M

- Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies -$30M

- Fossil Energy Research -$31M

- U.S. Geological Survey -$27M

- Clean Coal Technology -$18M

- Strategic Petroleum Reserve -$15M

[jbg]

Here's another article that I found quite interesting. The alarmists are nothing more than hired scaremongers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

We need to get society off the alarmist bandwagon.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

Excellent find.

*** yawn *** how difficult is it to cut/paste links... unrelated, irrelevant and lacking commentary, ala the lukinWay™

O.K. I'll supply the commentary for those who haven't read the article. The gist of the article is that since 1871 there has not been an increase in extreme weather events. As a society we're better off with "risk management" or "risk mitigation" rather than spending trillions trying to hold Kink Canute's fingers in the dike. It's far more intelligent for Heathrow to have snowplows and rock salt on hand than to spend trillions in a futile effort to prevent a blizzard that almost definitely would have happened even if we were still living in caves.

Waldo, you are the master of the personal attack. I have more than enough evidence. Personal attacks are the common ploy of alarmists who can't deal with rationalists who see through the alarmist BS.

He's the master of multi-color nested quotes.