We Need To Reduce Emissions

[socialist]

I don't think enough people realize how important it is to reduce our carbon footprint for the benefit of the earth. I don't know if anyone remembers this Ad but it is very effective. We will all be blown up if we don't combat man-made climate change. At what age is someone old enough to understand the message of this video? I challenge all members of this forum to make a conscientious effort to reduce their carbon footprint by 10-20%.

[TimG]

I don't know if anyone remembers this Ad but it is very effective.

It was very effective at demonstrating how climate alarmists are totalitarians who hate free speech. I use this ad whenever I want to show someone how crazy climate alarmists are and why climate alarmism is not something they want to associate with. Edited February 20, 2014 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

The common belief here--which I share, though I'm happy to be proven wrong--is that poster "socialist" is either

1. A right-winger who employs caricatures of what he views as "the left" in order to discredit leftism (much as we once had a "Muslim extremist" here who talked about forcibly converting us, of committing terrorism with his "three strong sons," and so on...an obvious fake in that case); or

2. An actual lefty, who fundamentally believes what he says, but reaches to provocation to elicit responses and arguments.

I have little use for either persona, myself.

[BubberMiley]

It would be fun if he were better at it, but his ability to write in different character voices is severely limited.

Edited February 20, 2014 by BubberMiley

[bleeding heart]

Well, a certain type of behavior seems mostly to attract a certain type of....creatively-handicapped...poster.

[Spiderfish]

The common belief here--which I share, though I'm happy to be proven wrong--is that poster "socialist" is either

1. A right-winger who employs caricatures of what he views as "the left" in order to discredit leftism (much as we once had a "Muslim extremist" here who talked about forcibly converting us, of committing terrorism with his "three strong sons," and so on...an obvious fake in that case); or

2. An actual lefty, who fundamentally believes what he says, but reaches to provocation to elicit responses and arguments.

I have little use for either persona, myself.

I agree, this is a pathetic and obvious effort at trolling. However what is your opinion on the 10:10 group itself which sells itself as "taking positive, practical action to tackle climate change." Does this approach seem positive and practical to you?

http://www.1010global.org/no-pressure

This was apparently intended to be inspiring and supportive to people in reducing their own carbon footprint and bring down emissions. They were able to muster enough sensibility to admit they made a mistake after the negative reaction they received, but who in their right mind would have found this garbage inspiring enough to make a conscious decision to release it in the first place?? Ridiculous.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Spiderfish

[bleeding heart]

Yes, true. I can see why they responded to the negative reaction, but don't understand why they couldn't have anticipated it in the first place.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, true. I can see why they responded to the negative reaction, but don't understand why they couldn't have anticipated it in the first place.

They're probably on the same side of the debate as TimG and, like socialist, are interested in discrediting the other side by pretending they are one of them.

[AngusThermopyle]

I'd never seen that add before and in all honesty now that I have I just wish I could get those 3:58 sec back. its just about the most stupid thing I've ever seen. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if that pile of stinky carbon residue generated opposition rather than support for the initiative.

[Spiderfish]

They're probably on the same side of the debate as TimG and, like socialist, are interested in discrediting the other side by pretending they are one of them.

Maybe...or maybe in this case there's some merit in TimG's post. Why did they take it down and apologize if it was just some dumb, reverse-standard, anti-pro enviro stunt? Surely they would likely want to leave it up and grind out as much mileage as possible.

No doubt they were going for the shock factor to get attention, but I don't get the sense that this organization is a bunch of anti environmentalists (all 100,000 of them). I think you may be reaching a bit here.

Edited February 20, 2014 by Spiderfish

[socialist]

The common belief here--which I share, though I'm happy to be proven wrong--is that poster "socialist" is either

1. A right-winger who employs caricatures of what he views as "the left" in order to discredit leftism (much as we once had a "Muslim extremist" here who talked about forcibly converting us, of committing terrorism with his "three strong sons," and so on...an obvious fake in that case); or

2. An actual lefty, who fundamentally believes what he says, but reaches to provocation to elicit responses and arguments.

I have little use for either persona, myself.

You lack understanding then. The Ad was quite clever as it shows what will happen to us if we avoid cutting harmful emissions. Jokes on you I guess.

[TimG]

They're probably on the same side of the debate as TimG and, like socialist, are interested in discrediting the other side by pretending they are one of them.

Desperate aren't you? They are a real group that had a big campaign lined up in the UK.

http://www.1010global.org/]http://www.1010global.org/

But you should not be surprised. Trying to suppress dissenting opinions is a common strategy used by climate alarmists.

Edited February 21, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

It was very effective at demonstrating how climate alarmists are totalitarians who hate free speech. I use this ad whenever I want to show someone how crazy climate alarmists are and why climate alarmism is not something they want to associate with.

no - it was a stupid move by what was a relatively unknown organization at the time... one headed/founded by an indie movie producer (hence the "shock vid"), and one that had no legitimacy as a recognized organization. The vid got pulled almost immediately because of all the backlash coming at the organization from legitimate enviro groups. But, of course, you know all this... while you huff&puff about totalitarianism/free speech haters. Of course, the most revealing point given your track record, is you label anyone/everyone that doesn't agree with your fake-skeptic/concern troll nonsense, a climate alarmist. And, of course, you relish the opportunity to play on this obscure nonsense video.

[cybercoma]

This is to environmental groups what the Phelps Family is to Christianity.

[Shady]

Anyways, getting back to the topic. Emissions reductions will take care of themselves through technology and innovation. It's ridiculous to think that we'll still be using the combustion engine 20 years from now. And since so-called climate change is suppose to be a real issue in 2050 and beyond, there isn't really anything to worry about. And enacting economy destroying measures now, won't do anything but nibble around the edges. In the short term, carbon emissions will continue to rise. But in the long term they will sharply decline.

[Wilber]

As long as there is cheap abundant oil, the internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere. Why would it?

How will CO2 levels sharply decline? It is quite a stable molecule. Where will it go in such a hurry?

[TimG]

Another example from the NYT for those trying to pretend that the 10:10 video was an aberration rather than an accurate reflection of the mindset of many climate alarmists. Panel 4 is the offensive part.

It is actually not that surprising that some alarmists fantasize about murdering skeptics if you consider how they have convinced themselves that CO2 will bring about the destruction of the planet. This kind of stuff is why I say climate alarmism is a religion without the god-stuff (unless you call the planet a god).

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

More examples of religious fanaticism from alarmists:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/

Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: Im not a global warming believer. Im not a global warming denier.

He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.

How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammers column on Friday.

[Moonlight Graham]

More examples of religious fanaticism from alarmists:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so trying to censor him is wrong IMO.

But I read Krauthammer's article and it isn't very good. He argues that "the science isn't settled" on climate change, but confuses past AGW with future effects of AGW. The contention that AGW has and is occurring is supported by a broad consensus of scientists (from the survey of scientists you gave me), and among the 200 most published climate scientists there is a 98% agreement. However, there is still debate and no consensus on the future affects of AGW and how much the earth will continue to warm. Krauthammer confuses the two, and uses the latter to argue that "the science isn't settled", when it's actually pretty settled on some things but not others.

This shows the danger of listening to journalists, politicians, activists, and other blowhards in the media who don't know what they're talking about. Most people get most of their information on climate change from the media, not scientists. We all need to listen to the broad scientific community more, and listen far less to the likes of left & right-wing spin-doctors like Al Gore and FOX News and/or MLW posters who misrepresent the science to further an agenda or ideology. In fact, don't listen at all to what I just said, read what the scientists are saying for yourself.

[TimG]

But I read Krauthammer's article and it isn't very good. He argues that "the science isn't settled" on climate change, but confuses past AGW with future effects of AGW.

No he does not - you are the one who is confused. To quote:

I repeat: I’m not a global warming believer. I’m not a global warming denier. I’ve long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

“The debate is settled,” asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. “Climate change is a fact.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

It is really clear that he *is* talking only of the claims about the future effects CO2 warming and that *is* unsettled science. Personally, I think the article is very good about separating established scientific knowledge from the speculative fiction which forms the basis for most alarmists claims. If you disagree please quote exactly what you think is actually wrong.

My personal opinion is you have internalized so much of the alarmist propaganda that you no longer look at opinions from skeptics objectively. You simply assume they say things that they do not.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

More alarmist fanatics fantasizing about having skeptics arrested for their opinions:

Naomi Orekses and Suzanne Goldenberg, who seem seem to like the idea of having climate “deniers” arrested under RICO act for thought collusion, all under the approving eye of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/24/the-merchants-of-smear/ Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[waldo]

In the short term, carbon emissions will continue to rise. But in the long term they will sharply decline.

duh! Emissions accumulate... and will continue to accumulate, year upon year. There is no short days or weeks residence time for CO2; given the so-called long tail residual retention of CO2, cumulative amounts of CO2 will remain in the atmosphere on a time-scale of centuries.

[waldo]

More alarmist fanatics fantasizing about having skeptics arrested for their opinions:

Naomi Orekses and Suzanne Goldenberg, who seem seem to like the idea of having climate “deniers” arrested under RICO act for thought collusion, all under the approving eye of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/24/the-merchants-of-smear/

could you be any more disingenuous? Did you even bother to review the video... or have you simply resorted to linking to/referencing WTFIUWT? How sad... but most revealing to see you attempting to leverage from 'the worst of the worst'!

what actually was said within the video: there was a discussion of the parallels between the tactics of Big Tobacco and Big Oil... notwithstanding many of the lobbyists/advocates for Big Tobacco simply moved across and now champion the cause for BigOil and the denial industry. Of course, Naomi Orekses has written on this at length and in-depth. A part of that video discussion centered on the U.S. RICO act based investigations and prosecutions relative to the actions of the tobacco industry and it's advocates. In the wrap-up question period, an audience member brought forward a question mentioning the RICO act... asking whether there was an avenue to pursue RICO act investigations against the denial industry. Orekses is heard to clearly speak to including that measure while distinctly saying (I paraphrase), "as might apply to unlawful actions". Nothing about, as you stated, "arrested for opinions... or thought collusion".

[waldo]

More examples of religious fanaticism from alarmists:

Charles Krauthammer says it right up front in his Washington Post column: Im not a global warming believer. Im not a global warming denier.

He does, however, challenge the notion that the science on climate change is settled and says those who insist otherwise are engaged in a crude attempt to silence critics and delegitimize debate.

How ironic, then, that some environmental activists launched a petition urging the Post not to publish Krauthammers column on Friday.

oh my! And what are journalist Krauthammer's 'scientific chops'? Since you're keen to hear from a journalist and you reference his Washington Post op-ed article..... here, have another journalist, this time, one of the Washington Post's own editors countering the Krauthammer article (in his own paper):

Krauthammer misleads on global warming

.

[waldo]

Another example from the NYT for those trying to pretend that the 10:10 video was an aberration rather than an accurate reflection of the mindset of many climate alarmists. Panel 4 is the offensive part.

It is actually not that surprising that some alarmists fantasize about murdering skeptics if you consider how they have convinced themselves that CO2 will bring about the destruction of the planet. This kind of stuff is why I say climate alarmism is a religion without the god-stuff (unless you call the planet a god).

and yet another of your dabbles into WTFIUWT! Oh my! So your go-to is now a couple of NYT cartoonists! What does it say about your own personal depths that you would assign the content within a cartoon to the collective mindset... what you call "an accurate reflection of that mindset"... of anyone you presume to label a "climate alarmist". Of course, as you've been pressed to elaborate on in the past, that includes everyone/anyone who dares to prescribe to acceptance of AGW with a want to seek amelioration of climate change impacts through a policy driven combination of mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures.