Discussion:
Why climate denialists are blind to facts and reason - The role of ideology
(too old to reply)
Lone Ranger
2009-03-02 22:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
...




http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/

A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The deniers
are winning, especially with the GOP", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% fewer Republicans believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of denialist responses.
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especially-with-the-gop/)
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate denialists are and why they behave as they do.

Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change
denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well
informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite,
or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based
on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global
warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use,
you will get nowhere. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick
the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context,
support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked
counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you
and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in
countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them
and start all over again.

After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and
confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn
even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to
convince the denialist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all
your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I
doing wrong?

The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise.
You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real
and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered
by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical
thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're
skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail
to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with
ones that better describe the facts.

Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in
an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct
or not since their intention is not to establish that something is
true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If
they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just
as well for their purposes as does the truth.

When I speak about denialists, mind you, I'm not talking about people
who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue.
Nor am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists
over the details of global warming, i.e. What will the earth's
temperature be if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per million,
twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?

No, the true climate change denialist is an ideologue. Understanding
this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to
knowing how to respond to denialist arguments.

Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which
all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin
(Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism),
restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism),
the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government"
(Conservative/Libertarian). These are all a priori systems. Once
the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated
chain of deductive reasoning - Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn
Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all
debate outside the ideology's framework ends. One may deduce
new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the
fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning
might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological
security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most
urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus,
inevitably, by its very nature, anti-empirical.

An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an
issue in order to make policy decisions, because his ideology provides
him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues
run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up
problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.

For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the
overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case.
If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming
as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so
big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it.
But for a conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible
because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL
problems and that the solution to all problems is "freedom".

Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the
"liberals" concerned about climate change of having invented it as an
excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that
I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global
warming need to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic
masters' bidding.

Witness a denialist response to the assertion that most scientists
believe in the reality of global warming from the Climate Progress
blog I referenced above:

<quote>This is actual (sic) a very small group of people. It doesn't
include the millions of other scientist (sic) and engineers who have
training in physics and chemistry and are quite capable of
understaning (sic) the phony balony (sic) being tauted (sic) by the
IPCC and its affilliated (sic) white-coated welfare queens. <unquote>

Government science is corrupt science because it's government
science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the
other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science
for the capitalist heroes who defend our "freedom".

The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism
too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State
but private capital. It's no accident that in the former Soviet Union
a clear distinction was made between bourgeois science and Soviet
science. According to this view there are no facts, only political
points of view.

That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a
basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues - be
they religious zealots, communists, fascists or
libertarian-conservatives.

Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen
to facts in order to desperately compose counter arguments. I say
desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an
uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think
of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack
on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though
it's not your intention.

So how does one talk to a climate denialist?

In short, one should generally ignore the denialists and concentrate
on persuading the open minded. They are the ones you should be trying
to reach. The denialists are already beyond the pale. They will only
be convinced once all the sea ice and polar bears are gone, it's a 130
degrees in the shade in a drought-stricken Las Vegas and we have
suffered multiple large scale disasters on our own territory, if then.

Now lest I be accused of simplifying reality myself, let me add a few
words about what I perceive as the 4 basic categories of Climaticide
denialists and their relationship to ideology. The categories are:

1. Plutocrats

2. Shills

3. Literate conservative/libertarian ideologues

4. The right-wing booboisie

For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their greed and a
thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills
(scientists and academics paid by the plutocrats to deny global
warming), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their
corporate masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to
categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large.

For the literate ideologues, their ideology is central to their
political views and to their world view. I suspect that there are many
engineers and other technical professionals in this category along
with much of the business class. The right-wing booboisie, (the Rush
Limbaugh fanatics et.al) have also bought the conservative/libertarian
ideological view, but they purchased it in the alley at the back door,
since they would never be allowed into the store through the front
door. These are the resentful poor and poorly educated who have bought
the culture wars frame or who, because of their social conservatism
have embraced the ideology of the Robber Barons in a fight against
mythical elites who keep them enslaved by driving Volvos, drinking
lattes and removing their 10-commandment plaques from public
buildings.

For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the
role that conservative/libertarian ideology plays in determining
Climaticide denialist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can
be very useful in making sense of the denialist position, a position
which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical thinking, but
in political and psychological needs.



--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
JohnM
2009-03-02 22:44:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 2, 11:22 pm, Lone Ranger
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
...
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts...
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The deniers
are winning, especially with the GOP", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% fewer Republicans believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of denialist responses.
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especia...)
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate denialists are and why they behave as they do.
Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change
denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well
informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite,
or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based
on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global
warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use,
you will get nowhere. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick
the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context,
support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked
counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you
and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in
countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them
and start all over again.
After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and
confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn
even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to
convince the denialist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all
your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I
doing wrong?
The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise.
You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real
and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered
by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical
thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're
skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail
to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with
ones that better describe the facts.
Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in
an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct
or not since their intention is not to establish that something is
true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If
they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just
as well for their purposes as does the truth.
When I speak about denialists, mind you, I'm not talking about people
who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue.
Nor am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists
over the details of global warming, i.e. What will the earth's
temperature be if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per million,
twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?
No, the true climate change denialist is an ideologue. Understanding
this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to
knowing how to respond to denialist arguments.
Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which
all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin
(Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism),
restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism),
the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government"
(Conservative/Libertarian). These are all a priori systems. Once
the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated
chain of deductive reasoning - Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn
Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all
debate outside the ideology's framework ends. One may deduce
new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the
fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning
might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological
security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most
urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus,
inevitably, by its very nature, anti-empirical.
An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an
issue in order to make policy decisions, because his ideology provides
him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues
run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up
problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.
For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the
overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case.
If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming
as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so
big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it.
But for a conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible
because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL
problems and that the solution to all problems is "freedom".
Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the
"liberals" concerned about climate change of having invented it as an
excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that
I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global
warming need to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic
masters' bidding.
Witness a denialist response to the assertion that most scientists
believe in the reality of global warming from the Climate Progress
<quote>This is actual (sic) a very small group of people. It doesn't
include the millions of other scientist (sic) and engineers who have
training in physics and chemistry and are quite capable of
understaning (sic) the phony balony (sic) being tauted (sic) by the
IPCC and its affilliated (sic) white-coated welfare queens. <unquote>
Government science is corrupt science because it's government
science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the
other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science
for the capitalist heroes who defend our "freedom".
The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism
too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State
but private capital. It's no accident that in the former Soviet Union
a clear distinction was made between bourgeois science and Soviet
science. According to this view there are no facts, only political
points of view.
That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a
basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues - be
they religious zealots, communists, fascists or
libertarian-conservatives.
Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen
to facts in order to desperately compose counter arguments. I say
desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an
uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think
of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack
on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though
it's not your intention.
So how does one talk to a climate denialist?
In short, one should generally ignore the denialists and concentrate
on persuading the open minded. They are the ones you should be trying
to reach. The denialists are already beyond the pale. They will only
be convinced once all the sea ice and polar bears are gone, it's a 130
degrees in the shade in a drought-stricken Las Vegas and we have
suffered multiple large scale disasters on our own territory, if then.
Now lest I be accused of simplifying reality myself, let me add a few
words about what I perceive as the 4 basic categories of Climaticide
1. Plutocrats
2. Shills
3. Literate conservative/libertarian ideologues
4. The right-wing booboisie
For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their greed and a
thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills
(scientists and academics paid by the plutocrats to deny global
warming), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their
corporate masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to
categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large.
For the literate ideologues, their ideology is central to their
political views and to their world view. I suspect that there are many
engineers and other technical professionals in this category along
with much of the business class. The right-wing booboisie, (the Rush
Limbaugh fanatics et.al) have also bought the conservative/libertarian
ideological view, but they purchased it in the alley at the back door,
since they would never be allowed into the store through the front
door. These are the resentful poor and poorly educated who have bought
the culture wars frame or who, because of their social conservatism
have embraced the ideology of the Robber Barons in a fight against
mythical elites who keep them enslaved by driving Volvos, drinking
lattes and removing their 10-commandment plaques from public
buildings.
For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the
role that conservative/libertarian ideology plays in determining
Climaticide denialist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can
be very useful in making sense of the denialist position, a position
which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical thinking, but
in political and psychological needs.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
Thank you, Kimosabi.

Or perhaps not, as I see that my worst fears about CC are more-and-
more likely to be realised. And if it turns out that Marx was right
after all, and capitalism's seeds of destruction really germinate,
that's definitely not a nice prospect either. Starts to look like
Catch 22, but without the brilliant satire to bring a smile.
Mr Right
2009-03-02 23:51:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Lone Ranger
<***@bigfoot.com.spamalamadingdong> wrote:

This article is NOT a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.

In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this article,
have converted to skepticism because of it.
Roger Coppock
2009-03-03 11:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Right
On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Lone Ranger
This article is NOT  a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this article,
have converted to skepticism because of it.
397? A fossil fool makes-up another number.
Mr Right
2009-03-03 11:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Right
On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Lone Ranger
This article is NOT  a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this article,
have converted to skepticism because of it.
397?  A fossil fool makes-up another number.
< > This article is NOT a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
<
< > In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this
article,
< > have converted to skepticism because of it.
<
< 397? A fossil fool makes-up another number.

No, I calculated it from a linear regression. R squared = 0.78

By the way, I am not a fossil, or a fool.

If you wish to insult my intelligence, then please declare your
qualifications, so that people can compare yours to mine. (Lloyd and
Trevor have been too chicken to do this).

Use of the term "fossil fool", identifies you as an AGW Alarmist, and
a carbon crackpot.
Roger Coppock
2009-03-03 13:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Right
On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Lone Ranger
This article is NOT  a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this article,
have converted to skepticism because of it.
397?  A fossil fool makes-up another number.
< > This article is NOT  a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
<
< > In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this
article,
< > have converted to skepticism because of it.
<
< 397?  A fossil fool makes-up another number.
No, I calculated it from a linear regression. R squared = 0.78
LOL! A lie, and another made up number.
By the way, I am not a fossil, or a fool.
Two more lies.
marcodbeast
2009-03-04 15:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mr Right
On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Lone Ranger
This article is NOT a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this
article, have converted to skepticism because of it.
397? A fossil fool makes-up another number.
< > This article is NOT a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
<
< > In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this
article,
< > have converted to skepticism because of it.
<
< 397? A fossil fool makes-up another number.
No, I calculated it from a linear regression. R squared = 0.78
By the way, I am not a fossil, or a fool.
Really? You post like both.
W***@Ireland.com
2009-03-03 15:08:44 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:51:55 -0800 (PST), Mr Right
Post by Mr Right
On Mar 3, 11:22 am, Lone Ranger
This article is NOT a good advertisement for AGW Alarmism.
In the last hour, 397 AGW Alarmists who started to read this article,
have converted to skepticism because of it.
I guess you're the Tail-gunner Joe McCarthy of the Denialist set?

WB Yeats
Buerste
2009-03-03 03:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/
<snip>

Congratulations! That is the most arrogant, pompous, fringe diatribe I have
EVER seen! It reeks of politics, class warfare, false religion and hatred.
Any normal person that sees this will be enlightened to the truth about the
scam and lies that the AGW is.
zoobn
2009-03-04 01:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Congratulations! That is the most arrogant, pompous, fringe diatribe I
have
EVER seen! It reeks of politics, class warfare, false religion and hatred.
Any normal person that sees this will be enlightened to the truth about the
scam and lies that the AGW is.
you mean like where the article says "The latest version of this
tactic that I've encountered is that none of the science in support of
global warming need to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic
masters' bidding. "?
***************************************************************************

I think he's got it!!!

Lies The IPCC Will Tell You

Klaus Rohrich

February 4 2009



QUOTE: So the real reason behind the global warming hysteria is and always
has been, about the redistribution of wealth.



QUOTE: If the planet really were in the throes of cataclysmic crises, as the
climate change hysterics claim, then reducing carbon emissions, all carbon
emissions, would be the key, regardless of whether the "polluter" is a
developed or developing nation.



QUOTE: In fact, severe winters have been a trend in Europe for the past
decade, yet somehow this fact seems to be lost on those who insist that
we're
all going to die because of climate change.



QUOTE: Yet the morons at the head of this debate are attempting to convince
the gullible and ovine populace that the key building block on which 99% of
all earth's life is based is toxic.







The recent announcement by the IPCC, the UN body charged with whipping up
global hysteria over climate change, that "developing countries" would be
exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate
change is a total scam that's much more focused on improving economic
conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change.



The reasoning behind such a conclusion should be obvious, given that if the
earth's climate truly were on the verge of a total and catastrophic
collapse, then no one would really care about whether or not developing
countries should be exempted from carbon emissions.



The Copenhagen Climate Conference of 2009 is promising to issue some of the
strictest regulations yet regarding carbon emissions that would have
developed nations basically shutting down their economies while waiting for
the economies of developing nations, which will be able to continue spewing
carbon into the atmosphere at will, to catch up.



Redistribution of Wealth



So the real reason behind the global warming hysteria is and always has
been, about the redistribution of wealth.



If the planet really were in the throes of cataclysmic crises, as the
climate change hysterics claim, then reducing carbon emissions, all carbon
emissions, would be the key, regardless of whether the "polluter" is a
developed or developing nation.



As it stands, these so-called strict emission controls that the IPCC is
promising are aimed primarily at wealthy nations, while those less wealthy
would get a free pass.



One would think that individuals who have bought into the global
warming/climate change scam would take the time to look out their windows,
rather than swallow the climate change garbage trickling into their homes
through the media.



Global warming stopped abruptly some 10 years ago and a new cooling trend
has taken hold. Those in rampant denial need merely to look at the streets
of London and Madrid where this week 30 cm of snow and ice are wreaking
havoc with people's lives.



In fact, severe winters have been a trend in Europe for the past decade, yet
somehow this fact seems to be lost on those who insist that we're all going
to die because of climate change.



Height of ignorance

The very idea of vilifying a substance like carbon and calling it a
"pollutant" is the height of ignorance, given that most life on earth is,
how shall I put it, carbon-based.



There are four elements, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen that make
life on earth possible. Without these, no life. Yet the morons at the head
of this debate are attempting to convince the gullible and ovine populace
that the key building block on which 99% of all earth's life is based is
toxic.



A belief in catastrophic climate change is one of the orthodoxies of
liberalism, along with many other, equally silly beliefs. As our own Dr.
Tim Ball pointed out in these pages earlier, plant life, which produces
oxygen, another necessary element for animal life to survive, does so by
consuming carbon and exuding oxygen, which we then breathe. So the whackos
that want to outlaw carbon emissions could end up destroying all life on
earth as one of their unintended consequences.



But don't take my word for it.



Listen to what the climate change lobby appears to be saying. Carbon
emissions from developed nations are harmful, while those from developing
nations aren't.



Does that make any sense?



Or is this a case of the rumors of earth's imminent demise being greatly
exaggerated?



http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8184





Warmest Regards



Bonzo
s***@neuf.fr
2009-03-04 01:18:41 UTC
Permalink
A NATION OF FATMOUTHED GUTLESS RATS INDEED !

AN ANTI¨PODEAN HELL ON EARTH WHERE THE TRUTH BECOME FALSE AND WHERE
FRAUDS & CRIMINALS ARE HAILED AS HEROES !

A LAND OF BASTARDS (LOB) WHERE THE LEADERS HAVE NOT THE LEAST RESPECT
FOR THEIR OWN DEMAND IN PARLIAMENT ( referring to the Royal Inquiry
required by Attorney General Evans on 6 occasions to punish the
Newmont/Newcrest/Boral & BHP Mining Criminals in the Telfer Mine
Swindle of Trillilons $), WHERE SEX-SMELLERS PRACTICE IN SUCH
PARLIAMENTS AND WHERE DEAD POOFTERS ARE PRAISED SKY HIGH ! SO
ADMIRABLE INDEED IN THE LOB !

A NATION OF HUMAN ROT AND DEGENERATE MORONS WHO HAVE NOT THE LEAST
RESPECT, GRATITUDE & RECOGNITION FOR THOSE WHO DID IT IMMENSE GOOD !

A DEFINITIVE SHITLAND OF DIRT, DUST & DESPAIR ( the DDD also of the
LOB) WHERE THE FIRST STEP IN THAT UNDERWORLD IS THE FIRST OF A SLOW
PAINFUL DEATH !

AN INFERNO INDEED WHERE THIEVING ROBBING, FALSIFYING, LYING,
PRETENDING, MURDERING ARE CONSIDERED AS VIRTUES !

FINALLY THE REALIZATION OF A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME DISCOVERING 3
MINES AND PUTTING A TOWN FOR THAT CONGREGATION OF ANTIPODEAN SCUM &
CONVICT RABBLE INDEED, except for another realization of the complete
Frauds of present Geology Theories developed by tradesless imbeciles
& still supported by such up to now. This leading to the development
of the True Geology of which one of the main conclusion is the
Worthlessness of Gold due to the fact that being the very core of that
Earth and available in Zillions of tons upon the Belt of Aerolites
( blasted remain in orbit of previous planet) ... and so are Diamonds,
the marker of the Genesis of Carbon and available then in millions of
tons in the peridotite layer of the Crust ( and hence in the Aerolites
Belt) Both Gold and Diamonds are available in millions and 1000s of
tons in subsea sedimentary deposits of which the True Geology has
determined 4 main occurences. It brings then evidence that all Mines
in the LOB are worhless since same conclusion can be drawn relative to
other minerals.

IN CONCLUSION THAT AUSTRALIAN FILTH IS THE CLOSER ONE CAN COME TO
TOUCH EVILDOERS BY DEDICATION & PLEASURE

Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud
Australia Mining Pioneer ( and Ashamed of it)
Discoverer of Telfer Mine ( Australia largest Copper & Gold MIne)
Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines, all in the Great Sandy Desert
+ re-discoverer of the Rooney show aka Lasseter's reef (IMO)
Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant
Founder of the True Geology

~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~


for background info.
http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html
http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html
http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm
True Geology Foundation document :
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/69327
Bob Hawke
2009-03-04 02:19:57 UTC
Permalink
<***@neuf.fr> wrote in message news:8fd06254-e919-4d5b-a2bf-***@r36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
A NATION OF FATMOUTHED GUTLESS RATS INDEED !
SNIP Le-Turd DRIVEL !!
Now Le-Turd - be a good little boy, sit down, calm down and have a good
stiff drink of that cheap red plonk you poor Frogs have to drink over there.

When you have calmed down a bit, ask those chaps in the white coats to lock
you up in your rubber room again?

P.S. How did you manager to escape?
Surfer
2009-03-04 04:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by zoobn
The recent announcement by the IPCC, the UN body charged with whipping up
global hysteria over climate change, that "developing countries" would be
exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate
change is a total scam that's much more focused on improving economic
conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change.
No. Its just a recognition that Third World countries already emit
much less CO2 per capita than First World countries, so to require
them to make cuts would be completely unjust.

Annual carbon emmissons in metric tons per capita in 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

India 1.20
China 3.84

Australia 16.63
USA 20.4
zoobn
2009-03-04 04:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Surfer
Post by zoobn
The recent announcement by the IPCC, the UN body charged with whipping up
global hysteria over climate change, that "developing countries" would be
exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate
change is a total scam that's much more focused on improving economic
conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change.
No. Its just a recognition that Third World countries already emit
much less CO2 per capita than First World countries, so to require
them to make cuts would be completely unjust.
Annual carbon emmissons in metric tons per capita in 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
India 1.20
China 3.84
Australia 16.63
USA 20.4
Oh yeah, but if, as you claim, "manmade warming is an extreme emergency"
then it should be the TOTAL CO2 emisssions which should be looked at.
So China is practically top of the list and Australia at the bottom.
This PROVES that the AGW scam is nothing but an attempt by whacko greenie
socialists at hobbling western democracies.




Warmest Regards

Bonzo
Surfer
2009-03-04 05:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by zoobn
Post by Surfer
Post by zoobn
The recent announcement by the IPCC, the UN body charged with whipping up
global hysteria over climate change, that "developing countries" would be
exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate
change is a total scam that's much more focused on improving economic
conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change.
No. Its just a recognition that Third World countries already emit
much less CO2 per capita than First World countries, so to require
them to make cuts would be completely unjust.
Annual carbon emmissons in metric tons per capita in 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
India 1.20
China 3.84
Australia 16.63
USA 20.4
Oh yeah, but if, as you claim, "manmade warming is an extreme emergency"
then it should be the TOTAL CO2 emisssions which should be looked at.
So China is practically top of the list and Australia at the bottom.
Chinese voters are not going to support policies that require them to
limit individual emissions to 1/4 of that of Australian individuals.
Post by zoobn
This PROVES that the AGW scam is nothing but an attempt by whacko greenie
socialists at hobbling western democracies.
It just proves that the solution involves politics.
Surfer
2009-03-05 16:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by zoobn
Post by Surfer
Post by zoobn
The recent announcement by the IPCC, the UN body charged with whipping up
global hysteria over climate change, that "developing countries" would be
exempt from emission cuts is proof that the idea of catastrophic climate
change is a total scam that's much more focused on improving economic
conditions in the Third World than on combating climate change.
No. Its just a recognition that Third World countries already emit
much less CO2 per capita than First World countries, so to require
them to make cuts would be completely unjust.
Annual carbon emmissons in metric tons per capita in 2004
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
India 1.20
China 3.84
Australia 16.63
USA 20.4
Oh yeah, but if, as you claim, "manmade warming is an extreme emergency"
then it should be the TOTAL CO2 emisssions which should be looked at.
So China is practically top of the list and Australia at the bottom.
Chinese voters are not going to support policies that require them to
limit individual emissions to 1/4 of that of Australian individuals.
Post by zoobn
This PROVES that the AGW scam is nothing but an attempt by whacko greenie
socialists at hobbling western democracies.
It just proves that a workable solution requires agreement by both
developed and developing countries.
marcodbeast
2009-03-04 15:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buerste
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/
<snip>
Congratulations! That is the most arrogant, pompous, fringe diatribe
I have EVER seen! It reeks of politics, class warfare, false
religion and hatred.
No, that would be your posts. lol
Lone Ranger
2009-05-06 10:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Buerste
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts-and-reason/
<snip>
Post by Lone Ranger
Re: Why climate denialists are blind to facts and reason - The role of ideology
Congratulations! That is the most arrogant, pompous, fringe diatribe I have
EVER seen! It reeks of politics, class warfare, false religion and hatred.
Any normal person that sees this will be enlightened to the truth about the
scam and lies that the AGW is.
Thank you for proving Johnny Rook right!


--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--

l***@primus.ca
2009-03-03 03:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
** Johnny Rook has dabbled in a lot of
things and succeeded in none. So now he is
picking up a new cliché du jour: climate
denialists, which do not exist except in the
fantasies of fascist AGW alarmist
propagandists.

AlGore's propaganda machine, in efforts to
discredit any among those sceptical of his lies
by associating it with Holocaust deniers.

Lately more more and more sceptics are
demanding that the alarmists either provide
some legitimate factual data proving their
thesis or shut up and get out of town.

So far neither IPCC nor has anyone else provided
    one iota of valid data for global warming nor have
     they provided data that climate change is being
   effected by commerce and industry, and not by
    natural phenomena.

- -
** The evidence from Mars destroys the notion
that humans are responsible for warming
Earth. Mars has global warming, but without
a greenhouse and without the participation of
Martians.
Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov
marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
Jeffrey Turner
2009-03-04 03:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@primus.ca
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
** Johnny Rook has dabbled in a lot of
things and succeeded in none. So now he is
picking up a new cliché du jour: climate
denialists, which do not exist except in the
fantasies of fascist AGW alarmist
propagandists.
Considering you hardly know which end of a science text to read first,
I'll listen to the scientists who know what they're doing.

--Jeff
--
It is very easy for rich people to preach
the virtues of self-reliance to the poor.
--Winston Churchill
t***@gmail.com
2009-03-03 15:20:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 2, 4:22 pm, Lone Ranger
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
...
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts...
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The deniers
are winning, especially with the GOP", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% fewer Republicans believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of denialist responses.
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especia...)
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate denialists are and why they behave as they do.
Interesting how the article fails to mention that the perecentage of
democrats who are "deniers" on the agw issue are better than 50% and
close to 60%.
Lloyd
2009-03-03 16:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 4:22 pm, Lone Ranger
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
...
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts...
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The deniers
are winning, especially with the GOP", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% fewer Republicans believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of denialist responses.
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especia...)
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate denialists are and why they behave as they do.
Interesting how the article fails to mention that the perecentage of
democrats who are "deniers" on the agw issue are better than 50% and
close to 60%.
Interesting that you are a pathological liar. Come on, come out of
the closet and admit it.
t***@gmail.com
2009-03-03 18:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 4:22 pm, Lone Ranger
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
...
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts...
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The deniers
are winning, especially with the GOP", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% fewer Republicans believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of denialist responses.
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especia...)
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate denialists are and why they behave as they do.
Interesting how the article fails to mention that the perecentage of
democrats who are "deniers" on the agw issue are better than 50% and
close to 60%.
Interesting that you are a pathological liar.  Come on, come out of
the closet and admit it.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Did you notice that there are a substantial bunch of both democrats
and republicans that don't but into the agw bullshit?
Ayatollah Obama
2009-03-03 16:55:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 2, 4:22 pm, Lone Ranger
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts. He is the editor of 'Climaticide
Chronicles' (http://climaticidechronicles.org/). He has some
interesting thoughts about climate denialists.
...
http://www.celsias.com/article/why-climate-denialists-are-blind-facts...
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The deniers
are winning, especially with the GOP", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% fewer Republicans believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of denialist responses.
(http://climateprogress.org/2008/05/09/the-deniers-are-winning-especia...)
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate denialists are and why they behave as they do.
Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change
denialist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well
informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite,
or how many times you point out the overwhelming agreement based
on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global
warming is real and is principally caused by human fossil fuel use,
you will get nowhere. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick
the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context,
support his/her denialist view, or drag out long-debunked
counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you
and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in
countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them
and start all over again.
After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and
confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn
even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to
convince the denialist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all
your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I
doing wrong?
The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise.
You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real
and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered
by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical
thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're
skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail
to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with
ones that better describe the facts.
Denialists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in
an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct
or not since their intention is not to establish that something is
true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If
they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just
as well for their purposes as does the truth.
When I speak about denialists, mind you, I'm not talking about people
who are skeptical only because they are uninformed about the issue.
Nor am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists
over the details of global warming, i.e. What will the earth's
temperature be if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per million,
twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?
No, the true climate change denialist is an ideologue. Understanding
this fact is key to comprehending the denialist mentality and to
knowing how to respond to denialist arguments.
Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which
all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin
(Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism),
restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism),
the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government"
(Conservative/Libertarian). These are all a priori systems. Once
the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated
chain of deductive reasoning - Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn
Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all
debate outside the ideology's framework ends. One may deduce
new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the
fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning
might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological
security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most
urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus,
inevitably, by its very nature, anti-empirical.
An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an
issue in order to make policy decisions, because his ideology provides
him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues
run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up
problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.
For conservative/libertarian ideologues who compose the
overwhelming majority of denialists, Climaticide is just such a case.
If a conservative/libertarian ideologue were to accept global warming
as real then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so
big and so complex that government action is required to deal with it.
But for a conservative/libertarian ideologue that is impossible
because he/she believes that government is the cause of ALL
problems and that the solution to all problems is "freedom".
Denialists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the
"liberals" concerned about climate change of having invented it as an
excuse to expand government. The latest version of this tactic that
I've encountered is that none of the science in support of global
warming need to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are only doing their bureaucratic
masters' bidding.
Witness a denialist response to the assertion that most scientists
believe in the reality of global warming from the Climate Progress
<quote>This is actual (sic) a very small group of people. It doesn't
include the millions of other scientist (sic) and engineers who have
training in physics and chemistry and are quite capable of
understaning (sic) the phony balony (sic) being tauted (sic) by the
IPCC and its affilliated (sic) white-coated welfare queens. <unquote>
Government science is corrupt science because it's government
science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the
other hand are free of this corruption because they are doing science
for the capitalist heroes who defend our "freedom".
The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism
too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State
but private capital. It's no accident that in the former Soviet Union
a clear distinction was made between bourgeois science and Soviet
science. According to this view there are no facts, only political
points of view.
That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a
basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues - be
they religious zealots, communists, fascists or
libertarian-conservatives.
Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen
to facts in order to desperately compose counter arguments. I say
desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an
uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think
of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack
on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though
it's not your intention.
So how does one talk to a climate denialist?
In short, one should generally ignore the denialists and concentrate
on persuading the open minded. They are the ones you should be trying
to reach. The denialists are already beyond the pale. They will only
be convinced once all the sea ice and polar bears are gone, it's a 130
degrees in the shade in a drought-stricken Las Vegas and we have
suffered multiple large scale disasters on our own territory, if then.
Now lest I be accused of simplifying reality myself, let me add a few
words about what I perceive as the 4 basic categories of Climaticide
1. Plutocrats
2. Shills
3. Literate conservative/libertarian ideologues
4. The right-wing booboisie
For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their greed and a
thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills
(scientists and academics paid by the plutocrats to deny global
warming), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their
corporate masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to
categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large.
For the literate ideologues, their ideology is central to their
political views and to their world view. I suspect that there are many
engineers and other technical professionals in this category along
with much of the business class. The right-wing booboisie, (the Rush
Limbaugh fanatics et.al) have also bought the conservative/libertarian
ideological view, but they purchased it in the alley at the back door,
since they would never be allowed into the store through the front
door. These are the resentful poor and poorly educated who have bought
the culture wars frame or who, because of their social conservatism
have embraced the ideology of the Robber Barons in a fight against
mythical elites who keep them enslaved by driving Volvos, drinking
lattes and removing their 10-commandment plaques from public
buildings.
For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the
role that conservative/libertarian ideology plays in determining
Climaticide denialist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can
be very useful in making sense of the denialist position, a position
which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical ...
read more »
You are in dire need of a lobotomy, thorazine. You are apparently the
product of the uberlib socialist DemonCrap destroyed "pubic" edukation
system. What a fucking moron you are.!

It IS about money! follow the fucking dollars you fucking loon....
they lead straight to al gore's fucking carbon credit company. He
wants to be a billionaire, and morons like you are gonna make sure it
happens!
mrbawana2u
2009-03-04 04:59:11 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 2, 5:22 pm, Lone Ranger
Post by Lone Ranger
Johnny Rook is a linguist and historian by training, and has
taught in several universities and colleges, worked launching
rockets in the aerospace industry and as an interpreter in the
United States Federal Courts.
He worked launching rockets as an an interpreter in the United States
Federal Courts?
That qualifies him as a climate expert in lib-turd-land?
Post by Lone Ranger
[delusional crap flushed]
Cat_in_awe
2009-03-04 20:52:49 UTC
Permalink
Fixed your post:

A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The alarmists
are winning, especially with the Dems", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% more Democrats believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of alarmist responses.
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate alarmists are and why they behave as they do.

Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change
alarmist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well
informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite,
or how many times you point out the overwhelming disagreement based
on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global
warming is real and is likely not caused by human fossil fuel use,
you will get nowhere. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick
the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context,
support his/her alarmist view, or drag out long-debunked
counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you
and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in
countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them
and start all over again.

After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and
confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn
even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to
convince the alarmist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all
your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I
doing wrong?

The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise.
You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real
and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered
by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical
thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're
skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail
to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with
ones that better describe the facts.

Aarmists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in
an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct
or not since their intention is not to establish that something is
true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If
they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just
as well for their purposes as does the truth.

When I speak about alarmists, mind you, I'm not talking about people
who are dogmatic only because they are uninformed about the issue.
Nor am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists
over the details of global warming, i.e. Will the earth's
temperature be changed much at all if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per
million,
twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?

No, the true climate change alarmist is an ideologue. Understanding
this fact is key to comprehending the alarmist mentality and to
knowing how to respond to alarmist arguments.

Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which
all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin
(Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism),
restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism),
the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government"
(Conservative/Libertarian). These are all a priori systems. Once
the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated
chain of deductive reasoning - Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn
Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all
debate outside the ideology's framework ends. One may deduce
new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the
fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning
might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological
security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most
urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus,
inevitably, by its very nature, anti-empirical.

An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an
issue in order to make policy decisions, because his ideology provides
him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues
run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up
problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.

For liberal ideologues who compose the
overwhelming majority of alarmists, Climaticide is just such a case.
If a liberal ideologue were to accept global warming as natural
then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so slight that
no government action is required to deal with it.
But for a liberal ideologue that is impossible
because he/she believes that government is the source of ALL
solutions and that the solution to all problems is governmental force.

Alarmists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the
"conservatives" who aren't concerned about climate change of using it as an
excuse to protect corporations. The latest version of this tactic that
I've encountered is that all of the science in support of global
warming needs to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are doing 'good works' for the society.

Witness an alarmist response to the assertion that many scientists
disagree with the reality of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

<quote>This is actual (sic) a very small group of people. It doesn't
include the millions of other scientist (sic) and engineers who have
training in physics and chemistry and are quite capable of
understaning (sic) the phony balony (sic) being tauted (sic) by the
alarmist lobby and its governmental masters.<unquote>

Alamists assume government science is honest science because it's government
science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the
other hand is corrupt doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our
"freedom".

The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism
too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State
but private capital. It's no accident that in the former Soviet Union
a clear distinction was made between bourgeois science and Soviet
science. According to this view there are no facts, only political
points of view.

That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a
basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues - be
they religious zealots, communists, fascists or
libertarian-conservatives.

Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen
to facts in order to desperately compose counter arguments. I say
desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an
uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think
of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack
on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though
it's not your intention.

So how does one talk to a climate alarmist?

In short, one should generally ignore the alarmists and concentrate
on persuading the open minded. They are the ones you should be trying
to reach. The alarmists are already beyond the pale. They will only
be convinced once nothing extraordinary happens with climate for the next
100 years, if then.

Now lest I be accused of simplifying reality myself, let me add a few
words about what I perceive as the 4 basic categories of Climaticide
alarmists and their relationship to ideology. The categories are:

1. Plutocrats

2. Shills

3. Literate liberal ideologues

4. The left-wing booboisie

For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their power-lust and a
thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills
(scientists and academics paid by the government to inflate global
warming fears), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their
government masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to
categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large.

For the literate ideologues, their ideology is central to their
political views and to their world view. I suspect that there are many
engineers and other technical professionals in this category along
with much of the business class. The left-wing booboisie, (the Obamamaniacs,
et.al) have also bought the liberal
ideological view, but they purchased it in the alley at the back door,
since they would never be allowed into the store through the front
door. These are the resentful poor and poorly educated who have bought
the culture wars frame or who, because of their social liberalism
have embraced the ideology of their bureaucratic masters in a fight against
mythical elites who keep them enslaved by driving SUVs, drinking
bourbon and erecting their 10-commandment plaques in public
buildings.

For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the
role that liberal ideology plays in determining
Climaticide alarmist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can
be very useful in making sense of the alarmist position, a position
which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical thinking, but
in political and psychological needs.
j***@gmail.com
2009-03-05 09:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Unable to compose English by yourself, huh?
Post by Cat_in_awe
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The alarmists
are winning, especially with the Dems", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% more Democrats believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of alarmist responses.
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate alarmists are and why they behave as they do.
Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change
alarmist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well
informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite,
or how many times you point out the overwhelming disagreement based
on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global
warming is real and is likely not caused by human fossil fuel use,
you will get nowhere. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick
the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context,
support his/her alarmist view, or drag out long-debunked
counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you
and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in
countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them
and start all over again.
After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and
confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn
even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to
convince the alarmist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all
your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I
doing wrong?
The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise.
You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real
and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered
by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical
thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're
skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail
to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with
ones that better describe the facts.
Aarmists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in
an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct
or not since their intention is not to establish that something is
true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If
they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just
as well for their purposes as does the truth.
When I speak about alarmists, mind you, I'm not talking about people
who are dogmatic only because they are uninformed about the issue.
Nor am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists
over the details of global warming, i.e. Will the earth's
temperature be changed much at all if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per
million,
twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?
No, the true climate change alarmist is an ideologue. Understanding
this fact is key to comprehending the alarmist mentality and to
knowing how to respond to alarmist arguments.
Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which
all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin
(Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism),
restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism),
the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government"
(Conservative/Libertarian). These are all a priori systems. Once
the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated
chain of deductive reasoning - Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn
Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all
debate outside the ideology's framework ends. One may deduce
new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the
fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning
might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological
security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most
urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus,
inevitably, by its very nature, anti-empirical.
An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an
issue in order to make policy decisions, because his ideology provides
him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues
run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up
problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.
For liberal ideologues who compose the
overwhelming majority of alarmists, Climaticide is just such a case.
If a liberal ideologue were to accept global warming as natural
then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so slight that
no government action is required to deal with it.
But for a liberal ideologue that is impossible
because he/she believes that government is the source of ALL
solutions and that the solution to all problems is governmental force.
Alarmists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the
"conservatives" who aren't concerned about climate change of using it as an
excuse to protect corporations. The latest version of this tactic that
I've encountered is that all of the science in support of global
warming needs to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are doing 'good works' for the society.
Witness an alarmist response to the assertion that many scientists
disagree with the reality of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
<quote>This is actual (sic) a very small group of people. It doesn't
include the millions of other scientist (sic) and engineers who have
training in physics and chemistry and are quite capable of
understaning (sic) the phony balony (sic) being tauted (sic) by the
alarmist lobby and its governmental masters.<unquote>
Alamists assume government science is honest science because it's government
science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the
other hand is corrupt doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our
"freedom".
The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism
too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State
but private capital. It's no accident that in the former Soviet Union
a clear distinction was made between bourgeois science and Soviet
science. According to this view there are no facts, only political
points of view.
That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a
basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues - be
they religious zealots, communists, fascists or
libertarian-conservatives.
Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen
to facts in order to desperately compose counter arguments. I say
desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an
uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think
of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack
on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though
it's not your intention.
So how does one talk to a climate alarmist?
In short, one should generally ignore the alarmists and concentrate
on persuading the open minded. They are the ones you should be trying
to reach. The alarmists are already beyond the pale. They will only
be convinced once nothing extraordinary happens with climate for the next
100 years, if then.
Now lest I be accused of simplifying reality myself, let me add a few
words about what I perceive as the 4 basic categories of Climaticide
1. Plutocrats
2. Shills
3. Literate liberal ideologues
4. The left-wing booboisie
For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their power-lust and a
thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills
(scientists and academics paid by the government to inflate global
warming fears), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their
government masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to
categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large.
For the literate ideologues, their ideology is central to their
political views and to their world view. I suspect that there are many
engineers and other technical professionals in this category along
with much of the business class. The left-wing booboisie, (the Obamamaniacs,
et.al) have also bought the liberal
ideological view, but they purchased it in the alley at the back door,
since they would never be allowed into the store through the front
door. These are the resentful poor and poorly educated who have bought
the culture wars frame or who, because of their social liberalism
have embraced the ideology of their bureaucratic masters in a fight against
mythical elites who keep them enslaved by driving SUVs, drinking
bourbon and erecting their 10-commandment plaques in public
buildings.
For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the
role that liberal ideology plays in determining
Climaticide alarmist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can
be very useful in making sense of the alarmist position, a position
which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical thinking, but
in political and psychological needs.
m***@gmail.com
2009-03-05 16:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Unable to compose English by yourself, huh?
Post by Cat_in_awe
A recent post by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress, "The alarmists
are winning, especially with the Dems", in which he cited a Pew Poll
showing that 13% more Democrats believe in global warming now
than did a year ago, drew a huge number of alarmist responses.
After reading them all (groan) it struck me that it might be useful to
analyze who climate alarmists are and why they behave as they do.
Anyone who has tried to discuss Climaticide with a climate change
alarmist knows just how frustrating it can be. No matter how well
informed you are, no matter how many peer-reviewed studies you cite,
or how many times you point out the overwhelming disagreement based
on the evidence that exists among climate scientists that global
warming is real and is likely not caused by human fossil fuel use,
you will get nowhere. Your adversary will deny the facts, cherry pick
the scientific evidence for bits of data that, taken out of context,
support his/her alarmist view, or drag out long-debunked
counter-arguments in the hope that they are unfamiliar to you
and that you will not be able to refute them. If you succeed in
countering all of his arguments he will most likely reword them
and start all over again.
After a couple of hours of this, you end up frustrated, angry and
confused. You give up and storm off vowing to study and learn
even more so that next time you will be better prepared and able to
convince the alarmist of the error of his/her ways. But despite all
your efforts, the next time you fare no better. What, you wonder, am I
doing wrong?
The answer is simply that you are operating off of a mistaken premise.
You think that the question of whether or not climate change is real
and has an anthropogenic (human) cause is a question to be answered
by application of an open mind, research, facts, and critical
thinking. Isn't that how scientists approach these problems? They're
skeptical and critique each others work, discarding ideas which fail
to stand up to scrutiny by their colleagues and replacing them with
ones that better describe the facts.
Aarmists, however, have no interest in facts except as weapons in
an ideological struggle. They don't even care if "facts" are correct
or not since their intention is not to establish that something is
true or false, but rather to win a battle in an ideological war. If
they can stump you or confuse you with a lie, well that works just
as well for their purposes as does the truth.
When I speak about alarmists, mind you, I'm not talking about people
who are dogmatic only because they are uninformed about the issue.
Nor am I talking about scientists who disagree with other scientists
over the details of global warming, i.e. Will the earth's
temperature be changed much at all if we allow CO2 to reach 550 parts per
million,
twice the pre-industrial level (so-called climate sensitivity)?
No, the true climate change alarmist is an ideologue. Understanding
this fact is key to comprehending the alarmist mentality and to
knowing how to respond to alarmist arguments.
Ideologues are adherents of closed, ideological systems, in which
all problems are ultimately attributed to a single cause: original sin
(Christianity), the accumulation of private property (Communism),
restrictions imposed on a superior race by inferior ones (Fascism),
the destruction of "freedom" by "Big Government"
(Conservative/Libertarian). These are all a priori systems. Once
the initial conclusion is reached (often after a long, complicated
chain of deductive reasoning - Marx's Capital, the writings of Ayn
Rand, etc.) that factor X is the source of all of society's ills, all
debate outside the ideology's framework ends. One may deduce
new positions from the ideology's fundamental principles, but the
fundamental principles can not be questioned because such questioning
might undermine the entire ideological system and the psychological
security that it provides, leaving the true believer in that most
urgently to be avoided of states: UNCERTAINTY. Ideology is thus,
inevitably, by its very nature, anti-empirical.
An ideologue doesn't believe that he needs to know the details of an
issue in order to make policy decisions, because his ideology provides
him with a ready formula for solving all problems. Where ideologues
run into difficulties however, is when the real world throws up
problems that don't fit the ideology's problem categories.
For liberal ideologues who compose the
overwhelming majority of alarmists, Climaticide is just such a case.
If a liberal ideologue were to accept global warming as natural
then he/she would be forced to admit that the problem is so slight that
no government action is required to deal with it.
But for a liberal ideologue that is impossible
because he/she believes that government is the source of ALL
solutions and that the solution to all problems is governmental force.
Alarmists frequently make this attitude explicit when they accuse the
"conservatives" who aren't concerned about climate change of using it as an
excuse to protect corporations. The latest version of this tactic that
I've encountered is that all of the science in support of global
warming needs to be taken seriously because it is the product of
government-paid scientists who are doing 'good works' for the society.
Witness an alarmist response to the assertion that many scientists
disagree with the reality of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
<quote>This is actual (sic) a very small group of people. It doesn't
include the millions of other scientist (sic) and engineers who have
training in physics and chemistry and are quite capable of
understaning (sic) the phony balony (sic) being tauted (sic) by the
alarmist lobby and its governmental masters.<unquote>
Alamists assume government science is honest science because it's government
science. "Scientists" in the pay of the oil and gas industries on the
other hand is corrupt doing science for the capitalist heroes who defend our
"freedom".
The Soviets understood this way of thinking perfectly because Marxism
too is an ideology, only in Marxism the great enemy is not the State
but private capital. It's no accident that in the former Soviet Union
a clear distinction was made between bourgeois science and Soviet
science. According to this view there are no facts, only political
points of view.
That there are no facts outside the "truths" of one's ideology is a
basic, if not always publicly expressed, tenet, of all ideologues - be
they religious zealots, communists, fascists or
libertarian-conservatives.
Arguing with such people is a waste of time because they only listen
to facts in order to desperately compose counter arguments. I say
desperately because ideologues find psychological safety from an
uncertain world in the certainties of their ideology. What you think
of as an argument about global warming, they perceive as an attack
on their entire world view. And they're right of course, even though
it's not your intention.
So how does one talk to a climate alarmist?
In short, one should generally ignore the alarmists and concentrate
on persuading the open minded. They are the ones you should be trying
to reach. The alarmists are already beyond the pale. They will only
be convinced once nothing extraordinary happens with climate for the next
100 years, if then.
Now lest I be accused of simplifying reality myself, let me add a few
words about what I perceive as the 4 basic categories of Climaticide
1. Plutocrats
2. Shills
3. Literate liberal ideologues
4. The left-wing booboisie
For the plutocrats, ideology is mostly a cover for their power-lust and a
thin salve for whatever conscience they have left. For the shills
(scientists and academics paid by the government to inflate global
warming fears), ideology is an indispensable tool, required by their
government masters, and useful in providing intellectual ammunition to
categories 3 and 4 and for bamboozling the uninformed public at large.
For the literate ideologues, their ideology is central to their
political views and to their world view. I suspect that there are many
engineers and other technical professionals in this category along
with much of the business class. The left-wing booboisie, (the Obamamaniacs,
et.al) have also bought the liberal
ideological view, but they purchased it in the alley at the back door,
since they would never be allowed into the store through the front
door. These are the resentful poor and poorly educated who have bought
the culture wars frame or who, because of their social liberalism
have embraced the ideology of their bureaucratic masters in a fight against
mythical elites who keep them enslaved by driving SUVs, drinking
bourbon and erecting their 10-commandment plaques in public
buildings.
For those of us in the reality-based community, understanding the
role that liberal ideology plays in determining
Climaticide alarmist behavior, whether sincere or simulated, can
be very useful in making sense of the alarmist position, a position
which, ultimately, is rooted not in facts and critical thinking, but
in political and psychological needs.
Wow, skeptics seem to be very defensive. I suppose it easier for a
skeptic to become outraged, rather than admit that they may have to
alter their lifestyle. I see a lot of pseudo-intelligence here,
regurgitating what you heard on Rush Limbaugh this morning hardly
makes you an expert. You claim that scientists making claims for
global warming have an agenda, however the same, or more, could be
said of scientists who are deny the threat of global warming. Do you
think that they don't have hands in their pockets? What about a
scientist has has actually contributed research and invention since
the 1930's? Perhaps the man who invented the eletron capture detector?
James E. Lovelock is an independent scientist, who has funded his
research with the inventions he has created and sold. He has worked
for NASA as well. I think if you were to research him, you find him to
be more than qualified to address this topic. The thing is, global
warming does occur naturally, however organisms effect this as well.
None of which have a more dramatic effect than humans, just as
cyanobacteria made the planet habitable for most currently existing
life, so will humans make it inhabitable. Will the earth die?
certainly not, and after most or all of us die because we can no
longer sustain such a large population, I'm sure the earth will once
again stabilize and allow complex life to evolve again. As for those
of you that think we are doing nothing wrong, and we should continue
'bussiness as usual' I find your arrogance absolutely astounding, your
skeptiscm and anger are not because you think people are trying to
"scare" you, it is because you are so selfish and unwilling to chnge
anything about your lifestyle, so unwilling to inconveniance
yourselves in the slightest way, that you would rather hope, and try
to convince yourselves that you are doing nothing wrong than give up
your Hummer. So after you read this, and you feel that flare of anger,
and start vigorously searching the web for others that might share
your rediculous opinion so that you can copy and paste it into this
forum, ask yourself... why it bothers you so much, and try to use just
an ounce of common sense... if we are emitting such vast amounts of
volatile organic compounds (and we are) and Nitrogen Oxides and yes
CO2 as well, do you really think that has no effects? at all? if so
here is an experiments for you: close all the doors and windows in
your house, take a garden hose and run it from your muffle into a door
or window, leaving it open just enough for the hose to fit in, seal or
any open spaces in the door or window, than run a full tank of gas
through your car. See how you feel. Multiply that by about 450 billion
( a conservative estimate of passenger cars worldwide)
0 effect right?
Disclaimer:
don't actually do that experiment, it would probably kill you,
seriously, some of you are about as sharp as marble, so I thought I
better let you know.
Cat_in_awe
2009-03-05 21:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
.
Wow, skeptics seem to be very defensive. I suppose it easier for a
skeptic to become outraged, rather than admit that they may have to
alter their lifestyle. I see a lot of pseudo-intelligence here,
regurgitating what you heard on Rush Limbaugh this morning hardly
makes you an expert. You claim that scientists making claims for
global warming have an agenda, however the same, or more, could be
said of scientists who are deny the threat of global warming. Do you
think that they don't have hands in their pockets? What about a
scientist has has actually contributed research and invention since
the 1930's? Perhaps the man who invented the eletron capture detector?
James E. Lovelock is an independent scientist, who has funded his
research with the inventions he has created and sold. He has worked
for NASA as well. I think if you were to research him, you find him to
be more than qualified to address this topic. The thing is, global
warming does occur naturally, however organisms effect this as well.
None of which have a more dramatic effect than humans, just as
cyanobacteria made the planet habitable for most currently existing
life, so will humans make it inhabitable. Will the earth die?
certainly not, and after most or all of us die because we can no
longer sustain such a large population, I'm sure the earth will once
again stabilize and allow complex life to evolve again. As for those
of you that think we are doing nothing wrong, and we should continue
'bussiness as usual' I find your arrogance absolutely astounding, your
skeptiscm and anger are not because you think people are trying to
"scare" you, it is because you are so selfish and unwilling to chnge
anything about your lifestyle, so unwilling to inconveniance
yourselves in the slightest way, that you would rather hope, and try
to convince yourselves that you are doing nothing wrong than give up
your Hummer. So after you read this, and you feel that flare of anger,
and start vigorously searching the web for others that might share
your rediculous opinion so that you can copy and paste it into this
forum, ask yourself... why it bothers you so much, and try to use just
an ounce of common sense... if we are emitting such vast amounts of
volatile organic compounds (and we are) and Nitrogen Oxides and yes
CO2 as well, do you really think that has no effects? at all? if so
here is an experiments for you: close all the doors and windows in
your house, take a garden hose and run it from your muffle into a door
or window, leaving it open just enough for the hose to fit in, seal or
any open spaces in the door or window, than run a full tank of gas
through your car. See how you feel. Multiply that by about 450 billion
( a conservative estimate of passenger cars worldwide)
0 effect right?
don't actually do that experiment, it would probably kill you,
seriously, some of you are about as sharp as marble, so I thought I
better let you know.
First, it is impossible to be poisoned by CO2 or N2O in the concentrations
that exist (or can possibly exist) in the Earth's atmospheric. Thus, your
last blather was idiotic.

Second, the reason I feel a 'flare of anger' is that you whackjob alarmists
propose we should spend trillions of dollars to reduce our 'carbon
footprint', when all such efforts will have ZERO effect on the earth's
climate. Show me any valid data demonstrating that reducing CO2 emissions
will change the weather. It WON'T and CAN'T.

Have you proven or even demonstrated any of the thirteen propositions below,
ALL which must be true to make it sensible to do what you propose?

Theoretical factors:

1) Current increasing levels of CO2 are forcing an increase the average
atmospheric temperature of the earth.

2) Observed increases in CO2 levels are nearly exclusiively assocated with
man's burning of fossil fuels.

3) There are no negative feedback factors that reverse temperature increases
from #1.

4) The increase in temperature postulated in #1 is of a significant
magnitude to have a major negative impact on the earth's climate.

5) Warmer temperatures are necessarily a bad thing for the earth's climate
and man's place in it.

6) Any benefits of warmer temperatures and/or increased atmospheric CO2 will
be dwarfed by negative consequences of warming.

7) The costs of reducing man-made emissions of CO2 will be less than the
cost of any destructive effects of allowing CO2 emissions at current rates.

8) The costs of adapting to higher temperatures will be greater than the
costs of reducing man-made emissions of CO2.

9) Mandated reductions of man-made emissions of CO2 will have a significant
effect on total atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

10) Reducing emissions in #9 will actually reduce global average
temperatures in a significant way.

11) Natural factors other than CO2 concentrations do not have enough impact
to override or reverse any temperature changes associated with increasing
CO2 levels.

Empirical factors:

12) The heat content of the earth can accurately be measured by averaging
daily high and low temperatures from non-representative and non-standardized
reporting stations around the world.

13) The raw data collected in #12 shows an extraordinary increase in global
temperatures that coincides with man's CO2 emissions that can't be accounted
for by natural processes.
Lloyd
2009-03-05 21:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cat_in_awe
Post by m***@gmail.com
.
Wow, skeptics seem to be very defensive. I suppose it easier for a
skeptic to become outraged, rather than admit that they may have to
alter their lifestyle. I see a lot of pseudo-intelligence here,
regurgitating what you heard on Rush Limbaugh this morning hardly
makes you an expert. You claim that scientists making claims for
global warming have an agenda, however the same, or more, could be
said of scientists who are deny the threat of global warming. Do you
think that they don't have hands in their pockets?  What about a
scientist has has actually contributed research and invention since
the 1930's? Perhaps the man who invented the eletron capture detector?
James E. Lovelock is an independent scientist, who has funded his
research with the inventions he has created and sold. He has worked
for NASA as well. I think if you were to research him, you find him to
be more than qualified to address this topic. The thing is, global
warming does occur naturally, however organisms effect this as well.
None  of which have a more dramatic effect than humans, just as
cyanobacteria made the planet habitable for most currently existing
life, so will humans make it inhabitable. Will the earth die?
certainly not, and after most or all of us die because we can no
longer sustain such a large population, I'm sure the earth will once
again stabilize and allow complex life to evolve again. As for those
of you that think we are doing nothing wrong, and we should continue
'bussiness as usual' I find your arrogance absolutely astounding, your
skeptiscm and anger are not because you think people are trying to
"scare" you, it is because you are so selfish and unwilling to chnge
anything about your lifestyle,  so unwilling to inconveniance
yourselves in the slightest way, that you would rather hope, and try
to convince yourselves that you are doing nothing wrong than give up
your Hummer. So after you read this, and you feel that flare of anger,
and start vigorously searching the web for others that might share
your rediculous opinion so that you can copy and paste it into this
forum, ask yourself... why it bothers you so much, and try to use just
an ounce of common sense... if we are emitting such vast amounts of
volatile organic compounds (and we are) and Nitrogen Oxides and yes
CO2 as well, do you really think that has no effects? at all? if so
here is an experiments for you: close all the doors and windows in
your house, take a garden hose and run it from your muffle into a door
or window, leaving it open just enough for the hose to fit in, seal or
any open spaces in the door or window, than run a full tank of gas
through your car. See how you feel. Multiply that by about 450 billion
( a conservative estimate of passenger cars worldwide)
0 effect right?
don't actually do that experiment, it would probably kill you,
seriously, some of you are about as sharp as marble, so I thought I
better let you know.
First, it is impossible to be poisoned by CO2 or N2O in the concentrations
that exist (or can possibly exist) in the Earth's atmospheric.   Thus, your
last blather was idiotic.
That isn't the point. The point is:

Just because something is a small % of something, it can still be
harmful.
And, something not harmful at one level can be harmful at another
level.
Post by Cat_in_awe
Second, the reason I feel a 'flare of anger' is that you whackjob alarmists
propose we should spend trillions of dollars to reduce our 'carbon
footprint', when all such efforts will have ZERO effect on the earth's
climate.  
Like saying, "If I stop dumping pig feces in your drinking water, it
will have zero effect unless everybody else does it too."

Logical fallacy. Of course it will have some effect.
Post by Cat_in_awe
Show me any valid data demonstrating that reducing CO2 emissions
will change the weather.  It WON'T and CAN'T.
Some me any valid data demonstrating a new drug will cure cancer.
Post by Cat_in_awe
Have you proven or even demonstrated any of the thirteen propositions below,
ALL which must be true to make it sensible to do what you propose?
1) Current increasing levels of CO2 are forcing an increase the average
atmospheric temperature of the earth.
You seem to have confused "theory" with "somebody's guess." Do you
have ANY idea what "theory" means in science? Any clue? Of course
rising CO2 will increase temp. -- the gas traps heat!
Post by Cat_in_awe
2) Observed increases in CO2 levels are nearly exclusiively assocated with
man's burning of fossil fuels.
Data such as isotopic analysis tells us this.
Post by Cat_in_awe
3) There are no negative feedback factors that reverse temperature increases
from #1.
Irrelevant, as the negative feedbacks won't always be there.
Post by Cat_in_awe
4) The increase in temperature postulated in #1 is of a significant
magnitude to have a major negative impact on the earth's climate.
If you wait until you're sure that forest fire will burn your house
and not just your neighbor's, it will be too late to evacuate.
Post by Cat_in_awe
5) Warmer temperatures are necessarily a bad thing for the earth's climate
and man's place in it.
See above. Why experiment with our only planet, when we wouldn't be
able to reset everything?
Post by Cat_in_awe
6) Any benefits of warmer temperatures and/or increased atmospheric CO2 will
be dwarfed by negative consequences of warming.
Same as your # 5, so already answered.
Post by Cat_in_awe
7) The costs of reducing man-made emissions of CO2 will be less than the
cost of any destructive effects of allowing CO2 emissions at current rates.
Same as # 5.
Post by Cat_in_awe
8) The costs of adapting to higher temperatures will be greater than the
costs of reducing man-made emissions of CO2.
Same as # 5.
Post by Cat_in_awe
9) Mandated reductions of man-made emissions of CO2 will have a significant
effect on total atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Of course it will. If you reduce the thing that's increasing X, X
will not go up as much.
Post by Cat_in_awe
10) Reducing emissions in #9 will actually reduce global average
temperatures in a significant way.
We know not doing anything will be detrimental.
Post by Cat_in_awe
11) Natural factors other than CO2 concentrations do not have enough impact
to override or reverse any temperature changes associated with increasing
CO2 levels.
Same as your # 4.
Post by Cat_in_awe
12) The heat content of the earth can accurately be measured by averaging
daily high and low temperatures from non-representative and non-standardized
reporting stations around the world.
Irrelevant. Nobody cares about "the heat content of the earth" per
se.
Post by Cat_in_awe
13) The raw data collected in #12 shows an extraordinary increase in global
temperatures that coincides with man's CO2 emissions that can't be accounted
for by natural processes.
Absolutely.
L***@xemaps.com
2009-03-05 21:12:21 UTC
Permalink
By "climate alarmists" you mean the most brilliant, best scientists of
our time?
Day Brown
2009-03-06 11:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@xemaps.com
By "climate alarmists" you mean the most brilliant, best scientists of
our time?
When I was in school, the same crowd said plate tectonics was a crank
theory. When I was in college, they said autism is caused by erratic
mothering. Some skepticism is in order.

I dont doubt global warming is going on. The Greenland ice core says its
been going on since the last ice age 12,000 years ago. The question is,
YMMV depending on where you are, and NOBODY has enuf data to predict with
any accuracy what the climate will be like... where you live. They cant
even do next month's weather.

The real question is not how to stop global warming, but how to adapt to it.
The Norwegans are doing their bit with the new frozen DNA storage facility
on an arctic island. Then, if the climate stabilizes, stored lines can be
re-introduced.

Efforts like that of Arun Shrivastava should be supported.
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/03/22/the_silent_war_on_the_people_of_india
As well as whatever heritage seed is in your own area. It may not grow there
well if Global warming kicks in, but there'll prolly be someplace for it.
--
I aint lost it. I never had it.
zoobn
2009-03-06 04:19:16 UTC
Permalink
"Fran" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:727fc4c1-2e03-418f-8138-***@k19g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 6, 10:00 pm, Day Brown <***@gmail.com> wrote:
What we have here is something like a template for the naysayer
community on the AGW-hypothesis: Anti-science, cherrypicking,
misanthropy, wild conspiracy theories ...
*************************************************************

ROTFLMAO

Response to "Profiling the Global Warming Skeptics"

James M Taylor, Senior Fellow, Heartland Institute

March 3 2009



In response to the article from prwatch.org Profiling the Global Warming
Skeptics, James M. Taylor, Senior Fellow, Environment Policy of the
Heartland Institute had the following to say.



Friends,



Your attempt to convince people that humans are causing a global warming
crisis would be more credible if you were more honest in your depictions.



You claim, "The list of speakers and the free-market think tanks
co-sponsoring the conference provides a reasonably comprehensive guide to
the most active of the remaining global warming skeptics."



This attempt to mislead your readers about the large number of scientists
who are skeptical of a human-induced global warming crisis makes one wonder
about your commitment to truth and honesty.



As an organizer of the conference, I have had so many impeccably
credentialed scientists ask to speak that I have had to beat them off with a
stick. Of the more than 100 speakers at last year's conference, we have been
able to invite less than half of them back because we have had so many
inquiries from scientists who we could not fit on last year's agenda.



Still other highly credentialed scientists are waiting in the wings for 2010
because we haven't been able to fit them into the 2008 or 2009 program. And
even then, we will only be able to invite a minority of them because there
are way too many scientists to fit on the agenda.



Moreover, these are some of the most brilliant minds in science speaking out
against the so-called global warming crisis.



Among the speakers at next week's conference are scientists from Harvard,
MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc. etc.



If the science is on your side, then you shouldn't feel the need to
deliberately misrepresent the nature of your opposition and their scientific
arguments. If you encourage a fair, open, and respectful discussion, the
truth will eventually prevail.



James M. Taylor

Senior Fellow, Environment Policy

The Heartland Institute



http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2922





Warmest Regards



Bonzo
Dave Heil
2009-03-07 03:53:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by L***@xemaps.com
By "climate alarmists" you mean the most brilliant, best scientists of
our time?
No, that's not them. Many of the most brillian, best scientists of our
time do not agree on causes or extent of global warming. They also do
not agree that past warming has been caused by man or that man has the
capability to do anything to reverse it.

The global climate has always been in flux. Sometimes the planet warms;
sometimes it cools. Almost always, such global variations last much
longer than the life span of a human.

Go figure!

Dave Heil
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...