Satellite data proves Earth has not been warming the past 18 years - it's stable

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
didn't you cite the sydney institute, a political front group headed by a conservative dude and funded by shell oil (ever since tobacco denial fizzled out and phillip morris stopped sending checks)?
Click to expand...
Arnt you part of the party that founded/supported the KKK?

Spurious connections are spurious.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
well respected members of the scientific community like dr's salby and spencer
Click to expand...
Time to push back against the global warming Nazis
February 20th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.

I didn’t start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Arnt you part of the party that founded/supported the KKK?

Spurious connections are spurious.
Click to expand...
no, i would have been a republican back then. but the republicans not only welcomes the racists in, they went out inviting them.

not even a close analogy to how kynes cited conservative, shell oil funded, political front groups...and then accuses the other side of politicizing.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're a retard
Click to expand...
another witty rejoinder from The King of the Special Needs Class

would you like to make a sally at the argument that EPA administrators are career bureaucrats?

one would think, considering how retarded i am, you must have some awesome evidence to demonstrate that these asshats are "Climate Scientists" with impeccable credentials..

surely they must have published many scholarly works, in many reputable journals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_M._Thomas
hmm.. psychology major, not very scientific... head of Georgia Pacific Paper? at least he has some environmental credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Reilly
a history major in undergrad work, a lawyer, and a late life masters degree in... Urban Planning... yeah, he is totally scientician material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Todd_Whitman
Bachelor of Arts (that means there"s no math...) in GOVERNMENT???? Banker, professional politician, has a scottish terrier dog. im starting to see why you love wikipedia so much, they really are "rigorous"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruckelshaus
another lawyer.

yeah these guys must have all the answers
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
Time to push back against the global warming Nazis
February 20th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

They invoke “consensus”, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me “deniers”, I will call them “global warming Nazis”.

I didn’t start this fight…they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.
Click to expand...
What? That guy sounds totally rational to me.. /s
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. The EPA has not always been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium, I think we'll all agree to that. It has however consistently struck a reasonable balance that protects both the health of the environment and the health of the economy. From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the United States of six common air pollutants in the United States dropped 67%. At the same time, our population grew by 38%. Our energy consumption increased by 27% and our GDP more than doubled in constant dollars. So more people, consuming more energy, admitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth."

-Christine Todd Whitman
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Environmental protection and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive goals. The EPA has not always been able to reach a state of perfect equilibrium, I think we'll all agree to that. It has however consistently struck a reasonable balance that protects both the health of the environment and the health of the economy. From 1980 to 2012, the total emissions in the United States of six common air pollutants in the United States dropped 67%. At the same time, our population grew by 38%. Our energy consumption increased by 27% and our GDP more than doubled in constant dollars. So more people, consuming more energy, admitted much less pollution without sacrificing economic growth."

-Christine Todd Whitman
Click to expand...
Google "point of diminishing returns".
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"The 1987 Montreal Protocol, which Lee Thomas helped negotiate, is an example of this kind of thinking. Now that was 25 years ago. Today the models are far more reliable and they're buttressed by literally thousands of credible scientific studies documenting changes underway. I listened to senator Boozman, there are still outstanding questions, the pace of change, tipping points, local impacts, fugitive methane emissions and more. Earths climate is a complex system, we do not have a complete picture. We welcome serious constructive critiques that examine gaps, anomalies, uncertainties, that's how science advances our understanding of such complex issues."

-William Reilly

Yeah, that guy sounds like he doesn't know shit about how science works... /s
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Why would you think someone who doesn't understand what science is or how it works is qualified to open their cake hole about how it works?

ROFL!
Click to expand...
You mean like most of the people cited by the IPCC?

The consensus says you kinda burned your own argument there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top