Agenda of the AGW Crowd

[Walter]

Here is a list of some of the ideas espoused by the AGW crowd.

Andrew Bolt
December 19, 2007 12:00am

BY now you'll be in a panic, wondering how to save yourself from the apocalypse to come.
After all, when the Profit of Doom, Al Gore, says global warming risks "ending all human civilisation" you'll have figured it will take more than a few low-energy light bulbs to save us.
Too right, so I've collected the best and most original tips of many experts on how to slash the gases they say are killing the planet. Follow this advice and we'll be, um . . . safe?
1. Get rid of humans.
Greenpeace co-founder Paul Watson insists we "reduce human populations to fewer than one billion".
2. Put a carbon tax on babies.
Prof Barry Walters, of the University of Western Australia, says families with more than, say, two children should be charged a carbon tax on their little gas emitters.
3. Cull babies.
Toni Vernelli, of green group PETA, says she killed her unborn child because of its potential emissions: "It would have been immoral to give birth to a child that I felt strongly would only be a burden to the world."
4. Sterilise us all.
Dr John Reid, a former Swinburne University academic, gave a lecture on ABC radio recommending we "put something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system, and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile".
5. Ban second children.
Says Melbourne University population guru Prof Short: "We need to develop a one-child family policy because we are the global warmers."
6. Feed babies rats' milk.
PETA campaigner Heather Mills, ex-wife of Paul McCartney, says cows' burps are heating up the world and we should use milk from other animals: "Why don't we try drinking rats' milk and dogs' milk?"
7. Eat kangaroo, not beef.
Greenpeace says kangaroos don't belch like cows, so are greener and should be eaten first.
8. Shut industries.
Greens leader Bob Brown says we must scrap all coal-fired power stations and our $23 billion export trade in coal.
9. Wash less.
Says actor Cate Blanchett: "I have little races with myself, thinking: 'Oh no, I'm not washing my hair, I only need a two-minute shower'."
10. Sweat more.
The green-crusading editor of the (airconditioned) Age says we should turn off airconditioners in summer: "Our consumer society has long abandoned the fan or the cold bath as the way to keep summer at bay."
11. Use human corpses as fertiliser.
Robert Larkins, founder of the Victorian Environment Defenders' Office, wants gassy cremations banned and humans buried where trees can use their bodies for food.
12. Use coolies, not machines.
Climate Care is offering to offset emissions from jet travel by hiring poor Indians to use manual treadle pumps -- once used in British prisons -- rather than diesel pumps to pump irrigation water: "Sometimes the best source of renewable energy is the human body itself."
13.Ban cars on alternate days.
Local pollster Hugh Mackay says "cars' emissions are stealthily killing us" and we could "halve the fleet, at one stroke, by adopting the odds-and-evens number plate system".
14. Use horses instead.
The French National Stud Organisation says horses are already replacing petrol-powered vehicles in 70 French towns, and should be used to pull school buses.
15. Stop flying.
Green author George Monbiot says flying is too gassy: "It is becoming morally unacceptable now to fly to go on holiday."
16. Ban street lights.
Ivan Brooks, a mayor in Adelaide, says street lights should go off after midnight to save emissions.
17. Ban Christmas lights, too.
Spain's Ecologistas and Accion environment groups says Christmas lights should be banned before Christmas day, to save energy.
18. Ban Hanukkah candles.
The Arkada green consulting firm is running a "Green Hanukkah" campaign asking Jews to use one less candle to "save the planet".
19. End democracy.
Says green academic Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet: "When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. (Carbon rationing) has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."
I have more ideas, but you seem already to have gone green. Please remember, these people are just trying to save you from something we can only hope is worse.
But by the way, did you know the planet hasn't warmed since 1998? I suspect this will come as a relief.

 

[Walter]

Chief scientist in sports cars warning to women


By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:55am GMT 17/12/2007



Women must stop admiring men who drive sports cars if they want to join the fight against global warming, the Government's chief scientist has urged.
Professor Sir David King said governments could only do so much to control greenhouse gas emissions and it was time for a cultural change among the British public.
And he singled out women who find supercar drivers "sexy", adding that they should divert their affections to men who live more environmentally-friendly lives.
His comments were greeted with anger by sports car drivers who insisted that their vehicles' greenhouse gas emissions were tiny compared with those from four-wheel-drive vehicles.
Sir David, who is due to retire as the UK's Chief Scientific Adviser at the end of the year, said individuals needed to change their behaviour.
"I was asked at a lecture by a young woman about what she could do and I told her to stop admiring young men in Ferraris," he said.
"What I was saying is that you have got to admire people who are conserving energy and not those wilfully using it."
Sir David, who persuaded the Government to start using the Toyota Prius, a hybrid car that claims to have lower emissions than most conventional cars, added: "Government has so many levers that it can pull - when it comes to the business sector it is quite effective.
"As soon as you come to the individual, however, they will buy a Ferrari, not because it is cheap to run or has low carbon dioxide emissions, but because young women think it is sexy to see men driving Ferraris. That is the area where a culture change is needed."
A Ferrari F430 produces 420g/km of carbon dioxide - more than four times as much as the hybrid petrol-electric Prius.
Car enthusiasts criticised Sir David for attempting to lay the blame for climate change on a small number of drivers who own sports cars.
Peter Everingham, secretary the Ferrari Owners Club, said: "Nearly 90 per cent of people who buy Ferraris are married so they are not looking to impress women by buying their car.
"There are fewer than 5,600 cars made a year by Ferrari. To suggest Ferraris are a factor in climate change is unhelpful."
Sir David, who will next month publish a book on climate change called Hot Topic, insists his comments were intended as an example of the scale of culture change that is needed in society in order to combat global warming.
As chief scientist he has been instrumental in driving the climate change issue to the top of the political agenda.
Three years ago he sparked controversy when he claimed that global warming was a more serious threat than that of global terrorism.
Sir David said: "For a while I was quite unpopular at Number 10, but the point is that the Prime Minister then understood this was a very important issue.
"Now I would go one step further and say that our civilisation has never had to face up to as big a challenge as the climate change challenge of the 21st century."

 

[Tonington]

Hmmm, how about the agenda of the other side of the coin.
1) Protect their massive profits.
2) Protect their massive infrastructure.
3) Delay significant legislation to clean up the environment.
4) Lobby for more subsidies and tax shelter.
5) Perpetuate the broken system, regardless of the environemntal, health or security concerns.
6) Maintain their influence over policy decisions.
7) Suppress science at top level administration, to stem the growing public tide of concern.
8 ) Protect the system that maintains their profits, while dirty, inefficient technology and energy promote ever higher profits.
9) Legal action against jurisdictions that use legislation to force their hand, thankfully unsuccessful as of late.
10) Label anyone who wishes for climate action as socialist, eco-freaks hell bent on forcing us all into poverty.

By far the predominant agendas for both sides look like this:
Concern for the natural world, and all that depend on it.
Concern for economics, and all that depend on it.

Concern for economics is great, no one wants to be poor, lose their savings, or lose their job. But short term focus on economics has given us horrible results, in most cases onvolving the natural world. Over fishing, deforrestation, depleted agricultural soil, food raised for maximum yield, at the expense of nutritional value, polluted water and other important eco-systems because pollution control cuts into profit.

The environment has already taken too much for the team. Bio-accumulation of toxic heavy metals and other compounds, rising rates of cancer near industrial sites, dwindling food sources, rising rates of respiratory dysfunction. I could go on, but these all represent canaries in the coal mine.

But hey, surely the earth is big enough to continue sh|tting where we eat right?

 

[Walter]

But hey, surely the earth is big enough to continue sh|tting where we eat right?

I have a kitchen and a bathroom.

 

[Tonington]

I have a kitchen and a bathroom.

Too bad the planet doesn't8O

 

[Extrafire]

Hmmm, how about the agenda of the other side of the coin.
1) Protect their massive profits.
2) Protect their massive infrastructure.
3) Delay significant legislation to clean up the environment.
4) Lobby for more subsidies and tax shelter.
5) Perpetuate the broken system, regardless of the environemntal, health or security concerns.
6) Maintain their influence over policy decisions.
7) Suppress science at top level administration, to stem the growing public tide of concern.
8 ) Protect the system that maintains their profits, while dirty, inefficient technology and energy promote ever higher profits.
9) Legal action against jurisdictions that use legislation to force their hand, thankfully unsuccessful as of late.
10) Label anyone who wishes for climate action as socialist, eco-freaks hell bent on forcing us all into poverty.

Big difference. These are all made up by you and have little relation to reality. The ones quoted by Walter are actual proposals by activists who the media and politicians pay far too much attention to.

By far the predominant agendas for both sides look like this:
Concern for the natural world, and all that depend on it.

No, that's just a cover. They're really about political control.

Concern for economics, and all that depend on it.

Which is actually the agenda and main concern of 99.99999% of the worlds population. When push comes to shove, all but the most committed zealots will choose economy over environmental nonsense.

Concern for economics is great, no one wants to be poor, lose their savings, or lose their job. But short term focus on economics has given us horrible results, in most cases onvolving the natural world. Over fishing, deforrestation, depleted agricultural soil, food raised for maximum yield, at the expense of nutritional value, polluted water and other important eco-systems because pollution control cuts into profit.

The environment has already taken too much for the team. Bio-accumulation of toxic heavy metals and other compounds, rising rates of cancer near industrial sites, dwindling food sources, rising rates of respiratory dysfunction. I could go on, but these all represent canaries in the coal mine.

While the deleterious effects you mention have occured to some extent in the most economically successful countries, by far the most horrible example of them were the result of those societies who did not go after economics, and instead pursued a more people centered philosophy. They failed miserably at that too. I refer, of course, to the former communist economies. In the west, the more prosperous the economy, the more the environment gets cleaned up.


Here's an excerpt from a report by a N. Zealand reporter who attended Bali.

The full (very good) article can be found HERE.

I couldn’t resist baiting the stallholder at the stand run by a certain national weather bureau. This particular tax-gobbler, reliably Messianic in its Siotological fervour, had a childishly imaginative poster that ramped up the imagined disasters as global temperature rose by each additional degree Celsius. At just 2 degrees, the poster said the Greenland ice sheet would be permanently destabilized. Oo-er. The message was illustrated by the usual picture of a glacier calving spectacularly into the water.

“’Scuse me,” I said, Earl-of-Emsworth expression in place, “but isn’t that a picture of a glacier that cuts across a freshwater lake in Argentina?” For it wasn’t Greenland. It looked suspiciously like a grainy vid-grab from the traditional collapsing-glacier footage shown every few minutes on the unspeakable BBC. As the waters of the freshwater lake build up behind the glacier, it breaks apart spectacularly every eight years. Or rather, as I pointed out to the stallholder, every five years these days, because much of the southern hemisphere is cooling. This image did not demonstrate “global warming” but regional cooling.

The stallholder robotically reached for the IPCC’s latest Holy Book and showed me graphs of sharply-rising temperatures in South Africa, Australasia and South America. She didn’t show me the Antarctic, of course: that has been cooling for half a century. It had not occurred to the poor dear to wonder why the IPCC’s temperature graphs for all continents but one were shown as rising steeply in recent years, when the global mean temperature has not shown any statistically-significant rise since the IPCC’s previous Holy Book came out in 2001. The thing about stable average temperatures is that if some have risen others must have fallen. Or so it seems to me. But then I’m not a zombie.

“Anyway,” I said, “doesn’t the 2007 rewrite of the Holy Book say that the Greenland Ice Sheet would only lose significant ice-mass if a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius or more were to be sustained for several millennia?” That, after all, was what a UK High Court judge had recently found, when he condemned Al Gore’s ludicrous hundredfold exaggeration of sea-level rise as alarmist and told ministers to correct this and eight other flagrant errors in Gore’s rocky-horror movie before exposing hapless schoolchildren to it.

Here’s a question. If the science behind the scare is as certain as the zombies say, why are they so terrified of a few doubters? Google me and you’ll find hundreds of enviro-loony websites, such as Wikipedia, now an international music-hall joke for inaccuracy, that call me a fraud (for writing about climate science when I’m not a climate scientist), a plagiarist (for citing learned papers rather than making up scare stories), and a liar (for saying I’m a member of the House of Lords when – er – I’m a member of the House of Lords, though, being merely hereditary, I don’t have a seat there).

One of these bedwetting sites even has a “Monckton Watch” page, with a hilarious collection of colourful stories, including the story of how I told the stallholder that much of the southern hemisphere was cooling. No mention that the location of the BBC’s favourite glacier has indeed been cooling. And, of course, no mention of the elephant in the room – that a national weather bureau had flagrantly exaggerated the Holy Book’s official ramblings about Greenland on its silly, taxpayer-funded poster.

You’ll find precious little science on the zombie websites. They specialize in global whingeing ad hominem, rather than scientific argument ad rem. The frenetic personal assaults have become so self-evidently ludicrous that I’m getting an increasing number of emails from people who have first heard of my work from the Kool-Aid slurpers and have gone on to find, to their surprise, that the peer-reviewed science to which my climate papers politely draw attention does suggest that the Holy Books have exaggerated both the influence of Siotu over temperature and the consequences of warmer weather.

An example. A couple of months back I posted a paper citing peer-reviewed evidence that the fingerprint of greenhouse-gas warming – temperature rising over the decades at a rate three times faster six miles up in the tropical troposphere than at the surface – is absent from all of the real-world records of actual temperature change throughout the past half-century. During the Bali conference, I presented my own linear regression analysis going back 25 years and demonstrating that the rate of change in temperature falls with altitude, while the IPCC’s models predict that if CO2 is at fault it should be increasing with altitude. Two days later our team of heroes had the pleasure of circulating to delegates a paper just published by the formidable John Christy and his colleagues, spectacularly and definitively confirming this result.

We circulated a one-page summary of the Christy paper showing the tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” as predicted in the Holy Book, and the total absence of the “hot-spot” in the observed data. We explained that, in the words of Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, who knows more about the bad behaviour of the atmosphere than anyone, the missing “hot-spot” means that the IPCC’s estimate of the impact of greenhouse-gas enrichment on temperature is at least a threefold exaggeration.

As I was handing our flyer round the Press tent, a “development journalist” angrily said: “How dare you criticize the IPCC’s scientists?” I sat down and said: “I don’t attack the scientists, though they certainly attack me. I attack the bad science.”

“Well, then,” he said, “how dare you substitute your judgment for that of thousands of climate scientists?” I said that the crucial chapter in the Holy Book attributing rising temperatures to Siotu had been written by only 53 people, not all of whom were scientists, and that – by coincidence – 53% of the comments by 60 reviewers had been rejected by the authors of the chapter. Not exactly the 2,500 scientists claimed by the high priests, and not exactly a consensus either.

I explained that I was an old-fashioned scribbler who had been taught to be sceptical of all sides of every debate, and that the authors of the Holy Book were obviously not good at sums. “Give me an example,” he said. So I did.

The Holy Book saith: “The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20% during the last 10 years (1995-2005).” Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5% higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1%, not 20%. The high priests have exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

“So how are you so nauseatingly certain that you’re right?” he asked. “Well,” I said, “because I worked out that the proportionate increase in CO2 between 1995 and 2005 was 5%, not 20%, and then did a simple calculation from this to work out the radiative forcing. It’s called ‘checking’.” He looked baffled. Voodoo has indeed replaced science, and the paradox is that the new religion claims to worship science.

The zombies seem listlessly incapable of checking even the most elementary facts. Take Yvo de Boer, the UN archpriest at the conference. He made an impassioned speech saying that the sceptics had had their day and that everyone now accepted that, for instance, the island nations of the Pacific were facing an imminent threat from rising sea levels. Er, no. Corals have been around for 275 million years. They’ve survived temperatures up to 7 degrees Celsius warmer than today’s. And has it never occurred to the poor sap to wonder why, after a rise of 400 feet in sea level over the past 10,000 years, the sea has – by some startling concidence – exactly reached the surface of all the coral atolls?

No, it’s not a coincidence, because corals grow to meet the light. They can outpace at least ten times the Holy Books’ high-end estimate of sea-level rise, which is anyway down by a third since just six years ago. We know this, because the mean centennial rate of sea-level rise since the end of the last Ice Age has been – get this – at least double the high priests’ highest estimate of future sea-level rise. Nine-tenths of the land-based ice sheets of the world have already melted. There’s so little left that even if it began to melt (which it won’t) the rise in sea level would be very, very slow.

 

[Tonington]

Big difference. These are all made up by you and have little relation to reality. The ones quoted by Walter are actual proposals by activists who the media and politicians pay far too much attention to.

Made up by me, yes, as I've read from other sources much like this author did. The cycle of media attention is only perpetuated by articles like the OP. Real constructive, but then again that's not what sells papers or advertising space is it...

No, that's just a cover. They're really about political control.

Now see, you can't even go more than two quotes without a cheap shot. Do you think I am after political control, and don't genuinely care about the environment? I honestly summed up both sides after my take on the OP agenda. One wants a clean environment, and the other doesn't think we should waste money. I'd wager that's fairly accurate.

Which is actually the agenda and main concern of 99.99999% of the worlds population. When push comes to shove, all but the most committed zealots will choose economy over environmental nonsense.

And thank you for leading into my ultimate point. It's a false dichotomy between the two choices. That's the way media have framed it, and that's what ultimately drives public opinion. Nonsense is framing the debate that way, and it's worked. Lots of people have opinions on the matter, and what I see is 99.999999% recycled trash from the media. That includes predominantly the tripe started from eco-activists and fossil fuel lobbies.

While the deleterious effects you mention have occured to some extent in the most economically successful countries, by far the most horrible example of them were the result of those societies who did not go after economics, and instead pursued a more people centered philosophy. They failed miserably at that too. I refer, of course, to the former communist economies.

I see we're sticking to ideologies when they're convenient. The communist economies were hardly for the people, all but a few have actually survived. They weren't people centered, they were production centered. That's what ultimately caused Chernobyl, power plants competing during a celebration, and ultimately some fool removing the safety constraints to generate more power. But ultimately, we have our own dirty little secrets too. Sydney Tar Ponds, the area downwind from Sarnia, toxic mines left behind in NWT, and the tar lakes of Alberta. The legacy we left the salmonids in Eastern Canada, water near the chemically toxic levels for salmon and trout.

Bah, what does the worst have to do with it when bad is unacceptable.

In the west, the more prosperous the economy, the more the environment gets cleaned up.

So then you agree that more prosperous economies in theory should be better able to clean up their acts first? Like we in the West should perhaps be setting the world standard?

 

[Niflmir]

Ok, when you choose to phrase abortion as "Culling babies" and use an out of context quote to make it seem like a member of PETA advocated culling babies, you not only lose all credibility, but you are officially sexist, Mr. Bolt.

Plus the guilt by association nonsense needs to stop. Who cares what someone else who also happens to advocate certain policies thinks? This thread belongs in the garbage bin, at least anywhere but science and the environment. Pointless defamation belongs elsewhere.

 

[Extrafire]

Made up by me, yes, as I've read from other sources much like this author did. The cycle of media attention is only perpetuated by articles like the OP. Real constructive, but then again that's not what sells papers or advertising space is it...

So then quote the actual proposals rather than your inventions. And what sells papers? Disaster, actual or impending. Much more money to be made from impending, whether real or invented.

Now see, you can't even go more than two quotes without a cheap shot. Do you think I am after political control, and don't genuinely care about the environment? I honestly summed up both sides after my take on the OP agenda. One wants a clean environment, and the other doesn't think we should waste money. I'd wager that's fairly accurate.

Well I didn't actually think of you when I commented about political control. I refered to those who make their millions, like Gore, Suzuki, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund etc, etc. They don't particularly care about the environment so much as having a cause to milk for money and control. And the others don't want to waste money on useless programs that address fictional emergencies? Rather commendable to me.

And thank you for leading into my ultimate point. It's a false dichotomy between the two choices. That's the way media have framed it, and that's what ultimately drives public opinion. Nonsense is framing the debate that way, and it's worked. Lots of people have opinions on the matter, and what I see is 99.999999% recycled trash from the media. That includes predominantly the tripe started from eco-activists and fossil fuel lobbies.

I concur on the tripe from eco-activists. And I stand by my contention that 99.999999% of people are concerned first with their economics when push comes to shove.

I see we're sticking to ideologies when they're convenient. The communist economies were hardly for the people, all but a few have actually survived.

The proponents of communism claimed to be doing it for the people. All but a few have survived? None in eastern Europe did. The rest, with the exception of N. Korea are communist in name only.

They weren't people centered, they were production centered.

They claimed to be both, and they failed miserably at both.

That's what ultimately caused Chernobyl, power plants competing during a celebration, and ultimately some fool removing the safety constraints to generate more power.

Nothing like that would have happened in a western nuclear plant.

But ultimately, we have our own dirty little secrets too. Sydney Tar Ponds, the area downwind from Sarnia, toxic mines left behind in NWT, and the tar lakes of Alberta. The legacy we left the salmonids in Eastern Canada, water near the chemically toxic levels for salmon and trout.

Bah, what does the worst have to do with it when bad is unacceptable.

I didn't whitewash our sins.

So then you agree that more prosperous economies in theory should be better able to clean up their acts first? Like we in the West should perhaps be setting the world standard?

They should be, and are able. And have led the way in doing just that. And we have set the world standard for many decades now.

 

[Extrafire]

Bali is barely over and the cracks are appearing.:lol:

All that sincere and fervent concern for the environment suddenly evaporates when the economy is threatened. See? They never really did mean to do anything serious about Kyoto.

Germany Cries Foul Over EU Plans to Cut Car Emissions


Germany has attacked European Commission proposals to cut car C02 emissions limits, saying they unfairly hit the country's auto industry. The measures are intended to curb global warming.


Under the plans, automobile manufacturers would have to reduce carbon emissions produced by their fleets of passenger cars to an average of 120 grams per kilometer by 2012. Currently, new cars emit some 160 grams on average. Should they not comply to the guidelines, automakers are to face steep fines.
With several commissioners dissenting, the European Commission -- the EU's executive arm -- agreed on a four-year phase-in period from 2012 for the fines.

"This will send a strong signal to the world about the determination of the European Union to take bold measures on climate change," EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas said at a press conference.

Germany says the plan will not be effective

The proposed legislation enraged Germany and its carmakers. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the EU was making policy "at the expense
Government spokesman Thomas Steg said the measures were biased against German companies, which tend to make bigger and more powerful vehicles.
"Whatever motive led a majority of commissioners to decide this, we consider the solution to be wrong, we consider the solution to be very harmful and will do everything to force changes," he said.
Steg said that the plans would threaten jobs, hinder innovation and fail to be an effective instrument for climate protection.
Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel also slammed the proposals, saying that they favored Italian and French car makers.
Speaking on German television, he criticized the fact that the limits would apply to a car manufacturers' fleet, meaning that a manufacturer such as Fiat with its numerous small models would not have to cut the emissions of its high-end cars. LINK FOR FULL ARTICLE

 

[Tonington]

So then quote the actual proposals rather than your inventions. And what sells papers? Disaster, actual or impending. Much more money to be made from impending, whether real or invented.

I already told you they were my inventions, are you thick or what? Almost like inventing a editorial column with loose quotes, and calling it the opinion of experts, when many of the names on the list clearly aren't. An actor? That's about the caliber of the journalistic responsibility I see every day posted here.

Well I didn't actually think of you when I commented about political control. I refered to those who make their millions, like Gore, Suzuki, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund etc, etc.

So now I have to make millions to be a person concerned about the environment? I suspect not. So really just some of them are out for control, possibly, because we don't have any quotes from them listed in the original article of the thread. And beating up on them is in fact a red herring, when trying to smear all climate activists through affiliations that don't exist. Typical...

I concur on the tripe from eco-activists. And I stand by my contention that 99.999999% of people are concerned first with their economics when push comes to shove.

Right, I got it the first time. It's a false choice though. Not every green policy adviser follows the examples you post, like Norway and the carbon taxes. Not every policy is a push come to shove situation.

The proponents of communism claimed to be doing it for the people. All but a few have survived? None in eastern Europe did. The rest, with the exception of N. Korea are communist in name only.

Thanks for the repeat of grade twelve history. They still exist, and they have evolved, as have democracies and the wonderful flavours they come in. China is still governed by a communist party. But this is all a topic for a thread somewhere else.

They should be, and are able. And have led the way in doing just that. And we have set the world standard for many decades now.

Led the way, does Bali not count now? I know you and others haven't liked it in the past when I called CO2 a pollutant, but it is recognized as a pollutant now, in a western economy that has in the past set world standards, and by that of course I mean the US.

 

[Extrafire]

I already told you they were my inventions, are you thick or what? Almost like inventing a editorial column with loose quotes, and calling it the opinion of experts, when many of the names on the list clearly aren't. An actor? That's about the caliber of the journalistic responsibility I see every day posted here.

Walter posted a number of ideas to save the world from the environmentalist crowd, and they weren't joking, they meant it in all sincerity. They really would like to implement that agenda. You responded with an agenda from the opposing side, you claimed. And they were all your own inventions.You couldn't find any such agenda for real, could you? But you just had to make something up to make them look as bad, if not worse than the environuts, even if it is nothing close to the truth. That is so typical of the left, and it demonstrates the weakness of their/your position.

So now I have to make millions to be a person concerned about the environment? I suspect not. So really just some of them are out for control, possibly, because we don't have any quotes from them listed in the original article of the thread. And beating up on them is in fact a red herring, when trying to smear all climate activists through affiliations that don't exist. Typical...

Oh come off it! I know you're not as dense as you're making out to be. Do I really have to explain it, nuance by nuance, just so you'll understand my point? No, not likely, you've demonstrated your intelligence more than a few times. This is just more of your strawman BS. I won't bother because you, and everyone else, know what my point was.

Right, I got it the first time. It's a false choice though. Not every green policy adviser follows the examples you post, like Norway and the carbon taxes. Not every policy is a push come to shove situation.

Are you for real? I talk about the average person, citizens of any country, people from all over the world. People in general. And you twist it as though I was talking about green policy advisors....sounds like strawman again.

Thanks for the repeat of grade twelve history. They still exist, and they have evolved, as have democracies and the wonderful flavours they come in. China is still governed by a communist party. But this is all a topic for a thread somewhere else.

Of course the countries exist. They didn't evolve, communism collapsed. I realize that you weren't yet born when it happened, but surely they teach it in school. Playing dense again? The communist economies don't exist. China has a communist government and a capitalist economy. Ditto for Viet Nam. Only Cuba and N. Korea maintain the full communist ways.

Led the way, does Bali not count now? I know you and others haven't liked it in the past when I called CO2 a pollutant, but it is recognized as a pollutant now, in a western economy that has in the past set world standards, and by that of course I mean the US.

Bali is a joke, and when some of the countries realized what reality entails, they suddenly decided maybe they wouldn't play along so gullibly. Australia elected a lefty government largely on the strength of their commitment to Kyoto, signed on right away, but when they realized the truth of the matter, promptly announced they wouldn't implement it. (All that stuff has already been posted on this or other threads) Canada, regrettably, caved in to pressure and agreed to go along. No, Bali is not leadership in the environmental field, it's about wealth transfer, and I would be ashamed if we had led on that. But as far as cleaning up pollution, developing cleaner and safer technologies, western capitalist nations are and have been leaders in the world. And CO2 is not a pollutant. You know that, every country in the world knows that, but enviro-nut activists have managed to con a large percentage of the world public into believing it, and governments have responded accordingly, most of them against their better judgment.

 

[Tonington]

Walter posted a number of ideas to save the world from the environmentalist crowd, and they weren't joking, they meant it in all sincerity. They really would like to implement that agenda. You responded with an agenda from the opposing side, you claimed. And they were all your own inventions.You couldn't find any such agenda for real, could you? But you just had to make something up to make them look as bad, if not worse than the environuts, even if it is nothing close to the truth. That is so typical of the left, and it demonstrates the weakness of their/your position.

Bull. You're so high on your own opinion. Theres no way you know what all of those people meant when they said those things. Of course they're BS comments to begin with. Do you think an actor represents an expert? Judging by the crap you've posted, like the ballistics guy who gave his 'expert' opinion on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I wouldn't doubt it. Why not show everyone your PhD in Bovine Excrement Mr. Chrichton...

I didn't make them look worse, calling for deaths is worse than calling for profits. I explained my general take on some of the positions I've seen. I admitted that. If you can be so positive that all of those people said those things and further you knew what they meant, I 'm comfortable enough standing by my opinion of what I've read. I certainly wouldn't write an editorial and express it as all climate skeptics think this, and they're the experts, and get a quote from Karl Rove. But then I'm not a journalist selling papers to slanted backwards Conservatives like yourself.

Oh come off it! I know you're not as dense as you're making out to be. Do I really have to explain it, nuance by nuance, just so you'll understand my point? No, not likely, you've demonstrated your intelligence more than a few times.

OK, I'll explain this real slow so your unwrinkled Neanderthal brain can get it. I used the words you wrote in response to me. I explained my reasons for saying what each side of this debates general concerns were. You attacked it saying that all concerned for the environment are after power. I raised my objection to your misrepresentation. Then you jump to the red herring crap with Gore and Suzuki. Now when your failed logic is exposed, you twist away from your own words.

Bali is a joke, and when some of the countries realized what reality entails, they suddenly decided maybe they wouldn't play along so gullibly. Australia elected a lefty government largely on the strength of their commitment to Kyoto, signed on right away, but when they realized the truth of the matter, promptly announced they wouldn't implement it. (All that stuff has already been posted on this or other threads) Canada, regrettably, caved in to pressure and agreed to go along. No, Bali is not leadership in the environmental field, it's about wealth transfer, and I would be ashamed if we had led on that. But as far as cleaning up pollution, developing cleaner and safer technologies, western capitalist nations are and have been leaders in the world. And CO2 is not a pollutant. You know that, every country in the world knows that, but enviro-nut activists have managed to con a large percentage of the world public into believing it, and governments have responded accordingly, most of them against their better judgment.

Wealth transfer? Point the specific line from the conference where that is evidenced, more specifically where Canada's representatives caved to that. Put your money where your big flapping mouth is.

CO2 is a pollutant, I was saying that long before it entered the EPA mandate south of the border, though not to you specifically. I've shown you why, ecologists recognize why, and now it's being listed properly. And so now you think you know better than the experts, typical arrogant Extra.

 

[Extrafire]

Bull. You're so high on your own opinion. Theres no way you know what all of those people meant when they said those things. Of course they're BS comments to begin with. Do you think an actor represents an expert? Judging by the crap you've posted, like the ballistics guy who gave his 'expert' opinion on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, I wouldn't doubt it. Why not show everyone your PhD in Bovine Excrement Mr. Chrichton...

I didn't make them look worse, calling for deaths is worse than calling for profits. I explained my general take on some of the positions I've seen. I admitted that. If you can be so positive that all of those people said those things and further you knew what they meant, I 'm comfortable enough standing by my opinion of what I've read. I certainly wouldn't write an editorial and express it as all climate skeptics think this, and they're the experts, and get a quote from Karl Rove. But then I'm not a journalist selling papers to slanted backwards Conservatives like yourself.

So when global warming activists state clearly what their solutions are, we're not to believe them?:lol: They're just kidding, even when they say over and over again that they want this kind of stuff done?:roll: Amazing, the extent you'll stretch things and expect me to believe...

 

[Extrafire]

OK, I'll explain this real slow so your unwrinkled Neanderthal brain can get it. I used the words you wrote in response to me.

OK, just this once I'll go over it again.

Yes you used some of my words, but not in a way that conveyed the same meaning. Twisted around. Strawman.

I explained my reasons for saying what each side of this debates general concerns were.

You stated what each side's concerns were, in your opinion. Here is your statement on the concerns of the environmental side:

Quoting Tonington
By far the predominant agendas for both sides look like this:
Concern for the natural world, and all that depend on it.

You attacked it saying that all concerned for the environment are after power.

All concerned? No, I didn't say that. I am concerned for the environment, as are practically all of my relatives, friends and acquaintances. This is a blatant twist to my words which (were a generalization, to be sure):

Quoting Extrafire
No, that's just a cover. They're really about political control

I raised my objection to your misrepresentation.

Again, you twisted my meaning to make it look like an attack on you personally:

Quoting Tonington
Now see, you can't even go more than two quotes without a cheap shot. Do you think I am after political control, and don't genuinely care about the environment? I honestly summed up both sides after my take on the OP agenda. One wants a clean environment, and the other doesn't think we should waste money. I'd wager that's fairly accurate.

So I gave you the benefit of doubt and clarified it, making certain that you couldn't misunderstand my intent:

Quoting Extrafire
Well I didn't actually think of you when I commented about political control. I refered to those who make their millions, like Gore, Suzuki, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund etc, etc. They don't particularly care about the environment so much as having a cause to milk for money and control.

And yet, even though my meaning was perfectly clear, you twisted it again:

Quoting Tonington
So now I have to make millions to be a person concerned about the environment? I suspect not. So really just some of them are out for control, possibly, because we don't have any quotes from them listed in the original article of the thread. And beating up on them is in fact a red herring, when trying to smear all climate activists through affiliations that don't exist. Typical...

So what is your response?

Then you jump to the red herring crap with Gore and Suzuki.

I used examples of the people who I was referring to, and you call it a red herring???8O That was a clarification to be certain you couldn't misunderstand, and still you try to twist it around.

Now when your failed logic is exposed, you twist away from your own words.

And twist it again. I haven't tried to twist away from my own words, I stand by all of them. I've made myself perfectly clear while you repeatedly used strawmen.

Wealth transfer? Point the specific line from the conference where that is evidenced, more specifically where Canada's representatives caved to that. Put your money where your big flapping mouth is.

The whole Kyoto and subsequent agendas are all about wealth transfer. After the Kyoto accord was signed there were representatives of third world countries exhilaratingly talking to reporters how this would mean the US industries would have to relocate to their countries, bringing the wealth that comes from manufacturing to their economies. (You were, no doubt, too young to have observed that)
And subsequent proposals have all pointed in that direction, save those that involved no diminution of western economic activity. Then there are the statements such as

Margaret Wallstrom now the EU vice president of EU communications, said with utmost clarity, "Kyoto was about hobbling America's economy, to give socialist Europe a fighting chance".

And Canada capitulated to the pressure at Bali

NUSA DUA, Indonesia -- The Harper government and the Bush administration caved in to international pressure at the United Nations climate change summit on Saturday, accepting the "Bali roadmap" towards a new comprehensive agreement to stop human activity from causing irreversible damage to the earth's atmosphere and ecosystems.
The framework was hailed by the UN's top climate change official, Yvo de Boer, as an ambitious, transparent and flexible solution on the road to a comprehensive treaty in 2009, imposing deeper commitments on the richest nations in the world to slash their contribution to global warming, as well as softer targets or commitments for developing countries to come into force after the end of the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period in 2012.Link for full article

CO2 is a pollutant, I was saying that long before it entered the EPA mandate south of the border, though not to you specifically. I've shown you why, ecologists recognize why, and now it's being listed properly. And so now you think you know better than the experts, typical arrogant Extra.

No it isn't and it was only declared so under huge pressure from activists. If you thought it was long before it was declare to be by governments around the world, then you fell for the activist spin long ago. Most countries had lists of recognized pollutants long ago that did not include CO2, and your explanations of why it is now considered one don't stand up to what constitutes one.

I said it would be just this once when I went through everything and I meant it. I have no doubt that you'll use strawmen and twist my words around again, after all, you've established a pattern. But I will only call you on it from now on, and not explain, because I know you understand exactly what I mean.