I guess that we have something in common there... I too enjoy a good laugh at those folks who confuse trendy ideals with fact... Case in point, apparently you feel the need to associate the air we breath, water and even soil with CO2 and the debate on the relationship betwen potential warming trends and CO2.
Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
- Status
I guess that we have something in common there... I too enjoy a good laugh at those folks who confuse trendy ideals with fact... Case in point, apparently you feel the need to associate the air we breath, water and even soil with CO2 and the debate on the relationship betwen potential warming trends and CO2.
Maybe not so much evil as just controlling while at the same time being misinformed. Take the rabid tree huggers. Cutting down any tree anywhere for any reason is taboo. They apply the same logic to saving "tree lives" as you would to human lives. In recent years we've come to reap the adverse effects of saving every tree in the number of forest fires. Had strategic thinning and cleaning up of the dead wood on the ground been done, we'd have had a lot less problem.
Nope. He's quite prolific and I don't spend all that much time here so I miss quite a few. But you're the one making the claim so it's not up to me to verify it, it's up to you to back it up.
I have no problem with jokes. But it's the false attrilbution that rankles.
Actually, when the alarmists do that it hurts their cause, because it suggests that they cannot refute the real claims of the skeptics who will be happy to point that out.
I must have missed the part of investigating scientists who use grants. I'll have to go back and see if it's there.......
.....looking......
....Oh, there it is, right at the bottom. That's it??? What part of requiring accountability over the missuse of government funds could possibley resemble McCarthyism? You need to go do some research into McCarthy's investigations. Sounds more like a "circling of the wagons" by you.
Nope, can't find mention of Inhoffe there at all. As for the codes, do you refer to RICO? When one suggests prosecution for fraud, it makes sense to state under what statute they might be indictable, demonstrate that there actually is a basis in law for action, rather than just run off at the mouth demanding prison for persons who have the termerity to state a contrary opinion like some of the alarmists (including Suzuki) have done.
Actually he was referring to credible allegations as a basis. And once you have such credible allegations, the next step is to assemble evidence before starting any prosecutions. Nothing at all untoward in what McBride suggested. Circling the wagons.
What facts would those be, the nonsense being generated by psuedo-scientists like Singer being funded by companies like Exxon/Mobile or the real science that's been accumulated for decades on the link between human activity and climate change.
I can't do any better than Avro and the massive amount of RESEARCH that he's cited.
Denial by the tobacco industry has claimed millions of lives, denial by the fossil fuel industry could potentially claim billions, there's nothing funny about this situation.
Last edited:
Maybe they understand it's all linked, you don't need to take much biology to understand just how deeply connected all species are and how fragile the web can be when many links are cut.
I'm originally from BC and watched how the pine has disappeared there, the amount of preventative cutting would have been impractical to stop the beetle outbreak, the last winter cold enough to cause a massive dieback was 1986. Like I said it's all linked and we unbalance the system at our own risk.
Why would I feel the need to justify the accuracy of a joke just on your orders? Get a grip. It's a joke. I post dozens of jokes at CanCon and I am not about to start justifying them to anyone. And if it seems to me that Walter does or has denied any warming, I don't have to prove dick because it's my opinion.
Going to call me a liar again? Want to quibble about more jokes? Get a life.
Oh, and BTW, if Walter hadn't thought that global warming was a myth, why'd he title this thread that it is a myth?
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between requiring accountability, and using government agencies to audit all climate scientists which receive public grants to ensure they are not committing fraud. It's a politically motivated threat against an entire group. There is no evidence that all climate scientists need to be audited in this way.
Moreover, it's demagoguery. McCarthy did the same thing. That is what McCarthyism is. Politically motivated threats, demagoguery, and without evidence.
I refuted the claim you made. You were happy to make the assertion that your claim cannot be refuted. You don't appear to have been happy to respond when I showed a tiny bit out of much, much more evidence which does refute it.
Deniers like to throw the equivalent of spaghetti at a wall and hope that some of it sticks.
Perhaps you may recognize the author of this piece Extra:
Letter to naturalSCIENCE: Global Warming is Not Happening
Or the title of this book by one Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Global Warming Is Not Happening
It's not a strawman. Prominent skeptics have and are using this meme.
Google shows it to be popular. Just look at the suggestions that pop up when you type:
"Global warming is not"
Letter to naturalSCIENCE: Global Warming is Not Happening
Or the title of this book by one Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:
Global Warming Science and Public Policy - Global Warming Is Not Happening
It's not a strawman. Prominent skeptics have and are using this meme.
Google shows it to be popular. Just look at the suggestions that pop up when you type:
"Global warming is not"
Now don't get your knickers in a knot, dear. As I stated above, I have no problem with the joke. In fact, I'll go farther, I appreciate them. I've posted a few myself.
You're stretching this out a bit far. You told me to check out Walter's posts if I wanted to know if your comment was correct. That's not how it's done and I said so. If you don't want to bother backing up your statement, just say so, and that's OK too.
There you go!
That wasn't so hard now, was it? (In response I would suggest that the global warming myth is the anthropogenic cause, not the warming itself. But I can't speak for Walter.)
Nonsense! When there is considerable evidence that a considerable faction of climate scientists may have committed fraud, it's perfectly reasonable to do an investigation to see if missuse of public funds has taken place. How else to do that other than to audit all concerned? Those who are guilty may well be quick to scream McCarthyism, but I would expect those who are honest would have no objection to an audit.
This reminds me of the televangelist scandals of about 20 years ago. For some reason a lot of these guys got real popular and had megadollars rolling in. Lots of critics claimed that they were a bunch of scammers enriching themselves at the expense of gullible poor believers, and demands were made to investigate them, but nothing was done untill a few of them got caught out Then there were demands that all televangelists be audited. In response, one of the honest ones, Billy Graham ministries, opened their books to the public. That is the kind of response I would expect from honest climate scientists.
I haven't had time to check out your posts. I will respond, perhaps this weekend.
Define your terms.
You're talking about investigating scientists for whom there is no allegations of fraud. That is not considered in any sense of the word.
A quick perusal of Singer's article is much more informative than the title. I myself will also state that global warming isn't happening, but that statement must be taken in its context, the timeframe. Currently the trend is stasis, or even a slight cooling. However, the overall trend since the little ice age is most certainly warming, and I would suggest that warming trend will resume. Thus you could take my comments about a short timeframe (which is statistacally insignificant) and missapply them to the whole topic as you have done with others, but that would be dishonest.
As for the title of Moncton's book, I would suggest it also refers to the short term trend, since his other work clearly demonstrates that he claims warming from the little ice age, but until I read the book, how would I know?
"Global warming isn't happening" is a claim. It's a claim that you said nobody makes, and that 'alarmists' bring up because they can't possibly address your assertion that human influence shows no discernable influence on the climate.
You're wrong on both counts.
Also, please tell me on what exact time scale it is that you have it as slight cooling? From when?
I've never known you to address the conclusions or methodology of any of the papers I've cited.
Disseminate, distract, confuse and accuse: these are the tried and true methods to discredit and/or obscure the scientific consensus on any situation that could potentially hurt the bottom line of major economics concern in recent history.
The fact is the peer reviewed research on climate change is virtually unanimous, human activity is having a global effect on the climate which is being forced to a higher average temperature. The case against climate change is being made almost exclusively in the mainstream media which is much less subject to scientific rigor and much easier to influence through economic pressure.
The fact is the peer reviewed research on climate change is virtually unanimous, human activity is having a global effect on the climate which is being forced to a higher average temperature. The case against climate change is being made almost exclusively in the mainstream media which is much less subject to scientific rigor and much easier to influence through economic pressure.
- Status