Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

I just stumbled onto that bit about John Travolta by accident when I was searching on global warming and religion to see if there was anything to it.

I was searching some more, and discovered something even scarier than John Travolta and The Pope combined. Have you ever heard of Globalists? Now those guys are scary. I mean if you're really looking for a conspiracy with a serious freak-out factor, here ya go...

Globalists Love Global Warming

Global Warming Hysteria Serves as Excuse for World Government

   

The very fact that you think so, betrays your obvious political agenda in pushing the AGW religion.

All hail AGW the omnipotent

   

Paragraph the first: Al Gore and Suzuki then should be sat down and read the riot act for knowingly mangling scientific phraseology in order to induce panic among the unknowing. I'm not a linguist or a scientist. In my limited layman's capacity, thanks both to my iown hyperactive nternal bullshit detector and the lingering stings on my psyche from knowing how badly the fear-machine fooled me about Iraq, I will not let myself be stampeded ever again by skilled pro-GW propagandists who are blatantly seeking to generate a state of sheer terror in the general population. The fear-machine of the left is as disgusting as the fear-machineery of the right, and the one on the left is currently cranke dup to full force on all matters involving GW.

Paragraph the second: I didn't say that the scientists were "charlatans and maniacs" but I should have admittedly been clearer in saying that the scientist are being used by very clever charlatans and maniacs. Many scientists studying in the GW-field have come forward and denounced Al Gore since he got his Peace Prize. Why are they being ignored? Why is Gore (and his Mini-Me Canadian clone in Suzuki) still being treated as the go-to-guy by the media for the final authoritative word on this issue? I wouldn't know anything about a "conspiracy of greedy scientists" sucking up for research dollars, but I know something, just by watching it on TV, about a conspiracy by the media in which known panic-monger and charlatan like Al Gore is being treated with Teflon gloves and puff-ball questions.

Paragraph the third: You'll get no defense of the despicable Christianist right from me. I hate them all. I will point out, however, that in relation to GW, the "we-good, they-bad" tactic is the sole province of the the GW-proponents. You cannot logically deny this reality however hard you try.

   

But why? I can understand the left or the right doing it--but why have all the scientists world-wide suddenly decided, in your words, "to generate a state of terror"? Because they want research dollars? Sorry, I don't buy that. It doesn't add up. Could it be--and I know that I'm going way out on a limb here--that the scientists actually think AGW is real and actually know what they are talking about? Maybe a lot of these scientists are just as pissed at green "panic-mongers" blowing the issue out of proportion as they are at the AGW "deniers."



Ignored? Hardly. The great majority of research scientists operating in relevant fields think AGW is real. The scientist skeptics are a realtively small percentage. I won't get into numbers, because I've been there too mnay times already, but the postiion of virtually every relevant learned scientific body on the planet subscribes to AGW. And yet the newspapers and media are rife with the reports of skeptcis, claomring that they are not being heard. In Canada we have one of our two national newspapers dedicated to their position, despite the fact that--from a scientific persepctvie--they are a small minority. The big talk raido station here in Vancouver has skeptics on practically daily; rarely do they have AGW proponents. Oh, I wouldn't say that the skeptics are being ignored. Quite the opposite--thanks to some big money help, they are punching way over their weight.




Sure I can--have you ever listened to Samsquanch go off? According to the Christian and neo-con right, there is nothing more evil than socialism, and that is what AGW represents to them--an attempt at "world government." Because (to their small minds) the response to AGW implies a socialist solution, therefore they must reject the theory itself. In my opinion, anyways. But I certainly won't deny that the left plays the same games.

Me--I think we have bigger problems to worry about. Personally, I'm more worried about the fish. And I think there will be lots of other more pressing global problmes we'll face long before the climate change issue comes home to roost. What bothers me is not the world is doing squat about climate change--I expected no better in these fractious times. What bothers me is the scientists of the world are being scapegoated and their reseacrh dragged through the mud. Indeed, an "assault on reason."

PS--good to have ya back, buddy!!!

   

Now that's some pretty snazzy rhetoric. Let's check it out. Let's see if that's what right-wing Christians are saying.

Here's 2 parts of an interview by Anderson Cooper with right wing Christian broadcaster Glen Beck.

Part 1

Part 2

Now me, I'm not Christian, and waver right to center, but the guy pretty much makes sense to me.

   

You DO agree with this guy? That's odd because he says the climate is getting warmer, but, as I recall, you have spent quite a bit of time trying to convince people it hasn't gotten warmer since 1998. When you're arguing with someone to persuade them, it's fine to change arguments on the fly, argue one thing one moment, and the opposite the next as it suits your needs. However, in science, this is not an acceptable approach. You can't say with one breath that the earth is warming and with the next that it's cooling.

Another refrain of Beck's, common to the AGW skeptics, is this reidiculous notion that thier side is not being heard--despite that (a) Beck himself says that Anderson's "Planet in Peril" CNN series was balanced and (b) here Beck is on one of the most-watched news programs in the world stating his case. Sorry, the bullshit meter goes off the scale at that farcical claim.

   

No, it's just your prejudice.

Where you are ready and eager to substantiate (or at least attempt to) your other opinions with well crafted arguments and well-researched and footnoted sources, your abject refusal to substantiate this smear against AGW sceptics as being mostly composed of those few radical Christians who take the Bible literally is tantamount to an open admission of prejudice.



So, without knowledge, thought, or reason you hold this unfavorable opinion.

I never imagined you to be a bigot. I'm disappointed.

   

Corrected.

   

You see that's the problem. You either don't really listen, or you only hear what you want to. I didn't say I agree with everything the guy says. I said what he was saying in the interview in those 2 vids made sense.

On the getting warmer thing, I actually did used to agree with the guy. What I used to say was "no warming since 1998" was both true, and BS depending on how you viewed the data. Basically though there was a warming trend, but it wasn't really possible to attach any significance to the flattening out of temperatures since 1998, because we don't know what's going to happen next. I said it was also BS the way the alarmists would present their graphs to show warming from the little ice age, and a spike continuing to rise from 1980 in a way that didn't illustrate the complete picture.

As I learn more though, I have adjusted my thinking so that now I'm not sure I agree with Beck when he talks about warming as a continuing trend. That doesn't mean I no longer think he makes sense. That means I'm not sure I agree with him on at least one tiny point.

It's a tiny adjustment in a small, selected section of his argument. He says the climate "is" warming. I'm starting to think it might be more accurate to say the climate was warming, but we're not sure exactly what it's doing now.



Nonsense. Our understanding of science changes as new data, and the way it's interpreted appears. If what you're saying was true, there'd be no such thing as evolutionary theory, tectonics, or relativity.



That's less true than it was, but it's still worth considering. More and more people in media, the public, and science, are beginning to question AGW dogma. The skeptic's argument is now beginning to get out there. We still have the problem of science being hijacked through funding towards a specific policy, and the larger part of the mainstream media indoctrinated towards hysteria, but myself, I'm starting to notice a continuing change. A tweaking of the thought control, so that more people are beginning to hear both sides, and more scientists are beginning to rethink their stance. Even some environmentalists are switching sides.

   

My opinions may go unsubstantiated here, but not in my head, where they matter. I don't have to, nor do I feel a need to, justify my opinions to you or anyone else here. I don't think I'm a bogiot. I obviously think my rational philosophy is superior to that of Chritians, Muslims or Jews, but I do not call for any intolerance or opprobrium against them. Also, my prejudcie against teh religious right is because I see their neo-conservative socialism and warmongering as anathema to my freedom. I don't like the religious zealots because of what they would do to me, not becasue of who they are.

   

Yes, that probably is my problem, though I share it wiht 99.9% of others here!




No, I disagree. Evolution, as a theory, was not inconsistent when Darwin proposed it, and is not inconsistent now. Same wiht relativity. (Well, relativity may be inconsistent, but it is recognized as such, and there is much reseacrh trying to deal with this).

It is not scientifically valid, nor is it rational, to say (as Bart's Mr. All American does) that Mars is undergoing massive global warming due to increased solar activity, but the Earth is cooling--at least not without providing a justification as to why this would be the case. If solar activity is increasing such that it is measurable on Mars, why do we see no warming on Earth?

It's my opinion that a lot of AGW sceptics don'y buy the climate change science argument because they think Kyoto is a pile of crap. I think Kyoto was anot very good, but it is illogical to deduce that because Kyoto was crap therefore the science of climate change is crap.



Then the system is working as it should. In fact, there was never any problem wiht the general public's access to the "skeptic's side" of the argument. The constant railing that they didn't get fair access is simply a propaganda ploy to draw more attention to themsleves and try to influence the media. Same as the Christian right demanding equal access for their "intelligent design" theory. They just wanted "both sides' presented, as if they were scientifically equal theories. As well, the skeptics side has been remarkably well-funded, primarily by large energy and energy-affiliated companies through various right-wing think tanks.

I agree that many members of the public are rethinking their stance on the issue, but I don't think much has changed on the science end. In other words, the right wing are doing a good job wiht their propaganda campaign, but the facts of climate change remain, as the scientists well know.

   

All of this has nothing to do with smearing AGW sceptics as religious fundamentalists. That you dislike fundies is perfectly fine with me. That you want to propagandize against AGW sceptics with unfounded crap is not.

   

It's done far more to raise awareness than if nobody had done what he's been doing, whether you agree with his lifetsyle choices and politics or not.

   

I don't know. Either you don't understand what I was saying, I don't understand what you're saying, or there's a little of both.

I'm saying people think a certain way. New information is produced. People tweak their thinking to adjust to it. That in itself is not hypocrisy. That's just being reasonable. Try it man it doesn't hurt.

There were scientists who didn't believe in continental drift. New information was presented, then they did.

I used to think the flattening of global temperatures in the last decade was just a clever trick of visually manipulating the data, and not really significant. I'm reading more about it, and I'm starting to think maybe I was wrong. Maybe it does matter.

   

It's done nothing but fatten his bank account and give the left wing media more fodder for fear mongering"THE DEBATE IS OVER"

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next