Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking points

[Tommy Allison]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

And Wikipedia is just as intellectually honest as...???

Let me know when you read some books instead of parroting nonsense you hear on TV.

 

[EQ42]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

And Wikipedia is just as intellectually honest as...???

Let me know when you read some books instead of parroting nonsense you hear on TV.

Don't forget this. I think you need to read this and try to understand what it means :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Yes, I tend to side with the overwhelming majority of experts in this field of study instead of the loony "experts" heard on Fox News or Alex Jones. I'm sure you have read books (though probably more like a book) regarding this subject- and the book was written by a wacko. And you were gullible enough to believe their bullshit.
Instead of listening to the vast majority of scientists who have devoted their careers to this subject you have chosen to buy into the nonsense; your conspiratorial/paranoid worldview always finds the ridiculous more probable. That's fine. Good for you. You read a book by some crazy and now you're an expert. Hooray. I'm sure you're also down with 9/11 conspiracies.

 

[cottonzway]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

I am going to address a point before getting into the debate at all. That is the term that the OP used that is thrown around often by people who support man-made GW and CC.

DENIAL/DENIER

Let me say how deeply offended I am by that term being thrown out to make a poltical and social point to counter someone who does not agree with you. I say to those who use that term, don't play stupid either as every person who uses that slogan KNOWS the implication of that term. It's vile and disgusting. Shame on anyone who uses that term to make the implication that it suggests. They disgrace themselves in doing so.

Stop.....

 

[jkoci]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Add the Pentagon too.

Pentagon, CIA Eye New Threat: Climate Change : NPR

 

[cottonzway]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Don't forget this. I think you need to read this and try to understand what it means :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

Yes, I tend to side with the overwhelming majority of experts in this field of study instead of the loony "experts" heard on Fox News or Alex Jones. I'm sure you have read books (though probably more like a book) regarding this subject- and the book was written by a wacko. And you were gullible enough to believe their bullshit.
Instead of listening to the vast majority of scientists who have devoted their careers to this subject you have chosen to buy into the nonsense; your conspiratorial/paranoid worldview always finds the ridiculous more probable. That's fine. Good for you. You read a book by some crazy and now you're an expert. Hooray. I'm sure you're also down with 9/11 conspiracies.

Sadly, you may be beyond hope on this topic my friend. You have drank the lemming kool-aide in forming strawman arguements. I don't even know where to start to address what you are saying. Would Wiki links that support my claim help? How about links form Prison Planet? FOX?

I got a better idea. How about instead of acting in a partisan manner address the SOLUTIONS that are proposed by the GW/CC situation? What are all those "experts" suggesting is the SOLUTION to us evil humans destroying the world?

Cap and Trade, carbon taxation, and the creation of a new carbon trading market? Hmmm. Have you looked into ANY of the proposed solutions to the problem we are suggsted to be causing? Is there a common thread in those solutions? It must be that damn Alex Jones and those kooks who are suggesting those are the proposed solutions. Right?

How people are not able to see a scam like this is beyond me. A sucker is born every day though. The level of smug people to anything that their ideology and "news" sources suggest as reality is stunning on a UFO forum of all places. You would figure you would get more "open-minded" folks. Meh.

 

[EQ42]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Quit being such a DENIER cottonzway.
There are things I believe that the majority of scientists say is nonsense. For example, psi. The difference is that almost all of the scientists who say it's bunk are far from experts in the field- almost all of them have never even bothered to look at the research. They simply assume it's all nonsense because it's not compatible with their materialist worldview. There are very few parapsychologists in the world, people who have devoted their careers to studying things like psi. Part of the reason is because funding for that type of research is so miniscule. However, plenty of those that have, people like JB Rhine and Dean Radin and William Roll, have come up with some interesting results. I've also had personal experiences that suggest something out of the ordinary is going on.

Now with climate change we have many experts in the field with no axe to grind who have spent their careers researching the subject and have managed to come to a rough agreement. If some deniers believe they are all part of some bizarre anti-human agenda that takes orders from the NWO that's fine. I think they're simply going where their research takes them.

 

[EQ42]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

The level of smug people to anything that their ideology and "news" sources suggest as reality is stunning on a UFO forum of all places. You would figure you would get more "open-minded" folks. Meh.

It's like Stan himself says. "Always keep an open mind, just not so open that your brain falls out." Perhaps Stan should take his own advice.

 

[David Biedny]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Sigh - sorry, but Binnall has the interviewing skills of a chicken sandwich. I'm listening to this snorefest right now... time to turn it off. Oy.

dB

 

[Ron Collins]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

I've always considered Friedman more of a self promoter than anything. I would never put him in the ranks of ufo thinkers like Richard Dolan, Jerome Clark, or Jacques Vallee.

WHAT? You would seriously label Friedman a self promoter over Dolan??? You owe it to yourself to take off the rose colored glasses and really look at Dolan.

 

[TClaeys]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

How people are not able to see a scam like this is beyond me. Meh.

Well, for one the science that has been presented is pretty much saying that it is warming and it is man-made at least to some degree. This is confirmed by a large percentage of scientists working directly in the field.

That's why people aren't able to see it. It's based on observational measurements. Now, there are a lot of things you can do with evidence. You can skew it, make people scared, sample what you want to show, or even (gulp) manipulate the data. But the fact that this is what the data says largely is why this is a tough issue. It's no wonder it's a hard to decipher.

But for me, this thing with the leaked emails has not been addressed. Also, cap and trade doesn't solve the issue that is so imperative. It just moves money around. While I don't deny humans can and do have a measurable effect on the environment, I am now less concerned about the whole AGW thing. I think whatever effect we have is too difficult to even tell. When the answer is to tax everyone and it doesn't even solve the "issue" the more I think it's BS. And all the world leaders need to travel in jets and autos to communicate?? Couldn't they 'reduce their footprint' and just use some networking thing?? I'm more worried about Yellowstone blowing half the country away. What kind of contingency plan do we have for something like that??

I hope that science learns from this thing. Peer review seems to have it's problems, thwarting certain papers for others of a more favorable position. Reviewing only your own biased colleagues. It's not neccessarily the checks and balances you would desire from such an important area of study.

And BTW, the whole DENIAL thing...... really??? You're deeply offended?? I just think that is crap. You're saying this is some word that cannot be used because it reminds you of the holocuast?? Is that really what you're saying?? Please... What word would you prefer?? Unbeliever?? Some people deny that we cause climate change. The word is used correctly if you ask me.

 

[jkoci]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Good points Tclaeys. I'm using the thanks button that no longer exist.

 

[cottonzway]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Yeah, I am "deeply offended" by the DENIAL/DENIER term. Why shouldn't I be? Should I accept the implication that I am of the same ilk of David Duke because I don't agree with someone's view on a topic that has nothing to do with it? What other group of people could get away with this term? Nobody. It's wrong and it's implication is offending.

 

[pixelsmith]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

The Deniers are the ones saying that a normal planetary function is going to kill us all unless we pay taxes. LMAO!

Well, for one the science that has been presented is pretty much saying that it is warming and it is man-made at least to some degree. This is confirmed by a large percentage of scientists working directly in the field.

show me the science.

 

[Red]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Actually, large urban areas create heat bubbles or heat islands that are known to disrupt weather patterns.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/nsfc-ev121509.php
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd26apr99_1.htm
http://edoc.unibas.ch/516/
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~russ/zhang_etal_2009.pdf

I don't care whether climate change is occurring or not, and Tommy made a good point about the carbon credits really being a way for a small group to get very rich.
I think the broader issue is how we treat the planet. China is now dealing with water supplies that are heavily contaminated with arsenic and flouride. The National Science Foundation says the dead zones in the ocean are doubling in count every decade. Right now there are 400; some of which are caused by pollution and fertilizer run off.
I think we could solve may of the worlds problems by creating less consumer waste and using non-plastic packaging that can be recycled or or packaging that can degrade (paper), and growing our food crops without so many chemicals. Instead of going with carbon offsets, we need to just develop better ways to manufacture goods and create energy with less pollution. If we included many more gardens and trees in our urban development planning, the air quality would improve, and if we required more buildings to have reflective roofs, the heat bubble effect of many urban areas would be mitigated.

But now everyone is engaged in a pissing contest over whether climate change is happening and missing the much bigger issues all together.

 

[pixelsmith]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Actually, large urban areas create heat bubbles or heat islands that are known to disrupt weather patterns.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-12/nsfc-ev121509.php
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd26apr99_1.htm
http://edoc.unibas.ch/516/
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~russ/zhang_etal_2009.pdf

I don't care whether climate change is occurring or not, and Tommy made a good point about the carbon credits really being a way for a small group to get very rich.
I think the broader issue is how we treat the planet. China is now dealing with water supplies that are heavily contaminated with arsenic and flouride. The National Science Foundation says the dead zones in the ocean are doubling in count every decade. Right now there are 400; some of which are caused by pollution and fertilizer run off.
I think we could solve may of the worlds problems by creating less consumer waste and using non-plastic packaging that can be recycled or or packaging that can degrade (paper), and growing our food crops without so many chemicals. Instead of going with carbon offsets, we need to just develop better ways to manufacture goods and create energy with less pollution. If we included many more gardens and trees in our urban development planning, the air quality would improve, and if we required more buildings to have reflective roofs, the heat bubble effect of many urban areas would be mitigated.

But now everyone is engaged in a pissing contest over whether climate change is happening and missing the much bigger issues all together.

there is no argument whether climate change is happening. of course it is. it has for several millions of years.
plant more gardens and trees?!? you will contribute to the dreaded CO2 gas build up. shame on you Red for suggesting such a thing!

 

[Red]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

there is no argument whether climate change is happening. of course it is. it has for several millions of years.
plant more gardens and trees?!? you will contribute to the dreaded CO2 gas build up. shame on you Red for suggesting such a thing!

Okay, when I said "climate change" I meant "man-made climate change".

 

[tyder001]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

The point is with all the yelling the earth has always undergone climate change. When we lived in Colorado you could find sea shell fossils under the rocks. Is there global warming? Sure. Does mankind contribute? Sure, we da man! But is mankind soley responsible? No! Has it been politicized for power and money? Sure and always! I'm getting so tired of America being the worlds policemen and with silly little agendas both left and right to save us from ourselves. I don't care what Bob and Tom do in the privacy of their own home. I don't like abortion but it's up to the woman and her idea of God/Universe and maybe the American Medical Association. I don't think little "accords" and ecological statements are going to have much of an effect on China or most anyone else. Lets fix health care by plugging in the gaps and dealing with Medicare and Medicaid. Lets stop run away inflation. Let's see if we can get our nation back from the far left and right and corporate greed. Let's make every crime a hate crime or no crime a hate crime. (It's just as hateful to me if ya hurt little balding white men as it is to anyone else getting hurt out there) We just need a little common sense round here.

 

[TClaeys]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Yeah, I am "deeply offended" by the DENIAL/DENIER term. Why shouldn't I be? Should I accept the implication that I am of the same ilk of David Duke because I don't agree with someone's view on a topic that has nothing to do with it? What other group of people could get away with this term? Nobody. It's wrong and it's implication is offending.

Would you please spell out what 'implications' you are reffering to?? There are holocaust deniars, 911 deniars, evolution, climate change, Bible, history, etc. This term has been used a lot. I didn't use it, but don't see why it's offensive. In any case what term is proper and not offensive?? What term should be used?? 'Skeptic' doesn't work because they are not skeptical, they have taken a position opposite of the 'believer' platform. Sorry, didn't want to get in a tiff about semantics.

And Pixel-
Keep in mind I'm not defending AGW. I still don't know what is going on, but I remain skeptical at this point because of reasons I listed before. Right now I'm merely trying to point out WHY people can be convinced one way or the other. But, digressing, ....

A fairly recent survey of over 3000 Earth scientists (the ones that should have a say in this) revealed that overwhelmingly global temps have risen compared to pre-1800's and that people play a significant part. I'm not making that up. 90% said that temps have risen and 82% said we play a significant part. Climatologists who were part of this survey were more like 97%.

So whenever the 'experts' are expressing themselves about the science they do everyday, then I think it is worth listening to. I'm not a climatologist so I kind of have to defer to the scientists that do the research.

Now, couple that with things like 2000-2009 is the warmest decade on record and you get more ooomph to manipulate public opinion. And this was based on data outside of the CRU of East Anglia.

Now, .. I think there are problems, which I described before as well. But, it's stuff like this that makes people think we are part of the problem. I'm not saying I buy it, just saying there is ample reason to be a 'believer' when you are presented this kind of stuff.

But seriously, are we to think that taxing emmissions is going to solve the problem of emmissions?? I'd say, uhhh NO.

 

[Tommy Allison]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

I'm beginning to deny everything because it seems at every turn, whatever topic, those who continue to endorse or promote said topics are directly profiting from it.

Deny Everything. I don't believe in anything that 99 percent of the people say about anything anymore. I'm even beginning to question whether or not the sky is really blue, or if the sun rises in the East.

We have a culture, and a society that is polarized at every turn, by design. If you look at who is on either side of things, you find that these shameless promoters are making money from people's desire to belong to something.

We used to have a society where people wanted to contribute and be a part of it. Now, some of us are so sickened that we just want to drop out of it entirely.

Whether it be Global Warming, Religion, The Holocaust, Conspiracy Theories, or even the fricking price of tea in China, there's always going to be someone spelling out gloom and doom, and scaring people out of the minds, and out of their money. During the 70's it was Global Cooling. During the 80's it was the cold war, and organized religion stealing from people, and now, it's socialized medicine, terrorism, and global warming that we need to relinquish our freedom, and prosperity in the name of saving everyone.

What a crock.

 

[cottonzway]

Just heard Stanton F repeating smug and facile climate change denial talking poin

Would you please spell out what 'implications' you are reffering to?? There are holocaust deniars, 911 deniars, evolution, climate change, Bible, history, etc. This term has been used a lot. I didn't use it, but don't see why it's offensive. In any case what term is proper and not offensive?? What term should be used?? 'Skeptic' doesn't work because they are not skeptical, they have taken a position opposite of the 'believer' platform. Sorry, didn't want to get in a tiff about semantics.

The term used in the context it is directly implies holocaust denial. That direct claim has been used as well to make a point about supporting man-made GW/CC and can easily be found with a simple Google search. It's a disgusting way to make a politcal/social point. If those who use it are not aware of the implication then I hope they learn what is implied. If they stop using it, great. If not, they are ignorant.