Sorry, count me out. I'm now a Green Climate Change Denier but still an environmentalist.

41 posts / 0 new

Good news. This cancer of the planet is benign, but you fading Doomers want this misery to happen. There is enough doubt and debate indicating (to any reasonable person) that the IPCC’s prediction of effects being literally next to nothing, to unstoppable warming are just that, harmless or non existent.

So do you see how it’s still professional and honest for NASA, MET and UN scientists to say it is real? It’s not a lie. What “IS” a lie, is to say that unstoppable warming is climate change. However 24 years of predictions proves the effects are literally next to nothing. But it’s still real. Too funny.

All of the publicly funded and or tax payer funded organizations hold the course on impending doom. Why? It’s too big to fail. It’s been 24 years. Private and independent scientists refute these claims of doom but you Doomers discount the scientists as being bribed by evil deniers. At least ACT like it’s science will you? This needless fear is unsustainable. Just drop the CO2 mistake and carry on with courage instead of fear. Or can you remaining doomers do that? Grow some!

CO2 levels are still rising, despite less CO2 being emitted in this global economic slowdown.

NOW who’s the denier? History is juding you modern day witch burners who scared children for two and a half decades.

I’m a Green Liberal and Progressive Climate Change Denier.

mememine69's picture
mememine69
Joined:
Nov. 20, 2010 6:56 am

Comments

I'm sure you like pollution, too. As Koch brothers state

In 1997, for instance, the E.P.A. moved to reduce surface ozone, a form of pollution caused, in part, by emissions from oil refineries. Susan Dudley, an economist who became a top official at the Mercatus Center, criticized the proposed rule. The E.P.A., she argued, had not taken into account that smog-free skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. She projected that if pollution were controlled it would cause up to eleven thousand additional cases of skin cancer each year.

In 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court took up Dudley’s smog argument. Evaluating the E.P.A. rule, the court found that the E.P.A. had “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.” In another part of the opinion, the court ruled, 2-1, that the E.P.A. had overstepped its authority in calibrating standards for ozone emissions. As the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank, revealed, the judges in the majority had previously attended legal junkets, on a Montana ranch, that were arranged by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment—a group funded by Koch family foundations. The judges have claimed that the ruling was unaffected by their attendance.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz15pdmZEMV

Pollution is good, the bought and paid for courts said so.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

I'm sure you like pollution, too. As Koch brothers state

In 1997, for instance, the E.P.A. moved to reduce surface ozone, a form of pollution caused, in part, by emissions from oil refineries. Susan Dudley, an economist who became a top official at the Mercatus Center, criticized the proposed rule. The E.P.A., she argued, had not taken into account that smog-free skies would result in more cases of skin cancer. She projected that if pollution were controlled it would cause up to eleven thousand additional cases of skin cancer each year.

In 1999, the District of Columbia Circuit Court took up Dudley’s smog argument. Evaluating the E.P.A. rule, the court found that the E.P.A. had “explicitly disregarded” the “possible health benefits of ozone.” In another part of the opinion, the court ruled, 2-1, that the E.P.A. had overstepped its authority in calibrating standards for ozone emissions. As the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank, revealed, the judges in the majority had previously attended legal junkets, on a Montana ranch, that were arranged by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment—a group funded by Koch family foundations. The judges have claimed that the ruling was unaffected by their attendance.

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer#ixzz15pdmZEMV

Pollution is good, the bought and paid for courts said so.

Great, more morality. The desperate believers are sounding like bible thumpers now. Can you try any harder to believe in the end of the world or is unstoppable warming just a minor crisis?

Real enviros are happy and relieved that this crisis has been averted. So we drop the CO2 and nothing changes. We still work to make the environment safe to live in.

mememine69's picture
mememine69
Joined:
Nov. 20, 2010 6:56 am

Mememine wrote: "CO2 levels are still rising, despite less CO2 being emitted in this global economic slowdown."

poly replies: Unfortunately, that isn't true. The #1 pollutor is now China with India close on its heels. The global downturn hasn't slowed the emissions of nations that so far seem immune to it..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10507-carbon-emissions-rising-faster-than-ever.html

Not all countries bought into neo-liberalism and the Chicago School of Economics nonsense that is collapsing their economies. CO2 emmissions continue to increase in dynamic economies around the world.. Add another greenhouse gas, methane, released by melting permafrost to the problem.

Not all the world is following the U.S. and Western Europe into an economic pit. Some countries actually regulate finance and keep a tight reign on banksters. CO2 emissions are still increasing.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wow, where to start? I guess the science would be a good place.

First, CO2 levels are still rising despite an economic dip because we are emitting far more CO2 into the atmosphere than natural processes are extracting. Its simple math and its not tied to the stock markets or banks. CO2 in > CO2 out.

Second, just look at the arctic ice coverage. Something is causing it to change. http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/polar/sea_ice/sea_ice_compare.html

Third, the physics are quite clear. To maintain the Earth's energy balance the incoming energy must equal the outgoing energy. If you increase an element that allows most of the visible radiation (primary heat source) in but captures and redistributes infrared radiation (primary cooling mechanism) things will begin to warm. http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=133

Billions of data points from thousands of data sources point overwhelmingly in one direction; we are modifying our climate. Those who choose to ignore the vast preponderance of the evidence may do so for political economic or ideological reasons, but certainly not scientific reasons.

Weather Guy's picture
Weather Guy
Joined:
Nov. 20, 2010 2:28 pm

Part of the CO2 balance is the trees that suck out CO2, and convert it to O.

Here is a slide show, and personal stories of how much the US values conservation.

That slide show is from the part of the country I grew up in. But the same scorched earth policy is up in the Pacific NW. 1000 acres of old growth slated for destruction, sorry the newspeak term is harvest I think, I'm not sure the newest bs.

btw, the first link I posted that shows American's like pollution, is also related to the strip mining on steroids link here. The Koch brothers through Georgia/Pacific, with one brother on National Cancer Institute, want to deny formaldehyde scientific designation as known carcinogen. Just because it causes leukemia, and was in the FEMA trailors by way of plywood, a major product of G/P, it would cost them money. So, formaldehyde is safe, the same as pollution is good for you. And mercury in fish? Maybe one of the bros' think tanks can find how that and the other heavy metals are good for you.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, emissions are rising but we are contributing less via the economic slow down worldwide. So what they told us to do has been done, but it didn't translate into lower CO2 levels. Mother Nature, still the great mystery it always was.

Climate Change is the test for a slanted ideologue the litmus test for a liar.

mememine69's picture
mememine69
Joined:
Nov. 20, 2010 6:56 am

True. When environmental collapse and economic collapse merge, we'll find out just who has been telling the fibs.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

One of the most interesting memes in the environmental sciences realm is, "The solution to pollution is dilution." I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard this. I'd be a multi-millionaire.

Frame it any way you want - the reality is we live in an enclosed environment - and pollution is accumulative. Even if it accumulates at a minuscule ng/L (parts per trillion) - that's still accumulation.

I know it seems like we live in a big wide world. But, it's still one world....AKA one environment. And, like I just said, pollution is accumulative.

Clean air, water, and earth are in them selves natural RESOURCES. Using them as a dilution solution for our pollution will only take us so far.

Anyway, this whole "global warming" argument/diatribe is a waste of time, intelligence and resources. It's like having a band-aid in hand - but passively saying, " everyone can see there's a wound - but will the wound fester into something large enough to justify doing something about it? Let's just wait and see."

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

For some reason I very much doubt the initial poster here is a "Green Liberal".

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
CO2 levels are still rising, despite less CO2 being emitted in this global economic slowdown.

Here's how either stupid or ignorant "green liberals", and all other AGW deniers are. Before, they made the claim that warming preceded CO2 increases, implying that the rise in CO2 was due to some natural rise in temperature. So, why wouldn't someone in the denier community expect that CO2 would continue to rise even through an economic slowdown? Therefore, this rise wouldn't even be mentioned as it would be expected as a result of AGW, that due to human caused greenhouse gas release the rise in temperature would cause even more CO2 to be released, due to other conditions such as the thawing of permafrost for example. Therefore, this isn't support for this "green liberal"'s claim.

Whoever this is, he or she should do a lot more study before he or she posts such nonsense. That this person is not a "green liberal" is exposed by the use of th eright-wing talking point about money:

"All of the publicly funded and or tax payer funded organizations hold the course on impending doom."

This exposes the person as a right-winger, who's absolute goal is to destroy the environmental movement as it questions his or her religious beliefs, that god create the earth for their abuse, and economic ideology, that the market will resolve all issues as people act in their own interest.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

For some reason I very much doubt the initial poster here is a "Green Liberal".

perhaps a troll.

a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers by, but rather a provocative posting to a news group intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses."

"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. Trolls can be costly in several ways. A troll can disrupt the discussion on a newsgroup, disseminate bad advice, and damage the feeling of trust in the newsgroup community. Furthermore, in a group that has become sensitized to trolling — where the rate of deception is high — many honestly naïve questions may be quickly rejected as trollings. This can be quite off-putting to the new user who upon venturing a first posting is immediately bombarded with angry accusations. Even if the accusation is unfounded, being branded a troll is quite damaging to one's online reputation."

from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

We have been through this climate change argument numerous times with our no trolling conservative members.

shalwechat's picture
shalwechat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, emissions are rising but we are contributing less via the economic slow down worldwide.

So are you saying global emmissions are on the rise, but we are contributing less than a model for a fully expanding global economy would have predicted? Or is the "we" you use americans?

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
So are you saying global emmissions are on the rise, but we are contributing less than a model for a fully expanding global economy would have predicted? Or is the "we" you use americans?

I am saying we in the global sense, not just Americans. I am also saying that the continued rise in CO2 concentrations is a result of the greenhouse gas emissions from buring fossil fuels that lead to an increased release from the environment, such as thawing permafrost regions.

So, mememine69's statement that "CO2 levels are still rising, despite less CO2 being emitted in this global economic slowdown" shows only ignorance of the subject because prior to humans burning fossil fuels, the natural cycles, such as the Milankovitch cycle, CO2 concentrations even after the event that caused the warming ceased. So, what would a person expect when humans raised the system's energy? The same thing. The system doesn't care where the energy comes from, just that it rose, thus increasing the release of sequestered CO2, which then adds to the warming as it traps IR in the atmosphere.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I’m a Green Liberal and Progressive Climate Change Denier.

A most oxymoronic oxymoron...

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mememine69:

Good news. ...

CO2 levels are still rising, despite less CO2 being emitted in this global economic slowdown

CO2 levels are still rising ummm that is the bad news - as the seas become more acidic and less tenable by all forms of life and more deforestation occurs the capacity of the biosphere to absorb CO2 continues to decline. We may already be over the edge on that one.

Quote mememine69:

NOW who’s the denier?

Call yourself what you like but sincerely doubt that you a registered or active Green Party member. Excusing continued environmental destruction is not Green or Progressive.

Let the right-wing act like studies funded by fossil fuel companies are science. It is a large and complex issue - more energy in the system can be expressed as a general increase in temperature that is hard to measure or it could be expressed as a hurricane season where the only storms that did not get big enough to be named went directly through the DeepWater Horizon dispersant cloud. More energy = bigger storms including freak snowstorms like earlier in the year and almost twice the normal hurricane activity.

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What I find amusing w/ climate change deniers is that these same people have spent a billion $ per day to fight against the supposed "terrorist threat" and have attacked multiple countries in the name of "Safety" - all in response to 9-11 that caused a few thousand deaths - (I am NOT discounting those deaths)

while these same deniers fight tooth and nail against Health Care for all that kills over 50,000 people a year in the USA alone......

and the "solutions" to fight against "Global Climate Change or Warming etc is to REDUCE pollution...... whicxh should be a goal in and of itself.....

I'd argue that even if cimate change wasn't occuring these increased environmental laws would be good ideas anyway -

How about Eskimo women w/ 25+ chemicals in their breast milk? or municiple water supplies filled w/ pollutants - causing cancer and killing thousands a year- but OH NO it's too expensive we're told!

What a bunch of hypocrites - they want their endless war to the tune of TRILLIONS to fight against the supposed Muslim Terrorist threat that has caused a fraction of the deaths these other THREATS have directly caused but REFUSE to act in these other cases -

THAT tells me it's not about SAVING anyone but only increasing Corporate Profits and EMPIRE -

What a bunch of phonies and hypocrites!.........

mtdon's picture
mtdon
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think the Original Poster's self-description just needs a close look, like "Blue Sky" initiatives, etc.

I think "Green Liberal" = Have Lots of Money, and

"Progessive Climate Change Denier" = Climate Change Denier, but moreso every day

Liked seeing the inclusion of ocean acidification from CO2. (#15)

I'm waiting for a Bleach Mfg Trade Rep. to object to calling the early signs of dying Coral Reefs, "Bleaching", as some kind of Trade infringement.

Someone (with skiils) should do a parody of the "which one is whiter" commercial, except showing pictures of two different dying coral reefs.

Oh and #1, you get you wish - consider yourself counted out.

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm with you on this. The Global Warming scam has to be separated from the legitimate scientists who understand that changes are happeneing and want to know the likely effects and if there is something that we can do differently that will positively affect it. Unfortunately The Doomsters have been with us always, and they always will. The artificial sweetener, that went into soda pop? Gonna kill you, cause massive cancer, etc. Whoops! Got that one wrong. Caffeine - a scourge, lookout for all the upcoming strokes and heart attacks. Whoops! Got that one wrong, too.And on and on. And these were research scientists assuring us of all this approaching doom. We need to quit the scare tactics, quit trying to convince people that if they use paper instead of plastic and de-smog their cars they're going to save the world. Use the resources available to concentrate on REAL scientific inquiry. And if folks want to take environmental protection measures, please do so. It won't hurt. UNTIL you get EPA et al making ridiculous rules that hurt far more than they help.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
And if folks want to take environmental protection measures, please do so. It won't hurt. UNTIL you get EPA et al making ridiculous rules that hurt far more than they help.

Hurt what? Could you be more specific?

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If we allowed environmental damage to only grow at 3% a year, within a lifetime we'd have a dead planet.

Ditto carbon emissions. Exponential growth, even at a small percentage, is pretty rapid.

Dumping investments in NYC real estate at its peak might be a good thing. Buildings flooded with ocean water to the 2nd floor may not sell well.. Buy beach front property 5 miles inland while its still cheap and not yet bordering the ocean.

There may be a good future selling gondolas. Parts of NYC can become the Venice of the America's.

Get out of peddling fish in coastal cities.. They'll be deposited on doorsteps by the tides...for free. Sell fish sauce.

Get into pharmaceuticals. Great potential for cholera and malaria medications.

Rather than addressing global warming, we should look forward to the abounding opportunities.

Did I beat Fox News to the true perspective?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

cpp- If you know of definitive studies showing aspartame and the like to be safe I would interested in seeing them.

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

For me this thread is just another reminder of the relativity of perspectives... ...AKA "truths" based on personal knowledge and experiences.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
For me this thread is just another reminder of the relativity of perspectives... ...AKA "truths" based on personal knowledge and experiences.

More accurately, it's "truths" that are either a) bald faced lies, to sway the stupid and ignorant, or (b) based in ignorance or stupidity. There's no nice way of saying it.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

CHANGE DENIER ~response ~~~~~~~~

With all the misinformation out there, you can always choose your experts. Last time I checked the scientists on the corporate payroll are the only ones saying there is no climate change. But in the world of real science there is no controversey..

I for one choose not to turst andthing corporate pays for, because it is commonly known corporate money pays for outcomes of studys and research , rather than for where tthe research leads. The common denmominator when corporate pays for something, is for them to make more money.

So, with the goal of making more money, lie after lie has been conveyed to the general public. There are the same corporations that in the past have told us cigarettes are safe.. I think they kept using asbestos for 25 years after they knew it caused cancer.. Dupont knew their non stick coatings were toxic. Same with BPA in the plastic.. Today I am wiondering if corn sugar is safe.. I certainly do not trust the sugar company paid for advertisements (I will wait for true science to answer).

bobbler

bobbler's picture
bobbler
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

That's the point. There are no "definitive" studies that show cyclamate, which is the artificial sweetener I was refering to, to be safe or unsafe. News reports of the day (circa 1969) stressed the potential danger of cyclamate. The cause of the fear? Lab rats, fed a 10:1 mixture of cyclamate/sacharin at a rate approximating 350 cans of soda pop per day in humans, developed bladder tumors. FDA, that same year (1969) banned cyclamate. At the same time it was approved for use in the UK. Subsequently, Abbott Laboratories claimed that they could not reproduce the 1969 study's results, as above, and petitioned FDA to remove the ban. FDA denied the request 8 years later. Abbott repetitioned in '82. FDA said that their revieew of the available evidence didn't implicate cyclomate as a carcinogen, and then refused to remove the ban. The evidence would certainly seem to show that the 1969 study was not warranted in its conclusions and that FDA was not warranted in banning it, especially after they disputed the 1969 study's conclusion. The UK had no such problem. As to caffeine, another news blast about the findings showing the harmful effects of caffeine, this over time. The matter is still a point of controversy. But what is clear is that caffeine is b oth bad and good. If you overuse it, it (like most things overused) an have harmful effects. People who are hypertense, already at risk for heart problems should cool it. But coffee has valuable effects as well; it can help avoid diabetes, gallstones, and Parkinson's Disease, avoid hypertension, and liver disease. One has heard much about the ill effects, little about the positive effects (until fairly recently). Sorry to be so lengthy on this, but you should be able to get my point. So-called scientific conclusions are sometimes prematurely drawn and acted upon. That isn't "scientific" and it's very distracting.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

No, in the world of "real science" they are exchanging notes on how to dummy up their "research" to prove their supposed point. Yeah, big difference, eh? BTW, the so-called deniers include scientists who are actually dedicated to science, not a political agenda.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote mememine69:

Yes, emissions are rising but we are contributing less via the economic slow down worldwide. So what they told us to do has been done, but it didn't translate into lower CO2 levels. Mother Nature, still the great mystery it always was.

Climate Change is the test for a slanted ideologue the litmus test for a liar.

Ummm...I think what the Weather guy said was, slowing down CO2 production will not make a difference when the slowed production is STILL more than the Earth can naturally discipate. Furthermore, mother nature is not the same mystery she always has been either. We discover new things every day that help us to better understand our planet. I disagree with your entire premise.

Claiming ignorance of the causes and effects of something does not make a person some great truth teller. It makes them honestly dumb.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
No, in the world of "real science" they are exchanging notes on how to dummy up their "research" to prove their supposed point. Yeah, big difference, eh? BTW, the so-called deniers include scientists who are actually dedicated to science, not a political agenda.

Alright, where are the articles and research papers that refute climate change, AKA global warming? If people are "dummying up" research, then the proof will be in flawed papers that are exposed in other research. So, show us that evidence.

jeff_biss's picture
jeff_biss
Joined:
Dec. 27, 2010 8:56 am

Our Climate Change issue is tailor-made (punningly so) for polarizing positions, but only because so many have been trained in all-or-nothing thinking.

Taking a deep breathe and exhaling slowly, one should be able to accept that a situation with so many variables does not have a one-stop-shopping solution.

The CO2 target of 350 (correct number is 324, but let's get to 350 first) is just one of many things we need to work on. They use it for simplification - as a measurable thing - but then opponents zero in on it as if it's the only thing - and discussions deteriorate (by detractor's design) from that point.

As with any honest discussion, everyone needs to start from a point they can agree upon. Suggested starting point:

If we do not find a way to undo most of the harm we have done to our environment the past several decades, there will not be a planet for anyone regardless of how much imaginary wealth they have accumulated.

I am not talking about the usual slow, multi-year decline into an increasingly hostile planetary surface, that is commonly envisioned.

I'm talking about losing out on the really important upcoming vote, which doesn't take place on terra firma.

The things we call The Laws of Physics are up for renewal. Most of them are expected to be extended, but the one we call Gravity may get modified - which will send our planet plummeting into the sun.

Apparently, when they come over to check on things and ask, "What did you do to ________?" The correct answer is not: "Who?"

Rodger97321's picture
Rodger97321
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

FACT from the National Weather Service, and the privately-owned (and conservatively-sponsored) AccuWeather:

The average temperature for all of 2010 in Boston was 53.9°, 2.2° warmer than normal and the warmest on record. That breaks the previous record of 53.6° set in 1949 and 1953. The normal average temperature is 51.7°.

Source: Boston Globe, January 2, 2011.

applewuud's picture
applewuud
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You can start with the case where thatr university in England that specializes in climate change research had some of there professors/researchers exchanging e-mails on how to mislead on the subject. Big scandal, if you'll recollect.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

As an addendum to my point about faulty research and induced hysteria; the latest about the MMR vaccine research from ten years ago that showed that autism could develop from MMR vaccine is a perfect case. Even though scientists, (i'm sure anti-vaccinations people would have termed them "deniers") were on Dr. Wakefield right off for the sloppy research, anti-vaccine people and the publication of the research findings led to a very serious curtailment of MMR vaccinations in Britain and the U.S. It has taken until last year for the medical research establishment to debunk the research and strip the good doctor of his license. One physician, Dr. Max Wiznitzer of the Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital, University Hospitals Case Medical Center in Cleveland said that he personally knew of children who suffered brain damage as a result of not being immunized due to the parents' fear over the research findings. And he said that Dr. Wakefield believes what he's doing. To prove the point, Wakefield, now apparently resident in Texas, is promoting his book on the subject, CALLOUS DISREGARD: AUTISM AND VACCINES, THE TRUTH BEHIND THE TRAGEDY. Inasmuch as I doubt that the book is a mea culpa, I strongly suspect that Wakefield is a true believer, even if the true science doesn't accord with what he just KNOWS to be true. Which makes him out to be pretty much like his global climate change-as-certain-disaster comrades.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The ice caps aren't melting. The Greenland ice sheets are larger than ever.

Photos to the contrary are a conspiracy by Al Gore to fill his wallet. He continues to bribe every photographer flying over expanding ice in the northern latitudes to doctor their photos.

If he ever misses a bribe, the truth will be out.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

ccp- I think that is the first time I have seen the double straw man. First claim that vaccination is not related to Autism because one researcher lied about his research, and then claim that false conclusion somwhow leads to the idea that global warming is a lie.Niether piece of logic has any basis in fact

mattnapa's picture
mattnapa
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Here is a troll. Don't feed them. His position is based on misinformation and foolish self-delusion. Unlike him, I do actually discuss with scientists, yes, from NASA, and can understand the idea of a big picture. He brings up discredited findings and rehashing old arguments which were found to have no merit. Save your breath and ignore him.

downix's picture
downix
Joined:
Oct. 12, 2010 11:04 am

You bet downix. I'm all all ready to read your recitation of discredited findings. The global warming scam at the university in England never happened, every media outlet on earth lied about it. As for the other guy, my whole point (since you can't figure it out) is that we have wasted enormous time, resources, and health chasing bogus ideas and phantoms. Instead of wasting time reacting with laws and bans to half-assed research that ultimately proves to be wrong, conduct truly scientific inquiries into global warming to see if we can, in fact, do anything about it. Wrecking the economy with laws and policies that are based on what is still iffy research into global warming is a waste of scarce resources. Pointing out that some iceburgs started to melt as proof of the whole thoery is foolish. The doomsayres in re global warming are currently acting on the same quality of scientific inquiry that the researchers who screwed up on cyclamate and MRR vaccinations did. THAT's the connection, thank you.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

As for being a troll - differing with you doesn't make me or anyone a troll. I've cited some things to support what I've said. Apparently your dislike of that point of view constitutes proof that it's wrong.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote cpp224:

As for being a troll - differing with you doesn't make me or anyone a troll. I've cited some things to support what I've said. Apparently your dislike of that point of view constitutes proof that it's wrong.

No, stating the truth and being countered makes you a troll. The email "scandal" was sensationalized by the media and was later found to be much ado about nothing. They were debunked over a year ago, yet those against science keep rehashing them. As the facts involved in the whole case are too inconvenient for their sensationalism.

Do you also support flat earthers? After all, their claims were debunked as well. How about "no moon landing" conspiracy folk? Or those Chemtrail, or HAARP paranoids? You are in the realm of bogus science and false thinking. There is no dissention beyond this fringe.

So, why should I argue against a claim that has as much backing it as claiming the moon is made out of cheese or that a man named Paul Bunyon dug out the grand canyon with his axe?

downix's picture
downix
Joined:
Oct. 12, 2010 11:04 am

Downix, Paul Bunyan didn't dig out the Grand Canyon with his axe.

Pecos Bill and John Henry did it when they had a fight. Some say the Grand Canyon was created when Pecos Bill rode a tornado. The scientific evidence isn't yet in to determine which theory is correct. The Heritage Foundation is still trying to sort it out.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is working on a way to mine the moon for cheese.

The far right is causing global warming. Too much hot air being spewed into the atmosphere. A man-made cause.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote downix:

Here is a troll. Don't feed them. His position is based on misinformation and foolish self-delusion. Unlike him, I do actually discuss with scientists, yes, from NASA, and can understand the idea of a big picture. He brings up discredited findings and rehashing old arguments which were found to have no merit. Save your breath and ignore him.

I agree. A troll indeed.

It has revealed itself by moving from thread to thread while maintaining its overall M.O. It purposively takes obtusely contrarian positions which cannot be substantiated by critical, rational, or intellectual reasoning. Starve it out by denial of response.

Ulysses's picture
Ulysses
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Green World Rising

In two previous videos narrated by Leonard DiCaprio and available over at GreenWorldRising.org, we’ve seen the dangers that global warming and climate change present for our planet and the human race.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system