They Knew: Smoking Gun Discovered

a reply to: rnaa

The term I prefer for Global Warming Deniers is hard-heated realists who know how to question a scam.

The term I prefer for people who believe that global warming of 0.85 degrees over the course of a century is going to destablize the whole planet because of a minor increase in a gas that only comprises 0.3 per cent of the atmosphers is "Chicken Little Doom Porners'.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Just silly eh - Try this on for size

A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

It s a discussion of the letter sent by 20 scientists to Obama requesting that RICO laws be used to shut up the "deniers".

I am well aware of this letter.

1) You said "the IPCC" was behind this. 20 Scientists are not the IPCC. So yes, your charge is silly.

2) The scientists did not call for Climate Science Deniers to be 'shut up' using RICO laws - exactly the opposite in fact. They called for investigation of conspiracies by vested interests and their high paid lobbyists who want to shut down actual Climate Scientists. And note that those highly paid lobbyists are paid by the trillions of dollars of government subsidies that those vested interests receive from their tame Congress that they also paid for with the trillions of dollars of government subsidies.

Now Exxon has made plenty of profit over the decades but they also created jobs, supported a stable civilization and in general were a mass contributor. They earned their money.

Exactly how do they earn 5.8 trillion dollars in Government Subsidies every year? Pretty nice welfare check if you can wangle it.

It was Global Warming right up until the time that even the IPPC had to admit that Mann's Hockey Stick graph was complete bullocks - That is just about 40 years time. Then it became Climate Change.

That is just nonsense - word salad. Global Warming causes Climate Change. Both terms have been around forever. Which term is in vogue by which set of Science Writers has nothing to do with the actual science.

If you are discussing what is causing glaciers to melt and coral reefs to die and storms to get more powerful then you are discussing CLIMATE CHANGE. If you are discussing what is CAUSING the climate to change then you are discussing GLOBAL WARMING. If you are discussing what is CAUSING global warming then you are discussing the GREENHOUSE EFFECT.

It is not a binary option, and it is not a publicity change of tack, there is no disingenuous shifting of the goal posts here, except by climate change deniers who resort to shifty, schoolyard word games like this to distract from their lack of a cogent argument.

No one can argue about Climate Change. Of course the Climate is changing. It always does!

Yes, of course.

But the current problem is not natural climate change which occurs over tens of thousands of years, it is human caused climate change which is occurring over a couple of centuries.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The term I prefer for Global Warming Deniers is hard-heated realists who know how to question a scam.

The term I prefer for people who believe that global warming of 0.85 degrees over the course of a century is going to destablize the whole planet because of a minor increase in a gas that only comprises 0.3 per cent of the atmosphers is "Chicken Little Doom Porners'.

I see.

The original protest indicated that the term 'climate change deniers' was a fallacious term, and presumably pejorative, so I asked for a better term that wasn't pejorative.

You can't come up with anything beyond school-yard nasty names to go along with your schoolyard word games. Since you can't defend your position with an adult discussion, I'll stick to 'climate change denier', 'science denier', and similar terms.

My terms are at least accurate and they are inoffensive to those who hold those positions with some sort of rational argument. I suspect that anyone who is offended by the term is only offended because they are looking for something to be offended by in order to distract themselves and others from their conspicuous lack of coherent argument.

a reply to: rnaa

So when I come up with a name that accurately describes people who cannot question "science", despite the three examples I gave where grave injustices were done using "science" as the justification. "Science" that, with time, turned out to be without any solid evidence whatsoever. Scams that made some people an awful lot of money and caused untold suffering to others, than I am being "childish".

But you, who questions nothing, who encourages that we should all just get with the program, are perfectly justified in calling me a "denier", despite knowing the where that term came from and that it might be considered offensive to be compared and linked to people who denied that the Jewish Holocaust happened.

dailycaller.com...

so do you prefer the term called a "global warming nazis" or a "chicken little doom porner"?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: rnaa

The earth has been in an warming and glaciers have been melting for the last 11,000 or 12,000 years.

en.wikipedia.org...

Notice how Global Warming Nazis only compare current temperatures to the last 100 year? They say that the earth is warming as a rate that is completely unnatural and caused by man's burning of fossil fuels.

Notice how their computer models have all been wrong and failed to predict the warming "pause". Notice the language here. Its not that warming has stopped. Its that it has "paused", implying that sooner or later, it will begin to warm again. Of course it will - but how is that special?

We were supposed to be at the "tipping point" 20 years ago?

In the 1970s, time magazine was predicting a new ice age and scientists were suggesting we should spread carbon black over the artic ice to slow down the coming ice age. At the same time, other scientists began speaking of "global warming" due to the "greenhouse effect"

As could be predicted, we came out of the cold of the 70s, and then the doom porn began. Now its to the point where scientists are talking about spreading particulate in the atmosphere to slow down global warming. Now other scientists are talking about the coming "cooling period".

www.globalresearch.ca...

Each cycle requires billions (if not trillions) to avoid catastrophe. Are we seeing a pattern here?

So I have a question for you:


Every activist group that lobbies government and any scientist who questions the current theory of global warming are accused of being funded by BIG OIL of being criminals and being ant-science.

But scientists who write letters demanding RICO investigates are NOT a front group for the IPPC but are crack pots all on their little lonesome?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

How about calling us "global warming questioners" or "people who believe that scientific theories must always be questioned" or "people who think the raw data from publically funded research should be publically available" or how about "people who believe that scientists should not be persecuted for speaking an opposing opinions"

Or how about people who have come to realize that most science is for sale to the highest bidder?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Discussion of the meaning of language as it pertains to the terms of global warming and climate change

www.newsmax.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: rnaa

First of all, who is denying climate change? Nobody. Nobody who should be taken seriously anyway.

Second, who is denying global warming? Virtually nobody. And those who do often aren't even scientists.

So what is being denied here? Nothing to do with the term. Neither climate change nor global warming are being denied.

What IS being denied is shoddy science, like the Gulf Stream paper submitted by Rahm and Mann which you attempted to ignorantly defend.

What IS being denied is how much warming is needed before we see "catastrophic" events due to the warming, or if warming is even bad for the planet in the long run. Sure it's bad for cities on the coasts, but is it bad for the planet or humans in general in the long run? We add shoreline, we bring water to arid land, we warm regions currently unusable by human population and we remove cities built on old infrastructure from the carbon pool. And the best part? We finally get rid of Florida. Adaptation, not prevention, should be what we are pursuing. China for example has it's ghost cities which are meant for relocation due to climate change.

I've posted a peer reviewed study which discussed how man could reverse carbon footprint without changing current infrastructure through 10 ecological steps. The first and foremost was re-forestation. Which means we can do a lot currently to clean the planet up and neutralize our damage while technology catches up. That technology is NOT wind farms since they kill 300K birds a year. (Cars kill millions already, why don't we give a crap about birds??) It's nuclear (thorium) power and technology to dispose of waste cleanly. With nuclear power being abundant comes more nuclear research. (Think Mass Driver)

So to use the term global warming denial or climate change denial is a logical fallacy because neither are being denied. Those who do deny either are often idiots and aren't even scientists. So you attempt to use the term to lump educated scientists who ARE skeptical of science being done WITHIN the AGW crowd with those few idiots.

As was stated the term was invented by a PR firm when they realized the term brought up the holocaust imagery in their test groups. It is just one huge logical fallacy and anyone who uses the term can be completely dismissed as someone who gets their opinions handed to them by blogs. I liken them to the characters from Monty Python. "Burn Her!!!"