[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

• • • The Mandela Effect • • • - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:20am
 
Bono has some explaining to do... - islander - Jan 19, 2022 - 9:02am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:59am
 
Who is that guy? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:25am
 
Wordle - daily game - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:15am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:07am
 
COVID-19 - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:04am
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:03am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 8:02am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 19, 2022 - 7:57am
 
Race in America - black321 - Jan 19, 2022 - 6:42am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Jan 19, 2022 - 6:14am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 19, 2022 - 5:30am
 
Britain - Red_Dragon - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:57am
 
Things You Thought Today - Coaxial - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:26am
 
Russia - miamizsun - Jan 19, 2022 - 4:25am
 
What happened to Radio Paradise? - ScottN - Jan 18, 2022 - 4:10pm
 
If not RP, what are you listening to right now? - black321 - Jan 18, 2022 - 3:10pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - GeneP59 - Jan 18, 2022 - 2:36pm
 
New Music - Red_Dragon - Jan 18, 2022 - 2:35pm
 
Beer - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:59pm
 
A lot of 'obscure' repetition lately? - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:49pm
 
Pictures that are total crap - Manbird - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:44pm
 
Germany - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 18, 2022 - 12:33pm
 
Coffee - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 10:20am
 
Bowie fans, check this out - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 10:10am
 
Floyd forum - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 9:37am
 
Prog Rockers Anonymous - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 9:32am
 
North Korea - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:57am
 
How's the weather? - oldviolin - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:42am
 
Italy - Ohmsen - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:41am
 
Patrick Watson should play on RP - jsricher - Jan 18, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Food Democracy - miamizsun - Jan 18, 2022 - 4:16am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - miamizsun - Jan 18, 2022 - 3:57am
 
The Obituary Page - kurtster - Jan 17, 2022 - 8:30pm
 
Thank you, RP! - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 17, 2022 - 8:16pm
 
Poetry Forum - Antigone - Jan 17, 2022 - 1:30pm
 
Something for my fellow hippies. - haresfur - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:22pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - oldviolin - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:20pm
 
World Music - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 17, 2022 - 11:07am
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jan 17, 2022 - 10:00am
 
Sunrise, Sunset - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 17, 2022 - 6:50am
 
Religion - kurtster - Jan 17, 2022 - 12:12am
 
What Did You See Today? - Steely_D - Jan 16, 2022 - 8:26pm
 
volcano! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Jan 16, 2022 - 11:56am
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Jan 15, 2022 - 10:22pm
 
Climate Change - helenofjoy - Jan 15, 2022 - 1:21pm
 
See This Film - islander - Jan 15, 2022 - 11:34am
 
Florida - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2022 - 9:28am
 
Hard Core Trivia - Manbird - Jan 14, 2022 - 4:51pm
 
Yes - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 2:48pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - BillG - Jan 14, 2022 - 2:30pm
 
New RP listener - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 1:36pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Steely_D - Jan 14, 2022 - 12:44pm
 
Think About It - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 11:45am
 
Media Matters - Red_Dragon - Jan 14, 2022 - 11:38am
 
let it spin!! - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2022 - 10:46am
 
Is Wikipedia Objective? - miamizsun - Jan 14, 2022 - 10:17am
 
Remembering the Good Old Days - Steely_D - Jan 14, 2022 - 8:23am
 
Ukraine - black321 - Jan 14, 2022 - 8:11am
 
OUR CATS!! - sunybuny - Jan 14, 2022 - 5:52am
 
Baseball, anyone? - rgio - Jan 14, 2022 - 5:01am
 
Those Lovable Policemen - Lazy8 - Jan 13, 2022 - 9:46pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jan 13, 2022 - 9:44pm
 
Automotive Lust - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2022 - 3:12pm
 
Play the Blues - rhahl - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:30am
 
Terrorist Watch! - Ohmsen - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:26am
 
WTF??!! - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 13, 2022 - 10:12am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Jan 12, 2022 - 8:16pm
 
What the hell OV? - Manbird - Jan 12, 2022 - 3:39pm
 
Marijuana: Baked News. - Ohmsen - Jan 12, 2022 - 5:36am
 
Crazy conspiracy theories - miamizsun - Jan 12, 2022 - 5:00am
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jan 11, 2022 - 6:52pm
 
• • • Things Magicians Exclaim • • •  - Red_Dragon - Jan 11, 2022 - 6:37pm
 
Word of the Day - miamizsun - Jan 11, 2022 - 5:19pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Chaos Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Post to this Topic
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: May 21, 2014 - 5:01pm

Rinse, repeat...

(...) Yesterday, Roy Spencer took to his blog, writing a post entitled "Time to push back against the global warming Nazis". The ensuing Godwinian rant was apparently triggered by somebody calling contrarians like Spencer "deniers." Personally I tend to avoid use of the term, simply because it inevitably causes the ensuing discussion to degenerate into an argument about whether "denier" refers to Holocaust denial. Obviously that misinterpretation of the term is exactly what "pushed {Spencer's} button," as he put it.

However, this misinterpretation has no basis in reality. The term "denier" merely refers to "a person who denies" something, and originated some 600 years ago, long before the Holocaust occurred. Moreover, as the National Center for Science Education and Peter Gleick at Forbes have documented, many climate contrarians (including the aforementioned Richard Lindzen) prefer to be called "deniers."

"I actually like 'denier.' That's closer than skeptic," says MIT's Richard Lindzen, one of the most prominent deniers. Steve Milloy, the operator of the climate change denial website JunkScience.com, told Popular Science, "Me, I just stick with denier ... I'm happy to be a denier." Minnesotans for Global Warming and other major denier groups go so far as to sing, "I'm a Denier!".

Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a group with 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' claiming that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory." The declaration also has a section on "What We Deny," and Spencer recently wrote in The Christian Post,

...we deny "that most {current climate change} is human-caused, and that it is a threat to future generations that must be addressed by the global community."

Thus it's rather hypocritical of Spencer to complain about the use of a word meaning "a person who denies" when he has expressly admitted to denying these climate positions. (...)


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 4:51pm

 steeler wrote:
 
Uh-huh. 

It seems to me that there are those who deny that there is any significant climate change that is occurring.  I'll summarize: You have stated that you do not deny that climate change is occurring, ,but contend that there is little or nothing that can or should be done to try to mitigate it.  The cartoon, in my view, goes to the former.
Even if you were to dispute that characterization of mine, it seems to me that one post or even one person labeling those who hold a position similar to yours as "deniers" does not equate, as you seem to suggest,  with the almost the entire forum being intolerant of your views.  Again, I have seen a bunch of comments in this thread — Climate Chaos —responding to your views, taking them seriously, and debating the merits.                   

 
Its been great, too.  Kinda how I hoped it would go.

But backscroll in that thread I linked to.  It seems that every other word in there is denier.  Pardon the hyperbole, but the usage of the term is overwhelming in there. 
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 4:27pm

 DaveInVA wrote: 

Does that trump calling those on the other side of the debate   "deniers?" {#Wink}
DaveInVA

DaveInVA Avatar

Location: In a hovel in effluent Damnville, VA
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 4:16pm

Pat Sajak: Global warming alarmists are 'unpatriotic racists'


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:50pm

 kurtster wrote:  
Uh-huh. 

It seems to me that there are those who deny that there is any significant climate change that is occurring.  I'll summarize: You have stated that you do not deny that climate change is occurring, ,but contend that there is little or nothing that can or should be done to try to mitigate it.  The cartoon, in my view, goes to the former.
Even if you were to dispute that characterization of mine, it seems to me that one post or even one person labeling those who hold a position similar to yours as "deniers" does not equate, as you seem to suggest,  with the almost the entire forum being intolerant of your views.  Again, I have seen a bunch of comments in this thread — Climate Chaos —responding to your views, taking them seriously, and debating the merits.                   
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:16pm

 kurtster wrote:

Hey, I didn't say that fracking was safe regarding groundwater.  I said the the EPA says it is safe.  Big difference.
 
 
You just confused the crap out of me. Did you not just say you're in favor of fracking? 

 
edit: Sorry, fell into the sarcasm hole.  
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:13pm

 steeler wrote:


You seem to have received a lot of reactions here today regarding your views and I do not see a single one where you have been labeled a denier.  And — before you say it — it has nothing to do with whether the thread is titled Climate Change or Climate Chaos.

    

 
Oh yeah ?
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:11pm

 kurtster wrote:
Yes, its gets old, especially when you try and mention natural causes to climate change and the only reaction you get is denier.
 
Some of the responses provided were solid references to real science that show how those "natural causes", i.e. causes not of an anthropogenic nature, do not match up with observations (like the often-used canard that it's the sun that's causing all of it), and thus cannot decently explain what's going on. It's not hard then to see where the responsibility lies for the choice to ignore/deny those references in favour of a chauvinistic status quo mindset, and to repeat the same nonsense once more...

Proverbially, one can lead a horse (that likes to paint itself as a victim with oppressed/suppressed opinions) to the water, but one can't make it think drink... {#Mrgreen}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 3:08pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

lol lol lol

You loathe them but will cite them when it suits you?

Here's one that's close to home.

 
Hey, I didn't say that fracking was safe regarding groundwater.  I said the the EPA says it is safe.  Big difference.

Isn't the EPA the darling of the global warming crowd and the primary means of implementing its policy ?

So this case began 6 years ago and now 6 years later ... what has the EPA done other than investigate endlessly ? 

Yep the groundwater is contaminated, most likely from drilling and the EPA is doing nothing about it other than talk about it and spend money investigating it.  A typical federal bureaucracy more interested in perpetuating itself than the citizens it is supposed to serve.

Yes, I wish the EPA would be abolished and replaced with a new approach. 
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 2:48pm

 kurtster wrote:
I am all for fracking and drilling.  According to the EPA (which I loathe) fracking is safe and there are no instances of it causing any pollution or contamination of underground water. Not a one. 
 
lol lol lol

You loathe them but will cite them when it suits you?

Here's one that's close to home.
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 2:45pm

 kurtster wrote:

Yes, its gets old, especially when you try and mention natural causes to climate change and the only reaction you get is denier.

 

You seem to have received a lot of reactions here today regarding your views and I do not see a single one where you have been labeled a denier.  And — before you say it — it has nothing to do with whether the thread is titled Climate Change or Climate Chaos.

    
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 2:39pm

 steeler wrote:


This whole "contrary views are not welcome" shtick got old a long time ago.
 
Yes, its gets old, especially when you try and mention natural causes to climate change and the only reaction you get is denier.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 2:37pm

 black321 wrote:

I get that; nevertheless, the arguments to do nothing, or that climate change is just the latest bugaboo aren't very compelling.  Even if there were no climate change, I would still argue for alternative investments in new, cleaner energy.  Not many are actually saying throw away your car and gas/oil furnace, but let's move things in a different direction rather invest in more cheap (excluding the environmental cost) fracking/drilling.  Regardless, it may very well be too late to reverse the damage, as some say...time will tell. 

 
I'm not advocating doing nothing.  

One of the points I am trying to make is the sheer futility of what is being promoted as the solutions.  We have one nation, China who giving them the benefit of the doubt, produces as much GHG as the US and EU combined and is set to increase there output 5 fold more by the year 2050.  No one can compensate for that. They are building their infrastructure.  Making steel, concrete and asphalt and producing the energy needed is dirty business.  There is no way around that.  On a good note, China and Russia just signed a deal for Russia to provide China with nat gas for the next 30 years.  This is breaking news.  That alone should help tremendously with China's output of GHG.

How is setting up a commodity exchange for pollution going to solve that problem (cap and trade) ?  The only thing its going to do is make a whole new set or an existing set of middlemen wealthy(er).

I am all for fracking and drilling.  According to the EPA (which I loathe) fracking is safe and there are no instances of it causing any pollution or contamination of underground water. Not a one.  On the other hand there seem to be questions regarding earth movement.  That remains to be sorted out.  We will always or for decades to come, need petrochemicals for uses other than fuel.  We need it for plastics, fertilizers and drugs to mention a few off road uses.

In addition, there are natural causes to climate change that need to be considered.  The jury advocating government intervention and cap and trade ignores even the possibility of natural causes and as soon as one tries to mention natural causes they are automatically dismissed as a denier.  Why are they afraid to discuss natural causes ?
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 12:51pm

 kurtster wrote:

I have no idea. 

I just started this cuz I was fed up with being called a denier in the other two threads devoted to this subject.

The purpose here being to introduce things that are left out in the group think rush to judgment and the potential bankruptcy of the US.if those demanding action are wrong.

What you posted below about Kerry is the kind of stuff that I hoped would come to this thread.  Things that question this rush to judgment are welcome in here unlike the other two threads.

I am trying to find out who amongst us really believes that there is a real crisis that warrants what Kerry is trying to equivocate in your post below.  

No one has yet been willing to say that there is a genuine crisis calling for drastic and immediate measures to prevent the end of life as we know it now, which the drumbeat of those like Kerry seems to imply. 

 

This whole "contrary views are not welcome" shtick got old a long time ago.

black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 12:35pm

 kurtster wrote:

touche'    I'm just trying to look at this from a different angle and make a place that is receptive to it.

Indeed we have been hearing about this all of our lives.  And now all of a sudden, we need to act or its curtains.
 

 
I get that; nevertheless, the arguments to do nothing, or that climate change is just the latest bugaboo aren't very compelling.  Even if there were no climate change, I would still argue for alternative investments in new, cleaner energy.  Not many are actually saying throw away your car and gas/oil furnace, but let's move things in a different direction rather invest in more cheap (excluding the environmental cost) fracking/drilling.  Regardless, it may very well be too late to reverse the damage, as some say...time will tell. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 12:04pm

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Do you really think this will stick? You and I are old farts and have been hearing about this for our entire lives. I suppose, on a glacial time scale, it's quite rushed.

 
touche'    I'm just trying to look at this from a different angle and make a place that is receptive to it.

Indeed we have been hearing about this all of our lives.  And now all of a sudden, we need to act or its curtains.

Or that's the drift I am getting.  

On a personal level, my thought is to make the most efficient use of the energy we already have readily available.  LED's and better building materials, more efficient heating and cooling and cars that get 50 mpg on the open road. We need these things regardless of the energy source.  Save our money to develop this kind of technology so we can survive in the inevitable new hostile environment.  

Just using less energy is a real good start.  Cheap stable energy is the key for a better way of life regardless the weather.

Thanks for getting my drift.

 
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 11:12am

 kurtster wrote:

I have no idea. 

I just started this cuz I was fed up with being called a denier in the other two threads devoted to this subject.

The purpose here being to introduce things that are left out in the group think rush to judgment and the potential bankruptcy of the US.if those demanding action are wrong.

What you posted below about Kerry is the kind of stuff that I hoped would come to this thread.  Things that question this rush to judgment are welcome in here unlike the other two threads.

I am trying to find out who amongst us really believes that there is a real crisis that warrants what Kerry is trying to equivocate in your post below.  

No one has yet been willing to say that there is a genuine crisis calling for drastic and immediate measures to prevent the end of life as we know it now, which the drumbeat of those like Kerry seems to imply. 

 
doubt any of us on this site are smart enough to really know...but from what I've read and heard from reputable sources, there is a very real "risk" of major changes to climate and sea levels...over the next 100 years.  The word risk implies a certain probability and negative impact during a future period...of course no one has a crystal ball, but the risk, probability and impact, appears high enough to have a significantly negative effect on humans and other species (the earth will survive fine).   So taking action is akin to buying health insurance.  I don't know if I'll get sick in the future, or simply just die one day.  But to deal with the financial risk of dealing with a potential future health issue, I buy insurance.  Of course its financially a drain to my current resources while I'm healthy, but it could potentially avert a future disaster. 
ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 10:54am

 kurtster wrote:
rush to judgment
 
Do you really think this will stick? You and I are old farts and have been hearing about this for our entire lives. I suppose, on a glacial time scale, it's quite rushed.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 10:48am

 black321 wrote:
Any ideas if this debate is as active in other countries, or just here in these United States?

 
I have no idea. 

I just started this cuz I was fed up with being called a denier in the other two threads devoted to this subject.

The purpose here being to introduce things that are left out in the group think rush to judgment and the potential bankruptcy of the US.if those demanding action are wrong.

What you posted below about Kerry is the kind of stuff that I hoped would come to this thread.  Things that question this rush to judgment are welcome in here unlike the other two threads.

I am trying to find out who amongst us really believes that there is a real crisis that warrants what Kerry is trying to equivocate in your post below.  

No one has yet been willing to say that there is a genuine crisis calling for drastic and immediate measures to prevent the end of life as we know it now, which the drumbeat of those like Kerry seems to imply. 
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: May 21, 2014 - 10:30am

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

You are contradicting yourself. 
a. you get all huffily about China being given a pass (which implies you think there must be a problem otherwise why get upset?)
then
b. you say there is no crisis, or at least not such a severe one that merits any action by the US.

You can't have it both ways. If you think China needs to respond to the crisis then logically the US must too. By any measure, historical, per capita, total emissions or whatever, both the US and China are way up there amongst the world's biggest polluters.  

 
No I am not.

a)  I am still trying to find who thinks there is a problem large enough to call it a crisis. 

b) yes 

No one will respond to the question.

Crisis or no crisis ?  Why is it so hard to declare a position ?

 
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next