Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[madmug]

View attachment 755732

Once again RWNJ 101, attack the messenger, ignore the message.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Once again RWNJ 101, attack the messenger, ignore the message.

She has no message.

 

[madmug]

She has no message.

Geez you must be deaf!

Or in denial.

 

[Craven Morehead]

Geez you must be deaf!

Or in denial.

She's peddling fear with absolutely no contribution to the answer.

We're all f***ed in 8.5 yrs.

So say her handlers.

 

[Crankitup]

Once again RWNJ 101, attack the messenger, ignore the message.

C'est moi? I don't think so. That's more your modus operandi. Want me to post 10 classic examples?

It's also the favourite approach taken by the left wing and those in charge of ensuring a consistent message is not put at risk in the climate change arena. That and censorship within the IPCC and ostracism of those who have been part of it and who dare to speak out against these tactics. It's been that way from the very beginning.

 

[TimmeT]

Once again RWNJ 101, attack the messenger, ignore the message.

LOL lefties have been doing that on this forum for long time.

 

[madmug]

She's pedalling fear with absolutely no contribution to the answer.

We're all f***ed in 8.5 yrs.

So say her handlers.

Well it gets some attention to the problem.

The problem being, that the vast majority of scientific consensus is being ignored by the RWNJs who are too stupid or thick to see the opportunity but are also too vested to take note of the severe consequences of their 'inaction'.

 

[madmug]

C'est moi? I don't think so. That's more your modus operandi. Want me to post 10 classic examples?

It's also the favourite approach taken by the left wing and those in charge of ensuring a consistent message is not put at risk in the climate change arena. That and censorship within the IPCC and ostracism of those who have been part of it and who dare to speak out against these tactics. It's been that way from the very beginning.

Got your best tin foil hat on I see.

 

[Crankitup]

Got your best tin foil hat on I see.

If you don't know about the political bias of the IPCC from the very beginning it's you that's the nutjob. Quite fitting really when you consider your very apt username.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former President of America's National Academy of Sciences, revealed that IPCC officials had censored the comments of scientists. He said

This report is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists on the title page'. At least 15 key sections of the science chapter had been deleted. These included key statements like; 'None of the studies cite has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.' or 'No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to athropogenic (man-made) causes.

He continued ...

I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process, than the events that led to this IPCC report.

Many refused to work with the IPCC and many others resigned.

"Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific." Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.

Here is an example of the experience of one of the people Bob Carter was referring to.

When I resigned from the IPCC, I thought that was the end of it. But when I saw the final draft, my name was still there. So I asked for it to be removed. Well, they told me that I had contributed, so it would remain there. So I said No, I haven't contributed because they haven't listened to anything I've said. In the end it was quite a battle, but finally, I threatened legal action, and they removed my name, and I think this happens a great deal. Those people who are specialists but don't agree with the polemic & resign, and there have been a number that I know of, they are simply put on the author list & become part of this '2500 of the world's top scientists'.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Well it gets some attention to the problem.

The problem being, that the vast majority of scientific consensus is being ignored by the RWNJs who are too stupid or thick to see the opportunity but are also too vested to take note of the severe consequences of their 'inaction'.

There are so many things that are wrong with this post which you probably don't even realise. The most beneficial thing I have found from participating in these climate change threads is that the moment you see someone mention "scientific consensus", you know they have absolutely no idea what they are on about.

 

[madmug]

If you don't know about the political bias of the IPCC from the very beginning it's you that's the nutjob.

In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Professor Frederick Seitz, former President of America's National Academy of Sciences, revealed that IPCC officials had censored the comments of scientists. He said



He continued ...




Many refused to work with the IPCC and many others resigned.

Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.

Here is an example of the experience of one of the people Bob Carter was referring to.

Ah, good old Prof Seitz, co-founder of the GMI. The 'Conservative think tank,' or more exactly, a front for Big Oil.

Also attacked the science on the danger of smoking, pesticide use, CFC's. A really 'unbiased' corporate warrior that one.

Conflicted, most definitely

 

[Chief]

lol

 

[Chief]

Destroy Western Civilization.

Jesus the fossil fuel lobby are so scared. So very very scared.

 

[TimmeT]

Well it gets some attention to the problem.

The problem being, that the vast majority of scientific consensus is being ignored by the RWNJs who are too stupid or thick to see the opportunity but are also too vested to take note of the severe consequences of their 'inaction'.

Science doesn't work off consensus refer to the flat earth aznd galileo.

 

[TimmeT]

lol am i doin it rite???????????????

 

[Chief]

lol am i doin it rite???????????????

Give in to your hate.

Come over to the dark side!

 

[madmug]

Science doesn't work off consensus refer to the flat earth aznd galileo.

Do you really want people to read this post?

You still have time to delete it.

 

[Crankitup]

Ah, good old Prof Seitz, co-founder of the GMI. The 'Conservative think tank,' or more exactly, a front for Big Oil.

Also attacked the science on the danger of smoking, pesticide use, CFC's. A really 'unbiased' corporate warrior that one.

Conflicted, most definitely

I literally laughed very loud when I read your latest post. Just over an hour ago in this very thread you said this ....

Once again RWNJ 101, attack the messenger, ignore the message.

I knew it wouldn't take you long to provide us with an example that it is in fact your favourite approach. When you have no answer ... straight to ad hom attack ... every time. So predictable. I didn't expect you to do it so breathtakingly quickly though.

 

[madmug]

View attachment 755980

I literally laughed very loud when I read your latest post. Just over an hour ago in this very thread you said this ....



I knew it wouldn't take you long to provide us with an example that it is in fact your favourite approach. When you have no answer ... straight to ad hom attack ... every time. So predictable.

False equivalence. Funny, but false.

I showed the bias & how wrong this guy was in areas of science ie he was clearly a political pawn of big corporations. He was quoted as an expert but is easily shown as working for a corporate front. He opposed the real science of so many important health & environmental issues over his time ( as said, smoking, CFC's, acid rain etc)

He has been shown to be totally wrong in those areas.

So one says nothing?

Your pretend 'gotcha' just falls flat with some facts.

I prefer to trust the mass of reputable science organisations for the argument. Not political web sites. You should too.

 

[TimmeT]

Do you really want people to read this post?

You still have time to delete it.

I do as it is a fact.

 

[madmug]

I do as it is a fact.

Its also pointless & a bit silly don't you think?

Science now is a far different animal than it was some 500 years ago.

Galileo fought the Dogma of his time. Hardly a scientific debate comparable to today.

 

[Crankitup]

I showed the bias & how wrong this guy was in areas of science ie he was clearly a political pawn of big corporations. He was quoted as an expert but is easily shown as working for a corporate front. He opposed the real science of so many important health & environmental issues over his time ( as said, smoking, CFC's, acid rain etc)

LOL. You did nothing of the sort. I quoted Seitz's experience of censorship within the IPCC. You ignored that and preferred to smear a dead man. I don't know if his smoking habit killed him but you'll probably want to discuss that soon too. The fact is he accepted money (piddling amounts) from wherever he could get it for the institutions he was working for at the time when money was tight. You don't see green groups rejecting the millions they get from oil companies do you? Are they influenced by that money in any way?

You also totally ignored the other people I quoted too, including the scientist who resigned from the IPCC.

I prefer to trust the mass of reputable science organisations for the argument.

Well you want us to trust the Great Greta's message. Is she a reputable scientific organisation now is she?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

View attachment 755980

I literally laughed very loud when I read your latest post. Just over an hour ago in this very thread you said this ....



I knew it wouldn't take you long to provide us with an example that it is in fact your favourite approach. When you have no answer ... straight to ad hom attack ... every time. So predictable. I didn't expect you to do it so breathtakingly quickly though.

TBH, what more can we expect when his beloved IPCC scientists do the exact same thing whenever they are challenged as well?

 

[madmug]

LOL. You did nothing of the sort. I quoted Seitz's experience of censorship within the IPCC. You ignored that and preferred to smear a dead man. I don't know if his smoking habit killed him but you'll probably want to discuss that soon too. The fact is he accepted money (piddling amounts) from wherever he could get it for the institutions he was working for at the time when money was tight. You don't see green groups rejecting the millions they get from oil companies do you? Are they influenced by that money in any way?

You also totally ignored the other people I quoted too, including the scientist who resigned from the IPCC.




Well you want us to trust the Great Greta's message. Is she a reputable scientific organisation now is she?

Smear a dead man? By pointing out his record? You are losing the plot mate. That's just shyte.

Exaggeration & verballing me. Is that all you've got to debate the issue? Really, that's it?

 

[Crankitup]

Smear a dead man? By pointing out his record?

Well that's what ad hom is, an attempt to smear. The fact that he's no longer around to defend himself against the countless others who have sought to dismiss his views in the same way just makes it worse in my view.

I quoted his experience with censorship within the IPCC. I quoted others too. You ignored all of the people I quoted and what they said and instead did a little google search on Seitz. Having found that he'd received a piddling amount of money from a tobacco company sometime in his lifetime on behalf of an institution he was working for at the time you thought gotcha, I don't have to engage with his damning comments all I need to do is poison the well. Straight into ad hom, as I knew you would.

Rather than assassinating characters I'm happy to debate the wider issue with you. Pick a topic.