• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AGW Believers Turn on Each Other

Why yes, I am deeply concerned with Osama Bin ****ing Laden's opinion on environmentalist concerns. Did you even read this list?

Yes. That there must be a hundred names on that list from the UN secretary general, presidents and prime ministers on downwards and thats the one you choose zero in on ?

That says rather more about you than anything else frankly :roll:
 
Yes. That there must be a hundred names on that list from the UN secretary general, presidents and prime ministers on downwards and thats the one you choose zero in on ?

That says rather more about you than anything else frankly :roll:

Yes there are a handful of diplomats on the list. So what? Most of them are random journalists, spokesmen, or people I've never heard of. And probably 90% of the quotes on that list are so blatantly taken out of context that I'd bet money most of them are being deceptively portrayed. But you raise no specific objection to any specific quote so what the **** else do you want me to do? Go through the entire list and explain how each item is probably bull****? If I pick out certain ones, you'll just whine about cherry picking no matter what method I use.


If this list contains a literal terrorist, doesn't that say more about you? The fact that you accepted this list at face value, accepted all of these quotes unquestioningly. It didn't occur to you that this site might be full of ****, because someone using Osama Bin ****ing Laden quotes to attack environmentalists is clearly full of ****.

So you want to go with people with power. Here's Harry Reid:
Quote by Harry Reid, Democrat, U.S. Senate majority leader: "Coal makes us sick. Oil makes us sick. It's global warming. It's ruining our country. It's ruining our world."

Something sinister about this?

How about this?
Quote by UN Commission on Global Biodiversity Assessment: "A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
They're saying the entire planet can't consume at US per capita rates. Something sinister about that? Sure, you probably assume they're wrong, because of course you would, but where's the conspiracy?

How many of these do you want to bet I can find on Snopes?

Quote by UN chief Ban Ki-moon: "Now it is the least developed world who are not responsible for this climate change phenomenon that bore the brunt of climate change consequences so it is morally and politically correct that the developed world who made this climate change be responsible by providing financial support and technological support to these people."

People who caused damage have a responsibility to those they harmed? ****ing communism right there!

Quote by a co-director of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition:
Why are we quoting an unnamed child?


Here's something for future reference. When you see this:


You need to be skeptical. Because there's two ways to use an ellipses.

1) "It was wonderful, director Steven Spielberg is fantastic, an amazing film." becomes "It was wonderful... an amazing film." Saves space, keeps the original intent of the statement.

2) "I hated this film. The studio wants me to say it was a great film but out of professional responsibility I have to tell you how awful it was." becomes "...it was a great film." Changes the meaning dramatically.

Now, look at a list like this one. A man willing to use Osama Bin Laden as a quote source for "prominent environmentalists." Look me in the internet-equivalent of an eye and tell me you trust that man's ellipses.
 
Last edited:
Yes there are a handful of diplomats on the list. So what? Most of them are random journalists, spokesmen, or people I've never heard of. And probably 90% of the quotes on that list are so blatantly taken out of context that I'd bet money most of them are being deceptively portrayed. But you raise no specific objection to any specific quote so what the **** else do you want me to do? Go through the entire list and explain how each item is probably bull****? If I pick out certain ones, you'll just whine about cherry picking no matter what method I use.


If this list contains a literal terrorist, doesn't that say more about you? The fact that you accepted this list at face value, accepted all of these quotes unquestioningly. It didn't occur to you that this site might be full of ****, because someone using Osama Bin ****ing Laden quotes to attack environmentalists is clearly full of ****.

So you want to go with people with power. Here's Harry Reid:


Something sinister about this?

How about this?

They're saying the entire planet can't consume at US per capita rates. Something sinister about that? Sure, you probably assume they're wrong, because of course you would, but where's the conspiracy?

How many of these do you want to bet I can find on Snopes?



People who caused damage have a responsibility to those they harmed? ****ing communism right there!


Why are we quoting an unnamed child?

Have any of these people ever called us a plague that needed to be culled or called for the deconstruction of modern industrial society in order to facilitate that ?.........

.......thought not :roll:

Facing down rabid environmental extremism is one of the greatest challenges we face in order to secure the viability of our society for future generations
 
Last edited:
Have any of these people ever called us a plague that needed to be culled or called for the deconstruction of modern industrial society in order to facilitate that ?.........

.......thought not :roll:

There are "skeptics" who have called for environmentalists to be arrested for treason. You know why I don't quote them as evidence of climate skeptics' opinions?

Facing down rabid environmental extremism is one of the greatest challenges we face in order to secure the viability of our society for future generations

If I were making a list like his, I'd put this on it. Ooh look, this guy thinks environmentalists are going to end the world!!!!
 
There are "skeptics" who have called for environmentalists to be arrested for treason. You know why I don't quote them as evidence of climate skeptics' opinions?

I think you will find the opposite is actually the case and at the highest level too

Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics | The Daily Caller

Galileo or Darwin could never have survived in the current regime

If I were making a list like his, I'd put this on it. Ooh look, this guy thinks environmentalists are going to end the world!!!!

On the contrary thats the opposite of what they really want. They just want to end it for most of us humans :(
 
Last edited:
On the contrary thats the opposite of what they really want. They just want to end it for most of us humans :(

:lamo

Yes, yes. We're all supervillains. Like your comic books. Destroying the world for ****s and giggles. Destroying our own lives for ****s and giggles.
 
:lamo

Yes, yes. We're all supervillains. Like your comic books. Destroying the world for ****s and giggles. Destroying our own lives for ****s and giggles.

Can you think of the last time environmentalists protested in support of benefitting humans rather than against their progress at every turn?
 
Can you think of the last time environmentalists protested in support of benefitting humans rather than against their progress at every turn?

I have a trick for you:

Try and assess someone's actions based on their perception rather than your perception, and you will understand their actions better.
 
I have a trick for you:

Try and assess someone's actions based on their perception rather than your perception, and you will understand their actions better.

A simple 'no I can't' would have served you better there :wink:
 
A simple 'no I can't' would have served you better there :wink:

Ahh, but I already did what you asked. The fact that you're unable to grasp it, well, I can try to help:

You see, there are people in this world who think global warming is causing harm to future generations, and that we can mitigate that harm by aggressively expanding alternative energy sources in lieu of fossil fuels. While in the short term this may be more expensive, it is better for humanity in the long run.

I hope I've cleared your confusion.
 
Maybe. It is an opinion, not a fact.

It's an opinion supported by fact, whereas the contrary opinion is supported by more opinion.
 
Ahh, but I already did what you asked. The fact that you're unable to grasp it, well, I can try to help:

You see, there are people in this world who think global warming is causing harm to future generations, and that we can mitigate that harm by aggressively expanding alternative energy sources in lieu of fossil fuels. While in the short term this may be more expensive, it is better for humanity in the long run.

I hope I've cleared your confusion.

And there are others who would like to kill as with their cures for 'other' motives.

We'll adapt to whatever happens just like we always have. Environmentalists seek to deny us the resources with which to do that by forcing the adoption of artificially expensive energy sources on us.

Its the whole population control thing they want and they'll achieve it by increasing energy poverty and causing global destitution for billions
 
Ahh, but I already did what you asked. The fact that you're unable to grasp it, well, I can try to help:

You see, there are people in this world who think global warming is causing harm to future generations, and that we can mitigate that harm by aggressively expanding alternative energy sources in lieu of fossil fuels. While in the short term this may be more expensive, it is better for humanity in the long run.

I hope I've cleared your confusion.

OK, I get that. But why are the policies not at all to do anything like that?

All that is actually done is to subsidise the building of silly wind farms that don't produce electricity usefully. That and of course the use of food as fuel (which kills many millions of people per year).

Research into solar power untill it is cheaper than coal power would be fine. I would not have a problem with that.

Building a power line to Iceland from the UK/Europe would be a good idea.

Using Yellowstone or othe volcanoes in the US is a good idea.

Why the attack on fossil fuel rather that the creation of alternatives?

The obvious answer is that it is the attack on fossil fuel/wealth/freedom that is the point of the thing. Here come the communists in disguise.
 
This is really delicious. The AGW believers are turning on each other. Why? Because a few have figured out that if you eliminate fossil fuels and focus on renewables, only nuclear can fill the gap. The horror! Oh, the humanity!

The new climate ‘deniers’

Posted on December 16, 2015 | 55 comments
by Judith Curry
New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club: James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.
Continue reading →

New members of the climate ‘deniers’ club: James Hansen, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel, Tom Wigley . . . and Bill Gates.
The latest bit of idiocy from Naomi Oreskes is this article in the Guardian: There is a new form of climate denialists to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet. Subtitle: At the exact moment in which we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel, we are being told that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. Excerpts:
After the signing of a historic climate pact in Paris, we might now hope that the merchants of doubt – who for two decades have denied the science and dismissed the threat – are officially irrelevant.
But not so fast. There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs. . . .



Of course nuclear is the only real option out there. IMO, the believers in AGW are in denial just as much as those who do not believe in it.

The reality is AGW is real and there is not a whole lot to be done about it right now, if ever.
 
OK, I get that. But why are the policies not at all to do anything like that?

All that is actually done is to subsidise the building of silly wind farms that don't produce electricity usefully. That and of course the use of food as fuel (which kills many millions of people per year).

Research into solar power untill it is cheaper than coal power would be fine. I would not have a problem with that.

Building a power line to Iceland from the UK/Europe would be a good idea.

Using Yellowstone or othe volcanoes in the US is a good idea.

Why the attack on fossil fuel rather that the creation of alternatives?

The obvious answer is that it is the attack on fossil fuel/wealth/freedom that is the point of the thing. Here come the communists in disguise.

All of that is useful. In order to stop global warming, we have to stop using fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. Which of course Exxon et al. are fighting tooth and nail with every means at their disposal, fair or foul. They are putting their own profits for this quarter ahead of the future of civilization.
 
All of that is useful. In order to stop global warming, we have to stop using fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. Which of course Exxon et al. are fighting tooth and nail with every means at their disposal, fair or foul. They are putting their own profits for this quarter ahead of the future of civilization.

:shock:

:screwy
 
OK, I get that. But why are the policies not at all to do anything like that?

All that is actually done is to subsidise the building of silly wind farms that don't produce electricity usefully. That and of course the use of food as fuel (which kills many millions of people per year).

Research into solar power untill it is cheaper than coal power would be fine. I would not have a problem with that.

Building a power line to Iceland from the UK/Europe would be a good idea.

Using Yellowstone or othe volcanoes in the US is a good idea.

Why the attack on fossil fuel rather that the creation of alternatives?

The obvious answer is that it is the attack on fossil fuel/wealth/freedom that is the point of the thing. Here come the communists in disguise.

Oh for ****'s sake we already went over the "ethanol kills millions" bull****. Are you going to claim that 200% of all starvation deaths are caused by biofuels like the last guy? Or was that you in the first place?
 
The obvious answer is that it is the attack on fossil fuel/wealth/freedom that is the point of the thing. Here come the communists in disguise. [/COLOR]
Environmentalism only got really hysterical after the wall came down.

Many simply swapped their red flag for a green one hijacked the once laudable aims of the movement to suit their own political agenda then pumped up the volume.
 
Environmentalism only got really hysterical after the wall came down.

Many simply swapped their red flag for a green one hijacked the once laudable aims of the movement to suit their own political agenda then pumped up the volume.

Ahh, we're Lex Luthor and secret communist infiltrators! :lamo

You guys are a never-ending source of amusement.
 
All of that is useful. In order to stop global warming, we have to stop using fossil fuels. It's as simple as that. Which of course Exxon et al. are fighting tooth and nail with every means at their disposal, fair or foul. They are putting their own profits for this quarter ahead of the future of civilization.

Building stupid wind farms or starving the world's poor will not change the amount of fossil fuels we use at all. If anything it maight just add a little due to the resources used to build the things.

Helping research would and could not be opposed by any group. Especially industrial groups which you dream are out to get you. They are not. The communists are. They will do anything for power. They have a track record of lying.
 
Oh for ****'s sake we already went over the "ethanol kills millions" bull****. Are you going to claim that 200% of all starvation deaths are caused by biofuels like the last guy? Or was that you in the first place?

So you think that my estimation of 20 million a year rather than the offical figure of 10 million a year makes it all bullshit do you?

You place your faith far above simple human suffering. You are very evil.
 
Ahh, we're Lex Luthor and secret communist infiltrators! :lamo

You guys are a never-ending source of amusement.

Their actions speak louder than words.

You've already been given dozens of quotes from high profile activists
 
Back
Top Bottom