Merged "Eco-Fascist Snuff Movie"

Precisely how is what I said groupthink? I referred to the "some".
You guys really need to brush up on your groupthink symptoms. :)
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Precisely how is what I said groupthink? I referred to the "some".
You guys really need to brush up on your groupthink symptoms. :)
Click to expand...

hahahaha, nice try, almost fell for it.
Actually if he was trying to show that Global Warmning advocates are the fascists and extremists some imagine.
Click to expand...

you used some in relation to some people imagen they are fascists but you didnt use in reference to the Global Warming advocates.
 
bit_pattern said:
Yeah, but in all due respect, the people living around you weren't the target demographic and, quite frankly, those people are going to believe everything they hear about AGW through the denialosphere echo-chamber is proof that it just a communist plot. Nothing is going to change their minds so who gives two hoots what they think? They probably think evolution is a communist plot and that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim hell bent on ushering in the Fifth International too. I don't think AGW activists should really bother wasting the brain-cells on worrying what a bunch of uneducated, reactionary, hicks from America, who only hear about climate change news through the usual denial-channels anyway, think about what they do. Really, those people couldn't get anymore irrelevant.
Click to expand...

When anyone says "it's not about the money" and "in all due respect," you know it is definitely about the money and there is no respect intended. You appear to be campaigning for most grandiloquent JREF post. Won't you be disappointed when you find out there isn't a prize?

Peer reviewed article by Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA’s Langley Research Center.

"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."

"The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. […] The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.”

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

Miskolczi must be one of those who believes "evolution is a communist plot and that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" and one of those "uneducated, reactionary, hicks from America."
 
Cicero said:
When anyone says "it's not about the money" and "in all due respect," you know it is definitely about the money and there is no respect intended. You appear to be campaigning for most grandiloquent JREF post. Won't you be disappointed when you find out there isn't a prize?

Peer reviewed article by Atmospheric physicist Ferenc Miskolczi, formerly with NASA’s Langley Research Center.

"Considering the magnitude of the observed global average
surface temperature rise and the consequences of the new greenhouse equations, the increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations must not be the reason of global warming."
"The runaway greenhouse effect is physically impossible. […] The observed global warming has nothing to do directly with the greenhouse effect; it must
be related to changes in the total absorbed solar radiation or dissipated heat from other natural or anthropogenic sources of thermal energy.”

http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

Miskolczi must be one of those who believes "evolution is a communist plot and that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim" and one of those "uneducated, reactionary, hicks from America."
Click to expand...

I see your Hungarian Meteorological Service and raise you Nature

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html


Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges
Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BW, UK
Correspondence to: John E. Harries Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email: j.harries@ic.ac.uk).
Top of page The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied1, 2, and a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established3, 4. But this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes—most importantly the hydrological cycle—that are not well understood5, 6, 7. Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation8, 9, 10, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect11, 12, 13. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DC said:
so when you agreed on that "I don't think the debate is on the science, but on what to do about it." you didn't really agree with it. You don't believe there is a problem, do you?
Click to expand...

What I concluded is that MMGWers and religious zealots both prognosticate that the human race is headed for the day of reckoning. The only difference between these fanatics is their time table.
 
Cicero said:
What I concluded is that MMGWers and religious zealots both prognosticate that the human race is headed for the day of reckoning. The only difference between these fanatics is their time table.
Click to expand...

So you believe there is no problem and nothing needs to be done about global warming, is that correct?

Or do you agree that the debate is not about the science, but rather how to solve the problem, assuming you know there is a problem because you accept the science.

I mean i am also not convinced that carbon trade will do any good. But that doesn't change my opinion about the Science telling me we are heading into troubles.
 
Last edited:
DC said:
I mean i am also not convinced that Carbon trade will do any good. Bu that doesn't change my opinion about the Science telling me we are heading into troubles.
Click to expand...

In the 1970's, even with all those C02 emissions, scientists insisted the Earth was cooling. Imagine the temperature changes today if back then their acolytes made a video of exploding school kids to spook the heretics.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg
 
DC said:
strange way to say there is no problem, but okey, that will do it.
Click to expand...

What? According to scientists, the problem in the 1970's was that the Earth was cooling. Now, according to scientists, the Earth is warming. What actions were humans implored to take back in the 1970's that would reverse nature?

The Earth isn't heading for any more troubles than it has seen before humans were on the planet. The Earth continues to go through cycles whether you ride a tricycle or a motorcycle.
 
Last edited:
Cicero said:
What? According to scientists, the problem in the 1970's was that the Earth was cooling. Now, according to scientists, the Earth is warming. What actions were humans implored to take back in the 1970's that would reverse nature?

The Earth isn't heading for any more troubles than it has seen before humans were on the planet. The Earth continues to go through cycles whether you ride a tricycle or a motorcycle.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: the planet is not in trouble, we are.
 
DC said:
He is wrong.
Click to expand...

I think he's right, the ad campaign's message is literally "think like us or die". And it's not like the people dissenting in the video were hardcore denialists, they just didn't agree.

That is the definition of groupthink.
 
Cicero said:
What? According to scientists, the problem in the 1970's was that the Earth was cooling. Now, according to scientists, the Earth is warming. What actions were humans implored to take back in the 1970's that would reverse nature?

The Earth isn't heading for any more troubles than it has seen before humans were on the planet. The Earth continues to go through cycles whether you ride a tricycle or a motorcycle.
Click to expand...

Really? Lo these many years later people are still trotting out this tired old canard?

During the period we analyzed, climate science was very different from what you see today. There was far less integration among the various sub-disciplines that make up the enterprise. Remote sensing, integrated global data collection and modeling were all in their infancy. But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

•7 articles predicting cooling
•44 predicting warming
•20 that were neutral
In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

We do not expect that this work will stop the mole from popping its head back up in the future. But we do hope that when it does, this analysis will provide a foundation for a more thoughtful discussion about what climate scientists were and were not saying back in the 1970s.
Click to expand...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

It should also be pointed out that EVEN IF the "cooling consensus" wasn't total horse ****, the fact that scientists were wrong about something in the past has little relevance to the quality of the data and analysis in the present. Did you know that Aristotle thought heavier objects fell to the Earth faster? I guess that means the Second Law of Thermodynamics is false...

And next we'll hear something about the CRU hack...
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
I think he's right, the ad campaign's message is literally "think like us or die". And it's not like the people dissenting in the video were hardcore denialists, they just didn't agree.

That is the definition of groupthink.
Click to expand...

I think you're attributing far more coherence to that add than was actually present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom