The Climate Change Hoax

The only mystery is why anyone would continue to believe in absurd
"hoax' and " conspiracy " theory.

An online platform developed by an Australian Googler in his "20 per cent time" has been adopted by the United Nations to show world leaders the extent of global support for climate change action at this month's summit in Copenhagen.

Google Australia's "innovationist", Justin Baird, developed the Show Your Vote platform after meeting US environmental campaigner Al Gore earlier this year and helping develop the web presence of the highly successful Earth Hour campaign.

His platform includes a virtual ballot box that can be embedded into any website allowing people to register their support for sealing a fair and effective climate deal at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, which runs for two weeks from Monday.

The whole world by and large has woken up.
The whole world by and large is ( according to you ) wrong.

The consensus is clear , and it talks loudly .
Conspiracy theorists , like you , are indisputably and clearly in the minority ,and still deaf to the message.

Keep the wax in your ears ,and dream on .
You may wake up long after the world has passed you by.

 

Yes, I am completely ignorant of Father Coughlin, but I'm not ignorant of your tactics. You have shown clearly that you cannot be trusted to tell the truth, so I remain skeptical of your account. As to "spouting off", I did no such thing. I just observed that your account is not to be trusted.

Even if you had not damaged your credibility so badly here, that out-of-context, un-sourced quote would prove nothing. To make a real argument you have to

1. Give a reliable source. This is especially necessary now, given the recent history where Limbaugh-haters like you were found to have fabricated a bunch of Limbaugh quotes to make him look like a racist. So obviously the source cannot be a Limbaugh-hating site.

2. Give the quote in context (I presume there is an associated news story).

2. Explain why it is "hateful" for Limbaugh to be outraged about the beating. That is certainly is not self-evident.

3. Explain how it is racist to be outraged at racially-motivated violence. That is not self-evident either.

4. Show that Limbaugh's interpretation of the event as racially motivated is untenable (not just that you disagree with it).

Remember what you said about assumptions? Well, I haven't listened to Limbaugh on the radio more than a couple of times. I watched his show a dozen times or so on late-night TV back in the 90's. I've read his web site maybe four or five times when I followed a link there. Some ditto-head huh?

Oh, and I've read a couple of web sites dedicated to hating Rush Limbaugh and talking about how hateful he is. They both seemed to come down to the idea that anyone who objects to Political Correctness is "hateful". That's what PC is, of course, an attempt to control the political dialog by labeling anyone who won't go along with your political assumptions as a big meanie that no one likes. It's sort of like high school that way.

So I can't be swayed by facts, huh? How would you know since you have yet to present a fact to sway me with?

 

I can't be trusted to tell the truth? Excuse me? Show me where I've lied.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh. If you don't, you obviously can't tell me what he does and doesn't say. If you do listen to him, you're deliberately mischaracterizing his show. Either way, you're just trolling.

Here's the actual audio of Rush talking about the fight on a school bus. If you're of average intelligence, you shouldn't need a whole lot of "context" to decide whether he's being hateful when he ties the incident to "Obama's America."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paCx4v4rc9U

Now I think I'm done with you. I'm not going to make a career out of educating you and bringing you up to speed....and this is supposed to be a thread about climate change. I brought Rush up as an example of ignorant, politically motivated activism concerning it, not as an attempt to hijack the thread and change the subject.

 

WOAH!!!!

Who give a fat pedunk about rush limbaugh, obama, or any of the other political crap being spouted by both sides here like a whale stuck with a New Bedfords lance in it.

This was a great ongoing debate about global warming with both sides producing some very well researched and checked facts.

Folks if we cant learn to get past this kind of BS and start having open and forthright debates about things, we are doomed. It wont be the global warming that gets us it will be the nuclear tipped missle.

Passion is a great thing. Go home and show you wife/husband/children/dog/lizard that your passionate. However if you want to debate issues that are of huge importance to all of us and the world, then leave your passion and bring your facts.

Otherwise you really dont have anything to add to the conversation and you should be listening and learning.

K9

 

If I were any more relaxed, I'd be dead.

 

meanwhile, you "scareists" are wrecking the economy on the basis of spurious climatology and destroying the future ability of all of our children to thrive or even earn a subsistent level income. In the middle ages there was no diesel crud, penecillin, cipro or electricity. Pick your path, but I'll stay on my path.

 

Again I say,

Show us one study of atmospheric CO2 residence time based on ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS rather than computer models, which shows that CO2 has a long atmospheric residence time. NO ONE can because such a study does not exist. Including the most recent one, Segalstad 2008, there have been 36 such studies, and they all show a short residence time.

If the residence time really is short, it game over for AGW; the entire hypothesis rests on this point.







Still waiting......

Jimbo

 

First cave man to 2nd cave man: "I don't care what you say. We never had such unusual weather before they started using bows and arrows."

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to accuse you of lying. You probably really believe that denying the existence of racial guilt is "racist" and that demanding that blacks be held to the same moral standards as whites is "hate speech". The reason you can't be trusted is not that you are deliberately lying but because your vocabulary is so twisted to serve the Democrat agenda.

If someone defends Limbaugh from your accusations, either he listens to Limbaugh regularly or he doesn't. If he does then he's a ditto head and so his opinion can be discounted. If he doesn't then he doesn't know enough to argue with you and so his opinion can be discounted. Either way, no one can disagree with you.

It's not just intelligence that is required, but a skewed morality that makes anti-racism into racism and anti-hate into hate. Limbaugh is railing against racism and hatred and you call him racist and hateful for it.

If you don't want to hijack the thread, then you should not throw random slanders at third parties. Other people who know that your slanders are false have a responsibility to correct them.

 

Citing a so-called 'consensus' is nothing more than an argument by authority, one of the basic logical fallacies. If you can't win a scientific argument on the merits of your 'science', then what good is your science?

NONE of your AGW gurus has been able to win an open argument with an informed skeptic, though several have tried. The three public debates I know of ended in a solid shellacking of the participant in favor of the 'chicken little' position. Each of these participants vowed NEVER to participate in such an argument again.

Why not try to answer some of the technical points I've raised, if you think you can. If you don't understand the science all that well, then how can you be so sure that your selected gurus have it right? If you can't defend the science yourself, then just say that you have faith in your chosen leaders and politely bow out, as you have nothing further to add except ad hominem attacks and other histrionics; ANYTHING but informed scientific reasoning.

Jimbo

 

OK, last response. I didn't hijack the thread. I made a comment about Rush Limbaugh that I considered relevant to the discussion. You seized on it for whatever reason, and have been beating it into the ground ever since.

I'm not talking about Rush Limbaugh any more; you are. How about getting back to climate change?

 

Why was he brought up in the first place other than to try to tar us naysayers with the same brush of lies and half-truths that you tried to dicredit him with? This is always the tactic of someone on the losing end of an argument. When the argument doesn't stand up, just launch a personal attack on the opponent. The left does it every time, whether it is Reagan or Joe the Plumber matters not.

 

The subject here is climate change, and the assertion that it is a hoax. If you two would rather have a flame war instead about Rush Limbaugh and what a dishonest scumbag I am, please PM me.

 

as i see it there are 2 sides

those that seriously study climate that say there's a problem and that man is a major factor

and then those that deny it without serious study

 

I called you neither dishonest or a scumbag. I believe you to be honest if somewhat misinformed. I don't question your character. I did say that the last resort of losing an argument is to launch a personal attack on the opponent in an effort to undermine the foundation of his argument. No matter how true the message, it loses credibility once the messenger has been successfully smeared. That is why the tactic is so common. It just seems to me the method is more often practised by the left. "Goldwater wants a nuke war", "Reagan is a war monger", "Its the economy, Stupid"(Bush 41), "Bush is a *****"(Bush 43 and on and on it goes, without end.