|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Axiom wrote: |
| Why is he so afraid of debate on this subject. |
He's not afraid of debate on the subject. Rather, he pretty clearly understands that many of the people who claim to want debate really just have the goal of muddying the intellectual waters as much as possible in hopes of confusing the issue, which will result in a default victory for their "do nothing" approach.
Outside of a few scientists, no serious debate is actually occuring. The politicians, businessmen, and members of the general public who deny climate change do so for the most part because the things required to combat it conflict with their interests or ideology, not because of any data. No amount of data would cause most of them to change their minds.
To be certain whether or not anthropogenic climate change is occuring will take decades or longer. Gambling with the existence of our species by waiting until we're certain to start taking appropriate countermeasures is nothing short of selfish, short-sighted stupidity. Let's stop pretending an actual debate is taking place among the general public, in business circles, or in political circles. Just as with health care reform, the people who are against it are against it for reasons of personal interest or unrealist ideology, not because of any facts or data. |
Oh, and you don't have an agenda? |
Of course I have an agenda. Unlike people such as yourself, however, my agenda is the well-being of the human race and keeping our planet a comfortably liveable place. |
You're a socialist extremist who cares nothing about freedom or your own country's sovereignty (which you admitted).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Everything you write could just as easily be applied right back at you. |
It could be attempted, but it would sound absolutely retarded and make no sense, which is why no one's done it. Attacking me for suggesting throwing caution to the wind when my primary point is we need to be cautious is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard suggested. |
Ooh, more hyperbole. Here, allow me to simplify it: you're a hypocrite.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Are you actually pretending that you know all the data yourself? |
I really am starting to question your reading comprehension. Of course I'm not pretending I know all the data myself, which is why I've said -- repeatedly -- that I'm not certain whether anthropogenic global warming is occuring or not, and that it will take us decades (at the very least) to be certain. This is why I suggest caution rather than blind, reckless, greedy indifference. |
No, you suggest we go along with your insane, destructive agenda and label us as "extremists" who won't listen to the data, even though you have no clue about it yourself, and you've lied about only "a few" scientists being skeptical of the whole thing (30+ thousand is not a few).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| There is soooo much to lose by going along with government plans to "stop" climate change. |
As I've said (and again, which you didn't bother to comprehend, because in your posting rage you don't really bother to read or consider), each proposal needs to be considered on a case by case basis. Some proposals will be good, and some won't be. There's a huge difference between saying "Government proposal X isn't a good idea because it will have effects a, b, and c," and saying, "Let's argue against any changes based on the possibility of anthropogenic climate change by default." I support the former; extremists like yourself support the latter. |
Hilarious. You accuse me of poor reading comprehension, then accuse me of being an "extremist", even though I've clearly stated all along that changing to alternative energy sources would be a good thing. Your agenda is FAR more extremist and radical than mine, and would include ruining our economy and permanently reducing our standard of living.
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| Nobody is saying we wouldn't be better off finding alternative energy sources ... |
There are [b]plenty of people who oppose the development of alternative energy source[/b]s, as well as any major changes in our energy economy. And those people are using their resources to try to muddy the waters of the climate change debate as much as possible to retain their current advantages. |
Oh really? (see bold) Name one poster. I've literally never seen a single poster on here state that they are against the development of alternative energy sources. Nor do I think I've seen anyone do so in the media. Some people might debate the merits of a specific energy source (such as bio ethanol), or questioning our ability to go off oil completely in a short period of time, but that does not make one against developing alternative energy. Libertarians are far more interested in alternative energy (for the sake of energy independence) than the socialist cronies you support in government, all of whom work for Mr. Rockefeller (the same one who controls all the oil supermajors and our monetary system that keeps us dependent on oil).
| Quote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| ... the issue is increased government control over our lives and carbon taxes, period. |
Then argue against specific policies which you feel are incorrect, rather than recklessly arguing against climate change based on your ideology. I for instance have all ready said I don't feel cap and trade is a good system; I can oppose it without opposing the entire idea of climate change. But that doesn't involve angry screaming or ridiculous, baseless principles, so obviously we can't have that, right? |
I just laugh at your perception of me as someone "angry". You're basically just a big joke to me, nothing I would ever get angry over. And to think you believe you're capable of gauging my emotional state over an internet chat board. It's really quite funny. 
Anyway, to address the point, I believe the best way to help the environment would be to abolish the Federal Reserve and our current monetary system, which is ponzi scheme requiring us to consume as many resources as wastefully as possible just to keep it from collapsing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| Timothy Ball regularly appears on Glenn Beck's show.... nuff said. |
That doesn't mean what he says is untrue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Timothy Ball regularly appears on Glenn Beck's show.... nuff said. |
That doesn't mean what he says is untrue. |
This is what really gets on my goat!!! This takes me back to my original question why are Comrade Krudd and Obama avoiding debate in this issue.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pms_bid_to_gag_climate_change_sceptics
Piers Akerman
Saturday, November 07, 2009 at 05:30pm
In a 6200-word address to the Lowy Institute on Friday, Kevin Rudd outdid Hanrahan with his dire predictions of ruination.
.............
As noted British scientist David Bellamy, a former believer in the anthropogenic global-warming humbug, said last November: �The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it�s not even science any more - it�s anti-science.��
Bellamy�s views are supported by more climate scientists than the number who contributed to the flawed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that Rudd relies on.
..............
In gagging Dr Clive Spash, a senior environmental economist who argued that Rudd Labor�s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was an ineffective way to cut emissions, the CSIRO, Science Minister Kim Carr and the Prime Minister have engaged in an appalling display of anti-scientific action.
...................
Spash has now been told he can�t publish the paper - even in a private capacity - because it is ``politically sensitive��.
............
Last edited by Axiom on Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Timothy Ball regularly appears on Glenn Beck's show.... nuff said. :) |
That doesn't mean what he says is untrue. |
No it doesn't, but it gives you an indication - I can't take seriously someone who takes Beck seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| visitorq wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| Timothy Ball regularly appears on Glenn Beck's show.... nuff said. |
That doesn't mean what he says is untrue. |
No it doesn't, but it gives you an indication - I can't take seriously someone who takes Beck seriously. |
It has nothing to do with Glenn Beck. Appearing on Beck's show is a way for him to get his message across to millions of people, nothing more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If his message was valid he'd be able to get on non-lunatic shows. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RufusW wrote: |
| If his message was valid he'd be able to get on non-lunatic shows. |
That is completely untrue. The establishment media does not rock the boat. They bring on individuals with opinions that sit within a very narrow spectrum of opinion. This is why Bernie Sanders isn't on CNN every night during the runups to wars. Global warming is now part of the liberal cannon and to challenge it is heresy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:52 am Post subject: ... |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Ok, so the science is settled, though we don't know which science is settled (and we assume the thousands of scientists who disagree are on Big Oil's payroll) |
Come come. Let's not get confused. You yourself
-have only provided a single research report, which just happened to be endorsed by the GOP and funded by the oil/tobacco lobby.
-you think space research is a waste, but then explain how the whole solar system is warming
-then flip to say we've been cooling since 1998
-and, if anyone follows your hopscotch between threads, you'd see that you first decided climate change was a sham, then started to "find" evidence thereof
-you talk math and models, then offer 400 Guys Named Steve non-arguments to support your position
-in between eliminating the fed to address climate change and eliminating socialism to make pollution impossible, it seems you're ignoring a vast glacier of opinions now coming from your side (and fiddlesticks to saying you don't have a side when you obviously do). Are you down with all of that?
-cuz really, if the Austrian School is really going to eliminate pollution, then I might be down with ignoring all of the national academies |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RufusW
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:07 am Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| ....then I might be down with ignoring all of the national academies. |
+1. None of us are climate scientists... I'm willing to trust "all the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" (wiki).... man-made global warming is real and we should address it.
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| ...and fiddlesticks to saying you don't have a side when you obviously do |
+1. for old man expression! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:14 pm Post subject: Re: ... |
|
|
[quote="RufusW"]
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| ....then I might be down with ignoring all of the national academies. |
[quote="RufusW"]+1. None of us are climate scientists... I'm willing to trust "all the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries" (wiki).... man-made global warming is real and we should address it.
All, all, all rubbish.. It seems to me the only scientists still agreeing on this fanciful theory are the ones recieving massive government handouts (that's our money).
Can't say I blame them. In the same position, I probably wouldn't bite the hand that feeds me either.
Last edited by Axiom on Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Axiom
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
slowly, slowly.. this BS is coming undone... This from a country that stands to actually recieve billions of dollars from the Copenhagen treaty
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Govt-quells-panic-over-Himalayan-glacial-melt/H1-Article3-474713.aspx
Government quells panic over Himalayan glacial melt
Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times
Email Author
New Delhi, November 10, 2009
First Published: 00:53 IST(10/11/2009)
Last Updated: 02:06 IST(10/11/2009)
For the first time, the Indian government has challenged western research that says global warming has hastened the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
On Monday, environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh released a paper saying there was no evidence of such a link.
V.K. Raina, a former deputy director general of the Geological Survey of India, wrote the paper, Himalayan Glaciers.
�The health of Himalayan glaciers is poor,� Ramesh said. �But according to the paper, the doomsday prediction of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore is also not correct. I want scientists to critique the report.�
......... for info go to the link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallacy
Joined: 29 Jun 2015
Location: ex-ROK
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2015 9:55 pm Post subject: RE: Climate Change Scepticism |
|
|
| Retread the old thread for sake of reviving tradition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2016 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mises wrote: |
| RufusW wrote: |
| If his message was valid he'd be able to get on non-lunatic shows. |
That is completely untrue. The establishment media does not rock the boat. They bring on individuals with opinions that sit within a very narrow spectrum of opinion. This is why Bernie Sanders isn't on CNN every night during the runups to wars. Global warming is now part of the liberal cannon and to challenge it is heresy. |
Bernie Sanders is on CNN every night and climate change is a real thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Bernie Sanders is on CNN every night and climate change is a real thing. |
A real thing, fueled by scare tactics, and empowered with an agenda to sell more things. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
