CAGW Advocates are Really Starting to Become Frightening

[Snowlover123]

This is completely and absolutely absurd what one radical journalist wants to do to Climate Skeptics.

Quote:Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

They also now want to throw Climate Skeptics into jail. Yet, not a SINGLE skeptical organization wants to do ANYTHING remotely similar to the CAGW Advocates! Why is this so?

[Richard111]

I would be quite happy to swap my property here in Milford Haven for a similar sea front property next to Al Gore.

I have 1,680 square feet of of two story living space on 4,000 square feet of land 52 feet above sea level yet less than 300 feet from the harbour.

Any offers?

[Derek]

Thank you Snowlover123, great post.

This is the result of what happens when reality smacks AGW true believers in the mouth.
They are being exposed for the charlatans, the GH hypothesis, AGW, and they are.

I am reminded of an old quote,
"How do you reason someone out of a position they were not reasoned into?"
Sorry, I can not remember who said this, but I have a strong suspicion it was Dr. Richard S Courtney.

Snowlover123's post above is obviously what happens when such people are confronted with the UNDENIABLE facts.
They are the ones in denial of REALITY, and not for good reasons either..

The GH effect hypothesis has failed.
It is an imaginary, politically convenient "effect",
that has, and continues to cost us all dearly.
We all need to stand up to this, and "come out" now,
to not do so, will cost millions, and I am not talking money, but it will cost that (and much, much, more) as well.

I sleep soundly at night, but I have "come out" against unfounded, imaginary, politically convenient, climate alarmism,
have you?

[Goose52]

(06-09-2011 05:56 PM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  They also now want to throw Climate Skeptics into jail. Yet, not a SINGLE skeptical organization wants to do ANYTHING remotely similar to the CAGW Advocates! Why is this so?

I think you would agree we do not subscribe to the theory of coercive utopia. They do and they can be quite vicious about it.

[Snowlover123]

[Sunsettommy]

(06-11-2011 10:53 AM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  

(06-10-2011 12:08 PM)Derek Wrote:  Thank you Snowlover123, great post.

This is the result of what happens when reality smacks AGW true believers in the mouth.
They are being exposed for the charlatans, the GH hypothesis, AGW, and they are.

Agreed. They resort to logical fallacies, straw men, and especially ad-hominem attacking.

The latest example of this was the smear by Carbon Brief's "9 out of 10 papers published by skeptics are funded by Exxon."

They are so desperate to connect people to Exxon, that they labeled Dr. John Christy as an "industry spokesman" because he spoke at a conference sponsered by the Marshall Institute!

The desperate connections that the CAGW Proponents try to make are really desperate, and sad.

They do it to help deflect from the debate on hand.Never mind that many AGW believing bloggers are financed by environmental groups.

What they will never show are these:

HadleyCrut

or,

RSS

UAH is a slight warming trend.However it is still well below the low end of the IPCC decadal temperature modeling projections.

AGW hypothesis has a never ending failure rate.

[Sunsettommy]

Quote:They are indeed very vicious. I actually sent a private message to Fabian on the other board that I would be leaving the forum.

The attacks on me personally were so traumatic, that I really could not take much more of it.

It is sad that such a forum allows the personal attacks to be given little attention by the moderating team.

Here that would never happen.Since I despise it being done.

That is probably a major reason why there are no AGW believers here.They KNOW I would stop it.

This forum is more of a DISCUSSION forum than a Debating one.

[Scpg02.]

(06-11-2011 11:18 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  They do it to help deflect from the debate on hand.Never mind that many AGW believing bloggers are financed by environmental groups.

which are financed by oil money.

[Sunsettommy]

(06-11-2011 04:18 PM)Scpg02. Wrote:  

(06-11-2011 11:18 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  They do it to help deflect from the debate on hand.Never mind that many AGW believing bloggers are financed by environmental groups.

which are financed by oil money.

Can you post a good example?

[Scpg02.]

(06-11-2011 04:47 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

(06-11-2011 04:18 PM)Scpg02. Wrote:  

(06-11-2011 11:18 AM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  They do it to help deflect from the debate on hand.Never mind that many AGW believing bloggers are financed by environmental groups.

which are financed by oil money.

Can you post a good example?

http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/05_04_FW.pdf

The Philadelphia-based Pew Charitable
Trusts is one of the nation’s largest
and most influential philanthropic foundations.
The Pew Charitable Trusts are actually
an interlocking set of seven trusts
established by the children of turn-of-thecentury
oil baron Joseph N. Pew, and stewarded
by the family’s private investment
bank, the Glenmede Trust Company, which
is the trustee of the seven charitable trusts.
Glenmede manages $14 billion of total Pew
family wealth, about $4 billion of which
belongs to the Pew Charitable Trusts.

~snip~

Pew has been a leading donor to environmental
groups for nearly two decades.
Its Environment Program, directed
by Joshua S. Reichert, gave 31 grants in
2002 totaling $39,493,500—the program’s
environmental giving has averaged more
than $30 million annually for a decade.
Since 1990, Pew Charitable Trusts has
given over $300 million to more than 100
environmental groups.

~snip~

Thus, in 1991, Pew joined with two
other giant philanthropies, the John D. and
Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($4.2
billion assets 2001) and the Rockefeller
Foundation ($2.6 billion assets 2001), to
create a single-purpose consortium that
argues against fossil fuels: the San Francisco-
based Energy Foundation. They were
joined within a few years by four other
foundations, including the powerhouses
David and Lucile Packard Foundation ($6.1
billion assets) and the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation ($5.1 billion assets).
Today the Energy Foundation has some
$50 million of its own in the bank and its
seven constituent foundations list over
$23 billion in combined assets. This conglomerate
is critical to Pew’s success as
the pre-eminent climate change leader.

~snip~

A few highlights illustrate who these
grants influenced, some high profile, others
virtually unknown, but all acting in
concert to spread the global warming message:

· Hewlett Foundation grants: $1.3
million to Environmental Defense
(1994-2001); $1 million to NRDC
(1990-2001); $475,000 to the Sierra
Club (1998-2001); $250,000 to
World Resources Institute in
1995.

· MacArthur Foundation grants:
$6.5 million to Natural Resources
Defense Council (1988-2001); $3.5
million to Environmental Defense
(1992-2001); $615,365 to
Greenpeace (1997– 2001); $601,000
to the Sierra Club (1994-1997).

· Packard Foundation grants:
$12.3 million to Environmental
Defense (1993-2002); $2.2 million
to the Sierra Club (2000-2002);
$769,000 to NRDC (1988-2001).

· Pew Charitable Trusts grants:
$6.3 million to U.S. Public Interest
Research Group (1997-2001); $4.4
million to the National Religious
Partnership for the Environment
(1993-2001); $1.8 million to World
Resources Institute (1988-2002).

· Rockefeller Foundation grants:
$1 million to World Resources Institute
(1993-2001); $285,000 to
NRDC (1989-1999); $100,000 to the
National Religious Partnership for
the Environment in 1993; $20,000
to Greenpeace (1996-2001).

The Kyoto Conspiracy (Gore, Enron, Carbon Trading, Global Warming)

Amidst the talk about the benefits that Kyoto Protocol is sup-posed to promote, it is perhaps forgotten especially amongst the greenies how Kyoto was born in the corridors of very big business. The name Enron has all but faded from our news pages since the company went down in flames in 2001 amidst charges of fraud, bribery, price fixing and graft. But without Enron there would have been no Kyoto Protocol.

About 20 years ago Enron was owner and operator of an interstate network of natural gas pipelines, and had transformed itself into a billion-dollar-a-day commodity trader, buying and selling contracts and their derivatives to deliver natural gas, electricity, internet bandwidth, whatever. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to put a cap on how much pollutant the operator of a fossil-fueled plant was allowed to emit. In the early 1990s Enron had helped establish the market for, and became the major trader in, EPA’s $20 billion-per-year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade program, the forerunner of today’s proposed carbon credit trade. This commodity exchange of emission allowances caused Enron’s stock to rapidly rise

Then came the inevitable question, what next? How about a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program? The problem was that CO2 is not a pollutant, and therefore the EPA had no authority to cap its emission. Al Gore took office in 1993 and almost immediately became infatuated with the idea of an international environmental regulatory regime. He led a U.S. initiative to review new projects around the world and issue ‘credits’ of so many tons of annual CO2 emission reduction. Under law a tradeable system was required, which was exactly what Enron also wanted because they were already trading pollutant credits. Thence Enron vigorously lobbied Clinton and Congress, seeking EPA regulatory authority over CO2. From 1994 to 1996, the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million dollars - $990,000 - to the Nature Conservancy, whose Climate Change Project promotes global warming theories. Enron philanthropists lavished almost $1.5 million on environmental groups that support international energy controls to “reduce” global warming. Executives at Enron worked closely with the Clinton administration to help create a scaremongering climate science environment because the company believed the treaty could provide it with a monstrous financial windfall. The plan was that once the problem was in place the solution would be trotted out.

This link has a chart that shows where a lot of NRDC money comes from.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news...page=67#67

So it isn't exactly by coincidence that it is those same colossal foundations that are making all those "charitable" donations to those
icky Greens. The Environmental Grantmakers Association? That's Rockefeller. The Pew Charitable Trusts? That's Sunoco. W. Alton Jones? That's Citgo. The World Wildlife Fund? BP and Shell.

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content...entID=4859

~snip~

The United States Climate Action Partnership, which includes Shell, Dow Chemical, Alcan, Siemens and BP, is currently asking the federal government “to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”.

~snip~

[Goose52]

(06-11-2011 10:53 AM)Snowlover123 Wrote:  They are indeed very vicious. I actually sent a private message to Fabian on the other board that I would be leaving the forum.

The attacks on me personally were so traumatic, that I really could not take much more of it.

I have had dealings with Fabian before as well. I let a character who is no longer active their get the better of me at one point. I decided I was going to get kicked off that board. Fabian defused that situation quite skillfully really. But, it is clear that the mods allow much more latitude with the members who are true believers. Which is fine really that board is private property and they are free to run it as they see fit. I pop back in from time to time hoping some fence sitter might just see that there is another side to this debate, and to cause trouble for my own personal amusement.
Glad you found this forum. This crowd will certainly challenge the intellect. I must admit much of what goes on here is over my head.

[Scpg02.]

(06-11-2011 08:55 PM)Goose52 Wrote:  This crowd will certainly challenge the intellect.

LOL then there is me.

[Derek]

Too modest Scpg02, your very challenging..

[strogoff]

Hi friends,

Wow, thanks to Scpg02 for the info!

Some of us out there are trying to confront alarmist hordes with some humor and I would like to draw your attention to Junk Science (again):

http://junkscience.com/2011/06/06/win-50...eepstakes/



Mr. Milloy is a genious!!

[Scpg02.]

(06-12-2011 12:55 PM)Derek Wrote:  Too modest Scpg02, your very challenging..

Wow, thanks.

---

(06-12-2011 04:55 PM)strogoff Wrote:  Wow, thanks to Scpg02 for the info!

[Sunsettommy]

I see that Derek has made a post there.

Anyone else want the $500 enough to post a tattoo suggestion?

Win $500 in JunkScience.com’s ‘Climate Change Denier Tattoo’ Sweepstakes!

[Derek]

Come to think of it, a friend of mine owns a tattoo parlor.
http://www.sunderlandbodyart.com/pages/home.php

I suppose I'd have to.....GULP.

My tattoo would be,

Written on a turtles back, that is supporting a flat disc world,
would be
” I DO NOT EXIST. ”

Above the image / tattoo would be written,
“The world ain’t flat.”

And below the image / tattoo would be written,
“0.04% CO2 does not control climate.”

[strogoff]

(06-13-2011 05:15 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  I see that Derek has made a post there.

Anyone else want the $500 enough to post a tattoo suggestion?

Win $500 in JunkScience.com’s ‘Climate Change Denier Tattoo’ Sweepstakes!

Excellent, Derek. I loved the Leitmotiv "I DO NOT EXIST" Is your friend reliable?

[Derek]

It is a excellent tattoo parlor, with very talented artists, as well as a very good reputation and record.
If memory serves me correctly it also holds a world record for piercings as well.

Is he reliable ? - I have always chosen my friends very carefully.

[Climate Realist]

Apart from the fact that I don't like and don't see the need for having a tatoo, if I were tattoo friendly I would be happy yo have a "denier' tattoo somewhere. Perhaps not on the head, but upper arm would be ok.

"Denier and Proud!" on one arm and the sun with a tick on the other arm with a CO2 molecule crossed out on the other arm.