Denialism

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:14 pm

Wabash wrote: Remember when you said you wanted proof of your being conspiratorial?

This is a good example.
A few days ago, I replied to you with reasons why I say these things. Here it is again:
“Only one rational path is open to us—simultaneous de-development of the [overdeveloped countries] and semi-development of the underdeveloped countries (UDC’s), in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between. By de- development we mean lower per-capita energy consumption, fewer gadgets, and the abolition of planned obsolescence.”
- John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, “Introduction,” in Holdren and Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology, 1971, p. 3.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. . . . Resources and energy must be diverted from frivolous and wasteful uses in overdeveloped countries to filling the genuine needs of underdeveloped countries. This effort must be largely political.”
- John Holdren, Anne Ehrlich, and Paul Ehrlich, Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions (San Francisco; W.H. Freeman and Company, 1973), p. 279.


“[Our] gloomy prognosis [requires] organized evasive action: population control, limitation of material consumption, redistribution of wealth, transitions to technologies that are environmentally and socially less disruptive than today’s, and movement toward some kind of world government.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 5.


On the July 3, 2008 edition of the program “Democracy NOW!” Holdren told host Amy Goodman: “It’s important that we have a global agreement on how we are going to limit the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases going forward, and an agreement that will include the tropical forests, that will include ways to transfer some of the revenues from carbon taxes or carbon emission permits in the North to pay for reduced deforestation in the South.”
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/69081

Obama Science Czar John Holdren: I think ultimately that the rate of growth of material consumption is going to have to come down, and there’s going to have to be a degree of redistribution of how much we consume, in terms of energy and material resources, in order to leave room for people who are poor to become more prosperous.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... urces.html

…and whatever happened to making poverty history?

Finally, and most importantly, we need to tackle head-on the elephant in the background – the need for huge redistribution of wealth from North to South. The questions of economic development and human welfare in a world of scandalous inequality have surfaced many times and in different ways since the end of European colonialism: trickle-down economic theory, fair trade movements, overseas aid, structural reform, debt relief, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have all come and, at least for many of them, gone.

This is not about climate change affecting future generations. This is an issue of fundamental social justice and humanitarian welfare here and now.
-Mike Hulme, Climate Scientist at the University of East Anglia (aka the climategate source)
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_c ... hings.html


Noting the need for developed country Parties to compensate [developing country Parties, especially] the economies of Africa, least developed countries and small island developing States for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of climate change response measures in the context of environmental justice and environmental refugees,
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/aw ... /inf01.pdf


"The Nobel prize was for peace not science ... government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... form/print
- Anton Imeson, a lead author of the IPCC:
And trust me, I've got a lot more links that say the same thing. I know you won't want to see them because you're not man enough to respond to what I posted above.

Wabash wrote:Who is "they?"
The UN, policymakers, think-tanks, NGOs, The Bilderberg globocrats, academia, etc.


Wabash wrote: Denialists like to present false choices. The notion that we have to go back to preindustrial state in order to control pollution is a line that’s been trotted out against every pollution measure over the last half century (along with "It’s about redistribution of wealth”). In fact, the history particularly of this country over that period shows that when you work responsibly you can reduce pollution without harming economic activity – indeed, those efforts spawn whole new industries of their own.

I believe a necessary step to control pollution will be a greater emphasis on telecommuting. The beginnings of it are already occurring.
Holy ****, you're rlh??? (or you're guilty of plagiarism.)

I just replied to you on this, see my response to you over at the place where you refer to yourself as rlh.
(and you're a lawyer??? Hard to believe.)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:27 pm

kramer wrote:The UN, policymakers, think-tanks, NGOs, The Bilderberg globocrats, academia, etc.
There you go.

And yup, I did cut and paste those remarks from RLH. What's your point? I couldn't have said it better myself. Let him (or her) know I plagiarized his writing. I'm sure he'll sue me when he reads the context of my replies to you.

I mean, you really want us to believe all of your writing is your own? Who are you kidding?

Regardless (though I'm sure you won't let it go), this issue isn't about me. It's about your belief that climate change isn't occurring despite evidence to the contrary.

None of the deniers on this board have yet to put forth a source of information they would trust to inform them it is in fact very real.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:32 pm

Wabash wrote: There you go.

And yup, I did cut and paste those remarks from RLH. What's your point? I couldn't have said it better myself. Let him (or her) know I plagiarized his writing. I'm sure he'll sue me when he reads the context of my replies to you.

I mean, you really want us to believe all of your writing is your own? Who are you kidding?

Regardless (though I'm sure you won't let it go), this issue isn't about me. It's about your belief that climate change isn't occurring despite evidence to the contrary.

None of the deniers on this board have yet to put forth a source of information they would trust to inform them it is in fact very real.
Busted!

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:36 pm

sbayhills wrote:
Busted!
It isn't about me SB. Though I know you won't let it go because it allows you to stop defending your position.

BTW, in case you didn't notice, I freely admitted using his writing to help make my point about the false choices presented by the denialists.

Which neither you or Kramer are discussing because you know it's true and doesn't fit your narrative.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:18 pm

Wabash wrote: There you go.
No comment on my excerpts that back up what I said? I'm shocked... :shock:

Wabash wrote:And yup, I did cut and paste those remarks from RLH. What's your point? I couldn't have said it better myself. Let him (or her) know I plagiarized his writing. I'm sure he'll sue me when he reads the context of my replies to you.
How did you find those remarks? I doubt you just googled for a good response and found those remarks that were just posted there recently. You must frequent that forum. And I know you, you wouldn't read the comments and not respond.

On the other hand, I never saw any resemblance to his (or her's) writing style to yours, the other poster sometimes wrote some pretty lengthy responses. Plus, he (or she) is more civil. So you could have just copied the text. I'll have to go back and re-read a lot of his (or her's) posts to see if I see similarities.
Wabash wrote: I mean, you really want us to believe all of your writing is your own? Who are you kidding?
Virtually all of it has been so far.
Wabash wrote: Regardless (though I'm sure you won't let it go), this issue isn't about me. It's about your belief that climate change isn't occurring despite evidence to the contrary.
I don't dispute that CO2 is a warming gas, that we've increased the PPM count, and that the earth has warmed over the last 100 years. I'm skeptical that the majority of the warming is from our extra CO2. Plus, I don't trust the offical temp records because they adjust data and UHI can very large, there can be a difference of 22F between a city and the surrounding countryside.
Wabash wrote:None of the deniers on this board have yet to put forth a source of information they would trust to inform them it is in fact very real.
Climategate didn't help.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:24 pm

Wabash wrote: There you go.

And yup, I did cut and paste those remarks from RLH. What's your point? I couldn't have said it better myself. Let him (or her) know I plagiarized his writing. I'm sure he'll sue me when he reads the context of my replies to you.

I mean, you really want us to believe all of your writing is your own? Who are you kidding?

Regardless (though I'm sure you won't let it go), this issue isn't about me. It's about your belief that climate change isn't occurring despite evidence to the contrary.

None of the deniers on this board have yet to put forth a source of information they would trust to inform them it is in fact very real.
The real humor in this malfeasance (reproducing without proper credit to the author) really isn't that you got caught plagiarizing the words of another.

No no ...

The real humor is that you are back in here after having been so absolutely busted, TRYING in vain to defend your behavior with such seriously lame rationalizations as "well I think you do it to" and the big puffed up chest version of "...yeah? SO wha'dya gonna do about it?" BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE ... apparently realizing the futility of your vain rationalizations, you try to switch gears by challenging Kramer to "let it go" while you move the goal posts from the REAL argument (that humans didn't create climate change) to your false and pretend argument (which you CAN defend because no one is standing in your way) that we deny climate change is happening at all.

You ought to write a book (if you can do so without stealing Saul Alinsky's already-written words)...

This really is VERY entertaining. But, of course, the best part is yet to come: The best part is when you try to mount a cogent, rational response to THIS post...

Wait for it ... wait for it ...

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:28 pm

kramer wrote:Climategate didn't help.
Nor did it hurt any of the assertions made by climate change proponents.

It only mattered to conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:49 pm

Wabash wrote:
It only mattered to conspiracy theorists such as yourself.
Still no comment on John P. Holdren's quotes where he's calling for deindustrialization and redistribution of our wealth?
:ROFL:
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:27 pm

Wabash wrote: It isn't about me SB. Though I know you won't let it go because it allows you to stop defending your position.

BTW, in case you didn't notice, I freely admitted using his writing to help make my point about the false choices presented by the denialists.

Which neither you or Kramer are discussing because you know it's true and doesn't fit your narrative.
Now you're practicing denialism. Busted!

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:35 pm

sbayhills wrote: Now you're practicing denialism. Busted!
Which doesn't change the point of the false choices presented by denialists.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:27 pm

Wabash wrote:
BTW, in case you didn't notice, I freely admitted using his writing to help make my point about the false choices presented by the denialists.
That's because I freely showed everybody where you got it from.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:30 am

kramer wrote:
That's because I freely showed everybody where you got it from.
None of which changes the point of the false choices put forth by denialists.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:59 am

Wabash wrote:
BTW, in case you didn't notice, I freely admitted using his writing to help make my point about the false choices presented by the denialists.

:ROFL:

He's STILL trying to rationalize it. Now THIS is "funny!"

BTW, in case you didn't cop to it, you didn't "freely admit" anything. You acknowledged your plagiarism only after you understood that Kramer had busted you straight up and squarely, and you had no other way out.

NONE of which changes the fact that those whom you call denialists don't deny that the climate is changing. What they deny is that your thin, lame evidence shows it is man's doing.

User avatar
sbayhills
Posts: 6887
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:20 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by sbayhills » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:11 am

GOODave wrote:
:ROFL:

He's STILL trying to rationalize it. Now THIS is "funny!"

BTW, in case you didn't cop to it, you didn't "freely admit" anything. You acknowledged your plagiarism only after you understood that Kramer had busted you straight up and squarely, and you had no other way out.

NONE of which changes the fact that those whom you call denialists don't deny that the climate is changing. What they deny is that your thin, lame evidence shows it is man's doing.
Right on Dave. I believe that the poster formerly known as Elroy/e.rosewater should excuse himself from this thread before he has one of his infamous weekend meltdowns.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Sat Feb 12, 2011 9:12 am

sbayhills wrote:
Right on Dave. I believe that the poster formerly known as Elroy/e.rosewater should excuse himself from this thread before he has one of his infamous weekend meltdowns.
I agree he should ... but if he does, this place won't be as entertaining.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:38 am

sbayhills wrote: Right on Dave. I believe that the poster formerly known as Elroy/e.rosewater should excuse himself from this thread before he has one of his infamous weekend meltdowns.
Even funnier is that you have yet to address the point of false choices put forth by denialists.

Despite your best attempts to make this about me.

Which I appreciate your attention.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by kramer » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:31 pm

Wabash wrote: Even funnier is that you have yet to address the point of false choices put forth by denialists.

Despite your best attempts to make this about me.

Which I appreciate your attention.

Still no comment on John P. Holdren's quotes where he's calling for deindustrialization, global government, and redistribution of our wealth?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Sun Feb 13, 2011 4:42 pm

Wabash wrote: Even funnier is that you have yet to address the point of false choices put forth by denialists.
sorry, Charlie: there is no need to address your nonsensical and non-meritorious claims.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24558
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: Denialism

Post by Wabash » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:48 am

GOODave wrote: sorry, Charlie: there is no need to address your nonsensical and non-meritorious claims.
:)

Who is Charlie? Is he someone else that made you look foolish like elroy?
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
GOODave
Posts: 26392
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 6:21 pm

Re: Denialism

Post by GOODave » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:24 am

Wabash wrote: :)

Who is Charlie? Is he someone else that made you look foolish like elroy?
Doesn't change or dispute the fact that your nonsensical and non-meritorious, unfounded claims need no response.

Post Reply