32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[bigfish]

Because parties are not elected on single issues, and the FPTP election system actively denies small parties from making gains.

But that doesn't alter the fact that the percentage of votes cast in favour of Green candidates at each election has remained steadfastly microscopic. The Greens receive almost unlimited access to establishment media, unprecedented for a party with no mass base and on a par with that given to the three main parties, and yet almost no one votes for them.

 

[Signal 11]

the percentage of votes cast in favour of Green candidates at each election has remained steadfastly microscopic.

If you are claiming that anyone said otherwise, or promoted the green party, provide a citation. Otherwise your appeal to popularity is entirely without merit.

 

[Crispy]

The Greens receive almost unlimited access to establishment media, unprecedented for a party with no mass base and on a par with that given to the three main parties, and yet almost no one votes for them.

Unlimited access to mainstream media whatnow? On a par woth the other parties when? Gimmee a break!

 

[kerplunk]

I really don't see where you get this.
Following your reasoning it would be argued "God wouldn't tolerate humans to kill each other, let alone engage in full scale war" etc.. etc.. in the infinite.

salaam.

But where are these people who deny that people kill each other and engage in full scale wars etc? Show me.

otherwise your comparison isn't very useful.

You're possibly taking me a little too explicitly (and I'm possibly not the greatest at explaining myself). It can be just an expression of optimism that 'mother nature always balances things out so there's nothing to worry about' or similar. You don't need to be relgious to say these kinds of thing which are based on nothing but faith, but it amounts to the same as 'god wouldn't allow it'.

 

[Aldebaran]

But where are these people who deny that people kill each other and engage in full scale wars etc? Show me.

I didn't even come near to say that. And my comparison stands, obviously.

You're possibly taking me a little too explicitly (and I'm possibly not the greatest at explaining myself). It can be just an expression of optimism that 'mother nature always balances things out so there's nothing to worry about' or similar. You don't need to be relgious to say these kinds of thing which are based on nothing but faith, but it amounts to the same as 'god wouldn't allow it'.

No it doesn't "amount to the same" at all.
Which religious person(s) made such a claim to underscore assumptions that global warming isn't happening?

salaam.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Like most denialists JC has a strong anti-science streak running through his posts with his constant equating of faith in science to religious faith. .

I'm not denying anything. I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made on a scientific and economic, not an emotional basis.

I'm also suggesting that those who accept anthropogenic climate change, stop attempting to demonize those who have questions, and that they also stop trying to stifle debate.

It's the stifling, and the demonization, that begin to look like a religious crusade, instead of a scientific discussion.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I see how it works now, forget all that science bollocks, let's just all rely on what JC2's spidey senses tell him about climate change shall we?

I mean with his track record in seeing through propaganda bollocks from the neocons and big oil he's bound to be right.

Just the opposite: I want all the science and economics to be thoroughly aired and discussed, and I want the demonization of any dissent to stop, as being totally anti productive.

As for my track record, part of an admission of having been wrong, involves a later assessment of one's former position in the light of new facts, and coming to an objective conclusion.

Far as I can tell, you've never done such a thing, or at least have never admitted it here.

But there's one thing I am sure of: you aren't omniscient, and being a mere human, you have been wrong, in the past, about things. Have you ever come to that realization on your own?

 

[Refused as fuck]

What shit is Jim talking now?

 

[bigfish]

What shit is Jim talking now?

It's called sense.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I
let's see what response ICM got when they actually did a proper survey of the british people to find out what they thought (June 27th-29th 2008, so about as upto date as you're likely to get)

so 52% think tackling environmental issues including global warming is more important than the economy, 63% support the introduction of Green taxes - or 66% if they were delayed until the economic situation improved.

and in case anyone's still under the mistaken impression that this is just a middle class liberal issue - the working classes were the most strongly in favour of environmental action of any class, and second most strongly in favour of green taxes.

over to you bigfish... fancy presenting us with some evidence for a change?

Here is a spreadsheet summarizing the group allocations and comparing the class averages to three exercises run by the Copenhagen Consensus in 2004, 2006, and by the UN.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/international/index.html

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

let's see what response ICM got when they actually did a proper survey of the british people to find out what they thought (June 27th-29th 2008, so about as upto date as you're likely to get)

so 52% think tackling environmental issues including global warming is more important than the economy, 63% support the introduction of Green taxes - or 66% if they were delayed until the economic situation improved.

and in case anyone's still under the mistaken impression that this is just a middle class liberal issue - the working classes were the most strongly in favour of environmental action of any class, and second most strongly in favour of green taxes.

over to you bigfish... fancy presenting us with some evidence for a change?

Funny how some people will enlist and endorse the opinion of the great British public.....on some issues, but not on others.

The survey found that 47 per cent of Britons believe migration by workers within the EU has been negative for the economy, almost double the 24 per cent of people who hold the same view in Spain. Meanwhile, 76 per cent of British respondents wanted to tighten border controls and 66 per cent said there were “too many foreigners” in the country, in both cases more than their counterparts in France, Italy, Spain or Germany.

http://migratione.blogspot.com/2007/05/hostile-uk-fails-to-see-benefits-of.html

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Here are more opinions of the british public, as revealed by polls.

The uncovered poll

Nearly half of all britons have been a victim of crime.
67 per cent support the death penalty.
Nearly a quarter of us would be tempted to carry a gun if the law allowed it.
55 per cent believe certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/apr/27/ukcrime13

So, free spirit, you seem prepared to accept that the british public is fully informed on issues of climate change, such that the poll results mean something.

I suppose that they are equally informed on issues of immigration, minority crime, gun laws, and capital punishment, such that the above polls should be given equal weight to yours?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Just FTR, as an observer again, it was bigfish claiming that the majority do not support 'green taxes,' nobody else.

There was lots of 'support green taxes' here too, right up to the time that the govt brought in a carbon tax on gas, at which point it turned into an issue that threatens to bring down the govt.

 

[Signal 11]

I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made on a scientific and economic, not an emotional basis.

No, you're trying to insinuate that they aren't, without providing any evidence.

I'm also suggesting that those who accept anthropogenic climate change, stop attempting to demonize those who have questions, and that they also stop trying to stifle debate.

It's the stifling, and the demonization, that begin to look like a religious crusade, instead of a scientific discussion.

I've answered these points here and here.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No, you're trying to insinuate that they aren't, without providing any evidence.].

I've provided lots of evidence that the media emphasises the 'worst case' science, and downplays or ignores the rest, while demonizing those who dissent.

Do you want more examples?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I've answered these points here and here.

You can answer till you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that Ellen Goodman for one equated climate dissenters with holocaust deniers, that a prominent weather channel [I may have the channel name incorrect] meteorologist called for the stripping of accreditation for any climatologist or meteorologist who didn't toe the line, that the Bishop of Brussels equated climate dissenters with pedophiles, etc.

All those things are right there in black and white. All your 'explaining' doesn't change the truth.

 

[Signal 11]

I've provided lots of evidence that the media emphasises the 'worst case' science

Classic bait-and-switch. You said "I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made". The "media" are not responsible for either the science or the decision making.

You can answer till you're blue in the face.

Yes, we are aware of your tactics by now.

It won't change the fact that Ellen Goodman for one equated climate dissenters with holocaust deniers, that a prominent weather channel [I may have the channel name incorrect] meteorologist called for the stripping of accreditation for any climatologist or meteorologist who didn't toe the line, that the Bishop of Brussels equated climate dissenters with pedophiles, etc.

Explain why I or anyone else here should answer for what any of those people said.

 

[kerplunk]

I didn't even come near to say that. And my comparison stands, obviously.
No it doesn't "amount to the same" at all.
Which religious person(s) made such a claim to underscore assumptions that global warming isn't happening?

salaam.

To me it amounts to the same - an exuberant faith in some invisible protecting force of nature. I'm barely interested in why you think it doesn't amount to the same and even less interested in discussing "religious person(s)" with you.
I think religious people can be just as good adherents to scientific method as anyone else if that helps.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Classic bait-and-switch. You said "I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made". The "media" are not responsible for either the science or the decision making.

.

No, politicians are, and they are responsive to their electorates. Therefore, the level of information made available to the electorate, becomes very important. They receive their information, for the most part, via the media.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

.

Uh-oh, here come the rolleyes!

The acolyte is getting worked up, and correspondingly incoherent.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Explain why I or anyone else here should answer for what any of those people said.

To repeat, the debate stretches beyond what you and your buddies say. What the media says and does is important in terms of public knowledge and attitude.

 

[kerplunk]

I'm not denying anything. I'm asking that all the science be looked at, and that sound decisions get made on a scientific and economic, not an emotional basis.

I'm also suggesting that those who accept anthropogenic climate change, stop attempting to demonize those who have questions, and that they also stop trying to stifle debate.

It's the stifling, and the demonization, that begin to look like a religious crusade, instead of a scientific discussion.

JC I hadn't read the whole thread when I posted that but I've read more now and I withdraw the denial comment aimed at you. This 'True Believer' stuff - I've had plenty of that on another forum and has coloured my perception of people who use that line.

 

[Refused as fuck]

It's called sense.

It's called shit.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's called shit.

Coming from a deep thinker such as yourself, I'll take this seriously to heart.

 

[Signal 11]

No, politicians are

Politicians are not responsible for the science. I'm not going to defend their decision making, since I don't agree with them. The question of the correct response to climate change should go in a separate thread IMO.

and they are responsive to their electorates.

Would you like to buy a bridge?

The acolyte is getting worked up

Poisoning the well.

and correspondingly incoherent.

Which bit didn't you understand?

 

[kerplunk]

You can answer till you're blue in the face. It won't change the fact that Ellen Goodman for one equated climate dissenters with holocaust deniers, that a prominent weather channel [I may have the channel name incorrect] meteorologist called for the stripping of accreditation for any climatologist or meteorologist who didn't toe the line, that the Bishop of Brussels equated climate dissenters with pedophiles, etc.

All those things are right there in black and white. All your 'explaining' doesn't change the truth.

I think you mean the Bishop of Stafford, who in a perhaps unfortunate analogy compared people who don't do enough about climate change to Josef Fritzl - as in not caring for the future of their children.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Which bit didn't you understand?

The pseudo impatience and disapproval. Aren't you able to discuss something without letting your emotions get the best of you?

 

[Signal 11]

^ More well poisoning.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ More well poisoning.

It's an honest question: aren't you able to discuss something without the rolleyes and the emotionality?

 

[Signal 11]

It's an honest question

No it wasn't.

aren't you able to discuss something without the rolleyes and the emotionality?

Yes.