Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

[Dandred]

Got any proof or should we all just take your word for it, like?

So who dunit? right wing christians????

 

[Dandred]

Got any proof or should we all just take your word for it, like?

After some of the links you have posted you want proof

 

[nino_savatte]

Now then bigfish, would you care to back up your claims or will you continue to make a tit of yourself? (Not difficult given your track record)

Perhaps you haven't quite grasped the art of reading and comprehension. This is evidenced by the way you insist on reading things into my posts that don't exist. First, you accuse me of racism (despite the fact that Islam is a religion) and second, you accuse me of being a "reactionary". Yet the only proof you offer is a clip from a post where I say "The persons who carried out this were criminals who saw themselves as Muslims". Now if you can identify racist intent in that statement, then you are truly ready for Maudsley Hospital. No one else appears to have read my post this way, why do you think that is? Do you think we are all part of the same crazy PLOT?

Your trouble is you see enemies everywhere. In this respect you are little different to pbman or any other conspiracy fantasist. In fact, you are more like him than you realise because you don't engage your brain before hitting the keyboard.

I'd get that looked at if I were you.

 

[Ae589]

What the fuck has this got to do with climate change?


bf - I'm interested in why you believe the greenshirts want to take us back to the stone age. I can certainly see that the evidence for man-made global warming is not absolutely-beyond-a-doubt conclusive, but I'm interested why you think I (I guess I am one of these greenshirts) wants to do any such thing without just cause?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Look, Gunther, my position is this: I have seen absolutely no credible evidence from you or anyone else establishing in irrefutably concrete terms the presence of criminal Islamic suiciders <snip> .

Don't see what any of that has to do with environmentalism and your apparent hostility to both the underlying science and to discussion of the consequences. Which is what I was asking about.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What the fuck has this got to do with climate change?


bf - I'm interested in why you believe the greenshirts want to take us back to the stone age. I can certainly see that the evidence for man-made global warming is not absolutely-beyond-a-doubt conclusive, but I'm interested why you think I (I guess I am one of these greenshirts) wants to do any such thing without just cause?

Yes, exactly. Much more interesting ...

 

[nino_savatte]

What the fuck has this got to do with climate change?


bf - I'm interested in why you believe the greenshirts want to take us back to the stone age. I can certainly see that the evidence for man-made global warming is not absolutely-beyond-a-doubt conclusive, but I'm interested why you think I (I guess I am one of these greenshirts) wants to do any such thing without just cause?

Nothing, the fishy one is dragging something in from another thread in order to attack me.

 

[bigfish]

Now then bigfish, would you care to back up your claims or will you continue to make a tit of yourself? (Not difficult given your track record)

I'm always prepared to back up my claims nino, unlike you having systematically ducked out of answering a simple yes or no question four times now at the last count.

Perhaps you haven't quite grasped the art of reading and comprehension. This is evidenced by the way you insist on reading things into my posts that don't exist.

"Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact".

Presumably, my failing in comprehension traces back to my refusal to accept what you say above about British Muslims blowing up other British Muslims in London on July 7, which you insist on calling a "fact". The thing is you see, facts are an extremely powerful force all by themselves, so powerful in fact they leave no room for any doubt whatsoever. So how is it then that you, as someone who presents himself here as a progressive lefty, can say such a despicable thing with so much doubt arising from the manifold contradictions inherent in the official narrative? How come a progressive lefty like you defaults to the establishment it was Islamists wot done it line, even though that same establishment is searching for pretexts to transform our society into a stinking police state?

First, you accuse me of racism (despite the fact that Islam is a religion)

Okay, I'll concede this point and replace the term racist with the term bigot. Is that fair enough?

and second, you accuse me of being a "reactionary". Yet the only proof you offer is a clip from a post where I say "The persons who carried out this were criminals who saw themselves as Muslims".

But you have no credible proof that the criminals responsible for the July atrocity saw themselves as Muslims. There is a very strong likelihood, in the opinion of many people on the left, that the atrocity was sanctioned at the highest levels of the British state, in which case, the criminals responsible definitely do not see themselves as Muslims, though of course they will be trying very hard, with the help of people like yourself and Gunther, to project their heinous crimes on to innocent British Muslims.

Your trouble is you see enemies everywhere.

What I see is a poster of long standing ignoring the lessons of history and jumping to an outrageous and unsustainable conclusion that four young Muslim men are guilty of a terrible atrocity, on the basis of nothing more than a corporate media yarn and no convincing hard evidence.

In this respect you are little different to pbman or any other conspiracy fantasist.

But I'm not a "conspiracy fantasist", you are. My position is that I have seen absolutely no credible evidence establishing in irrefutably concrete terms the presence of criminal Islamic suiciders, either boarding targeted trains at Xcross, or targeted planes in the United States. No witness statements, no CCTV, no nothing whatsoever that would stand up in a properly convened court of law and convince an honest jury. Therefore, I am unable to conclude, as you appear to have done, that "British Muslims blew up other British Muslims" in London on July 7.

In fact, you are more like him than you realise because you don't engage your brain before hitting the keyboard.

I'd get that looked at if I were you.

I think that you're projecting nino. What you are in effect saying is that your own brain was fully engaged when you tapped the following out on your keyboard: "Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact". Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

 

[pbman]

What the fuck has this got to do with climate change?
?

Threads do wander a bit don't they.


Death by Environmentalism
by Robert James Bidinotto
19 April 2004

Starting, as they do, from the premise of nature's intrinsic value -- a value independent of any valuer or purpose -- environmentalists are driven by that premise's inescapable logic to consistently oppose every human effort to use the planet.......

In the same way that so many intellectuals once turned a blind eye to the massacres perpetrated by communists, most intellectuals now evade the three decades of mass destruction and misery perpetrated by environmentalists. Sharing the movement's underlying philosophic precepts and focusing their gaze upon its proclaimed goals, they remain blissfully ignorant of its wretched consequences, or -- when brought to their attention -- excuse them as unfortunate "excesses" wrought by a few overly zealous "idealists," whose hearts are nonetheless in the right place.

It is this self-imposed blindness that we must penetrate, by casting a spotlight on the human costs of this misanthropic movement.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3340.html

 

[Loki]

Threads do wander a bit don't they.


Death by Environmentalism
by Robert James Bidinotto
19 April 2004



http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3340.html

I've scanned this man's CV - he has absolutely no relevant qualifications. Much like yourself!

 

[pbman]

I've scanned this man's CV - he has absolutely no relevant qualifications. Much like yourself!

Its not that technical an artical or issue.

For instance, whenever environmentalists prevent the building of hydroelectric power dams in the Third World, they boast of having prevented the flooding of land and the destruction of wildlife and habitat. What is seen are romanticized TV shows depicting herds of elephants, giraffes, and antelope roaming the vast plains of Africa, narrated with manic enthusiasm by the Animal Planet cable network's Crocodile Hunter, to whom every snake and slug is "a real beauty!" And what is also seen are the press conferences where green groups crow about having spared these critters from a man-made ecological holocaust.

What is not seen are the countless human lives they have taken. By depriving Third World people access to the electricity that Western environmentalists take for granted, those people remain mired in poverty, darkness, wretched sanitation, and the resulting diseases and malnutrition that take millions of lives each year. Thanks to the environmental movement, these hapless people's Hobbesian existence will remain nasty, brutish, and short.

 

[Loki]

Its not that technical an artical or issue.

Climate change isn't "technical"? LOL. We can't even fathom how to get a 5-day forecast right, even using supercomputers. Huge amounts of work is going on to work out the long term implications, but our best guess is it looks bad and it's going to get worse. Ask anyone in New Orleans, or central and eastern europe which was swamped by unprecedented rainfall just a week ago.

The man has no relevant qualifications whatsoever, he makes his money from doing the lecture circuit, presumably speaking to gullible morons like you.

 

[pbman]

Climate change isn't "technical"? LOL.QUOTE]

Try reading the artical some time.

I'll give you a hint, its not about climate change.

Typical for you lot, you attack the author and don't even bother reading what he has to say.

 

[Loki]

Try reading the artical some time.

I'll give you a hint, its not about climate change.

He's dissing environmentalists -> because environmentalists are concerned about climate change -> which is the topic of this thread.

Dunce.

 

[goldenecitrone]

How much would it cost us to get Peebs to paddle round New Orleans with a placard saying 'Climate Change is for Commies'? I'll put in $10.

 

[nino_savatte]

I'm always prepared to back up my claims nino, unlike you having systematically ducked out of answering a simple yes or no question four times now at the last count.



"Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact".

Presumably, my failing in comprehension traces back to my refusal to accept what you say above about British Muslims blowing up other British Muslims in London on July 7, which you insist on calling a "fact". The thing is you see, facts are an extremely powerful force all by themselves, so powerful in fact they leave no room for any doubt whatsoever. So how is it then that you, as someone who presents himself here as a progressive lefty, can say such a despicable thing with so much doubt arising from the manifold contradictions inherent in the official narrative? How come a progressive lefty like you defaults to the establishment it was Islamists wot done it line, even though that same establishment is searching for pretexts to transform our society into a stinking police state?



Okay, I'll concede this point and replace the term racist with the term bigot. Is that fair enough?



But you have no credible proof that the criminals responsible for the July atrocity saw themselves as Muslims. There is a very strong likelihood, in the opinion of many people on the left, that the atrocity was sanctioned at the highest levels of the British state, in which case, the criminals responsible definitely do not see themselves as Muslims, though of course they will be trying very hard, with the help of people like yourself and Gunther, to project their heinous crimes on to innocent British Muslims.




What I see is a poster of long standing ignoring the lessons of history and jumping to an outrageous and unsustainable conclusion that four young Muslim men are guilty of a terrible atrocity, on the basis of nothing more than a corporate media yarn and no convincing hard evidence.



But I'm not a "conspiracy fantasist", you are. My position is that I have seen absolutely no credible evidence establishing in irrefutably concrete terms the presence of criminal Islamic suiciders, either boarding targeted trains at Xcross, or targeted planes in the United States. No witness statements, no CCTV, no nothing whatsoever that would stand up in a properly convened court of law and convince an honest jury. Therefore, I am unable to conclude, as you appear to have done, that "British Muslims blew up other British Muslims" in London on July 7.




I think that you're projecting nino. What you are in effect saying is that your own brain was fully engaged when you tapped the following out on your keyboard: "Criminals who described themselves as British Muslims did blow up other British Muslims, that's a fact". Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

That's one hell of a screed fishy and none of it true. I will say this for the last time: desist or face the consequences.

Just to add: your posts amount to harrassment, since they contain not a scintilla of truth; you've also dragged in something from another thread that isn't relevant to the current thread.

 

[Ae589]

Death by Environmentalism
by Robert James Bidinotto
19 April 2004http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3340.html

Don't have time to read the whole thing, so I'll just take a couple of things:

Environmentalists kill french pensioners:
The charge that environmentalists, through pushing for high energy taxes, have persuaded people, not to use air conditioning, and therefore caused the deaths in France, is rubbish. Energy taxes here (Europe) are high through energy security - we have to limit our use because to create a bigger demand would be irresponsible as we are a net importer of energy and have been for some time. Nothing to do with environmentalists.

Environmentalists kill car drivers:
SUV's are safer, so green arguments that they should not be used kills people. Unbelieveable. SUV's are not safer for the people they hit. They are also more likely to roll, and therefore kill more people than any other type of car. The argument is irrelevant and wrong.
The article claims the CAFE standards are killing people - interesting considering fuel econmy in the US is at its lowest ever (the best was just after the oil embargo). So how are these CAFE standards affecting car design?

I will give one Olive branch, I believe hydroelectric power plants that damage local environment and move villages should go ahead *if* the benefactors are the population as a whole, rather than a foreign energy company. That make's sense.


This article is trying to portray *all* environmental arguments as flawed, because the ones it just invented are flawed.

All it does is show intellectual conservative for the contradiction in terms it is. Sorry, couldn't resist.


Here's an interesting link to show that where environmental concerns were ignored, hundreds/thousands died:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article309471.ece

 

[phildwyer]

That's one hell of a screed fishy and none of it true. I will say this for the last time: desist or face the consequences.

Just to add: your posts amount to harrassment, since they contain not a scintilla of truth; you've also dragged in something from another thread that isn't relevant to the current thread.

Hmmm, you seem to have quite a lot of people "harrassing" you, Nino. You might want to ask yourself why that is. In the meantime, kindly provide any evidence you may have that those accused of the bombings "saw themselves as Muslims." You've been asked to do so repeatedly on this and other threads, and have only responded with evasions and personal attacks. Put up or shut up.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Hmmm, you seem to have quite a lot of people "harrassing" you, Nino. You might want to ask yourself why that is. In the meantime, kindly provide any evidence you may have that those accused of the bombings "saw themselves as Muslims." You've been asked to do so repeatedly on this and other threads, and have only responded with evasions and personal attacks. Put up or shut up.

Oh dear, the irony.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

He hasn't seen the news yet has he?

 

[mears]

Don't have time to read the whole thing, so I'll just take a couple of things:

Environmentalists kill french pensioners:
The charge that environmentalists, through pushing for high energy taxes, have persuaded people, not to use air conditioning, and therefore caused the deaths in France, is rubbish. Energy taxes here (Europe) are high through energy security - we have to limit our use because to create a bigger demand would be irresponsible as we are a net importer of energy and have been for some time. Nothing to do with environmentalists.

Environmentalists kill car drivers:
SUV's are safer, so green arguments that they should not be used kills people. Unbelieveable. SUV's are not safer for the people they hit. They are also more likely to roll, and therefore kill more people than any other type of car. The argument is irrelevant and wrong.
The article claims the CAFE standards are killing people - interesting considering fuel econmy in the US is at its lowest ever (the best was just after the oil embargo). So how are these CAFE standards affecting car design?

I will give one Olive branch, I believe hydroelectric power plants that damage local environment and move villages should go ahead *if* the benefactors are the population as a whole, rather than a foreign energy company. That make's sense.


This article is trying to portray *all* environmental arguments as flawed, because the ones it just invented are flawed.

All it does is show intellectual conservative for the contradiction in terms it is. Sorry, couldn't resist.


Here's an interesting link to show that where environmental concerns were ignored, hundreds/thousands died:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article309471.ece

Fuck the independent. Mr Usborne is taking cheap shots at a bad tiime. New Orleans is hardly the only city built below water level. Category five storms have happened before. They have been documented in the 19th century, well before "global warming" or loss of wetlands. There have been warnings about such storms for sometime. Mr. Osborne mentions Rhode Island in his article and I have seen what destruction a hurricane in the 1930's brought to that area.

North America is a big area with a lot of crazy weather. Tornados are leather killers in the American midwest. They are in many ways worse than a hurricane because you receive very little advance preperation. I was on a bike ride with a friend a couple of years ago and we got off our bikes and hid in a ditch becauze the sky was turning green and the tornado alarms were going off. Not fun stuff.

And tornados are like this hurricane. Its the poor that suffer greatest. Those without transportation or those who live in poorly made housing.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I can see your point there mears, but it does certainly look like clear warnings from qualified scientists and the army corps of engineers were mostly ignored.

That's certainly not a phenomenon confined to the US. See e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Flood_of_1953

edited to add: actually this is a better link http://www.deltawerken.com/Before-the-flood-of-1953/90.html clearly the dutch made the same mistake, they didn't listen to the scientists and engineers, it seems to me because politicians are inherently lousy at risk management.

 

[mears]

And its very much looking like the greatest civil disturbance in America since the US civil war. Worse than the rioting in Los Angeles, or when MLK was killed. At least thats my prediction we shall see when this sad spectacle ends.

 

[pbman]

Don't have time to read the whole thing, so I'll just take a couple of things:

Environmentalists kill french pensioners:
The charge that environmentalists, through pushing for high energy taxes, have persuaded people, not to use air conditioning, and therefore caused the deaths in France, is rubbish. Energy taxes here (Europe) are high through energy security - we have to limit our use because to create a bigger demand would be irresponsible as we are a net importer of energy and have been for some time. Nothing to do with environmentalists.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article309471.ece

Thats your justification?

Thats weak, when it comes to people dieing.

Thier is a hidden cost to everything, don't forget the price people have to pay.

SUV's are safer, so green arguments that they should not be used kills people. Unbelieveable. SUV's are not safer for the people they hit. They are also more likely to roll, and therefore kill more people than any other type of car. The argument is irrelevant and wrong.

Not true across the board as you imply. If you know how to drive they don't role, and many models are no differnt than cars regardles.

I will give one Olive branch, I believe hydroelectric power plants that damage local environment and move villages should go ahead *if* the benefactors are the population as a whole, rather than a foreign energy company. That make's sense.

Thats nice of you, but hundreds of million of people were still significantly harmed. And it never makes the press.

This article is trying to portray *all* environmental arguments as flawed, because the ones it just invented are flawed.

Of course its one sided such artical always are on both sides. But as you can see many of these environmental "victorys" cost the very poorest in the world more than they can afford to pay.

I myself can't fault poor people who have to "harm" the environment with damn and such and even DDT. Its their lives to live or die, rich invernomentalist live either way. The force the poor to pay the ultemet price that they never have to pay.

Thats just wrong, anyway you look at it.

 

[pbman]

How much would it cost us to get Peebs to paddle round New Orleans with a placard saying 'Climate Change is for Commies'? I'll put in $10.

You think anyone their has heard of global warming?

I don't.

 

[bigfish]

That's one hell of a screed fishy and none of it true. I will say this for the last time: desist or face the consequences.

Guffaw! But surely the parts where I quote your very own reactionary rubbish, twice, must be true, no? Or have you now successfully deleted your rancid Islamophobic meme from your internalized make-it-up-as-you-go-along 'narrative', like?

Just to add: your posts amount to harrassment, since they contain not a scintilla of truth...

Fuck me! And this from the guy who's turned the remorseless harassment of Bushbot's into a sort of urban cottage industry that even the Dominicans would be envious of!

So what are you going to do about it if I keep calling you on your reactionary filth, nino... get your tag-partner to run me over with his cheese cart?

 

[phildwyer]

So what are you going to do about it if I keep calling you on your reactionary filth, like... get your tag partner to run me over with his cheese cart?

Nino's a grade-A nutjob. Considers himself an intellectual because he can say "you need to read some Foucault, sunshine." Has he pretended to put you on ignore yet?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Thats your justification?
Thats weak, when it comes to people dieing.
Thier is a hidden cost to everything, don't forget the price people have to pay.

So you accept that that idea, that greens are responsible for the deaths of french pensioners etc. is absolute bollocks?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Hmmm, you seem to have quite a lot of people "harrassing" you, Nino. You might want to ask yourself why that is. In the meantime, kindly provide any evidence you may have that those accused of the bombings "saw themselves as Muslims." You've been asked to do so repeatedly on this and other threads, and have only responded with evasions and personal attacks. Put up or shut up.

CIA job wasn't it. Anyone can put on a beard and talk in a Dewsbury accent. Let's see what spin the conspiranoids put on this one.

 

[Ae589]

I myself can't fault poor people who have to "harm" the environment with damn and such and even DDT. Its their lives to live or die, rich invernomentalist live either way. The force the poor to pay the ultemet price that they never have to pay.

Thats just wrong, anyway you look at it.

Absolutely, and the biggest danger to climate change, if you assume for a sec it exists, is from developing countries like India and China starting to burn more and more carbon fuels. It's hypocritical for us to say 'yes, it made us rich, but it's bad, so you can't use it'.

What we (Europe/US) should be doing is speeding up the move to other fuels through investment... create a new fuel economy not dependent on hydrocarbons, the poorest nations can catch up later.

The german model (I only just read this, don't have a link) whereby small farmers losing out on traditional products (ie, cows) are subsidising their income using wind farms on their land that sells output to the national grid seems like a *damn* good start. I am sure there are places/communities in the US that would love to do that, it would be massivley beneficial to poor areas you are talking about (er.. I think). Whadya say?