Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Global Warming Nazis
Yeah, Greenpeace et al are screaming :

Quote:A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "The idea we're puppets of Putin is so preposterous that you have to wonder what they're smoking over at NATO HQ. Mr Rasmussen should spend less time dreaming up conspiracy theories and more time on the facts."

Andrew Pendleton, the head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, added: "Perhaps the Russians are worried about our huge wind and solar potential, and have infiltrated the UK government."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/...13992.html

The real problem is that the Bushista propaganda machine releases so much bullshit on a daily basis, they probably believe some of it themselves.....
Sanders 2020

Reply
(06-20-2014, 04:17 AM)Paul In Sweden Wrote:
Bishop Hill - Jun 20, 2014 Wrote:It's a plot!

The news that is rocking the world this morning is that the head of NATO has said that the Russians are funding a sophisticated plot to undermine shale gas development in the west. Russian agents are secretly working with environmental campaigners to halt fracking operations in the UK and the rest of Europe, the head of Nato warned yesterday.

Vladimir Putin’s government has ‘engaged actively’ with green groups and protesters in a sophisticated operation aimed at maintaining Europe’s reliance on energy exports from Moscow, said Nato Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

He said the Russians had mounted a highly developed disinformation campaign to undermine attempts to exploit alternative energy sources such as shale gas.
When you think about it, it's pretty unlikely that Putin wouldn't be doing everything he could to undermine shale gas development in the West, given the centrality of oil and gas to the Russian economy. Nevertheless it's surprising that NATO have come right out and said so.



Yes, I am certainly not surprised. I mentioned this on the Fracking thread, because fracking threatens to break Europe's dependency on Russia. The Duckbutt can't allow that to happen, or he will become more impotent.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
As a guess: Duckbutt is Putin? (the Anal classification is getting too confusing for me).

Then, nonsense. Of course, it is in Putin's interests that the Europeans stick to importing gas and oil (especially that the oil prices are heading up now). But investing in a proactive campaign is a waste of resources, Euro-greens are doing just fine without financing. Putin's style would be not to finance ideological groups, but rather invest in a few higher placed European politicians... like a couple of German ex-chancellors.
Sanders 2020

Reply
(06-20-2014, 11:29 AM)mv Wrote: As a guess: Duckbutt is Putin? (the Anal classification is getting too confusing for me).

And you are confused with MY slang? S13


DuckButt - Short person. "Oh, he comes up, about as high as a duck's butt." I've stated this more than a few time already. Its something we used all the time at The Citadel. Obviously you don't bother reading my posts, or you would know it. S11
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
Thanks for the Acronym S13 explanation! I finally understand now why it is Duckbutt, not the expected DuckAss.

Still, no. There was some financing of leftist groups during the Soviet times (why am I thinking about Clinton and Kerry?) but this is just not how Duckbutt operates.
Sanders 2020

Reply
(06-20-2014, 02:12 PM)mv Wrote: Thanks for the Acronym S13 explanation! I finally understand now why it is Duckbutt, not the expected DuckAss.

Still, no. There was some financing of leftist groups during the Soviet times (why am I thinking about Clinton and Kerry?) but this is just not how Duckbutt operates.

That's not an acronym Michael. S13

And are you certain the Duckbutt would not do this? Do you think he never heard of, much less didn't read, SunTzu, or Machiavelli?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
Too irrational to support these groups plus I'm sure he sees at least some of them (Greenpeace) as hostiles.
Sanders 2020

Reply
(06-18-2014, 09:27 AM)JohnWho Wrote: These attitudes are the ones that make Alarmists like Buzz seem totally moronic:

"The atmosphere warms somewhat due to the CO2 in it and this global atmospheric warming causes cooling"

and now

"Geothermal warming causes the oceans to cool"

Oh, I know Buzz, you didn't exactly say those words, but reading what you've written, it is what you imply.

I implied no such thing. And for you to make such an obviously false statement is just more proof that you are a lying hack.

JohnWho Wrote:"The Alarmist motto: "Data? ... we don't need no stinkin' data."

I have used data to debunk your denialist BS many times. Your lying again.

(06-18-2014, 09:51 AM)mv Wrote:
(06-18-2014, 02:15 AM)Buzz Wrote: Really John? You have the gall to lecture me about being unable to admit when I wrong and how honest you are. Then I show that you made a completely unsupportable statement about geothermal energy causing the oceans to warm and point out Anthony Watts' out right lie and all you can do is call me a Nazi again. Really?? So much for that honesty BS.

Oh, don't be offended.

Don't be offended?? Are you serious? Are you forgetting why this thread was started? It was because of you denialists being offended by being called deniers. So in response you guys decided to jack up the offensiveness by calling us believers Nazis. If I shouldn't be offended for being called a Nazi then you guys shouldn't be offended for being called a denier.

mv Wrote:Unlike the Bushistas, Adolf Hitler never said any stupid things about AGW.

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about here. Nobody knew what AGW was back in Hitlers lifetime.

(06-18-2014, 10:58 AM)John L Wrote:
(06-18-2014, 02:15 AM)Buzz Wrote: Really John? You have the gall to lecture me about being unable to admit when I wrong and how honest you are. Then I show that you made a completely unsupportable statement about geothermal energy causing the oceans to warm and point out Anthony Watts' out right lie and all you can do is call me a Nazi again. Really?? So much for that honesty BS.

See, here again is where you take the 'ass' in 'assume' and think that coincidence equals causality. All I did was state that you most likely had some German under your coxis. I too have a goodly bit of Kraut within. So what...... I was using a play on words, and you shamelessly applied your total lack of good humour. You really should head down to the nearest store and purchase a little bit. It will do you some good.


No John... you are lying yet again. This was not coincidence. You are indirectly calling me a Nazi again. And no amount of of good humor would make a sane person overlook such a offensive statement. So much for that civility BS you love to push.

John L Wrote:Anyway, you are doing fine Buzz. You are the best example of what is so wrong with your side's position. And to think that we all have the good fortune to have you grace this forum, outrage and all.

So... if I am proving you wrong over and over and over again and as far as I can remember you have NEVER proven me wrong then there is nothing wrong with my side of the position. It is obviously your side that is wrong. And that is why you consistently have to resort to name calling, insults and ad hominem attacks.

(06-19-2014, 12:34 AM)sunsettommy Wrote:
(06-15-2014, 10:10 AM)Buzz Wrote: John... did you even bother to read the article? It never states that climate change is not causing the glacier to melt. As a matter of fact it states that the geothermal melting is in addition to the melting caused by climate change.

Quote:Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat...

Quote:Knowledge of the heat distribution beneath Thwaites Glacier is crucial information that enables ice sheet modelers to more accurately predict the response of the glacier to the presence of a warming ocean.

Quote:The glacier is retreating in the face of the warming ocean and is thought to be unstable because its interior lies more than two kilometers below sea level while, at the coast, the bottom of the glacier is quite shallow.

This is just another example of Anthony Watts and denialists like you pushing lies and misinformation because you don't care about logic and real science. What ever is necessary to push your political ideology, right John?

I see that you vent your usual gruel of half baked drivel.Here is the actual HEADLINE from the website:

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

EXCERPT:

Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet’s stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

LINK

The warming ocean statement is misleading because the waters warming rate has been slowing down toward zero in the last 15 years or so.

Typical Sunsettommy stupidity... He calls what I said my "usual gruel of half baked drivel" and then doesn't even attempt to disprove a single thing I said. And of course he doesn't even address Anthony Watts' out right lie. As a matter of fact all you denialists have completely ignored his BS. Can't any of you guys admit that your denialist God is really a liar?

(06-19-2014, 12:23 PM)Palladin Wrote: Here's the latest coal usage data. I think the warmists like Buzz will incur a monetary cost on us all while at the same time, coal use will continue to climb globally because people like electricity a lot at affordable prices. A paradigm the leftist ideologue cannot overcome.

http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2014/...gh/100760/

Is this how you justify ignoring all the lies coming from the denialist crowd? And don't you think that we are already paying a huge monetary cost for our use of fossil fuels? And don't you think that alternative sources of energy will eventually become cheap enough to replace fossil fuels?
The rightist motto: "Facts?... we don't need no stinkin facts."

[Image: Obama08_Logo150.gif]
Reply
Buzz,

No, I was simply pointing out that the global consumption of coal continues upward. The ideas you believe in( I agree you sincerely believe AGW is a terrible problem) and fear mongering your side uses is not working at all.

Humanity will not be denied modernization because Gore or others say, "we only have 5 years or antarctica will melt"! Now they've pivoted on that and are warning us it will severely "harm the economy"! in 5 years. Guess we worship money more than desire to live??

Warren Buffet, who is tremendously benefitting from this nonsense due to Obama's refusal to allow the pipeline, has openly stated why he no longer believes AGW is a serious problem and for me that's the most succinct way to express it.

All the compute models have proven to be wrong. Sometimes the opposite has occurred. The theory is based on them, science can't predict what the climate will do in a lab and they extrapolated from observing X in lab settings and they observed Y in reality, Buffet like myself says it is time to move ahead from the idea.

If you want to fear AGW do so, but, you have to wonder why >50% of Americans don't fear anything but the attempts to fix it, which include taking money from the people and giving it to the wealthiest and greediest humans on earth to do their carbon trading schemes instead of simply outlawing the burning of fossil fuels by 2034 or whatever.
Reply
Quote:If you want to fear AGW do so, but, you have to wonder why >50% of Americans don't fear anything but the attempts to fix it

S13

Because >50% of Americans know that what happens when the government fixes anything ?
Sanders 2020

Reply
(06-25-2014, 11:14 PM)Buzz Wrote: And don't you think that alternative sources of energy will eventually become cheap enough to replace fossil fuels?

Of course Buzz...(better go long on those Unicorn horn futures)

Reply
In other words, the megaminds at Frack Off seem to have managed to occupy a site earmarked for a renewable energy plant. Whoops.
Reply
Bishop Hill - 27 June 2014 Wrote:Firstly, there is now a measure of agreement - at least among Met Office scientists and the BH community - that we have not detected anthropogenic global warming in the surface temperature records - there are no statistically significant changes to date [or, put better, that no significant change has been demonstrated]. Claims that there is "something happening" therefore rely on computer simulations of the climate. What though, is the situation for "weather patterns"? Have we detected any statistically significant changes in any other feature of the weather? I am unaware of any.

Secondly, has Paterson actually said that he recognises that weather patterns are changing? If so, did he mean in a statistically significant way?

I wonder if anyone at Defra can throw any light on these questions?
Reply
(06-25-2014, 11:14 PM)Buzz Wrote:
JohnWho Wrote:"The Alarmist motto: "Data? ... we don't need no stinkin' data."

I have used data to debunk your denialist BS many times. Your lying again.

Well, actually, you haven't used data to debunked anything that specifically goes to the notion of man-made catastrophic global warming due to CO2 emissions.

If anything, you've "bunked" it up even more. S1

The data does not support your concept, which is why that motto "Data...we don't need no stinkin' data" is so apropo to you and your Alarmist/Warmists. The data and observation science are simply just inconvenient truths for you that you must obscure.
I know you think you understand what you thought I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!
Reply
Climate Etc. - Judith Curry - June 30, 2014 Wrote:Consensus angst

The public seems to have gotten the memo that climate scientists believe that humans are warming the planet, and the warming is dangerous.  They also don’t seem to care.

For some context, see the numerous CE posts on the subject of ‘consensus‘, particularly my paper No Consensus on Consensus.
Climate scientists and others that are alarmed about AGW seem very concerned by consensus denialism that attacks the expert consensus on climate change, that has allegedly resulted in a gap between the scientific consensus and the public consensus about climate change.

[...]

“After all, if you’re looking for an expert medical opinion, and you find out that 97 per cent of the specialists agree about the course of treatment, you can be justly confident that that’s the best advice that medicine can give you”.
S6


Quote:Paul in Sweden | July 1, 2014 at 3:08 pm | Reply

If a group of individuals with backgrounds that stretched from medicine, sociology, public relations, astrology, clergy, community organization, pre-grads/post-grads/profs & administrators of every concealable course of study self-declared themselves ‘experts’ in a new field of medicine, demanded the wealth of the world to solve a new problem that only exists in computer simulations and the ’97% consensus’ of these self-designated medical experts endorsed lethal chemotherapy or lethal radiation therapy with an outbound result of the status quo – I would laugh at them and tell them they sound just like the nutters in Climate ‘science’.
Quote:Steve McIntyre | July 1, 2014 at 3:20 pm | Reply

IPCC AR4 WG3, presumably a “consensus” document, stated that “integrated analysis” had shown that costs and benefits of mitigation were “broadly comparable in magnitude” and, as I understand their language, concluded that, thus far, no mitigation policy had been demonstrated to have benefits outweighing its costs:

Limited and early analytical results from integrated analyses of the global costs and benefits of mitigation indicate that these are broadly comparable in magnitude, but do not as yet permit an unambiguous determination of an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed costs.[3.5] {WGIII SPM}

As an IPCC finding, I presume that this states the position of the 97% consensus. It seems to me that most “skeptics” could be persuaded to agree with this IPCC conclusion and could perhaps move for unanimity with the 97% on this particular proposition.
Quote: Richard Drake | July 1, 2014 at 3:46 pm | Reply

Ha. Count me in.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Disaster Addiction And Global Warming John L 109 10,402 12-04-2019, 10:23 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait...PT. 2 John L 526 156,383 10-30-2019, 12:36 AM
Last Post: Canuknucklehead
  Positive News about Global Warming. John L 78 30,211 05-17-2015, 09:55 AM
Last Post: JohnWho
  Why Global Warming Isn't Consistant Buzz 39 25,211 10-19-2014, 03:34 PM
Last Post: SFX
  Global cooling, er, I mean warming, er, wait... Lisa 1,668 684,272 08-23-2014, 06:13 PM
Last Post: John L
  Science Fraud And Con Men: Diederik Stapel and Global Warming John L 0 1,739 04-30-2013, 08:58 PM
Last Post: John L
  Global Warming Debate, Split From ANWR Drilling Thread Matrix 113 49,313 12-28-2012, 10:53 AM
Last Post: sunsettommy
  Death By Global Warming John L 12 9,444 01-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Last Post: jt
  global warming to cause an extraterrestial attack mv 10 6,549 08-20-2011, 03:06 PM
Last Post: John L
  Catholic church warns of global warming quadrat 9 6,326 05-22-2011, 02:23 PM
Last Post: Palladin

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)