Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Simulist wrote:It might be nice if alleged "suppressed exotic technology" were ever proven, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated convincingly even to exist.
Human-induced global warming, however, has been. By the majority of climate scientists around the world. Time and time again.
Simulist wrote:Only too happy to "agree to disagree" on alleged "exotic technology" — that is, until any convincing reason surfaces to believe it (even) might exist.
slimmouse wrote:Simulist wrote:It might be nice if alleged "suppressed exotic technology" were ever proven, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated convincingly even to exist.
Human-induced global warming, however, has been. By the majority of climate scientists around the world. Time and time again.
Well , I guess on both points, but particularly the latter , we just need to agree to disagree.
But in an imaginary/ perfect world of yours ( I hope), were this "fake" technology actually for real, I assume you understand what this means to the controllers when applied to this current reality ?
I also hope you understand why I put the fake in brackets ?
slimmouse wrote:Simulist wrote:Only too happy to "agree to disagree" on alleged "exotic technology" — that is, until any convincing reason surfaces to believe it (even) might exist.
Sounds to me kinda like aliens landing on the lawn on the whitehouse would prove to most skeptics that UFOs and ETs exist.
But for my personal satisfaction ( if you please ) what kind of evidence does the genuine existence/potential of exotic technology entail to you ?
Simulist wrote:professorpan wrote:HEY KIDS! Here's how you can point out the fallacy of climate change "skeptics" in a few simple steps!
Step 1. "Skeptic" friend points to article. "Look at this! It's written by (Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist) and it's posted on (Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog) and it clearly shows that burning tons of coal and oil is NOT causing the planet to warm! So there, Mr. Al Gore-smartypants!"
Step 2. Go to SourceWatch.org. Plug name of Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist and Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog into search field.
Step 3. Discover Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist never published anything related to climate, but has a degree in Sports Medicine, and that Fancy Looking Blog is funded by ExxonMobil, CATO, Heartland Institute, and North American Coal Corporation.
Step 4. Show "Skeptic" friend the information, with clear documentation. Watch as "Skeptic" friend completely ignores the links to industries that burn shit and don't want people to believe it's doing bad things to our home planet and instead rushes off to find further evidence to support his nutty preconceptions.
Step 4.5. Watch as 'skeptic' uses personal insults and high-sounding rhetoric to paint environmentalists as malign fools, and themselves as heroic saints, keepers of secret knowledge, too secret to share.
Step 5. Bash head against wall repeatedly while cursing the American educational system and the power of well-funded propaganda. Go get drunk in attempt to dull the pain.
Step 6. Repeat every few months.
That's gorgeous. And right on.
..the WSJ opinion piece itself is solid evidence that AGW accelerated global warming is not happening.
wintler2 wrote:
http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4195.txt
(note..you will have to do a page search to get to this specific email)
[mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
From: Phil Jones
>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,
> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020.
. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
>
Still a way to go before 2014.
>
You can easily tell the difference between an Environmentalist and an AGW alarmist.
If someone is a true environmentalist whose vision is for a healthy planet into the future, then he is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the AGW alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong.
The AGW alarmist/denier on the other hand though, usually an eco/political activist, always denies new data that shows the planet may be not as unstable as first believed after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the AGW scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.
[mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]
From: Phil Jones
>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,
> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020.
. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
>
Still a way to go before 2014.
Simulist wrote:Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.
Ben D wrote:Simulist wrote:Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.
Yes it would,...you are one of 'them',..but fwiw, the text content implies a common understanding by both Professor Jones and the addressees that global warming was NOT happening. This never made the news until, and never would have, unless Climategate came along to expose the deception and corruption.
Simulist wrote:Ben D wrote:Simulist wrote:Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.
Yes it would,...you are one of 'them',..but fwiw, the text content implies a common understanding by both Professor Jones and the addressees that global warming was NOT happening. This never made the news until, and never would have, unless Climategate came along to expose the deception and corruption.
You're onto me, Ben. Drat! — yes, obviously, I am one of "them."
And no, "the text content" doesn't "imply" anything of the kind. But of course you know that.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests