Michael Larkin
Member
I gave you a like, Doug, because you did the right thing. I checked it out myself and it looks like bishop was right.
A bunch of those quotes (all of them?) can be found here (no sources though): http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Ah Google...
A bunch of those quotes (all of them?) can be found here (no sources though): http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
Ah Google...
In my previous two posts I used quotes from several leaders in the environmental movement and their supporters to expose what I can only interpret as blatant misanthropy on their part. Now I've gathered a few more quotes to demonstrate that much of the fury behind activist pronouncements of catastrophic global warming has its roots in a compulsion to control the rest of us, and an ends-justify-the-means approach to attaining that goal. Doug
Hi Doug. What's your source? We are at the stage of the debate where everything needs to be referenced (my view).
Hi Doug. On the net you find people saying whatever you want. You need to ask if what they are saying can be attributed and verified and what are the motivations of the person posting. I always ask 'who is funding this?' As that's when you work out what is really going on. You get the odd crank in every movement but if I turned the spotlight on these references what would be revealed is an organised campaign with dubious funding. Please note that this is what I have done with article after article posted here. If I took the quotes (which are allegations on your part) and sent them to the people you are accusing, would your allegations stand up in court? Please remember these are people and you are damaging their reputation. If you are repeating lies and distortions even if you didn't "invent" them then that is slander. You have already found one quote falsified. But you have left the rest?Jules, I think you have a point about everything needing to be referenced, and I regret not doing so for my quote posts. What I can say, though, is that the first post, in which I dated most of the quotes, is the one I spent the most research on. I ran out of steam after posting those quotes and spent considerably less time researching the others. Having said that, here are some of the sources I remember using:
http://www.solopassion.com/node/1312
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.html
http://pushback.com/issues/environment/ecofreak-quotes/
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27941
http://www.off-road.com/trails-events/voice/genocide-threats-from-green-terrorists-16221.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/dos7125.htm
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2007/12/human-hatred.html
http://pc.blogspot.com/2006/07/quote-extinction-of-human-species-may.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentti_Linkola
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Exton1
Doug
can anyone please tell us how you would implement, manage and enforce policy to effect a 30% reduction in CO2 within the next 20 years (wacky idea... pipe dream).Alex, can you please provide a specific example of what you consider to be a "wacky idea" as it relates to global warming?
can anyone please tell us how you would implement, manage and enforce policy to effect a 30% reduction in CO2 within the next 20 years (wacky idea... pipe dream).
this kind of silliness is really hard to take. JUST READ THE EMAILS:Conspiracy by whom?
In November 2009, servers at the University of East Anglia in UK were hacked into and emails were stolen. A selection of emails between climate scientists were published on the Internet and a few quotes used out of context to claim global warming was all just a vast conspiracy. This incident was nicknamed “Climategate.”
pick any figure you like the point is the same.??? Links? Not that this is a fave issue but I haven't seen anything about that CO2 reduction and a quick search didn't turn up anything .All I found was some pending legislation to reduce greenhouse gases by 30%.
It isn't a simple question of agreeing/disagreeing with the statement.
Okay. I didn't want to go into the detail, but IMO the best and most understandable piece on this is by Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post. For the whole article, see: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/01/were-not-screwed/ I've included enough to explain to the layman (like me) what happened in plain English.
What I want is your own words on why McKitrick is wrong in saying that the C20th uptick is an artefact of the arbitrary redating of cores
Q: How does one go about reconstructing temperatures in the past?
A: Changes in Earth’s temperature for the last ~160 years are determined from instrumental data, such as thermometers on the ground or, for more recent times, satellites looking down from space. Beyond about 160 years ago, we must turn to other methods that indirectly record temperature (called “proxies”) for reconstructing past temperatures. -- Marcott
Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: …Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record…. -- Marcott
Q: How do you compare the Holocene temperatures to the modern instrumental data?
A: One of our primary conclusions is based on Figure 3 of the paper, which compares the magnitude of global warming seen in the instrumental temperature record of the past century to the full range of temperature variability over the entire Holocene based on our reconstruction. We conclude that the average temperature for 1900-1909 CE in the instrumental record was cooler than ~95% of the Holocene range of global temperatures, while the average temperature for 2000-2009 CE in the instrumental record was warmer than ~75% of the Holocene distribution... -- Marcott
Q: Are the proxy records seasonally biased?
A: ...This implies that the range of Holocene annual-average temperatures might have been smaller in the Northern Hemisphere than the proxy data suggest, making the observed historical temperature averages for 2000-2009 CE, obtained from instrumental records, even more unusual with respect to the full distribution of Holocene global-average temperatures. [::]
Since the CRU-EIV reconstruction is referenced as temperature anomalies from the 1961-1990 CE instrumental mean global temperature, the Holocene reconstructions are now also effectively referenced as anomalies from the 1961-1990 CE mean. [::]
Compared the histogram of Holocene paleotemperatures to the instrumental global temperature anomalies during the decades 1900-1909 CE and 2000-2009 CE. – Marcott
Hmm . .okay . like I said . .this isn't a topic I have great interest in . . so . . . I'm out.pick any figure you like the point is the same.
you can not... because you would need worldwide cooperation.
As opposed to your wacky idea that we should do nothing?can anyone please tell us how you would implement, manage and enforce policy to effect a 30% reduction in CO2 within the next 20 years (wacky idea... pipe dream).
you can not... because you would need worldwide cooperation. given that we're at war with China (hidden, economic) and not on the best of terms with other emerging economies we have to wonder what's behind all this arm-waving about CO2? why do our politicians continue to pretend like there's some kind of real policy decision here?
Michael, you quoted a manipulative and slanderous article written by an economist with dubious affiliations. Rather than take the time to research the other side of the debate by clicking on the link that McKitrick himself had provided in his article, you chose instead to short-circuit the process and reach erroneous conclusions which satisfied your own predisposition on the topic of global warming. You then proffered the article as a legitimate source that validated your sordid scenario. Like all the sources you cite, it’s flagrantly biased and without scientific merit. After being called out on it you doubled-down with further obfuscation and mudslinging.
Our exchanges have been both frustrating and educational at the same time. On the one hand it’s frustrating because you don’t argue in good faith, so there’s a certain amount of negativity associated with that. The upside is that I’m learning a lot about the reality of global warming. The more we learn about AGW, the better our odds will be in combating it. I look forward to more discussions with you in the future, albeit with some trepidation. Given that AGW is collective problem, my main hope is that others are also learning something from our debates.
Sadly, I think time will show its you who is being silly Alex. That's sad for the planet and sad given everything you have achieved with increasing the visibility and acceptability of the science into anomalous experience and consciousness.this kind of silliness is really hard to take.