kelownabomberfan

Tuvalu - 11 years ago: https://uk.reuters.com/article/environment-tuvalu-dc/tuvalu-about-to-disappear-into-the-ocean-idUKSEO11194920070913 Doom! Gloom!!! Certain death!!! Imminent catastrophe!! Man-made climate change!! AHHHHH!!!! Tuvalu - present day: But hey, it's always more fun to say that the sky is falling. And much more profitable too.

I enjoyed it too. Well said.

For well over two decades now, people who are not scientists and people who are not responsible for public policy have been using the theories of scientists to drive public policy. These people have persisted in using doomsday scenarios and fear mongering to convince the public to pressure policy makers. It is up to us to decide how much weight to give the information provided by any of the agencies promoting apocalyptic narratives. Even the IPCC operates from a position of bias. The cadre of volunteers devoting time to the IPCC is unlikely to include scientists who do not believe we are in a position to control the climate. It is not up to them to question the assumption that climate change is disastrous and must be addressed: Their fact sheets show they are like any other UN organization. It is important to them that they represent a diversity of gender, countries, cultures, etc. The further they lean in the direction of meeting warm and fuzzy image-driven objectives, the more emphasis the take away from operating from a position of "cold hard facts". Any organization with a sole focus on determining what we must to to prevent an unfolding disaster will be very slow to change direction when it is becoming apparent the particular disaster they focused on has been dramatically overstated (or may not even be unfolding after all). Apocalyptic global climate change is the sole raison d'etre for the IPCC. Some of us keep this firmly in mind when we are considering their pronouncements, just as we would with the Fraser Institute or the Heartland Institute or any other group with a stated agenda. That, coupled with the continued insistence of heightening the alarm even though the have predicted disasters that have failed to materialize, has led many of us to believe the resources they have encouraged us to expend could have been put to good use. We sensible realists would like public policy to shift away from "imminent disaster mode" to a more measured and practical application of our resources. Instead, our government has chosen to conflate two separate issues, pollution and climate change, to ensure this waste of resources will continue. Sensible realists the world over would like this waste to stop.

yes, I am. Oh good grief. You post this garbage, and then blame me for getting threads locked down. For shame.

oh good grief. It's YOUR MO! It's all because you guys can't ever handle anything that enters these threads that might just cause questions to be asked. It's always just one narrative that is allowed, and anything that remotely challenges it is responded to with extreme prejudice. It's always the same, no matter what the topic - a big gang up occurs, the thread gets locked, and I get blamed. Of course. It's always the same. Take some responsibility for your own actions WBFB. That's a start.

If that's all it took to "derail honest discussion", then it wasn't very honest to begin with. How about injecting some "sensible realism" into the chicken little hysterics? Is that too "derailing"? What do sensible realists do? Sensible realists understand the likelihood of today's science accurately establishing year-by-year global temperatures in the distant past, and refuse to buy into the notion we must take drastic action to address purported problems supported primarily by "hottest year" hyperbole and failed predictive modelling. Sensible realists also recognize the disturbing similarities between skepticalscience.com and the Heartland Institute and other agenda-driven sources of information, and question their willingness to accept these sources without serious consideration of those shortcomings, along with the shortcomings of wikipedia as a source for facts upon which to base costly public policy. Sensible realists tend to prefer we use our resources to address pressing issues with solutions where the effects are measurably effective in addressing the stated problem. Which is why we are entirely happy to support genuine pollution reduction initiatives, but unwilling to support efforts with the purported intent of controlling the global climate.

of course it's a "straw man". Good grief, is there like a cheat sheet for you guys to just hit people with clichés whenever anyone has any sort of different opinion? "Straw man" Logical Fallacy. I see this on other forums too. It's like you've not only been indoctrinated, but you all also sing off the same song sheet. Whoever taught you to never question anything has really done a good job of making sure those protections stay in place. This is pretty sad stuff.

of course it is. But it's an effective strategy to just immediately put your hands over your ears and scream rather than read anything that disagrees with what is considered "acceptable". Yes, another effective strategy - anyone who has a slightly different opinion is immediately deemed "non-reputable" by the very people that are being disagreed with, and whatever they say is now "misinformation". Big Brother would be proud.

Not sure what the above means, but I assume this is an excuse to NOT have to justify how you want to take an actual event that killed mega-millions and compare it to an unproven hypothesis that has been turned into a bogeyman by shysters who want your wallet.

Mark, that's not the issue here. Why not let the words decide if the point is credible, not what Desmog blog or other website tells you what you are supposed to think is credible. That's the point. Judge on the content, not on what you are told you are supposed to read and what is "bad". Otherwise we just end up in the book 1984. Have a look at this video. These guys have a slightly different take on the whole man-made climate change theory, but because they don't fall in line with the accepted (and totally manufactured) "consensus", they are met with anger and censorship, from both sides. The science is so polarized right now, and it's not true "science". And that's because politics, and billions of dollars, have polluted the entire scientific method.

where's my evidence about what? What are you talking about?

OH NO!!! The HEARTLAND INSTITUTE!! RUN AWAY!! RUN AWAY!!! An opinion that doesn't match an innate confirmation bias may accidentally be read and digested! RUN AWAY!! Pretty simple. You go to the top right hand corner and click on your user name. You should get a option "ignored users". Click on that, and you will get a prompt to type in the user name of the person you want to ignore. That would include I assume anyone who remotely disagrees with any of your opinions, so probably going to be a long list. I personally have no one on my list, as I don't see the point of ignoring people, especially if they have opinions that challenge mine.

lots of chances, no scoring. That 5-3 was just so freaking lame. It was down to a 5 on 2.5 with Niskanen getting dead-legged by Laine's shot. So what does Wheeler do, he flips a weak wrist shot on goal and gives Washington a break. I don't get it. Sometimes I wonder what is going on in Wheels' head.

I just don't share this sense of sheer hopelessness and doom. I've seen too many scams come and go, and this is just yet another scam. This is all about power and control, and nothing to do whatsoever with the environment.

Maybe ask a WW2 veteran how "perfect" that equivalent is. I doubt he/she would agree with you.

LOL - yes, anything that questions an engrained confirmation bias must be a "waste of time". We fully understand that.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims. According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.” The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#2c7e8a724c7c

Caps didnt deserve that one.

Well that was a quick whistle and a bad no goal call.

Terrible call on Perreault

Nice hair too!

Warren KinsellaTHE “FEMINIST” PMO WOULDN’T BE STUPID ENOUGH TO FORCE FEMALE LIBERAL MPS TO PUBLISH IDENTICAL “PERSONAL” MESSAGE OF SUPPORT, WOULD THEY?Well, actually, they would be that stupid. They are that stupid.Spotted by my sharp-eyed pal Sean Craig: PMO told female Liberal MPs to post personal messages about what a swell feminist he is – presumably to offset the growing Celina controversy. Except a couple of the MPs just did a cut and paste. Oops!The next thing you know, they’ll be lining up all kinds of people to write op-eds!

Sheila Copps proves that she is suffering from dementia...

And we aren't Barack Obama either.