I Feel The Same Way About The Tooth Fairy

I guess you do as Suzuki has done and call it a theology?

- The Soul Solution: The Need for a Theology of the Earth by Bob Harrington, Linda Harrington and David T. Suzuki (Paperback - June 2008).

That is some wacky stuff.

How do you get natural climate change deniers to stop being stupid and believe in natural climate change.

Anything involving Lew and his soiled lew papers, is not something I would be spreading without a manure spreader.
.

. . . "especially in northern countries where they actually HOPE it's real because they could use more arable land."
But alas, sigh, Canada is still the frozen North.

No problems. Additional CO2 is worth big big bucks!

$3.5 TRILLION,

http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

It's all quite simple when it's explained to the warmists, using little words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMMMR95u5zw

Stalin used a famine.

How do you get people to give a damn about climate change? Easy - a couple of
warm winters (warm across Canada and Europe) plus a sea level rise I can see - I'd
probably be convinced by 20 cm.

FACTS, my dear warmists; those are what you lack. FACTS would make most of us true
believers; just as a lack of fact made me a skeptic and then an unbeliever.

You cause them to use more energy to heat their homes. Cause them to shovel more snow, close their schools more often so they understand that climate change goes in both directions and the warming side of the change is over for now and the cooling side is taking over.

Course they could stop with the hysteria, propaganda and lies.
But then they would not be alarmists any more.
Climate Change, always using words to disguise their intent.
When did climate not change?
Of course this is their problem, if they admit they are actually talking about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, there is a risk they will receive an instant knuckle sandwich, so they lie and talk amongst themselves.
The public is slowly starting to notice the damage these politically correct morons and their blind followers have done to our society and the destruction done to the worlds truly poor is now obvious.
Anti-humanist leaf lickers are evil, stupid people.
Their actions have spoken.

Let us see now.

There is the noted “Chris Mooney and neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and as an early marxist and current real world economist Thomas Sowell ….. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wln6lNTxVpY ….. noted they must know everything else, possibly, they could cover any topic that you can think of and they would be accepted authority on such.

What is it exactly that Lewandowsky is an “expert” on. And this Kahan character disagrees with him, can you believe it, how so? That neither of them have much, if anything to do with climate does not matter, viz Thomas Sowell above.

You will note that an every day, every week, every month, every year, every century and so on and so on climate changes. From imperceptible in the short interval to a catastrophic in the long. All on its own, regardless of what the wise guys say.
Seems those that know everything there is possibly to know, overlooked the fact that climate is changing. It is changing in total and utter disregard of the homo sapiens.

As Rush would say we can’t change the climate if we really, really, really wanted to.

The sense one gets from the meanderings of Lewandowsky and Kahan is that those that do not agree with the 97% (this is such a loose term that it could be simply called a most bombastic lie) of the so called “experts” are not following the meme.

One more thing, if you ask 100 people that are true believers in a warmonger religion and you get only 97% to agree, you might need some more indoctrination.

"How do you get people to give a damn about climate change?"

In the absence of evidence that it's real or that we can do anything about it, nothing. Thus, the "final solution" is to start killing off the non-believers.

I can't believe they haven't gotten to that conclusion publicly yet.

Blog mentioned moose disappearing in one state.

Well in recent years they've been committing suicide on our highways at an alarming rate.

Must be the low Canadian dollar....

It's the ultimate in yuppy conceit: "If we have enough meetings and conferences in exotic, far away places we can change the world's climate." Yeah, right.

"After all, who wants to fly in the face of what 97 percent of experts have to say?" How did they get from scientists to experts? I missed that step. And, just curious, when did science ever operate by consensus?

"How do you get people to give a damn about climate change?"

Tell them the truth.
Then they'll be pissed at the baloney they and their children have be fed for the last 20 years, and pissed that their money that's been tossed in the shitter and demand an end to this nonsense.

Somehow I don't think that's what they had in mind though.

I love this line from the article:

"Kahan’s research provides an extensive documentation of how wildly biased we can be. After all, it’s not just that liberals and conservatives perceive completely different scientific realities on issues like climate change. It’s that as they grow more educated and scientifically literate, this problem becomes worse, rather than better,"

Maybe it's because they've learned to battle past the BS posited by the writer and others including our "intelligentsia."

The proponents of AGW theory cut across nearly every logical fallacy: non-sequitur with their insistence that the entire climate history and future be based, with no observations or empirical evidence, on roughly a 40 year period when both temperature rise coincided with atmospheric CO2 rises, then laughably say 15 years of non-warming is too short a time frame for meaningful observation; ad hominem, which speaks for itself. Appeal to authority - if 100% of scientists in 1200 believed the earth was flat, that didn't make it so; and many others but the point is made.

False consensus, cooking the equations, idiotic the ocean cooled us - no s**t Sherlock, considering that's where amounts of CO2 dwarfing human activity are stored; funny how you missed that in your "models."

Hey buddy your climate change awareness approach is DOA. Joe and Mary Sixpack are onto your scam, it's just easier to say "well of course we're affecting the climate." Then reach for their wallet and see what happens Buster.

BTW if your theories are true then 100 years we'll all be dead because no IPCC or Kyoto or Obama or Suzuki or even Lizzie May can stop the inevitable destruction of the planet from coal use in China and India. Maybe just maybe we can start talking about doing something about the actual pollution this will cause. There's no theory about pollution and there shouldn't be any argument either.

I didn't know consensus was proof. I guess if the more soft-headed of the human race will believe in anything, no proof is required.

"After all, many scientists, advocates, and bloggers are doing this all the time. Heck, Barack Obama and Al Gore are out there doing it"

Riiiight. What they're doing is talking the talk. What they aren't doing is walking the walk. If those who say there's a climate crisis would ACT like there's a climate crisis, people would be more inclined to give their words some consideration. That's an absolute necessary first step.

Second step is to present actual evidence in support of those words.....oh, right.

Sorry, not gonna happen.

This article has about as much to do with real science as a cargo cult designed Potemkin airport has to do with air travel. In real science (as opposed to the post-normal non-science) one starts with physical evidence. In no branch of physical science does one start with a statement that 97% of "scientists" agree that X is true and use this as the foundation of ones argument.

In the early 1900's, the consensus view of scientists was that space travel was physically impossible and that lunatics like Goddard were just endangering themselves and the local livestock with their crackpot experiments. Similarly, in the early 1800's, the consensus view of "scientific" obstetricians was that their pus and bloodstained hands and labcoats, as they rushed from the dissecting room to deliver a baby, had absolutely nothing to do with the 90+% mortality rate of puerperal fever among women who delivered their babies in hospital. The consensus view of this group of doctors, whose stature was a function of how encrusted their lab coats were with blood and pus, was that Semmelweiss was a dangerous lunatic and his observations that washing ones hands with chlorine water before delivering a baby caused death rates from puerperal fever to plummet was mere coincidence and his violation of consensus had no place in "scientific" medicine.

What matters in real science is results and the crackpot theory of quantum mechanics, vigorously opposed by Einstein, is the basis of all solid state electronics and now an indispensable part of modern society. So, whenever someone uses "consensus" in what is supposed to be a scientific argument, the minimum response of a true scientist should be to tar and feather them if they're feeling particularly magnanimous or beat them severely about the head with a tire iron if they're in a bad mood.

What this POS article demonstrates is the hold of "post-modern science" on a large number of people. Real science works under the assumption that there is an external objective reality whose workings can be understood through the application of various experimental methods. The axiom that an objective external reality exists is the foundation of modern science and, when combined with the scientific method, progress in science has been exponential in nature.

The primary premise of the "post-modernist" lunatics is that reality is a social construct. Confusing the fact that the brain is in fact a personal reality generating organ, they idiotically assume that there is no objective external reality. Any neuroscientist can clearly see that the brain generated reality is an attempt to model an unknowable external reality and the quality of the model has been good enough for humans to survive for millions of years.
As far as "post-modernists" are concerned, those who believe in an objective reality are deluded throwbacks to a colonial age who have not kept up with the academic "progress" of the last 5 decades. Generally they are viewed as arrogant absolutists who are ridiculed for giving any credence to the racist writings of dead white males. These "enlightened" inhabitants of ivory towers at universities throughout the world believe that whatever people like them agree upon must be the truth and anything else is heresy. Thus, their concentration on how to change the personal realities of those who disagree with them; the more magnanimous of this sect view propaganda campaigns as the best way to go whereas the militant aspect of this sect is in favor of imprisonment or execution of all those who are dissidents and "deniers".

Arguing with such people is of absolutely no use as they are utterly convinced of the truthfulness of their conclusions and getting them to question their fundamental premises would be about as successful as trying to convince an astronaut who's orbited the earth that the earth is flat.

The only way to deal with such people is to is to dump them into the wilderness somewhere with no tools and see whether they still disbelieve in an objective reality. Others, less charitably inclined towards mass delusion, are of the opinion that selective low yield neutron bomb strikes on the most infested portions of universities represents the optimal approach.

By rejecting the concept of objective reality, an immediate corollary of this axiom is that objective standards of any kinds are discriminatory. Thus, the psychotic rantings from the alcohol soaked brain of a "native elder" about "turtle island" and how the native Indians were forever a part of N. America are viewed as valid "oral history" and to call such deranged crap BS is the ultimate sin among academics as this clearly reflects "racism" and "judging". "Racism" is the reflexive response to any attempt to present objective evidence that one culture is superior to another even if one has voluminous objective data to support ones thesis. These lunatics assume that their personal prejudices, because they are supported by fellow "academics", reflect social reality and thus we have the existence of "black studies", "woman's studies" and "queer studies" programs which demonstrate the depths of self-delusion that rejection of objective reality can cause.

That is why no debate is possible with such morons and the primary instrument of debate with this group is a rifle.

One of the reasons that such mass lunacy has taken hold in N. America is the rise of large cities and the ability for individuals to hold ideas totally at variance with objective reality and survive. For those people who live in the countryside, assuming that objective reality is a delusion rapidly results in those individuals becoming Darwin awards candidates. When TSHTF, there will be a satisfying die off among this group of lunatics as they engage in the same amount of magical thinking as a totally dysfunctional schizophrenic. Unfortunately, I think it's going to be up to the Chinese and Russians - two races in whom rejection of objective reality is properly viewed as psychopathologic, to take over N. America once it sinks into its solipsistic disaster of post-modernist thought.

At least the self-sufficient rednecks will have the last laugh in this scenario.

Bryceman, some warmists have already begun advocating execution of deniers:

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/prof-richard-parncutt-death-penalty-for-global-warming-deniers/

97 out of 100 humans think climate scientists are nuts.

I LOVE this comment:

Avatar
Oodles 2.0 stan
• 10 hours ago

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when the leftist circle jerk known as "Grist" intersects with SDA. Pretty to watch.

Its all about power and who gets to spread around our tax dollars to enrich their friends..
The right has their huge military political slush fund and the left has its huge environmental political slush fund..

Think of it as trickle up economics..

Problem is nobody can afford both at the same time..

Execution of deniers?
-------
Bring out your dead and the gift of the other side firing the first shot.. Finally the ability to end the MORONIC debate in the most intellectually stimulating way possible..
Shut up and die!

I can see them now marching up and down their bike lanes.. Sieg iphone?

I think death is to good for the warmist.. I would imprison them all and make them run on power generating tread mills 16 hours a day.. On Sunday for a treat they could sort denier garbage, then its right back into powering my entertainment center..

Its what I like to call social justice..

If we truly could change planetary climate through human action, why haven't we started on a small project like terraforming Mars into a vacation destination. You'd figure Branson would be all over that...

Personally .... I'd like to take them on bush cutting expeditions ....

I just don't care about GW. I just don't. No amount of guilt tripping my electricity use or trying to make me feel guilty about driving a v8 powered pick up truck is going to work. In fact the more the GW crowd tries the more I find solutions to the problems they created. My latest project? A home sized coal fired power plant. If it works well I'll sell them on E-bay and make them dual fuel coal/wood.