http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/27/review-i-can-change-your-mind-about-climate-change/


Quote:

The sum total of useful commentary on ABC’s stultifying I Can Change Your Mind About Climate, (herein ICCYMAC) was five minutes of British scientist and author Ben Goldacre. That the most edifying moments in the program included his admission that he’d rather slam his cock in a door than “debate” climate change probably tells those of you who missed it most of what you need to know. While apparently managing to restrain himself from threatened acts of penile self-mutilation, he made an obvious point. Which was that climate change is not scientifically controversial. John Tyndall first measured the radiative properties of CO2 in the 1860s (using this cool thing, the modern equivalent of which fits in a shoe box), and 150 science-filled years later, here’s that cauldron of leftist ferment, the US National Academy of Sciences:     “Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.” Almost every national science academy and professional scientific association on the planet support similar conclusions. Surveys of either the scientific literature or professional opinion lead to the same conclusion: there is near-unanimity on the broad nature and causes of climate change in the scientific community. So by any fair measure, there is a scientific consensus on climate change. And consensus matters. The views of the self-styled climate “sceptics” lie nowhere within the window of plausible scientific contestability, and nowhere near it. This presents a credibility problem for contrarians, because when we’re not equipped to critically scrutinise complex issues ourselves, we take consensus among experts as a useful guide. This is not just eminently reasonable — it is indispensable. It underpins the basic division of labour by which society operates. The payoff is that society as a whole carries far more knowledge than any one person could ever hope to, but the price of entry is a basic level of trust, not in individuals so much as in the institutions that keep them honest. The point is almost so obvious that attempting to articulate it unnecessarily complicates it — we almost all implicitly understand this. And in other disciplines — medicine, say — we apply it without controversy (as Paul Nurse memorably put to the UK Telegraph’s James Delingpole). The response of those who deny the reality of climate change is the strawman rejoinder (exemplified by Delingpole), “Science doesn’t operate by consensus”. This little piece of misdirection is true, but irrelevant. It is precisely because science doesn’t “operate by consensus” — because it is undemocratic, regularly acrimonious and pitilessly Darwinian — that consensus, once gained, is so powerful. So what was the point of ICCYMAC? To get to the bottom of why climate change is publicly controversial? In that case the documentary filmmakers ought to have taken their turn in front of the cameras, because the media has been central — sometimes as vehicle, sometimes as driver — to the spectacular distortion of public perception on this issue in the past two decades. Daringly, the program’s voice-over commentary invites the audience to wonder: “Are programs such as this part of the problem?” Yes. Yes, you bunch of freaking NINNIES, freaking OMG YES! Yes, your program is assuredly part of the problem. A bit of non-committal introspection doesn’t get you off the hook, by the way. It just confirms that you half-assed knew what you were doing, but did it anyway. The media can and should take a position on climate change — it should be a “truth vigilante”, because we are dealing with a question of fact, with the ultimate impartial arbiter: nature. That the topic is publicly controversial is no escape clause for the media, because as the intermediary between science and the public, it is one of the primary bearers of responsibility for that controversy. Of course a great deal of pressure has been brought to bear on the media by those with an interest in fostering public confusion, and to say, “Yes we bend like saplings in the wind, but there is enormous pressure,” may be an important reason. But it’s barely an excuse. And ICCYMAC bent sideways, actually reading its format directly from the denialist strategic playbook. As Frank Luntz in the infamous Republican memo of 2003: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.” Of course there is a lack of scientific certainty — this is science. The denialist strategy has been to utterly misrepresent that window of scientific contestability, to yank it across the spectrum from, “It’s happening, it’s us, it’s a problem,” to “Who really knows?” They don’t need to win. They just need to wrestle the issue to a standstill by promoting the illusion of controversy. Regardless, this discussion is probably pointless. You knew what you thought before you began reading. I can’t change your mind about climate change. That’s OK, I don’t want to. I’m past that. I’d rather slam my cock in a door.

And you can hardly blame him can you? The whole Climate Change debate is one massive dick waving contest now. Here we have an educated, unbiased group of people trying to tell us we're fu*king up our world and on the other side we have the common pleb who thinks he's as much of an expert as those who studied for 20-30 years because he votes and pays taxes.

It's self entitlement to the extreme. It's about time people learned that there are certain things you need not question, such as gravity. You know it's there and it's happening because science told you so, and you believe them.

Its the modern welfare state and open borders policy responsible.  The trouble is greenies dont want to work, they dont want to pay, they want cheep imports to do it for them, they live to long, they wont move aside for the next generation.

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

It's about time people learned that there are certain things you need not question, ...

AGW is not one of them.

I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps.
Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not.
No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels.
Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong?

Quote:

No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels

Exactly.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong?

Well, I don't fit into either camp as I'm an AGW sceptic.

Not a denialist, and not an AGW disciple.

However, nobody (well, certainly not me) is stopping you from weaning us off the addiction to fossil fuels and creating an economy reliant on clean renewables.  Knock yourselves out.

Just stop the fear mongering.

The "grand kids' future" thing is really getting old.  By being a sceptic I'm not endangering anyone.  To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.  Build your wind farms.  Put solar panels on your roof.  I'm not about to stop you.  I applaud you for it.

The AGW hypothesis is dubious (yes, it's my word of the day), but I have no objection to alternative fuel sources.  Just stop with the holier than thou attitude.    ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? Well, I don't fit into either camp as I'm an AGW sceptic. Not a denialist, and not an AGW disciple. However, nobody (well, certainly not me) is stopping you from weaning us off the addiction to fossil fuels and creating an economy reliant on clean renewables.  Knock yourselves out. Just stop the fear mongering. The "grand kids' future" thing is really getting old.  By being a sceptic I'm not endangering anyone.  To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.  Build your wind farms.  Put solar panels on your roof.  I'm not about to stop you.  I applaud you for it. The AGW hypothesis is dubious (yes, it's my word of the day), but I have no objection to alternative fuel sources.  Just stop with the holier than thou attitude.    ::)

To late..Ive gone through my third lot of solar power systems on 3 different houses.
My first one cost $20,000 my last one cost $5000..if it keeps going this way they will be giving them away with boxes of cornflakes  :)

The whole thing is just to simple for the loops to understand and Meat it is all about the grandkids and always will be on all decisions for every generation, that is the distance for good planning, about 80 years.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong?

what plan do the hysterics have when they are proven to be wrong? Can we bill them for the trillions spent in decarbonising an economy that never needed to be? do we charge them with the deaths of all those that dies from exposure because they couldnt afford electricty?

try a legitimate argument instead of your insipid granchild argument. Why not grow a set instead. Or at least grow a coherent argument.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 6:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? what plan do the hysterics have when they are proven to be wrong? Can we bill them for the trillions spent in decarbonising an economy that never needed to be? do we charge them with the deaths of all those that dies from exposure because they couldnt afford electricty? try a legitimate argument instead of your insipid granchild argument. Why not grow a set instead. Or at least grow a coherent argument.

You Idiot ... no one is turning of electricity , and for you to claim people will die from exposure just shows what a sad pathetic waste of oxygen you are ....... I know you may not care about the grand kids, but I'd like to at least try to leave the planet better of than when i arrived .

you think people can't afford electricity now? .. as fossil fuels become more rare, electricity will skyrocket ... don't add 20 or 30 %, add 300 or 3000% in a few more decades. You'll be needing a mortgage to pay your electricity bill if things keep going the way they are. Lets see how many die from exposure then.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:41pm: It's about time people learned that there are certain things you need not question, ... AGW is not one of them.

What is your sticking point, Uncle Meat? If this decade is significantly hotter than the last, will that do it?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 6:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? what plan do the hysterics have when they are proven to be wrong? Can we bill them for the trillions spent in decarbonising an economy that never needed to be? do we charge them with the deaths of all those that dies from exposure because they couldnt afford electricty? try a legitimate argument instead of your insipid granchild argument. Why not grow a set instead. Or at least grow a coherent argument.

Funny the only hysterics i heard were from the denialists. Bill us you mean all that positive change for nothing. The freedom from oil the new markets and innovative industries the transformation of ecological regeneration. Mostly i just want the denialists to go hide in a hole and not enjoy the new world.

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 6:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? what plan do the hysterics have when they are proven to be wrong? Can we bill them for the trillions spent in decarbonising an economy that never needed to be? do we charge them with the deaths of all those that dies from exposure because they couldnt afford electricty? try a legitimate argument instead of your insipid granchild argument. Why not grow a set instead. Or at least grow a coherent argument. You Idiot ... no one is turning of electricity , and for you to claim people will die from exposure just shows what a sad pathetic waste of oxygen you are ....... I know you may not care about the grand kids, but I'd like to at least try to leave the planet better of than when i arrived . you think people can't afford electricity now? .. as fossil fuels become more rare, electricity will skyrocket ... don't add 20 or 30 %, add 300 or 3000% in a few more decades. You'll be needing a mortgage to pay your electricity bill if things keep going the way they are. Lets see how many die from exposure then.

have you worled out the difference between PRINCIPAL and PRINCPLE yet?

and those pesky fossil fuels seem to have a habit of NOT running out. australia ahs 150years supply of coal just with todays known resources. the 'peak fossil fuel' con is just another you fell for.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 7:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 6:55pm: adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? what plan do the hysterics have when they are proven to be wrong? Can we bill them for the trillions spent in decarbonising an economy that never needed to be? do we charge them with the deaths of all those that dies from exposure because they couldnt afford electricty? try a legitimate argument instead of your insipid granchild argument. Why not grow a set instead. Or at least grow a coherent argument. You Idiot ... no one is turning of electricity , and for you to claim people will die from exposure just shows what a sad pathetic waste of oxygen you are ....... I know you may not care about the grand kids, but I'd like to at least try to leave the planet better of than when i arrived . you think people can't afford electricity now? .. as fossil fuels become more rare, electricity will skyrocket ... don't add 20 or 30 %, add 300 or 3000% in a few more decades. You'll be needing a mortgage to pay your electricity bill if things keep going the way they are. Lets see how many die from exposure then. have you worled out the difference between PRINCIPAL and PRINCPLE yet? and those pesky fossil fuels seem to have a habit of NOT running out. australia ahs 150years supply of coal just with todays known resources. the 'peak fossil fuel' con is just another you fell for.

Even Clive Palmer on Q and A admitted that the world has about 120 - 130 yrs of fossil fuel left (that we know of) ... and if he says 120, the truth is probably closer to half of that. How did you get to 150yrs? Are we mining on Mars now?

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:27pm:

Even Clive Palmer on Q and A admitted that the world has about 120 - 130 yrs of fossil fuel left (that we know of) ... and if he says 120, the truth is probably closer to half of that. How did you get to 150yrs? Are we mining on Mars now?

It's much less than that. When the oil runs out, how will Clive dig out his coal and ship it across the world? We don't have 150 years worth of oil left.

Oh, unless of course you're longloser in which case apparently there's an infinite supply.

Gist wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 7:38pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 7:27pm: Even Clive Palmer on Q and A admitted that the world has about 120 - 130 yrs of fossil fuel left (that we know of) ... and if he says 120, the truth is probably closer to half of that. How did you get to 150yrs? Are we mining on Mars now? It's much less than that. When the oil runs out, how will Clive dig out his coal and ship it across the world? We don't have 150 years worth of oil left. Oh, unless of course you're longloser in which case apparently there's an infinite supply.

He keeps a tin under his sink in case of emergency

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 5:08pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I didn't even watch it because its really just got down to two camps. Those that are willing to gamble with our grand kids future and those that are not. No one wins if the denialists are wrong where as if the scientists are wrong the worst thing that can happen is that we have weaned ourselves off our addiction to fossil fuels and created an economy reliant on clean renewables instead of being slaves to the oil and coal cartels. Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? Well, I don't fit into either camp as I'm an AGW sceptic. Not a denialist, and not an AGW disciple. However, nobody (well, certainly not me) is stopping you from weaning us off the addiction to fossil fuels and creating an economy reliant on clean renewables.  Knock yourselves out. Just stop the fear mongering. The "grand kids' future" thing is really getting old.  By being a sceptic I'm not endangering anyone.  To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.  Build your wind farms.  Put solar panels on your roof.  I'm not about to stop you.  I applaud you for it. The AGW hypothesis is dubious (yes, it's my word of the day), but I have no objection to alternative fuel sources.  Just stop with the holier than thou attitude.    ::)

OK, so as I understand it basically you're on board with the climate change program but you want some of the language moderated. Fair enough. But why would you support those who do want to stop windfarms, solar panels, etc? Just look at this thread - seems longloser believes millions will die if we go to alternative energy. Do you support that notion? I don't see you speaking up against such excesses in that language.

When the oil runs out we will just use coal for everything.

Steam punk nerds will go nuts in the black lung utopia.

Oh wait coal dust can't hurt our lungs because we are carbon based, silly me.

just watched last nights Q&A on the web and funny everyone including Nick agree that we have to do something about a clean energy future. Everyone except clive of course. Funny how when we got to an ETS and its use for change the discussion quickly deteriorated into cheap political point scoring. This country is stuck in couter productive political stupidity and can not make a tough decision.

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong?

Sacrifice idiots like you to the gods.

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 9:07pm:

adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? Sacrifice idiots like you to the gods.

In that case, you can rely on me to not even bother cutting your still beating heart out. I'll just throw you down the stairs alive.

Wow, this guy must be right because he said so and he is a leftist green giai follower. Well how could anybody question that.

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 9:07pm: adelcrow wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:58pm: Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? Sacrifice idiots like you to the gods. In that case, you can rely on me to not even bother cutting your still beating heart out. I'll just throw you down the stairs alive.

No, no, no, you don't understand (as usual).


I sacrifice you.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:41pm: It's about time people learned that there are certain things you need not question, ... AGW is not one of them.

You'll soon have egg on your face.

Hasn't Prof. James Lovelock recanted and wasn't he one of the fathers of this crazy theory?

Why don't we hear from JuLiar or her backers, the ABC, inform the public that Lovelock has had the guts to come forward and admit that he was wrong?

It was all bullsh*t adopted gleefully by the leftist scum.

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

there are certain things you need not question

There's the hoof, in full view.  Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys.
We can all go home now.

The settles science is about not questioning certain things. The barbarians are within the walls.



I concur with your thread title: I'd rather slam your cock in a door, too.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 9:56pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:50pm: GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:41pm: It's about time people learned that there are certain things you need not question, ... AGW is not one of them. You'll soon have egg on your face. Hasn't Prof. James Lovelock recanted and wasn't he one of the fathers of this crazy theory? Why don't we hear from JuLiar or her backers, the ABC, inform the public that Lovelock has had the guts to come forward and admit that he was wrong? It was all bullsh*t adopted gleefully by the leftist scum.

You are a horrible stupid ignorant scumbag.


You really REALLY are.




Thanks phark you are old and havent got long left to live on this earth. 




You are a fossil.



When they carbon 14 the 1950's your little radioactive signature will still be there sending out it's poisonous little paranoia.

Uncle Meat wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:41pm: It's about time people learned that there are certain things you need not question, ... AGW is not one of them.

How long are you going to prop up this rort, Meathead?

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 10:05pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 4:41pm: there are certain things you need not question There's the hoof, in full view.  Thank you linesmen, thank you ball boys. We can all go home now. The settles science is about not questioning certain things. The barbarians are within the walls. I concur with your thread title: I'd rather slam your cock in a door, too.

He has propably done that already and that is why he has become cockeyed.

nairbe wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

just watched last nights Q&A on the web and funny everyone including Nick agree that we have to do something about a clean energy future. Everyone except clive of course. Funny how when we got to an ETS and its use for change the discussion quickly deteriorated into cheap political point scoring. This country is stuck in couter productive political stupidity and can not make a tough decision.

can I ask who the WE are you are referring too?


just seems to me.. the WE should involve the world.. all 6billion of us.. not just the 22 mill in Australia..


I honestly think most people in countries like Aust. are now doing the right thing..

however even us in all our righteousness still want to buy a car to get around in...

we have some absurd idea that as long as it ISN'T  made in this country... then we are working on GW..

we can polish our halos and sleep well..

well I dont buy that

stinking up someone else's country but not giving up the best of everything makes me laugh.

Putting whether its man made or not aside. whats wrong with global warming? More plants grow and life is plentiful.
Not one of these Global warming alarmist can tell the public what is the ideal Temp and CO2 Levels.

nairbe wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 8:51pm:

just watched last nights Q&A on the web and funny everyone including Nick agree that we have to do something about a clean energy future. Everyone except clive of course. Funny how when we got to an ETS and its use for change the discussion quickly deteriorated into cheap political point scoring. This country is stuck in couter productive political stupidity and can not make a tough decision.

I'd argue that Gillard has made the tough decision and is paying the predictable political consequences.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Putting whether its man made or not aside. whats wrong with global warming? More plants grow and life is plentiful. Not one of these Global warming alarmist can tell the public what is the ideal Temp and CO2 Levels.

There are plenty of scientific studies showing that high temperatures and high levels of CO2 are less than ideal for human food supplies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo&sns=em

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 11:41am: Putting whether its man made or not aside. whats wrong with global warming? More plants grow and life is plentiful. Not one of these Global warming alarmist can tell the public what is the ideal Temp and CO2 Levels. There are plenty of scientific studies showing that high temperatures and high levels of CO2 are less than ideal for human food supplies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo&sns=em

That video, all 2 minutes that I watched, was a crock of shi..

Goes from smog. Not what you were or it was supposedly talking about, then onto drought which is not even proven to be linked to CO2, let alone the catastrophic CO2 theory itself.

Maybe you should start looking elsewhere for your thoughts as you state to others, because you are getting severly poor material.

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

nairbe wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 8:51pm: just watched last nights Q&A on the web and funny everyone including Nick agree that we have to do something about a clean energy future. Everyone except clive of course. Funny how when we got to an ETS and its use for change the discussion quickly deteriorated into cheap political point scoring. This country is stuck in couter productive political stupidity and can not make a tough decision. I'd argue that Gillard has made the tough decision and is paying the predictable political consequences.

The tough decision is not to align with the greens - liberals

The tough decision is not to stab the electorate in the back to gain power - liberals are made of tuff stuff

Labor as we are seeing with this thomson affair, the trying to get rid of kathy jackson with getting involved in union business when it suits them, are just a corrupt bunch of backstabbing, power grabbing at all cost bunch of weasles.

Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2012 at 9:07pm:

[quote author=3C3938313E2F322A5D0 link=1335508902/3#3 date=1335509937] Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong?

sacrifice idiots like you to the gods [quote]

I doubt the gods would want them for their fodder or their fires.

Leftists have a potent stink about them.

]

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 11:41am: Putting whether its man made or not aside. whats wrong with global warming? More plants grow and life is plentiful. Not one of these Global warming alarmist can tell the public what is the ideal Temp and CO2 Levels. There are plenty of scientific studies showing that high temperatures and high levels of CO2 are less than ideal for human food supplies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo&sns=em That video, all 2 minutes that I watched, was a crock of shi.. Goes from smog. Not what you were or it was supposedly talking about, then onto drought which is not even proven to be linked to CO2, let alone the catastrophic CO2 theory itself. Maybe you should start looking elsewhere for your thoughts as you state to others, because you are getting severly poor material.

Perhaps if you could pull your head out of the sand for longer than 2 minutes you might have found out the clip does deal with the impact of global warming and higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on our food supplies.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 27th, 2012 at 9:07pm: [quote author=3C3938313E2F322A5D0 link=1335508902/3#3 date=1335509937] Sooo..what plan do the denialists have if they are wrong? sacrifice idiots like you to the gods [quote] I doubt the gods would want them for their fodder or their fires. Leftists have a potent stink about them. ]

Idiot.

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 1:19pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 12:09pm: BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Apr 28th, 2012 at 11:41am: Putting whether its man made or not aside. whats wrong with global warming? More plants grow and life is plentiful. Not one of these Global warming alarmist can tell the public what is the ideal Temp and CO2 Levels. There are plenty of scientific studies showing that high temperatures and high levels of CO2 are less than ideal for human food supplies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo&sns=em That video, all 2 minutes that I watched, was a crock of shi.. Goes from smog. Not what you were or it was supposedly talking about, then onto drought which is not even proven to be linked to CO2, let alone the catastrophic CO2 theory itself. Maybe you should start looking elsewhere for your thoughts as you state to others, because you are getting severly poor material. Perhaps if you could pull your head out of the sand for longer than 2 minutes you might have found out the clip does deal with the impact of global warming and higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 on our food supplies.

Well if they are going to make a video, then use atleast the first part of the video to tell the truth, not their propaganda. I guess I just dont go to long watching propaganda, so they fail to get me to watch the supposed truthful content.

Ironically, the first few scenes are a collage of denialist propaganda. That's what crock of the week does. It picks apart the denialists canards like C02 is plant food therefore the more the better.

MOTR wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:42pm:

Ironically, the first few scenes are a collage of denialist propaganda. That's what crock of the week does. It picks apart the denialists canards like C02 is plant food therefore the more the better.

Yes I have seen the propaganda they go on with.

olde.sault wrote on Apr 28^th, 2012 at 1:23pm:

Leftists have a potent stink about them.

No, that's because of your back getting shorter with age.

Leaping Lord Cocky Head is clinically insane and the only people who dont realise it are the denialists.