Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 2:45pm:


Grendel,

It was very plain to everybody. We were talking about one subject only. You told me I was an idiot and you gave me the link. I scoured the article for any reference whatsoever to the "Global Cooling in the 70's" myth and that's the only part of that article that had anything relating to it.

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions. Do you believe that it was a Scientific Consensus or was it "the Green Movement and others" ?

- and is the lie that there was Scientific Consensus one that you agree with or not?

What have you got to lose? They are easy questions.

You accuse me of lying. How can a question be a lie?

Grendel wrote on Jul 15^th, 2009 at 8:53pm:


I did see something about the point I was asking you to clarify, which was the question of scientific consensus, and to be quite honest, I was gobsmacked and couldn't believe anybody could be so stupid. I even posted:

....and do you agree with that report?

I was giving you the opportunity back then to clarify your position.

Quote:


Grendel - it was a question. I was trying to get you to tell me where you stood. How could anyone possibly lie by asking a question? If you refuse to declare your position in a debate, you can't even start the debate.


Quote:


Now you're embellishing a lie (not yours - one that you picked up off a confusionalist site)

Grendel,

Let me put it this way, you just took a dive. Not only did you take a dive, but you tripped on your own feet, hit your chin on the diving board, did a very impressive belly flop in the water, lost your togs, then when you saw the judges' score, you jumped around like an idiot calling them liars and trying to deny that you did anything other than a perfect dive.

To make matters worse, you continually called me names, including 'idiot', and you repeatedly called me a liar for asking you a question.

Grendel (still metaphorically) you just handed me a cross and you asked me to nail you to it.

You've already proven yourself to be totally inept at any kind of rational debate, so this is my last post directed to you on this issue.

If you are going to cut and paste or link to articles by professional  liars, then at least you should have the decency to read them yourself and if you make a mistake, admit it - because you just make yourself look stupid by digging yourself a deeper hole.  

I'd normally say "quit while you're ahead", but well... it's not very appropriate in this case, is it?

Let's just say that I'm starting to feel sorry for you. I didn't set out to crucify you. You just managed to do it all by yourself.

Mantra, unforunately you seem to have been sucked into the whole "global conspiracies, secret organisations", camp, and it just reeks of the tinfoil hat brigade extremist views, where facts are distorted, and exaggerated to the point of becoming total nonsense.
Then you fell into the, "my enemies enemies are my friends", mindset, which has even seen you supporting some of the anti-multiculturalists extremist ideas, and to some extent even fallen into accepting as credible, the views of the confusionalists on the Global Warming debate.

These guys seek to confuse people by starting with some mom and apple pie sentiments, to make themselves appear reasonable, then weave a web of deceit based on known lies, and misinformation.

If you are concerned about secret backroom groups, seeking to contro; issues, and through the misrepresentation of those issues, ultimately what actions are taken to address them, then you should look at the people behind the whole denialist campaign.

With people like Grendel, who jumped on board early, due to their healthy skepticism about the overly sensationalised hype promoted by our more extreme Global Warming advocates, we saw them lock themselves into a position, which has been totally, and thoroughly discredited, by honest, and reputable scientists from all corners of the globe, and from all points of the political compass.
Unfortunately the denialists of this type, have put themselves in the position of 'needing' to maintain their stance, to try and justify their earlier enthusiasm, which has seen them develop a pattern of blindly accepting the lies, to the point where they refuse to even look at serious scirntific opinion that does not validate their point of view.

This is the exact opposite of what the real scientists do, as they take the time to evaluate all the denialists arguments, and carefully, and with reference to valid and current scientific knowledge in the area, explain where they are wrong, and why they are wrong.

The denialist then counter this by trying to promote the idea that these serious scientists are actually all just part of an evil cabal who are falsifying data and findings in their efforts to receive more funding, for self enrichment.

So, back to the men behind the scenes, now we know that many oil companies were quite specific in their requests to PR firms, when first they approached them to instigate this denialist argument, and it would be naive to think that they do not still promote it wherever they can.

The sad fact is that many good and decent people have been so fully conned by the initial denialist PR campaign, that they are now doing the work for them, and have become zealously obsessive in repeating the debunked claims, over, and over, and over again.

This whole issue about whether their was a major scare about a looming Ice Age back in the '70's, is a case in point.

The facts are that a handful of scientists back in the late sixties, and early seventies, were studying the cooling that the northern hemisphere experienced over the previous 25 years (note that the southern hemisphere did not experience the same trend), and also at that time, we also had some scientists studying the effects of other polluting particulates that were building up, that do have the ability to reduce the amount of heat getting through the atmosphere.

Now these few scientists published their studies, and a couple did actually put forward the possibility that if certain things happened, we could see a new Ice Age.
Now the time frames they cited varied considerably, even into the tens of thousands of years ahead range, but the reporters who stumbled onto the story, did not let facts get in the way of sensationalising, and effectively misrepresenting the work of these scientists, into a new doomsday scenario.
So the blame for the misunderstanding of what these scientists actually presented, lies with the media, who jumped onto the initial newsweek story, and used that as their point of reference, rather than the actual science that was presented, and it worked in well for them, because of recent cold weather extremes that Nth America had experienced at the time.

So their was a "media" event at the time, concerning a possible coming Ice Age, which was pretty well localised to the US market, and it gained little attention from the rest of the world.

As I said to Grendel, we also had a more 'Globa'l fascination for Nostradamus' predictions in the same period, and I pointed out that the Nostradanus stories were actually far more prevalent than this reported Ice Age scare, which I think is a good way of highlighting the degree of seriousness with which the whole story was taken.

The problem lies with the denialists taking up the whole story from the time, and trying to use that as an example of scientific confusion over climate issues, which is just false, and to create the belief that scientists and governments have a habit of getting it totally wrong, as evidenced by the fact that no Ice Age developed, when the simple truth is that it was nothing more than an example of sensationalist journalism.

The denialist do not miss that point altogether, and they also try to portray the current scientific concensus as just another example of sensationalist reporting, which is also false.

'continued from above'

So the one thing that denialists have in their favour is that the sensationalist media coverage, does disaffect the more discerning person, and they rightly take umbrage at seeing stories being overblown and exaggerated,
However, should we blame the scientists for that?
Of course we shouldn't, they only try to supply the best information theu can, and lack the ability to control how the media uses that information.

So even though we get sick of hearing doomsday predictions, the fact remains that we do face an unprecented climate crisis, which does need to be addressed on a global scale, and we must not let denialists continually frustrate governments attempts to do so by creating false ideas about global warming that they hope enough people will fall for, so as to create a political environment where governments will be too afraid to act.

Their behaviour is morally reprehensible, and in the worst interest for our future, and that of the coming generations, and that is why all decent people should try and get past mainstream media hype, and get informed about the real science.

People of experience, and knowledge, like our very own Muso, on this site, are an invaluable resource in providing such good information, and if denialists would actually honestly appraise the supplied information, rather than blindly rejecting it, without even looking at it, we could put an end to this farcial situation where lies and misinformation demand equal time with the truth.

Grendel wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 3:14pm:


Hey Trilobite.....

You'll probably read this after breakfast. I already had mine, and besides, I already said that I wouldn't attempt to have a rational argument with you again.

As far as breakfast is concerned, I appreciate your offer, but you'd only give me indigestion.

- I never had much of an appetite for fossils anyway.

Sometimes it cool and other times it hot. "Don't worry and enjoy your life" 

mozzaok wrote on Jul 16^th, 2009 at 11:58am:

My elder brother bought that book I think during one of the late 70s Nostradamus crazes. I remember him discussing an interpretation of a future prediction that the Cold War would end and Russia and the US would be at peace and the next great threat would be in the east. Of course, when you read the actual quatrains which were supposed to reveal these events, you realise how creative the interpreters were in teasing out 'the truth'. But they jagged it about the Cold War and strife in the east (which most presumed meant China) at a time when all the world thought the Soviet Union was a stable economic and political force, which triggered another small wave of Nostradamus hype.

muso wrote on Jul 17^th, 2009 at 8:02am:


Muso, it isn't I who is peddling message of environmental doom and gloom