The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > No smoking hot spot > Comments

No smoking hot spot : Comments

By David Evans, published 22/7/2008

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming: most are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All
How strange the times. Everybody wants to do something about the weather; nobody wants to talk about it.
Posted by Richard Castles, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How strange the times. Everybody wants to do something about the weather; nobody wants to talk about it."

OK Richard. You go first.
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 31 July 2008 9:25:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mil-observer,

It is not about me sustaining my case.

Whether you like it or not, all countries of the world are signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change ... because all the countries of the world (regardless of their economic structure or political sway) consider climate change a serious threat to sustainability.

This 'open letter' that you continually refer to was ignored because it ran counter to the findings of the 1000’s of other equally eminent and acclaimed scientists.

There are more professional and appropriate processes and channels to address these concerns other than an ‘open letter’ produced by ideologues (and presented with fanfare at Bali) that use the blogosphere and neo-con media outlets to garner support by fallacious means.

I was wrong to assume you would have seen through this method of propagandising.

Anyway, I would prefer to engage with people who can help focus us on meeting the challenges that we are confronted with, from whatever walks of life they stem from – I am sorry that you are not one of them.
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 31 July 2008 11:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Q&A, I think you just dug yourself an ideological hole. I'll try to fill it in.

Surely you know that Tony Blair was instrumental in creating the "evidence" that led the US Congress and Oz Parliament to vote for the Iraq War, despite David Kelly exposing the evidence as a fraud (then ending up dead)? The same Tony Blair appointed Gore as "climate advisor" to Britain. Then there is Rupert Murdoch's support – especially via Sky TV - for Gore's "Current TV" to promote his CO2/AGW/polar bear stuff via the internet. The cooperation between Gore and Murdoch goes back to a discussion at Murdoch's home in 2006, where the two became close associates in the global media campaign on climate change. Murdoch directly funds the climate project run jointly by Al Gore and Prince Charles (last time I checked he hadn't worked for a living either).

So what possessed you to make such bold, sweeping statements about “neo-con media outlets”, “propagandizing”, and “ideologues”?

One bizarre characteristic I find most striking about the CC/AGW push is its fake depictions of some kind of “leftist” green radicalism. On a certain level this is not surprising, because the oligarchs' media and political networks only allow avowedly “right wing” versions of scepticism (a la J. W. Howard) and opposition (Iraq War apologist Andrew Bolt, for example). It seems a heady recipe, drawing many middle class kids into the vortex, perhaps keen to have some kind of badge of cliched 1968-style “student credibility” to flash at their baby boomer parents.

Consider your own approach to dissent here Q&A. You claim that the petitioning scientists did not use the “more professional and appropriate channels” befitting their protest. But just what channels are they? If the scientists find that anointed oligarchs and bureaucrats reject all contradiction of the AGW dogma, then they have no choice but to go public, like Luther at Wittenberg Cathedral. Note that several petitioners were on the IPCC, from which executive summaries drew not from thousands of other scientists at all. Like so many, you've been had.
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 1 August 2008 7:40:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You still don't get it mil-observer,

I am not talking about executive summaries, I'm talking about the 1000's of authors of all the peer reviewed scientific papers, which far outweigh those by the 100 you rely on.

They spit the dummy because they don't like how the game is played. Just like Dubya et al and the war on the weapons of mass destruction, they play the same on the 'weather' of mass destruction.

An this rant about Blair, Howard, Bush, Gore and Murdoch ... ergo, it just proves my point ... it is not about the science. It seems you agree after all - you just did not want to admit it.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 1 August 2008 8:36:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a proper magic show for you isn't it Q&A?

You get drawn into some debate where the dubious nature of AGW motives, data and analysis becomes increasingly apparent, along with the serious precedent of public scientific dissent embarassing apparatchiks' pretences at "science", leadership, and concern for humanity's welfare. You offer some vague hyperbole about a supposedly overwhelming consensus, before (finally) deciding to apply unsubstantiated smears against a hard international core of committed dissident scientists ("ideologues", and the classic tactic of alleging disgruntlement "they spit the dummy...").

But then, hey presto! You say it's not about the science after all! Well, I've already approached the AGW campaigners' political and economic motives at length here. I identified the corrupt motives clear from oligarchs' manipulation of AGW mythology/propaganda, while exposing your own irrelevant binary "dem/rep, lib/lab" view against what is actually the most meaningful and undisputable "consensus on AGW" i.e., the oligarchs' consensus.

Oh, but that just proves your point, you say; extraordinary gymnastics.

If you reflect on the inadequacy of your agile evasions, dismissals and hyperbolic assertions, maybe you'll find that it's not really about "the politics, control, etc." either. Next time it could turn out to be about Mayan archaeological digs, or Bradman's 1948 Ashes tour, or Szechuan cooking.
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 1 August 2008 10:59:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. Page 14
  10. 15
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy