You're a numbnut.

Q&A, when I read some of the material written on this forum by what I would generalise as "the Climate lobby", and by groups such as Sustainable Population, I really wonder if some people have learnt any lessons for the past.

As much as it galls me to agree with John Howard on anything, he was spot on, a few days ago, in pointing to the absolute inability on the part of the media in general, and the ABC in particular, to countenance any view that diverges in any way from what is to all intents and purposes the dogma of the Climate lobby.

I particularly recall a debate broadcast on the ABC early this year, "That climate change is the only issue". Less than half, but a sizeable portion still, of the audience disagreed. Exact numbers elude me, but 20% or 40% rings a bell.

What really chilled me, though, was the statement from a listener: "Who are these (40?)%? We must seek them out. They need to be re-educated."

This is the language of the gulag, not democratic debate.

Similarly, when I see spokespeople for Sustainable Population (and I must say that I *generally* sympathise with their aim) openly promoting one-child policies and radical reductions in population, I also get nervous.

What people need to learn from the Dark Valley of the 1920s and 30s is not such trite assertions as the monstrosity of the Hitlers and Mussolinis, but the extraordinary level of popular support they and their philosophies enjoyed in the Western world.

Because they were seen as decisive leaders able to tackle the pressing emergencies of the day by fiat, and dictate those necessary reforms that tired, inefficient democracies were unable to.

Clownfish, some good points - but it's late.

Q&A “Yes rpg, I am intolerant to dumbnuts and wingbats, but as we have seen, some are tolerant (fungo, Col and the Dalai Lama come to mind).”

Don’t worry Q&A, unlike you, I will remain am open minded about the knuckle dragging obsessive rants of the likes of Q&A and others poised, with mouths open and ready, to suck in the tax-payer funded grants and largesse expected by the priests of the climate change fraud.

Q&A exemplifies the notion that a fool demonstrates his stupidity by his words.

Q&A, your lack of intellectual prowess or rigor is confirmed by your bullying attitude, intolerance and contempt for those who happen to disagree with you.

Rather than challenge their view you automatically go straight to being .. as you have confessed here “intolerant”

Your self confessed absence of tolerance speaks volumes about your lack of values, absence of ethics and your inability to hold your own position in a debate (basically you are a first round knock down and out)..

I guess on the plus side you are at least a constant….

Constantly intolerant
Constantly wrong
Constantly a legend in your own lunchtime

Some things never change
Q&A is one of them… aspiring to position and authority above his actual achievement or worthiness.

rpg… I loved your post (Thursday, 6 August 2009 10:37:05 AM).. quotable stuff…

And I still don't think aspiring to the lifestyle of an Indian peasant is the way I want to go.

Some of us achieve better by our own efforts..

Not sure about Q&A though...

He seems to work best when it is someone elses "effort"...

Clownfish

The implication that there's an analogy between religious dogma and 'climate science' is a distortion.

There are fundamentalist extremists on both sides of the climate conundrum, however, science is not a religion (contrary to what many so called ‘denialists’ assert). Therefore the analogy is moot – but this does not stop the claim being made.

You may agree with Howard’s opinion, I do not. The media are just reporting on the weight of evidence - there is far more published research, reports and press releases that give credence to AGW than do not. The 'sceptical' ones that do make it through are very likely to have been sourced from an ideological perspective.

If anything, I would say genuine investigative journalists (not media shock-jocks or ideologically challenged popular columnists/bloggers) are out there questioning the science. They just haven’t found anything to seriously dent the evidence, yet. They certainly will get much kudos, cap feathers, awards and financial security if they can give weight to debunking AGW, or exposing a worldwide conspiracy theory – and all power to them if they do.

I did not see that ABC debate, but let’s be brutally honest here. If the worst of the IPCC projections are correct (I am not saying they are, by the way), societies around the world are in for some very nasty surprises (regardless of what any ABC audience poll says) – the world’s leaders know this and are trying to develop policies accordingly. Again, AGW ‘alarmists’ need to get off their cloud, and ‘deniers’ need to extract their heads from the sand, their feet from the mud ... a less severe IPCC projection is bad enough.

Education is important (not "re-education" and all that implies) – but tell me Clownfish, how do you propose that be done, particularly with respect to the very real threats posed by global warming?

Do you get nervous about countries like China “promoting” one-child policies?

One thing is certain; we do need real leaders to guide us through increasingly troubled times.

_____

Col,

I am intolerant of misguided fools all the more.