Spindoc backpedals

On his original false claim

As indeed he should

Deep Blue break my rule this once.
To rebut your charge of ciber bulling.
My opinions of you, come from you.
In your posts you get aggressive toward some and lash out.
You once did so in what I thought was an unthinking way, it hurt another Innocent poster.
We all do such things , and all need to remind our selves of this.
You seem unfocused in your night time posts, say things I do not think you would at other times.
I do not, others surely too? understand your cryptic posts.
I do however understand OLO should not be a boxing tent, it is best to avoid you as we do not get along.
Posting style?
Are you aware yours has changed? one liners addressed to no one in particular.
You, not me, are in control of your public persona here, only you can change it.
No bullying bloke just self defense, we need not talk again, but if I see respect for others maybe we can.

The AGW Advocacy block seems to have hit the wall on this thread. In spite of the fact that so many have had so much to say on AGW, when it comes to exploring the basis for their Advocacy, no advocate on OLO has been able to explain this. It clearly boils down to a matter of faith.

Credit must go to Bugsy for a sterling effort, but it has to be said that when push came to shove there was no support for Bugsy, shame on you Advocates.

For a topic that is so divisive, contentious, loaded with information and carries so much passion, there was an expectation that the basis for it would be revealed. This passion has translated into abuse from both sides; it has become a blame game. Advocates blame skeptics for preventing action on AGW; skeptics blame AGW Advocates for the social and economic damage being inflicted now, in order to protect the future.

It is also clear that the “Languaging and Emotioning” used by AGW Advocates to defend their position is identical to that adopted in the defense of cults.

Cults use these techniques to defend their dogma and use every deception in the book to prevent scrutiny by the outside world. Similarly, the examples discussed here are used to protect the orthodoxy and exclude scrutiny. When attempts are made to scrutinize, as we have seen on OLO, the first reactions are to embrace many of the same techniques.

As we have also seen, the use of a term such as “Denier” is now verifiably just another form of abuse. The inability to provide either the “Empirically verifiable reality” being denied or the “radical and controversial ideas” being alternatively adopted, has left advocates with not only an empty label but also highlights a big hole in their Advocacy, the missing “Empirically verifiable reality”, because that cannot be substituted with “faith”.

Skepticism has been created by the Advocacy’s adoption and defense of the UN’s “reverse engineered” orthodoxy. It started with AGW and worked backwards from there. This perception remains unchallenged on OLO.

Continued;

Continued;

How can we explain why so many advocates bought into this? It seems that the answer to this is that this has been a developing phenomenon. It has been “oversold” to the advocacy block and gained much support whilst relatively unchallenged. Skeptical science was asleep at the wheel and Advocacy has been allowed to evolve and mutate.

Now is has taken on a life of its own to the extent that it is not actually controlled by other than commercial opportunism. The rest of the advocacy block and politicians are now captive to it. “It” drives “them”.

This has left Advocates with a massive problem and an unsustainable case. The evolution of these phenomena has no strategic elements; it can’t have because it evolved. This means that its only defense is tactical. So Advocates expend vast amounts of time and energy “reacting” to perceived threats. Proselytizing, collecting and disseminating even more “information”, more exaggerations to get attention and greater efforts to protect the single orthodoxy.

Interestingly, there is only one part of the Advocacy Block that can be influenced and that is the electorate. The rest of the Advocacy Block is utterly impervious to reality. This is giving the rest of the advocacy block the “night terrors”, which explains the hyper activity of the rest of the block, they know where the cracks will appear and must continue to reinforce public support.

Without public support, the political sponsorship will be withdrawn, the advocacy will collapse and the Reformation will begin.

The smart money is on politicians seeking a slow, non-threatening decline, a graceful exit. There are still however, some factors that could potentially cause the whole thing to implode. If that happens before the advocacy block and politicians have “their” exit strategies in place, there will be an “Inquisition” of post Albigensian Crusade proportions.

In such circumstances, for some of the perpetrators in public office, the MSM, academia, advocacy science, NGO’s and a raft of others in the advocacy block, “burning at the stake” might seem a better option than public humiliation

No bullying bloke just self defense, we need not talk again, but if I see respect for others maybe we can.....its goes both ways belly and I know you know what Iam talking about.

Faith! LOL......Well like I said on a past thread......until both sides or all for one can sum up, there's little point in bring this to a discussional level.

However, its always easier to pretend that denial is not denial:)

Many of us realists don't deny that it has warmed, hell, it's been doing that for 20,000 years this time around. We just deny that we are the cause of it. Folks, we need to be aggressive in countering these lies and deceptions coming from the deniers. The environment should be everyone’s #1 issue, and many people don’t see how closely tied the war in Iraq is with the state of our environment. CO2 emissions? Gee, if we weren’t so dependent on oil that we invaded a Middle Eastern country…………… Do people not understand this connection? And do people not see how throwing billions and billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq over the last couple years has seriously impacted our economy? Do people think these issues are unrelated?
As for the “experts” at ICECAP “Friends of Science” was really a Big Oil mouthpiece, with those scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry. The big names that appear again are Sallie Baliunas, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, the Idso family, Pat Michaels (who has since been fired by the University of Virginia for lying about what he did there), Gary Sharp, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and George Taylor. New names (but not new in the GW denier category) include Robert Balling, Reid Bryson (who was responsible for the global cooling stuff in the 1970s that right-wingers mocked scientists for; now he’s on “their” side, so they’re cool with him), Chris De Freitas, William Gray, Tad Murty, and James O’Brien. I’m sure there are other connections to Big Oil.

BLU

BLU

The “Big Oil” companies and the “Big End of Town” so vilified by AGW Advocates are in fact the main beneficiaries of AGW.

They are all commercial opportunists and include financiers, resource miners, industrialists, manufacturers, investors (including super funds) energy providers and all forms of supply chain management.

They operate in the skeptic’s camp and the renewable energy markets from which they make huge profits.

Their formal voice is through direct influence upon government by their economic clout, their dialogue with legislators and often through political donations.

For this they receive favorable enabling legislation to support business operations along with political sponsorship/protection for those activities.

The Big End of Town is absolutely ecstatic about AGW. It does not matter if you are building a Toyota Prius, Renewable Technologies (Peel Energy, Shell), Mining “rare earths”, conducting related research or running a Carbon Stock Exchange. It is absolutely unprecedented in peace time, to be offered commercial opportunities, where someone else has created a “market” for you, funds your “Product Development”, provides a “Permissive Legislative Environment”, “Guarantees your Margin” and restricts “Competition”.

Who and what has created this industrial Nirvana? AGW Advocacy of course.

If one of the intentions of AGW was to close out Big Oil and the big end of town it so hates, it has spectacularly backfired.

This has to be one of the worst acts of political and commercial bastardry ever perpetrated by Governments in modern times.

Do you really imagine that when you make tired, old, sweeping 1970’s statements like “Big Oil mouthpiece” and “scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry”, that you can hide AGW’s culpability behind these?

Just who on earth do you think is making Wind Farms, Solar Farms and batteries for everything Green? The Tooth Fairy?