The Forum > General Discussion > Climate of fear.
Climate of fear.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- Page 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- ...
- 33
- 34
- 35
-
- All
Posted by spindoc, Saturday, 16 February 2013 9:58:42 AM
| |
sonofgloin,
You've managed to get the "global warming/climate change" aspect completely about face (like spindoc does with his British sitcom analogies:) Yes, it's all about linguistic spin, however, the alteration from one descriptor to another came from the conservative/skeptic camp - not from AGW proponents. Here's a case in point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz "Frank I, Luntz....an American political consultant, pollster and Republican Party strategist. His most recent work has been with Fox News Channel as a frequent commentator and analyst....Luntz's specialty is 'testing language and finding words that will help his clients sell their product [which in the denialist's case is doubt] or turn public opinion on issues or a candidate'..." If you scroll down to the section "Global Warming", amongst other things it reads: "Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" because "climate change" was thought to sound less severe..." All sorts of things in those paragraphs that basically add up to denialist/conservative strategies to counter what scientists were concluding during those years. sonofgloin - you should save your outrage for the con-artists who are leading you and the rest of 'em by the nose. The contortions and spin are all theirs. Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:05:36 AM
| |
Qanda>>
• New commitments for Annex I Parties to the Kyoto Protocol who agreed to take on commitments in a second commitment period from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2020; • A revised list of greenhouse gases (GHG) to be reported on by Parties in the second commitment period; and • Amendments to several articles of the Kyoto Protocol which specifically referenced issues pertaining to the first commitment period and which needed to be updated for the second commitment period.<< Here is my Kyoto Q: • For and hitherto the party of the first part shall be called the party of the first part. The party of the second part shall be called the party of the second part or parts unknown. • The party of the third party shall not inhibit the girth of the party of the first part, or p[arts unknown, unless the party of the second part takes annual leave. • In the case of annual leave the party of the third part will inform the party of the fourth part that milk is delivered before 6am, excepting on the 30th of February every other emission. • All parties, excluding China who shall be known as the party of the greatest part will do what the U.N. say’s. Dribble is the issue qanda, lots of bureaucracy and canapés, but nothing at all effective given China is building two coal fire power stations a week. The only thing to come from Kyoto is to tax sovereign nations and control BILLIONS of dollars. You want to do something for the environment Q, get onto the campaign against the CSG travesty that is polluting our water tables and ruining productive land…that boogie man is closer to home and more immediate that the Kyoto Krap. http://coalseamgasnews.org/ Find a local CSG group, if you don’t have one, you will soon. Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:26:53 AM
| |
sonogloin,
Like I said, "we are the polluters". Look around your house and try and find something "not" made in China. Much of it will be superfluous crap...but it's what we demand - and it's what they give us - and it's "cheap". Cheap Chinese imports are helping to keep the battered US economy afloat. Consuming is what we're about. In order to combat pollution from "wherever it emanates in the first instance", we have to alter our pattern of voracious consumption. However, with acolytes like you guys here who wish to deny the problem even exists, what chance do we have or reestablishing a more balanced relationship with the environment. spindoc, You "haven't" "taken away the science". You're not interested in the scientific aspect of this debate - as per denialist strategy. You are interested in spinning (like its going out of fashion) in order to support the shenanigans that seek to stymie global policy to address global warming. Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:47:06 AM
| |
Oh spindoc, you also omit the text:
"Pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 7 and Article 20, paragraph 4, the amendment is subject to acceptance by Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. In accordance with Article 20, paragraph 4, the amendment will enter into force for those Parties having accepted it on the ninetieth day after the date of receipt by the Depositary of an instrument of acceptance by at least three fourths of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol." The Depository statement is dated the 11th Dec 2012, and it was agreed to on the 8th. It has been 67 days since Dec 11th, so the agreement will come into force in March. It doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it? "It has so far lapsed for 47 days, but will be officially extended on the 69th day. What do you say to that you sniveling believers? muhahahahahha" "Bucket of scrambled egg"? Mate, I think you are a bit invested in this skeptic thing. I like your stories, sometimes they are quite creative and I'm never quite sure if you totally believe them yourself, but you would be a fool if you did. Posted by Bugsy, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:48:40 AM
| |
Poirot>> Yes, it's all about linguistic spin, however, the alteration from one descriptor to another came from the conservative/skeptic camp - not from AGW proponents.<<
You have to look hard to see where the rhetoric from both sides of this argument originates. One factor that has me believing that the “conservatives” are behind the “climate control lobby” reflects in the first world press’ two decade campaign of brainwashing us about manmade climate change and our individual responsibility as consumers to wear the burden of compensation. Who "owns" the press? Who owns the legislators? Not the socialist left who are the backbone to the green movement. The only thing the infiltrated greens have achieved is a tax to placate their media indoctrinated guilt. The press do not report that a global manufacturer has just installed an emission capture system that barely meets legislated guidelines when a system that reduces emissions by half again is available, but at three times the cost. Have you ever read Silent Spring? That girl knew who the enemy was. Posted by sonofgloin, Saturday, 16 February 2013 10:50:16 AM
|
This is what you failed to mention so I’ll add it in to correct your censorship;
Doha Statement, 8 December 2012
Not yet in force: This amendment shall enter into force in accordance with Articles 20 and 21 of the Kyoto Protocol. (Article 20, paragraph 4, the amendment will enter into force for those Parties having accepted it, which are whom precisely?)
Status: Parties: 0
Opted out: USA, Canada, Russia, Japan, China, India, NZ, Belarus and Kazakhstan.
So who is in? (Who are the “parties having accepted it” under article 20?)
Qanda you say “Not only is Barry Spinks a “denier”, he is a complete fool. He can’t even do some basic fact checking (as Bugsy has done)”.
Oops! Fact checking anyone?
Yummy, can I just catch some of that bucket of scrambled egg dripping off your face?
The Kyoto Protocol states its own mechanisms are:
International Emissions Agreement on caps and trading
Clean Energy Development Mechanism (CDM)
Joint Implementation (JI)
There is no International Emissions Agreement on caps and no monitoring.
The Trading Market has collapsed
The clean energy industry has collapsed
There is no Joint Implementation because there are no international “joinee’s”)
Bugsy, “A lot of markets collapse for various reasons” Really, so glad you could get your head around that one. Not the point, it has collapsed.
Bugsy, “The multitude of FOI requests are mostly time wasting exercises” Now why didn’t I think of that? So there are a multitude of FOI requests and they are from other scientists. I must have missed that, why not? you did.
Bugsy, on the renewable energy market you say “Capital goes where it will get the best return” Yep, that’s what I said and because of that it has collapsed, we are in total agreement.
Homework for qanda/Poirot/Bugsy. “I must avoid name calling before I check my facts”
Sorry boys, very poor effort and definitely no bananas.
Like I said, once your “science” is taken away you’re thrashing.