*headdesk*
Climate change deniers:
No, really. I've gotten horribly addicted to the ABC comment forums, and am constantly amused by the ABSOLUTE AND UTTER BULLSHIT these people sprout on occasion. I swear, the whole thing is peopled by those Citizen's Electoral Council nutjobs. You know, the ones who believe global warming isn't happening because "coal 14" has been found in coal so therefore its only 4000 years old and therefore global warming doesn't exist because... I'm not really sure why - although, what the fuck coal 14 is, I don't know. Maybe they got confused about carbon 14. Which is still a load of crap, cause all those studies were discredited.
Anyway, here's some of my favourite responses to a fairly well balanced critique of the climate change deniers arguments by David Karoly in Unleashed:
Binko : Karoly has engaged in blatant cherry picking himself and a few outright furphies. The climate scientists, for the most part, are unknown scientists from minor universities. This field is an intellectual backwater that rarely attracts outstanding scientists.
Based, one assumes, on his extensive survey of every climate scientist in the world.
yen : Can the computer models 'predict' the warming and cooling in recorded history?
- i e the warm bronze age and cold iron age. ...
- the vikings' cattle farming climate in Greenland. ...
etc.
Um, they don't need to predict them, THEY'VE HAPPENED. Also, what? Cattle farming with the who now? Um, I'm assuming they're referring to the mini-Ice Age - which contradicts the denialists arguments of a medieval Warm Period, so probably NOT the best one to be trotting out!
In response to an "adapting to a changing world" comment: Adaptation!!! WTF to? Are we adapting to what you are forcing us to believe in, demanding very, very aggressively (kerry O'Brien to Nelson on the 7.30 report Friday night) that we who don't believe toe the line?
Then this bomb: [from a previous comment] "It is has always been easier and expedient to debunk a theory proposing a shakeup of the status quo than to accept or embrace the need for adaptation. Fortunately, human history has usually demonstrated very clearly the foolishness and destructiveness of this sort of attitude.
If we wish to continue on an unsustainable path then we should be prepared to accept its finite nature and not complain when it becomes uncomfortable."
Have you ever heard of eugenics and the fervent believers in its racial purity in the early 19C (including Churchill) so fervently believed that it's claimed Hitler too used it as a reason for his final solution against the Jews. Do you know the hell that was wreaked on the earth last century and was proven to be so patently ill founded that those who were absolutely sure in its truth are today accused of contributing to waves of genocide as yet unseen in the history of man? Do you see how dangerous you people are?
It is much harder to debunk a theory not easier...why, because believers call them heathens (or deniers) if they don't toe the line and...well, believe! I'm still asking "what the hell are we adapting to?!?!?!
"Fortunately, human history has usually demonstrated very clearly the foolishness and destructiveness of this sort of attitude".
I bring you back again to eugenics you scoundrel and the blind belief that created its religious destructiveness of billions of people. And while I am here can you please provide some examples, instead of this usual wishy washy lines you bring up???
Enough I give up i've had it with this rubbish religion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! (this is all I can come up with for this because, well …. HAHAHAHAHAHA!). This has got to be CEC!
GB (who is my favourite of all the nutters): Far far away from the sun is a moon of Jupiter called IO. Io has constantly active volcanoes which Karoly's [EDIT: read, the IPCC's many, MANY modelling systems] model doesn't explain. IO has a fellow moon called Europa. Europa has liquid water that Karoly's model could not account for. These standard glib arguments that Karoly has listed here aren't going to fly. One by one we will rip them apart and only the moderaters will be able to do a damn thing about it.
Uh, what?
And finally this gem from GB in response to this:
May I say thank you. It pisses me off when non-scientists try to tell you that all these scientists are wrong, and tell you that there is two sides to the debate or that there is a debate in the first place.
ID vs Evolution is one of those. Or should I say mythology vs scientific theory?
GB's intelligent and clever response (and I kid you not, this is it in it's entirety: Just get some evidence CO2-bedwetter.
Classy.
Seriously, these are the sort of people who believe 1421: The Year China Discovered the World is a real book based on actual evidence. Or that The Da Vinci Code was non-fiction. Point and laugh at them, people, point and laugh.
No, really. I've gotten horribly addicted to the ABC comment forums, and am constantly amused by the ABSOLUTE AND UTTER BULLSHIT these people sprout on occasion. I swear, the whole thing is peopled by those Citizen's Electoral Council nutjobs. You know, the ones who believe global warming isn't happening because "coal 14" has been found in coal so therefore its only 4000 years old and therefore global warming doesn't exist because... I'm not really sure why - although, what the fuck coal 14 is, I don't know. Maybe they got confused about carbon 14. Which is still a load of crap, cause all those studies were discredited.
Anyway, here's some of my favourite responses to a fairly well balanced critique of the climate change deniers arguments by David Karoly in Unleashed:
Binko : Karoly has engaged in blatant cherry picking himself and a few outright furphies. The climate scientists, for the most part, are unknown scientists from minor universities. This field is an intellectual backwater that rarely attracts outstanding scientists.
Based, one assumes, on his extensive survey of every climate scientist in the world.
yen : Can the computer models 'predict' the warming and cooling in recorded history?
- i e the warm bronze age and cold iron age. ...
- the vikings' cattle farming climate in Greenland. ...
etc.
Um, they don't need to predict them, THEY'VE HAPPENED. Also, what? Cattle farming with the who now? Um, I'm assuming they're referring to the mini-Ice Age - which contradicts the denialists arguments of a medieval Warm Period, so probably NOT the best one to be trotting out!
In response to an "adapting to a changing world" comment: Adaptation!!! WTF to? Are we adapting to what you are forcing us to believe in, demanding very, very aggressively (kerry O'Brien to Nelson on the 7.30 report Friday night) that we who don't believe toe the line?
Then this bomb: [from a previous comment] "It is has always been easier and expedient to debunk a theory proposing a shakeup of the status quo than to accept or embrace the need for adaptation. Fortunately, human history has usually demonstrated very clearly the foolishness and destructiveness of this sort of attitude.
If we wish to continue on an unsustainable path then we should be prepared to accept its finite nature and not complain when it becomes uncomfortable."
Have you ever heard of eugenics and the fervent believers in its racial purity in the early 19C (including Churchill) so fervently believed that it's claimed Hitler too used it as a reason for his final solution against the Jews. Do you know the hell that was wreaked on the earth last century and was proven to be so patently ill founded that those who were absolutely sure in its truth are today accused of contributing to waves of genocide as yet unseen in the history of man? Do you see how dangerous you people are?
It is much harder to debunk a theory not easier...why, because believers call them heathens (or deniers) if they don't toe the line and...well, believe! I'm still asking "what the hell are we adapting to?!?!?!
"Fortunately, human history has usually demonstrated very clearly the foolishness and destructiveness of this sort of attitude".
I bring you back again to eugenics you scoundrel and the blind belief that created its religious destructiveness of billions of people. And while I am here can you please provide some examples, instead of this usual wishy washy lines you bring up???
Enough I give up i've had it with this rubbish religion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! (this is all I can come up with for this because, well …. HAHAHAHAHAHA!). This has got to be CEC!
GB (who is my favourite of all the nutters): Far far away from the sun is a moon of Jupiter called IO. Io has constantly active volcanoes which Karoly's [EDIT: read, the IPCC's many, MANY modelling systems] model doesn't explain. IO has a fellow moon called Europa. Europa has liquid water that Karoly's model could not account for. These standard glib arguments that Karoly has listed here aren't going to fly. One by one we will rip them apart and only the moderaters will be able to do a damn thing about it.
Uh, what?
And finally this gem from GB in response to this:
May I say thank you. It pisses me off when non-scientists try to tell you that all these scientists are wrong, and tell you that there is two sides to the debate or that there is a debate in the first place.
ID vs Evolution is one of those. Or should I say mythology vs scientific theory?
GB's intelligent and clever response (and I kid you not, this is it in it's entirety: Just get some evidence CO2-bedwetter.
Classy.
Seriously, these are the sort of people who believe 1421: The Year China Discovered the World is a real book based on actual evidence. Or that The Da Vinci Code was non-fiction. Point and laugh at them, people, point and laugh.