Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View This Cant Be Good for the Greens and AGW
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 10:34PM #1
TENAC
Posts: 27,349
You would think all of these recanters would begin to have an effect on the new socialism.  They are going to fight their right to have global warming, real or not.


The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria

Any man can count the seeds in an apple....
.......but only God can count the apples in the seeds.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 10:52PM #2
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

It's funny that the right wing propaganda machine only now exploits Lovelock.


The man is a pessimist, and he projects his own disappointed naivity on the whole green movement - obviously mistaking his own former position for theirs.


In one word: irrelevant like yesterday's snow.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 10:55PM #3
Bodean
Posts: 9,710

Dang TENAC ... that's really old news!  But good news none the less.


But now, what is appearing to be "good for the greens" is this


wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/12/from-rio-...


"The UN’s international NGO allies [G+20] want to expand previous calls for a “green economy,” by including new demands for “resource justice” and new mechanisms to ensure “contraction and convergence for over- and under-consumers of natural resources.”


"The international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also advocate making national environmental policies subject to “international legal frameworks and regulations,” and “strengthening international environmental governance … within the institutional framework of sustainable development.” That would make national sovereignty “the most endangered species in Rio,” CFACT president David Rothbard stated"


"The document also seeks to impose staggering financial burdens on people in developed nations. It would give the UN 0.7% of a nation’s gross domestic product – some $1,325 per year for an American family of four. A Canadian family would pay $1,211, while their counterparts would be taxed $1,206 in Germany and $1,171 in Japan. Norwegian families would take dubious first place honors, paying a whopping $2,445 every year. Other countries’ obligations, based on World Bank 2010 data, can be found on CFACT.tv" .....


.... and the list goes on and on.


Stated in the Follow up .....


"Our U.S. lead negotiator said, in the waning moments of the plenary, that sustainable development is the only type of development “possible” in the 21st century.  He said that Secretary Clinton and President Obama have made sustainable development an essential part of our foreign policy and national security."


 


Pretty Sad .. that we have a bunch of people who live in the US who will actually applaud this crap. ... and as both you and I know, it is all based on lies, and Elegantly Worded in a Response to Dr. Paul Bain labelling every person who disagrees with CAGW a "Denier" in a peer reviewed Journal "Nature".


wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/a-respons...


"The actual scientific question has long since been co-opted by the social and political one. The real reason you used the term is revealed even in your response — we all “should” be doing this and that whether or not there is a real risk of “catastrophe”. In particular, we “should” be using less fossil fuel, working to preserve the environment, and so on."


If any of the "bone heads" around here want to read the real "skeptic position" as opposed to the agenda driven drivel put out by rediculous sites such as skepticalscience .... please click on the last link.  It is eloquent, concise, and TRUE.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 11:01PM #4
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

There is one true sentence in your post, Bo. Kudos!


Jun 22, 2012 -- 10:55PM, Bodean wrote:


"The actual scientific question has long since been co-opted by the social and political one."



Yep. The regressive right-wingers are afraid of commie leftist government measures - like count Dracula fears garlic - and therefore thwart any sensible, scientific energy policy.


Hear TENAC's new hero: "I personally can’t stand windmills at any price."

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 10:56AM #5
Bodean
Posts: 9,710

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:01PM, CharikIeia wrote:


There is one true sentence in your post, Bo. Kudos!


Jun 22, 2012 -- 10:55PM, Bodean wrote:


"The actual scientific question has long since been co-opted by the social and political one."



Yep. The regressive right-wingers are afraid of commie leftist government measures - like count Dracula fears garlic - and therefore thwart any sensible, scientific energy policy.


Hear TENAC's new hero: "I personally can’t stand windmills at any price."





Actually .. there are ton of true sentences in my post.


The Final Draft of the G+20 is purely a Green Initiative.


ALL of the "quotes" are from the sources, and are thus also true. .. like it is true, the G+20 want to create an international govening body on the world economy, .... and they want to redistribute the wealth with a 0.7% tax of GDP.


Dr. Paul Bain did bring the emotially charged label of "denier" to a peer reveiwed journal. [I'd say reputable journal, but Nature has proven itself anything but, and the mere fact they published such poltically charged rubbish is just further proof].


Dr. Robert Brown did respond, and his "quote" is the only one that you agree is true, but in complete opposition to his context.  SO .. in your mind, his quote is not true either.


.... and I'll bet this next sentence is "true" as well.  ... I bet you didn't read Robert Brown's response to Bain ....


But that's ok .. we all know how this game is played.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 3:27PM #6
catboxer
Posts: 14,012

So did you guys read the part that said "Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions..."?


Adepto vestri stercore simul.ttr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 5:08PM #7
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

I did see that Cat, and the best news is that we have time, time to build nuclear plants, and increase the efficiency of solar (or even truly develop solar from space, where it will probably end up anyway). The professor simply hits it on the head, that too many "scientists" make money from the govt by advocating hysteria (maybe so much so that they actually believe what they say, at least I hope so, because the alternative is that they are even more corrupt than I believe they are).



Like most who hold up the world is ending tomorrow signs, they are wholly wrong.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 23, 2012 - 5:59PM #8
Armwar
Posts: 12,019

too silly for me to comment upon, other than this...

Quick Reply
Cancel
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook