The "Global Warming would be good for us" thread.

Clippo · 09-01-2007, 03:48 PM

Besoeker,
You seem to be falling into the trap that I did several months ago. i.e. arguing in a pure, scientific & rational way with a small bunch of … well ‘Dolts’ is the politest word I can think of at the moment.

Mpkdavies has regularly posted perverse controversial statements in threads on this topic – the cynic would suggest he must get a backhander based on the number of replies he generates. But no matter how many times his ideas are comprehensively squashed by the likes of you & me and others, he lets it die down again and then starts up another thread with a slight variation of the hoary old chestnuts in it. (It must be time for changing solar activity to be resurrected soon). Yet again, I could step-by-step refute his arguments in the first post of this thread but really I can’t be bothered anymore.

In an earlier thread I came to the conclusion that this GW debate mirrors very closely the Darwinian evolution debate of ca. 150yrs ago. When Darwin first announced it, most clear thinkers of the time immediately accepted it as the obvious answer to observed facts. So much so that TE Huxley, (I think), said ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ Of course ‘vested’ interests, (aka the church), immediately tried to ridicule Darwin’s ideas. The rest is history. Today, only a miniscule proportion of the worlds population believe in the ‘creationist’ theory of evolution.

So what have we today is a sound explanation for many of the observed facts of the 20th century climate changes, as first argued coherently by James Hansen to the US congress in ca 1988. The ‘vested interests’ then were the US oil corporations & big business plus some evangelical Christians. Gradually, as true scientists sought real data to confirm (or deny) the GW hypothesis, slowly but steadily the truth converted more & more scientists, then world politicians, then ordinary commonsense people to the ‘man-made caused GW by CO2 emissions’ view.

As with any advance in human understanding of the natural world, or even the human world, a few ‘dolts’ will be left behind. These ‘dolts’, whatever their opinions, have several characteristics in common – a) they are a very small minority against massive mainstream opinion, b) they see themselves almost romantically as the last warriors against a perceived world domination order & c) have almost a pathological inability to open their minds to any evidence which might threaten their isolated ideas, & d) seize upon any scrap of ‘evidence’, however ridiculous, & without any commonsense questioning on their part to shore up their perverse ideas.

In conclusion, the world’s view on GW moves on, - nothing they say here in this forum, or probably anywhere in the world, (especially the corridors of power where real practical decisions will be made to try to save the world), is of any importance.

I, for one, will now let these dolts stir in their own fantasies – I’ve wasted enough time on them.

mkpdavies · 09-01-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Mpkdavies has regularly posted perverse controversial statements in threads on this topic – the cynic would suggest he must get a backhander

Rumbled. I am sponsored by ESSO, BP, SHELL and THE DEVIL.

Rational isn't the word I would use to describe clippos rants.

Besoeker · 09-01-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

I love the way you write off thousands of scientists opinions, because they don't agree with your narrow view. That's the true definition of a fascist in my book.

Aren't you doing just that though?

Anyway, the link Clippo posted was an article written just two people - who were funded by Western Fuels Association.

mkpdavies · 09-01-2007, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Aren't you doing just that though?

Nope, they are entiled to their opinion and I am entitled to say I think thay are wrong and in many cases, relying on voodoo.

That doesn't mean I want them to shut up, that I think they are thick or can't work with numbers. As long as they are willing to accept there are two sides to this argument, then that's fair enough for me. If I saw a more balance approach in the media at large, I would be happier that people could come to a fair conclusion.

Some don't accpept this though. Some claim that there is a consensus of people who have the answer and the alternate argument is only given by bought offs, thickos and retards.

That's what I don't like. Clippo falls bang into that category.

Besoeker · 09-01-2007, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Quote:

Aren't you doing just that though?

Nope, they are entiled to their opinion and I am entitled to say I think thay are wrong and in many cases, relying on voodoo.

By rejecting their opinion, you also are writing off a huge body of scientific opinion. Thus, you are doing just what you accuse Clippo of doing.

As I said earlier, I can't claim to know what the human influence, if any, is on global warming. But I wouldn't discount it.
I'd be happy to discuss this further in a civilised manner should you wish to do so.

But labelling those who have a different opinion to yours as envirofascists or voodists isn't the way to do it. Being gratuitously confrontational rather detracts from the credibility of your posts.

John Carter · 10-01-2007, 07:17 AM

13. Bikinis.

mkpdavies · 10-01-2007, 09:47 AM

Quote:

By rejecting their opinion, you also are writing off a huge body of scientific opinion. Thus, you are doing just what you accuse Clippo of doing.

How can one man be so wrong on so many occasions?

I'm doing the exact opposite of what clippo is. I am opening up the debate and questioning a so called consenus view, clippo is trying to close it down.

Quote:

By rejecting their opinion, you also are writing off a huge body of scientific opinion. Thus, you are doing just what you accuse Clippo of doing.

It's my opinion that they are what I say they are. His opinion is that anyone questioning this baloney is mad, thick or paid off. That's fine, but it won't shut me up. You trying to use PC against me won't either.

I stand by the claim that there are envirofascists who are using voodoo to try to excert their will on others.

Oh and a few trolls who just like a rumble.

John Carter · 10-01-2007, 09:59 AM

I still find it to be a remarkable coincidence that the cure for global warming is to ban everything which the left has always hated.

mkpdavies · 10-01-2007, 10:03 AM

And that only acting as one big global community, enforced by a strong centre demanding the serfs/proles do as they say.

Only then will any kind of dent be made in man made co2 and the fact is, it will be so minute and insignificant, even if you made everyone live in caves, stop using electricity and killed half the worlds population.

paullotion · 10-01-2007, 01:47 PM

Its all about control,remember when the loony greens went on about the rainforest saying that we were cutting down the size of Wales everyday,when you did the maths on it,the rainforest should have been destroyed years ago.

Another one was,they said in 1972 that all oil reserves in the North Sea would disappear by 1994.

Or after every oil leak how it would take a 100 years for the wildlife to return,well at least they are consistent on being wrong.

10-01-2007, 10:03 AM	#29 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	And that only acting as one big global community, enforced by a strong centre demanding the serfs/proles do as they say. Only then will any kind of dent be made in man made co2 and the fact is, it will be so minute and insignificant, even if you made everyone live in caves, stop using electricity and killed half the worlds population. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-01-2007, 03:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,776	Besoeker, You seem to be falling into the trap that I did several months ago. i.e. arguing in a pure, scientific & rational way with a small bunch of … well ‘Dolts’ is the politest word I can think of at the moment. Mpkdavies has regularly posted perverse controversial statements in threads on this topic – the cynic would suggest he must get a backhander based on the number of replies he generates. But no matter how many times his ideas are comprehensively squashed by the likes of you & me and others, he lets it die down again and then starts up another thread with a slight variation of the hoary old chestnuts in it. (It must be time for changing solar activity to be resurrected soon). Yet again, I could step-by-step refute his arguments in the first post of this thread but really I can’t be bothered anymore. In an earlier thread I came to the conclusion that this GW debate mirrors very closely the Darwinian evolution debate of ca. 150yrs ago. When Darwin first announced it, most clear thinkers of the time immediately accepted it as the obvious answer to observed facts. So much so that TE Huxley, (I think), said ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’ Of course ‘vested’ interests, (aka the church), immediately tried to ridicule Darwin’s ideas. The rest is history. Today, only a miniscule proportion of the worlds population believe in the ‘creationist’ theory of evolution. So what have we today is a sound explanation for many of the observed facts of the 20th century climate changes, as first argued coherently by James Hansen to the US congress in ca 1988. The ‘vested interests’ then were the US oil corporations & big business plus some evangelical Christians. Gradually, as true scientists sought real data to confirm (or deny) the GW hypothesis, slowly but steadily the truth converted more & more scientists, then world politicians, then ordinary commonsense people to the ‘man-made caused GW by CO2 emissions’ view. As with any advance in human understanding of the natural world, or even the human world, a few ‘dolts’ will be left behind. These ‘dolts’, whatever their opinions, have several characteristics in common – a) they are a very small minority against massive mainstream opinion, b) they see themselves almost romantically as the last warriors against a perceived world domination order & c) have almost a pathological inability to open their minds to any evidence which might threaten their isolated ideas, & d) seize upon any scrap of ‘evidence’, however ridiculous, & without any commonsense questioning on their part to shore up their perverse ideas. In conclusion, the world’s view on GW moves on, - nothing they say here in this forum, or probably anywhere in the world, (especially the corridors of power where real practical decisions will be made to try to save the world), is of any importance. I, for one, will now let these dolts stir in their own fantasies – I’ve wasted enough time on them.

10-01-2007, 07:17 AM	#26 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	13. Bikinis.

10-01-2007, 09:59 AM	#28 (permalink)
John Carter Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: On Sabbatical Posts: 5,110	I still find it to be a remarkable coincidence that the cure for global warming is to ban everything which the left has always hated.

10-01-2007, 01:47 PM	#30 (permalink)
paullotion Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 317	Its all about control,remember when the loony greens went on about the rainforest saying that we were cutting down the size of Wales everyday,when you did the maths on it,the rainforest should have been destroyed years ago. Another one was,they said in 1972 that all oil reserves in the North Sea would disappear by 1994. Or after every oil leak how it would take a 100 years for the wildlife to return,well at least they are consistent on being wrong.