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

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

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.

Your comment at the very start of this thread:

Even though the planet has changed temperatures throught history and humans have efficively sod all effect on that

is not questioning any other views. It is a categorical statement that excludes any other possibility. It is a closed statement. It is what you say IS the case. It does not invite discussion.

Those who see it differently, or even just question it, are variously referred to by you as envirofascists, voodooists, neo-religious followers, religious fanatics, cultists, witchdoctors, mugs, dingbats, fear mongerers, and gullible sheeple suffering from hysteria and blind faith.

I could sum that up as:
"I'm right and anyone who doesn't agree must be wrong, stupid, brainwashed, or a fascist."

It isn't a very good basis for having an open and civilised discussion.

[mkpdavies]

Well that's your opinion and you are entiltled to it.

My mind is made up at the moment, I don't deny it. I am ready and willing to be convinced by some new evidence though.

Bottom line is my position doesn't ask people to give up anything for a maybe.

The envirofascists position is I should give up various things for a maybe, a highly dubious maybe in my book, while a lot of them continue doing the things they tell me are so bad.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

Well that's your opinion and you are entiltled to it.

My mind is made up at the moment, I don't deny it. I am ready and willing to be convinced by some new evidence though.

Bottom line is my position doesn't ask people to give up anything for a maybe.

The envirofascists position is I should give up various things for a maybe, a highly dubious maybe in my book, while a lot of them continue doing the things they tell me are so bad.

Go in peace.

[Clippo]

I've already posted these links in 'Step-outside' sub-forum but just in case some of you here haven't seen them, here they are again :-

http://www.ucsusa.org/

and read:-

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...xon_report.pdf

Lots of other 'factual' unbiased stuff about GW and other topics. Only criticism I have of it is that it is 'USA', but since the US is responsible for ca 25% of the world's GW problem, I can live with that criticism and take note of their suggested solutions.

[mkpdavies]

Lots of other 'factual' unbiased

Anyone who goes to that site and comes away saying it is "unbiased" has done all the work for me.

I need say nothing more.

[mkpdavies]

Let's take a look at Wiki to see how unbiased this lot really are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_o...ned_Scientists

Critics have called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group.[10] UCS received an "Ideological Spectrum Rating" of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center.[11] Activistcash.com states that the UCS "embraces an environmental agenda" and "politicizes science" itself.[12]

What a suprise, a left vs right BIAS. Your full on hippies, commies and Collectivists on the left, right over to your capatalists, corporation lovers and indivualists on the right.


Unbiased indeed.

[Clippo]

Being selective again mpkdavies,

from the wiki reference, why didn't you quote the whole 2 paragraphs of the UCS criticisms as I am about to do:-

Critics have called the UCS an "unlabeled left-wing activist" group.[10] UCS received an "Ideological Spectrum Rating" of "1" (Radical Left) from the Capital Research Center.[11] Activistcash.com states that the UCS "embraces an environmental agenda" and "politicizes science" itself.[12]

Critics of the Capital Research Center and Activistcash.com claim that these two groups have their own biases because they are run by conservatives [13]. Additionally, Capital Research Center does not explain the criteria used to determine an ideological rating, and Activistcash.com does not cite references in its article on the UCS.

Why also didn't you quote:

In 1997, the UCS circulated a petition entitled "A Call to Action". The petition called for the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was signed by 110 Nobel Prize laureates, including 104 Nobel Prize-winning scientists.
&
On December 11, 2006, the UCS issued a statement signed by 10,600 Nobel laureates and other leading scientists. The statement calls for the restoration of scientific integrity to federal policy-making. The announcement came as the group released an "A to Z" guide that documents suspected censorship and political interference in federal science.

& numerous others. Ah I know, they're all part of the 'plot' to rule mankind'

And finally, from:-

From http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/

What began as a collaboration between students and faculty members at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969 is now an alliance of more than 200,000 citizens and scientists.

[g hall]

Clippo points towards UCS an extract from their mission(god knows I hate people who have a mission statement how 80's and psuedo is that)

We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war,

So no prejudgement thier then absolutely no bias whatever and Camera-on is a Eurosceptic and Blair never lies.

The problem is scienticts have always had opposing views and it suits politicians to exploit this (like anything but especially now) for reasons of power or tax

[Clippo]

So, g hall,

What sort of future do you strive for then?

Based on your disdain for UCS' mission, would that include GW & nuclear war threats Eh ?

[John Carter]

I strive for a future with more bikinis.