|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 8, 2009 4:33:29 GMT
I said: “Perhaps you don’t find statistical gaffes and misleads on warmista blogs, because you are a committed, faithful warmista. You don’t want to see the flaws in your thing. The hysterical catastrophic AGW story does not have to be true. Stopping the burning of fossil fuels is just the right thing to do for the Earth and for future generations of all Earth’s critters, particularly the polar bears. You occupy the moral high ground. It is your mission to descend on little skeptic blogs with your mighty sword of truth to defend the faith. We get it.”
soclod: “You should really abandon this line of topic because there is an easily demonstrated noise and cherrypicking style present on skeptic blogs. I guess when you have to churn out a dozen or more stories a week you tend to have to reach for the bottom of the barrel a bit.
No, I won’t abandon that line of topic. I think it is great that a few websites that display an unapologetic anti-warmista bias exist. Just as you are delighted that surrealclimate et al, the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, NYT, LAT, and the rest of the alphabet soup of unconscionably biased warmista suck-up media exist. The commercial and publicly funded mass media are supposed to tell it to us straight. They are the @$#%^&* claiming to be professional journalists, with “standards”. But you whine, pregnant dog (LOL!) and moan about some guy working out of his kitchen, exercising his right to free speech. You can’t take the heat. Your team is losing and you are being beaten by a bunch of little guys with low-budget, and no-budget websites. You chicken littles are not going to succeed in ramming your goofy destructive agenda down our throats. Your feckless pol allies don’t have the guts to go against the rising tide of a skeptical public that just ain’t scared by a boogeyman that is already running thirty years late. Where's the beef, soclod?
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jun 8, 2009 15:45:01 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 8, 2009 16:15:32 GMT
Thanks for this link, Dopey.
I phoned the office of a senator I went to college with to make sure they knew about it. Her staff informed me that they knew about it and that the senator has yet to take a position on it. I sent a letter, and will also post about Chad's wrongheaded decision in the next few days. I would like to know, for one thing, what the government was promised in return for its dangerous new policy.
For my money, this is one of the most telling examples of eco-imperialism to date.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 8, 2009 17:27:54 GMT
Now this one I don't get:
woodstove: "I phoned the office of a senator I went to college with to make sure they knew about it. Her staff informed me that they knew about it and that the senator has yet to take a position on it. I sent a letter, and will also post about Chad's wrongheaded decision in the next few days. I would like to know, for one thing, what the government was promised in return for its dangerous new policy.
For my money, this is one of the most telling examples of eco-imperialism to date."
I don't see a real significant role here for the warmista crowd. It seems to be more of a legitimate local issue dealt with in a stupid draconian way by a typically inept African government. They really do need to do something about burning up all their trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 8, 2009 18:14:41 GMT
Now this one I don't get: woodstove: "I phoned the office of a senator I went to college with to make sure they knew about it. Her staff informed me that they knew about it and that the senator has yet to take a position on it. I sent a letter, and will also post about Chad's wrongheaded decision in the next few days. I would like to know, for one thing, what the government was promised in return for its dangerous new policy. For my money, this is one of the most telling examples of eco-imperialism to date." I don't see a real significant role here for the warmista crowd. It seems to be more of a legitimate local issue dealt with in a stupid draconian way by a typically inept African government. They really do need to do something about burning up all their trees. (1) Deforestation is part of normal economic development. I guarantee you that your forebears practiced it -- wherever you may be from (2) Global-warming induced desertification is illusory. When the planet warms, humidity and precipitation both increase and deserts shrink. Period. Deserts grow rapidly during ice ages. (3) You appear to be incorrect that rich environmentalists had nothing to do with this policy: marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/03/11/pm_charcoal_climate_change/ A quote from the linked article: But charcoal's production is unsustainable. Brad Smith is with Greenpeace.
BRAD SMITH: Originally there were about 7 million square kilometers of forest in Africa. And about a third of that is gone already.
A lot of it was used to make charcoal, according to the United Nations. Smith says the implications are huge.
SMITH: Scientists are now in agreement globally that about one-fifth of all greenhouse gas emissions actually come from tropical forest deforestation. We really will not be able to get control of climate change unless we can address tropical deforestation. Aggressive, paternalistic, ill-informed, wrongheaded ... Greenpeace in Africa. So, I do not share your view that environmentalists have nothing to do with the Chadian government's decision. I warrant that there was a quid-pro-quo. We shall see. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 8, 2009 18:25:34 GMT
I said: “Perhaps you don’t find statistical gaffes and misleads on warmista blogs, because you are a committed, faithful warmista. You don’t want to see the flaws in your thing. The hysterical catastrophic AGW story does not have to be true. Stopping the burning of fossil fuels is just the right thing to do for the Earth and for future generations of all Earth’s critters, particularly the polar bears. You occupy the moral high ground. It is your mission to descend on little skeptic blogs with your mighty sword of truth to defend the faith. We get it.” soclod: “You should really abandon this line of topic because there is an easily demonstrated noise and cherrypicking style present on skeptic blogs. I guess when you have to churn out a dozen or more stories a week you tend to have to reach for the bottom of the barrel a bit. No, I won’t abandon that line of topic. I think it is great that a few websites that display an unapologetic anti-warmista bias exist. Just as you are delighted that surrealclimate et al, the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, NYT, LAT, and the rest of the alphabet soup of unconscionably biased warmista suck-up media exist. The commercial and publicly funded mass media are supposed to tell it to us straight. They are the @$#%^&* claiming to be professional journalists, with “standards”. But you whine, pregnant dog (LOL!) and moan about some guy working out of his kitchen, exercising his right to free speech. You can’t take the heat. Your team is losing and you are being beaten by a bunch of little guys with low-budget, and no-budget websites. You chicken littles are not going to succeed in ramming your goofy destructive agenda down our throats. Your feckless pol allies don’t have the guts to go against the rising tide of a skeptical public that just ain’t scared by a boogeyman that is already running thirty years late. Where's the beef, soclod? Throwing a tantrum won't alter the fact that skeptic blogs are hypocritcally full of the same bias and selective reporting that they accuse the MSM of. In fact I think blogs like WUWT do a much larger job of selective bias than the media every could. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 8, 2009 19:06:17 GMT
woodstove: "So, I do not share your view that environmentalists have nothing to do with the Chadian government's decision. I warrant that there was a quid-pro-quo."
OK. When you find out what the quid was, let me know. Or is it the quo that we are missing?
I live in the U.S. and deforestation, then re-forestation was a part of our economic development. But we started out with a lot of trees and relatively few people and we soon moved on to coal, oil, and gas. I don't see a parallel situation with deforestation, along with the lack of economic development, in Chad. Green Peace can be wrong about most things but right about one or two. We are talking about the current situation in Chad, not North America in the 1600's, and if those people keep burning up trees at the rate they have been burning them up, the trees will be gone. Do you see any possible adverse effects on economic development if that happens?
I generally like your work, but I think you are over-reaching here. In the grand scheme of things, charcoal in Chad is not our problem. It's local. More than anything else, they need a legitimate government.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 8, 2009 19:13:55 GMT
Did I hurt your feelings soclod? Look, WUMT and other skeptic blogs afford the hypocritical self-righteous warmista faithful, like yourself, an opportunity to express your disagreement.
The so-called mainstream media is a monolithic shameless tool of the hysterical catastrophic AGW crowd. All the power of a near monopoly on the means of communication, many $$BILLION$$ in government funding, ignorant warmista Hollywood celebrities private-jetting about spreading condescending BS, nearly all politicians cowered into playing along with the game, yet you clowns are still getting your hind ends kicked up between your ears by a few guys working in their spare time on little fly-by-night blogs. It is easy to see why you are so upset, soclod.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 8, 2009 19:30:58 GMT
woodstove: "So, I do not share your view that environmentalists have nothing to do with the Chadian government's decision. I warrant that there was a quid-pro-quo." OK. When you find out what the quid was, let me know. Or is it the quo that we are missing? I live in the U.S. and deforestation, then re-forestation was a part of our economic development. But we started out with a lot of trees and relatively few people and we soon moved on to coal, oil, and gas. I don't see a parallel situation with deforestation, along with the lack of economic development, in Chad. Green Peace can be wrong about most things but right about one or two. We are talking about the current situation in Chad, not North America in the 1600's, and if those people keep burning up trees at the rate they have been burning them up, the trees will be gone. Do you see any possible adverse effects on economic development if that happens? I generally like your work, but I think you are over-reaching here. In the grand scheme of things, charcoal in Chad is not our problem. It's local. More than anything else, they need a legitimate government. The line "if those people keep burning up trees at the rate they have been" -- I'm sorry -- strikes me as paternalistic and in keeping with Greenpeace's efforts in Chad. You are not trying to feed your children (or elderly relatives) in Chad. Those who are report that the prohibition on charcoal has made life unbearably difficult. When people living in air-conditioned homes with TV, the Internet, refrigerated food, etc., on a continent that was pretty thoroughly deforested as you allow, talk about "those people" and what they're doing wrong, I find it difficult to accept. Greenpeace could not be any more misguided about African development, btw. It is in the tank for "sustainable development" on the continent -- no conventional power plants, no modern agriculture, etc. Again, armchair stewardship of that kind is best known by its proper name: colonialism. If you like the idea of going up to a poor Chadian woman and removing the charcoal from her hands as she tries to light a cooking fire, you might want to think about it for another minute. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 8, 2009 19:52:05 GMT
woodstove:"The line "if those people keep burning up trees at the rate they have been" -- I'm sorry -- strikes me as paternalistic and in keeping with Greenpeace's efforts in Chad."
You are getting blindly hysterical, just like the self-righteous dogmatic warmistas. Don't equate me with Greenpeace. I am not compelling or even asking them to stop burning up their #@%^&*# trees. I really could care less. I was merely making an observation. I also said their government's action was draconion and wrong. Their problem is not Greenpeace, it's their @#$#%^& government. If they don't have the guts to change it, that's on them.
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jun 9, 2009 16:57:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 9, 2009 17:50:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jun 9, 2009 21:02:05 GMT
On the pipeline in Chad.
The fact that a corrupt, statist government will plunder and steal money loaned to it by a clueless statist International organization like the World Bank and then turn around and curry international favor by banning charcoal is not a surprise. I didn't even need to read Ayn Rand to know that.
Or are you trying to blame the whole thing on agw. Oil caused this by needing to go through a pipeline and since oil causes gw it is guilt by association. Only statist polititians, scientists and bloggers can spin that story.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 9, 2009 22:12:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Jun 9, 2009 22:42:39 GMT
Give Steve a Klond**e bar for posting that one!
Quote:
Climate Depot Editor's Note:
The Talking Points Memo appeal to execute skeptics is not unique. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory and environmental activists are growing increasingly desperate. Looming Question: If the promoters of man-made climate fears truly believed the "debate is over" and the science is "settled", why is there such a strong impulse to shut down debate and threaten those who disagree?
-------------------------
edit:
Why did the forum change the name of a popular ice cream treat with **?
|
|
