The ethical question no climate denier will answer

I've never gone running to moderation. Call me a liar and I may change that!

"10 years after that there were 0." you left out "in the US". If DDT was banned, to whom did the Indonesian manufacturer sell its product until 2009. To whom is the India or Chinese company selling it's product today?

It's time you and other the anti-environmentalists stopped re-writing history.

 

I've never met an 'anti environmentalist' but given the demonstrable falsehoods and manifestly anti human agendas modern environmentalists currently embrace I suspect I'm rapidly becoming one !

But I didnt ask you for that did I ?

So by accepting what environmentalists actually say in thier own words I'm 'confirming my bias' ..... really ??

Prove it ? Your continued defence of the indefensible is illuminating to say the least ! Most would have stopped digging by now

 

Oh now you are back tracking. No one ever said world wide ban. It was a 1972 US law that essentially shut down US production and punished nations that used DDT through restriction on US aid. That is banning through regulation. That is a ban. The law has long recognized such regulations amounting to a ban. See numerous SCOTUS decisions such as Heller.

 

You really should read the thread before you post.

 

That's all your getting from me.

So out of context quotes are in their own words but words on the environmentalist websites don't count. Got it!

And I really am done here. Some day you'll learn the skill of thinking critically and you'll see what liars anti-environmentalists are.

 

I said so in the sense that there was no worldwide act. It was a US act that amounted to a worldwide ban.

 

Anti environmentalists ? You mean people who ask questions and dont just blindly follow the piper ? People who call out your own priests on thier anti human statements ? Those kind of anti environmentalists you mean ?

I'm more than happy to be counted within thier number frankly . As soon as the environmental movement became far more concerned with being anti human than pro Earth I tuned out and so I'll wager did many other thinking individuals.

 

I gave you the source. The climategate e-mails and gave you the initials of who authored the e-mail to test you.

You claimed "I have actually read the emails in context, understood the context, and seen the actual scientific papers that followed from them."

If this were true then how would not know who KB is?

 

When did it become ethical to trample rights because of a flawed computer projection produced by government funded scientists? The latest IPCC report is a perfect example of this. The first published part addresses "policy makers". The science comes later but one thing missing from this recent published report that was in all the last ones was CO2 sensitivity. They have no "consensus" on CO2 sensitivity since their last "projections" were flawed. The latest report waves a hand at the last 15 years of no appreciable warming by saying it is insignificant after prominent IPCC scientist said if it lasted 15 years they would be in trouble. Now it is 30 years. They increase the probability of man made warming from 90% to 95% based on a narrow temperature range and no real recorded or scientific justification for the 95% figure other than a bunch of them sitting around and saying, "I think it is 95%". They would get 99% if they widened the temperature increase from 0 to 6 degrees. Zero being the statistical increase we have seen the last 15 years. In other words, they really don't know what will happen and have proved that but need to show progress for their funding governments.

It reminds me of the Nazi generals during WWII. Asked why they supported Hitler even when they did not agree with him and the reason was that during the previous administration they rarely got promotions but Hitler made their careers. Same thing is happening with the IPCC.

Anyone, and sure there are some crackpots but also some very legit scientists, that question the IPCC reports are labeled as heretics or "deniers". That is a spurious method used to dismiss those not politically correct in the field.

 

Science should by its very definition be skeptical. Denial of skepticism is a denial of science in favour of theology.

Just out of curiosity though how does anyone 'deny climate' ?

 

By definition it IS. Until you find scientists who decide that they need to be advocates because they can't use the science to prove things in quite the way they had hoped.

Stephen Schneider seems to have laid out the position for the forthcoming scare mongering a long time ago.

So my question is how many scary and simplified and dramatic statements have been created by those who have also decided that the "science is settled"? Itself a give away for this Stephen-esque attitude.

 

You never have certainty, so honest advocacy simply requires the preponderance of the evidence and that evidence shows AGW to be an overwhelming reality.

Also the ethical question is a good one. The denialist is insuring downstream destruction. Advocating 2+2=3, in the teeth of the evidence, when the consequences of your error are mass destruction is more than simply an opinion. At the very least it makes MYOB conservatism a sick joke.

 

Not really. The preponderance of the climate models show AGW to be an overwhelming reality, not the actual facts. For instance, the last 15 years have statistically seen zero warming as opposed to the climate models. Garbage in, garbage out.

 

These idiots are so busy playing with their models that they can't be bothered to just step outside and see what the temperature is really like.

I can't remember the last time I wore my jacket all year long, but this was one of them. I can't think of a single time that I rode to or from work that I was not wearing my leather jacket. And I live in California! A week or so back out office nutcase got onto global warming kick, and when I asked him to explain the unusually cold weather this year (I do not think it got above 80 all year), he started talking about how it was the fault of global warming.

I just can't take it seriously anymore. They make wild claims and are constantly disproven, they swing back and forth in claims and reality, but I am the one who must be silenced.

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/09...buffer&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

 

Most of the funding has gone into the climate models instead of actual science.

 

The scientific climate models are projections based on evidence. New evidence you modify the model. I mean really is that such a toughy? And that bit about I have to wear my jacket is getting tired. Do you get the concept of average temperature for the entire earth for a year? I mean this "it's all about me where I am right now" is about as cluelessly unscientific as it gets. But somehow I bet that makes you proud, sort of earthy and authentic right? Perhaps you didn't read about the weather frying Alaska not too long ago. Try reading a little.

I bet you live on the coast of Calif. Lots of fog being sucked in from the ocean due to the high inland heat. And how about that long drought we've been having, major fires anybody?, and all that depleting Sierra snow pack. Right on schedule.

 

When you normalize surface temperatures to eliminate the Pacific Decadal Period and feed them into a model, you get garbage. When you selectively pick proxie records that show what you want and feed them into a model, you get garbage. When you treat a wicked problem like a simple problem, you get garbage.

 

And when you go off on meaningless unscientific diversions you get garbage. At least get almost all the vetted climate scientists don't agree with you. That would be a start.

 

You mean only the scientists that are allowed by the gatekeeping of the IPCC.

 

deniers practice tabloid science...you see the tabloids at the store checkout line with their bizarre headlines "Flying Pigs Seen in Amazon! Aliens Probed my Anus! Baby Kidnapped by Sasquatch!" totally unproven unverifiable claims with non scientific support but the tea party world eats that s*** up...the denier world is the same, supporting weird outlandish claims despite all the evidence to the contrary and and any denial brings claims of conspiracy coverup, "those scientists are hiding the real truth"...meanwhile libraries are filled with scientific research that goes unread by the denier world, their opinions aren't based on knowledge they're based on intellectual ignorance...97% of the scientific world supports CC and it's anthropogenic causes yet the deniers have the arrogance to think they know more than the professionals even though most them don't even comprehend grade school science...

 

Yeah, it's all a conspiracy by climate scientists around the world to suppress the truth. That's a nice and I might say boringly typical way denialists keep themselves insulated from reality.

Say hello to Rush.

 

"yes sir, it snowed today outside my window so thar can't be no global warming, that's just a socialist conspiracy to steal our money"

 

You evidently don't do much reading. Opposing viewpoints, even questions about the science, are not allowed. That is called gatekeeping. Scientists papers that do not pass the IPCC gatekeeping (which by the way, climategate exposed) do not get peer reviewed. The IPCC has approached this as a simple problem when it is anything but. It is called a wicked problem and the reason their models did not predict the current hiatus in warming. They are scrambling to be sure because they have a lot of governments that are relying on them to prove warming. What they have proved so far is that they don't really know what they are doing.

 

When a true believer cannot discuss the point, they resort to proxy words like denier, and Rush.

 

That and I think a lot of it is conspiracy thinking. The socialist NWO conspiracy is looking for an excuse to take away my property and so they have concocted a global warming hoax to provide them with a pretext. You probe these folks and many of them really believe this craziness. I mean all they really have to do is write "global warming wikipedea" on google and they will get good information and easy to understand graphs coming out of their ears. But they are emotionally invested in craziness so they hang on desperately to their Fox News and Michael Savage generated belief systems. It's like learning evolution from Jimmy Swaggart.