http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jun/29/climate-change-scepticism-heatwave?commentpage=2
Its always worth a read as its entertaining.
Open the link provided and the Blog will open onto this topic by way of an example of the kind of mindset that we are talking about here :
"Have the climate change deniers abandoned us during the heatwave ? "
Think about that post title for a few seconds ....
"Climate change deniers"
This is new terminology that i have come across lately and its use is increasing by the day as people have a habit of picking up and using terminology that they read in articles on websites etc.
"Climate change deniers....."
It must the pro AGW faction moving the goalposts yet again in order to demonise those dastardly AGW sceptics who just wont buy into an unproven pseudo scientific/political hypothesis.
Honestly they are just so stubborn and resistant to change and unwilling to be assimilated into the Borg like hive mind of the church of Al gore and the IPCC/UN.
Before i move on from that pathetic and childish terminology i will just add this:
WTF is a "Climate Change Denier" ???
WTF is it ???
Is he seriously suggesting that there is a section of the populace that dont believe that the climate is changing ???
Personally i have done my "research" and read countless articles and i have read countless comments posted by forum users and Bloggers and i cant say that i have noticed *ANY* comments that indicate that any particular individual is denying that the climate is changing.
Thats not to say that they dont exist [nothing would surprise me] but i have not read any article or comment that is of the opinion that the climate is not changing.
Where are the "climate change deniers"
Dont any of them have a broadband connection or access to a computer ?
Whats going on ???
What am i missing here ?
I will have to do a comprehensive Google search for "Climate Change Denial" and find out what is on offer later.
Is there a subsection of the scientific community that is devoted to researching the subject of a static unchanging climate on earth ?
Where is the evidence that the "climate change deniers" are using to support their claims that the climate never changes ?
It must be backed up by real hard and unbiased and objective and unaltered and unadulterated scientific theory/ fact ?
Does he recognise the difference to the alleged "Climate Deniers" and "Climate Change Deniers" and CO2/Global Warming sceptics ??
Is there anyone around that actually denies that there is a climate ?
"There is no climate !!! Its all a hoax !!!"
Honestly you have to laugh.
Anyway now that amusing childish little bit of nonsense has been dealt with lets move on.
Problem Trolls and Oil Industry Shills posting on George Monbiots Blog post-a-comment section :
What can be done as an effective means of tackling this problem ?
I have a cunning plan .....Well actually its not my plan at all as its George MoonBats plan and i wish to give the author [George Monbiot] himself full credit for his ingenuity and creative thinking in finding a solution.
The solution : Propose to Redefine the parameters of free speech on the internet to curtail dissenting opinions to AGW or at the very least extend it to the interactive sections of The Guardian.
Regulate blogs etc etc etc.
Regulate comments on forums.
Its always alright in George monbiots childish little worldview to let anyone have their say as long as it is what he wants to hear and as long as it doesnt question his own ill thought out opinions and observations.
Read the article here :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/08/climate-denial-astroturfers-pseudonyms
Is he proposing some kind of unilateral clampdown on free speech on all Internet forums and blogs as well his own ??
Is this guy for real ??
Has he got any idea about what he is advocating ??
Or is it the reaction of an adult who is like a spoilt child who cant have it all his own way ?
WTF is his problem ??
If he wants to regulate and stifle and curtail free speech on his blog then let him do what he wants as after all its his intellectual property [at least when he is not endlessly quoting others articles as filler or reiterating someone elses opinion] and his own space.
As an alternative to proposing a unilateral regulation of blogs and comments [as that is what he is implying] i propose that George Moonbat could try :
A: Moderating his forum by removing/deleting posts.He could do this himself OR employ a moderator to delete the posts that he cant be bothered to actually read as he claims.If he doesnt read them then why be affected by them ?
B:Introduce or update and aggressively enforce a written and clearly laid out Code Of Conduct.
C:Permanently disable the post-a-comment section of his blog.Take it down.Reduce CO2 that is generated by its very existence.
2 birds with one stone.
D:Introduce via his COC [that wasnt deliberate /Well it was but its also an acronym for Code Of Conduct.I am sure George would appreciate the humor] a strict totally one sided posting policy that involves only one side of the argument like :
"you are so right George and i enjoy your Blog immensely"
"I do agree George with your hypothesis and all your articles and information and "peer reviewed articles" that you present to us that are not biased or slanted to your own political or enviromental ideology at all..."
"I love the way that George encourages such open and unbiased and frank debate to the the articles and topics posted on this blog..."
"You are never wrong George ever..."
E:Dont write and publish contentious articles that by their very nature invite contradiction and debate.
F:Introduce an ignore/file facility.
G:Stop being a hypocrite and apply it to both sides of the debate.
What a fucking useless whining idiot.
Stopping forum users from posting anonymously isnt going to change their opinions.
Idiots on forums are commonplace .
No forum i know stops anonymous posters and i believe its up to the individual to choose wether they are anonymous or not.
Another point he makes is that anyone who opposes his weak flimsy hypothesis must be *by default* be an anonymous shill who is paid off by "big oil" to contradict his own views on climate change.
I dont post on his Blog .
However:
If so i must be either working for them and posting disinfo for *nothing* OR i just happen to have a differing opinion to his own by thinking independently and looking at the evidence and drawing my own conclusions.
I dont publish or post comments anonymously and i get paid Fuck All for doing it and i use my own free time to do it when i could be doing something else.
This logic does not apply to the Green industry of course and those who advocate social and economic and political change that is dressed up as Enviromentalism.
When did science stop being unbiased ?
When did science stop being science ?
When did science stop being objective ?
When did science not involve open and frank debate ?
When did science become pseudo science ?
When it became politicised thats when.
When it turned into a belief system.
When it became fraudulent.
When it became subject to vested commercial and political interests.
Its so childish its pathetic.
"Astrosurfers" !!
Doesnt he understand that so called peer reviewed papers can be biased as well ??
Is he suggesting that scientific disinformation and alarmism that is promulgated by the UN/IPCC that does not or has not even been subjected to scrutiny is not in any way biased or slanted to fit vested interests ?
Without a shadow of a doubt these types are the most awkward , narrow minded,obstinate belligerant individuals you can ever debate with.
No one is denying that the fucking climate has changed or is changing or cooling or warming up but we want to know why and the debate is not closed .
He absolutely will not take into consideration that climate change is being caused even in part by solar activity.
Can we tax the Sun and decrease or increase solar activity please ?
Can we have a taxation levied on Chemtrails please especially since the US Govt acknowledges their existence and admits responsibility for them as very recently announced in the Wall Street Journal :
Article here about proposed Geo-engineering :
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html
And article here which i believe is the Washington Post article i was looking for:
http://www.chemtrails911.com/docs/2009/Obama%20science%20adviser%20Global%20warming%20so%20dire,%20we%20may%20need%20to%20tinker%20with%20Earth%27s%20atmosphere.htm
The Govt has been openly spraying the upper atmosphere and now admits that the exact same thing is being proposed which is reads like an admission that it is already going on and has been since 1996 as there is physical and photographic evidence that proves it.
You used to get articles and documentaries about the recent topic of Global Dimming which like Chemtrails is an observable phenomena but then the topic dropped off the radar never to be heard from again.
I dont know if the two are linked categorically but i would be very very surprised if there wasnt a link.
So to sum up:
Govts in the US and elsewhere have been interfering with the upper atmosphere by dumping and spraying a cocktail of chemicals in it with unknown or known consequences while at the same time telling everyone that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is dirupting the natural balance of nature and want to tax you for it.
They want or are spraying chemical/poison shit into the atmosphere and have been for over a decade YET they want to tax us on CO2 ??
Looks like Chemtrails have moved out of the /conspiracy theory league and into Reality.
The Lunatics have taken over the asylum.
More on this as it unfolds but the idea is being proposed by the previously mentioned John Holdren.
You can never ever win with these types.
I have to stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment