Change

frycat101 · #1 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 08:11 PM

The fear of Global Warming sparked a change in how we live. Many people now recycle and use fuel efficient cars, and actually care about the environment and pollution.

Even if Global Warming isn't true, isn't this change all a plus to the world we live in?

Virgil Kaine · #2 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 08:19 PM

A policy guide.

We must remember our mantra, global warming exists, humans cause it, and without Al Gore, all would be lost.

Dissenters must be met with scorn and derision, and the views of Gore and our friends must be accepted without question by the public, the media, and politicians. We know Political consensus is a precursor to public action. Our politicians and supportive industries know this, and we know we cannot afford to tolerate dissent. Dissent weakens our message of doom without which the public fear cannot be raised. The new Global warming theology, aims to give people doubt and scare them about the future. Remember confusion, doubt and fear are our essential weapons. It may not be the best science, but it is good politics.

There is no justified skepticism about the science behind global warming. Scientists who claim an over-reliance on complex computer modeling that reacts wildly to incremental change in assumptions must be scorned. Climatologists, who claim that the processes of climate change are not sufficiently understood to support predictions about the climate with certainty, must be mocked. Scientists, who say that the necessary empirical data has not yet been collected, must be chided. Climatologists and scientists, who believe that our climate-models are not yet precise enough, must be silenced, and engineers who think our computers don’t have adequate processing power to run the extraordinarily complex models that climate science requires, must be defunded.

We know that scientific inquiry will be led by the researcher and the availability of funding. This is well-known. We must make sure funding is available for pro-global warming researchers, while cutting off funding for any who are not on board. There must be grants for producing our data and none for contemplation.
We cannot allow debate, now that we have our "consensus." However informed the critical voices are, they must be met with disdain. We must squelch scientific truth seeking. It's all for a good cause.

It's not merely a good cause just for supporters of global warming with projects and agendas to profit from it. The adoption of our theories also provides a convenient means to grow our movement. We could make new and ever expanding global bureaucracies at will. We can make climate change a pretext for massive new central-planning structures and policy changes we could not have otherwise. We will be able to subordinate the economic freedom of all the industrialized countries to a War on Carbon. It will be start of a new era of wealth redistribution like we have only dreamed of.

Do not worry that climate change has been occurring for 4 billion years, or that it will continue. The slightest evidence to suggest that human activity has anything to do with climate change is all we need. We can move forward if we pretend to be sure. Climate science is far from simple; but we cannot let our agenda be held back by scientific inquiry and debate.

frycat101 · #3 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil Kaine

A policy guide.

We must remember our mantra, global warming exists, humans cause it, and without Al Gore, all would be lost.

Dissenters must be met with scorn and derision, and the views of Gore and our friends must be accepted without question by the public, the media, and politicians. We know Political consensus is a precursor to public action. Our politicians and supportive industries know this, and we know we cannot afford to tolerate dissent. Dissent weakens our message of doom without which the public fear cannot be raised. The new Global warming theology, aims to give people doubt and scare them about the future. Remember confusion, doubt and fear are our essential weapons. It may not be the best science, but it is good politics.

There is no justified skepticism about the science behind global warming. Scientists who claim an over-reliance on complex computer modeling that reacts wildly to incremental change in assumptions must be scorned. Climatologists, who claim that the processes of climate change are not sufficiently understood to support predictions about the climate with certainty, must be mocked. Scientists, who say that the necessary empirical data has not yet been collected, must be chided. Climatologists and scientists, who believe that our climate-models are not yet precise enough, must be silenced, and engineers who think our computers don’t have adequate processing power to run the extraordinarily complex models that climate science requires, must be defunded.

We know that scientific inquiry will be led by the researcher and the availability of funding. This is well-known. We must make sure funding is available for pro-global warming researchers, while cutting off funding for any who are not on board. There must be grants for producing our data and none for contemplation.
We cannot allow debate, now that we have our "consensus." However informed the critical voices are, they must be met with disdain. We must squelch scientific truth seeking. It's all for a good cause.

It's not merely a good cause just for supporters of global warming with projects and agendas to profit from it. The adoption of our theories also provides a convenient means to grow our movement. We could make new and ever expanding global bureaucracies at will. We can make climate change a pretext for massive new central-planning structures and policy changes we could not have otherwise. We will be able to subordinate the economic freedom of all the industrialized countries to a War on Carbon. It will be start of a new era of wealth redistribution like we have only dreamed of.

Do not worry that climate change has been occurring for 4 billion years, or that it will continue. The slightest evidence to suggest that human activity has anything to do with climate change is all we need. We can move forward if we pretend to be sure. Climate science is far from simple; but we cannot let our agenda be held back by scientific inquiry and debate.

I agree.

mulp · #4 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Virgil Kaine

A policy guide.

We must remember our mantra, global warming exists, humans cause it, and without Al Gore, all would be lost.

Dissenters must be met with scorn and derision, and the views of Gore and our friends must be accepted without question by the public, the media, and politicians. We know Political consensus is a precursor to public action. Our politicians and supportive industries know this, and we know we cannot afford to tolerate dissent. Dissent weakens our message of doom without which the public fear cannot be raised. The new Global warming theology, aims to give people doubt and scare them about the future. Remember confusion, doubt and fear are our essential weapons. It may not be the best science, but it is good politics.

There is no justified skepticism about the science behind global warming. Scientists who claim an over-reliance on complex computer modeling that reacts wildly to incremental change in assumptions must be scorned. Climatologists, who claim that the processes of climate change are not sufficiently understood to support predictions about the climate with certainty, must be mocked. Scientists, who say that the necessary empirical data has not yet been collected, must be chided. Climatologists and scientists, who believe that our climate-models are not yet precise enough, must be silenced, and engineers who think our computers don’t have adequate processing power to run the extraordinarily complex models that climate science requires, must be defunded.

We know that scientific inquiry will be led by the researcher and the availability of funding. This is well-known. We must make sure funding is available for pro-global warming researchers, while cutting off funding for any who are not on board. There must be grants for producing our data and none for contemplation.
We cannot allow debate, now that we have our "consensus." However informed the critical voices are, they must be met with disdain. We must squelch scientific truth seeking. It's all for a good cause.

It's not merely a good cause just for supporters of global warming with projects and agendas to profit from it. The adoption of our theories also provides a convenient means to grow our movement. We could make new and ever expanding global bureaucracies at will. We can make climate change a pretext for massive new central-planning structures and policy changes we could not have otherwise. We will be able to subordinate the economic freedom of all the industrialized countries to a War on Carbon. It will be start of a new era of wealth redistribution like we have only dreamed of.

Do not worry that climate change has been occurring for 4 billion years, or that it will continue. The slightest evidence to suggest that human activity has anything to do with climate change is all we need. We can move forward if we pretend to be sure. Climate science is far from simple; but we cannot let our agenda be held back by scientific inquiry and debate.

In other words, if you can't understand the science of anything in one minute, you're sticking to the Bible explanation.

I bet you think Guy Grisom met God at the pearly gates when he was in space, but those liberals in NASA covered it up.

Virgil Kaine · #5 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

In other words, if you can't understand the science of anything in one minute, you're sticking to the Bible explanation.

I bet you think Guy Grisom met God at the pearly gates when he was in space, but those liberals in NASA covered it up.

Mope you are one stupid fuck. Nowhere, at no time have I ever said that god had any thing to do with global warming. do you need your medication adjusted again? Remember the doctor said you can't drink when you take your pills.

Now as far as loyally following the manifesto and the policy guide, good little man.

In the future remember that even though the mocking in baseless it needs to be a little more in context.

Read for comprehension.

CrankyYankee · #6 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frycat101

The fear of Global Warming sparked a change in how we live. Many people now recycle and use fuel efficient cars, and actually care about the environment and pollution.

Even if Global Warming isn't true, isn't this change all a plus to the world we live in?

Laughs! Of course it is a good thing.....

global warming is just one of many problems associated with the use of fossil fuels....

We wouldn't have a single soldier in Iraq if we would have had good energy policy a long time ago.

wow · #7 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frycat101

The fear of Global Warming sparked a change in how we live. Many people now recycle and use fuel efficient cars, and actually care about the environment and pollution.

Even if Global Warming isn't true, isn't this change all a plus to the world we live in?

People do not care much about the environment, they care more about costs/expenses.
Make hybrids and recycling more cost-effective and naturally, everyone will do it on a daily basis.

The Internet has been one of the biggest energy savers in my world.
I did not utilize the Internet until it was cost-effective.

coyote · #8 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frycat101

The fear of Global Warming sparked a change in how we live. Many people now recycle and use fuel efficient cars, and actually care about the environment and pollution.

Even if Global Warming isn't true, isn't this change all a plus to the world we live in?

I have no problem with people voluntarily choosing to recycle any buying more fuel-efficient cars. My problem is when the government forces people to buy fuel efferent cars via CAFÉ standards or when they use tax $$$ in the form of cooperate welfare to prop up recycling corporations and auto manufactures to achieve these ends.