Don’t see anything selective in your quotation there sharper, do you? Considering I was responding to:
You made a statement ridiculing the broad view of climate change. I responded to that. And I stick to that point.
Carbon emissions are not the whole story.
Cabon emissions are among the most difficult of the human influences on the planet to control. But just because they are difficult doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. But they are difficult because they are directly linked to standards of living, not just here, but across the world.
Because they are not the whole story we can’t have an ozone-mark II protocol and everything will be grand. It simply isn’t going to work.
The current carbon trading schemes are a scam designed to make derivatives traders rich.
Carbon control, in the form of CO2, has become the casus belli of Greens everywhere, to the detriment of other good environmental practices - witness the current lamentable car policies in Ireland with old, perfectly servicable cars, with their environmental build-cost already spent being scrapped in favour of new cars with a moderately lower CO2 emission level. That is carbon emitting waste on a grand scale.
Because the emissions involved in building and shipping the cars are in other countries. So it makes us look good.
Because of one-eyed wagonistas.
The reduction in the national herd through the removal of dairy, lamb and beef subsidies has done way more to reduce our CO2-equivalent output. But this has just shifted output elsewhere.
Proper treatment of agricultural and human waste could give us both power and a lower footprint, probably despite the infrastructure cost. Zero waste systems are a bit of a pipe-dream at the moment, given that we don’t actually make anything here and no-one else wants our rubbish, but they will not always be so. In particular, food waste could easily be used, but we don’t have anywhere to put it!
Just because something is widely accepted, doesn’t mean that it is correct. Look at steady-state physics.
The current views are:
that man is having an influence on climate
that influence is unlikely to be benign to man
that influence is likely to be expressed in a warming world
that CO2 is the prime contributor to this warming and reducing CO2 will save us
I stop at 2. My 3 and 4 are:
3. that influence is likely to be expressed in increasingly random and severe weather patterns
4. there are multiple contributors and each much be addressed according to their likelihood of success
The context was whether there was a scientific consensus concerning carbon being the main culprit. I quoted a source indicating that pretty much every major scientific organisation backs the IPCC statement and you continue to argue that it could be anything you can imagine it to be. Even now you continue to reference “greens” obsession with carbon as if it’s some sort of group personality quirk rather a reflection of the scientific evidence we have available. You refuse to educate yourself on the topic and instead feel comfortable assigning various ignorant or nefarious motives to others without any information at all.
I have no idea why you, bungloid etc are even talking about “greens”. I am not a green part member, I don’t think anyone else here is a green party member.
I certainly can. Go back over the thread and the order in which issues arose initially. While debating with Bungaloid, I was hit with the ‘global cooling’ nonsense from the flank; the issue was shelved rather than dispensed with at the time with Yoganmayhew strangely quoting a paper titled ‘The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus’ in support of, er…, a 1970s global cooling consensus. Yoganmayhew is free to ignore the request, however the desire to focus on a single issue at a time is only reasonable. He can ignore it however I have every intention of going over loose ends in the order in which they arose.
There is a constant multiplication of issues. If I artlessly keep reminding the antis of their failures it is because as objections are disposed of they are simply forgotten about.
And who set this agenda? Windmill manufacturers and hippies against oil and industry? No evidence whatsoever of the giant conspiracy has emerged, a conspiracy that supposedly has turned the international agenda on its head.
Club of Rome, world leaders various interest groups moving in the global command and control circles. There is no conspiracy their agenda is clearly out in the open the classic tactic to hide a great secret or blasphemy but easy to miss if you are prone to the distraction of the candy floss mass media.
In case you’ve forgotten as to why the veracity of the debate is so its because of the prospect of a new global Carbon serfdom aka Carbon Trading system a global carbon tax a form of life currency or as I like to refer to it the Carbon Con.
I don’t hold humanity in the Malthusian contempt these rationals do. You’re going to have to try harder dduff442 or accept the manifest reality.
He’s clearly talking about the manner in which the media reports on issues and the fact that certain sounding statements get reported while others do not. Someone took his quote, spliced out bits and it and presented to mean what they want it to mean.
No sharper he is not and drop the creationist strawman you’re only making yourself look silly.
Your fuller text is even more alarming if you read it correctly.
You simply can’t get your head around the fact that the scientists must play the media game and we know the media is very much a controlled entity. The scientist is reduced to nothing more tangible than “hope” albeit a shrug and raising of hands to claim “well it snot our fault the media manipulate / people are dumb and that how we communicate may in fact mislead”.
Who wins in this scenario? I’ll make it easy and give you a multiple choice,
Not a chance. People who use Creationist tactics get called on it and that’s not going to change. It’s abundantly clear Schneider has been quote mined something most people would immediately recognise by the presence of spliced together sentences in the original quote.
I cannot force you to interpret statements reasonably I wouldn’t even try to do so. I’ve provided the full quote so that others can make up their own minds about its meaning and your intellectual honestly both in presenting it and in dismissing the full quote.
And these remarks are, to your mind, sufficient evidence to conclude a global conspiracy exists? Russia, Saudi Arabia etc might be expected to make hay with this fact.
Seemingly France and the USA could not agree over Madass Hussein, spun and leaked furiously at each other after the Kosovo war, offer diplomatic support to different sides in the Arab-Israeli dispute, etc etc but a conspiracy encompassing both nations that will seriously hurt the economy of each functions flawlessly without so much as a secretariat? Chirac goes to China and looks forward to a ‘multi-polar world’, Jiang nods approvingly and all the while China, France and the USA are secretly buddies?
Any familiarity with US politics reveals the two sides hate each other. Republicans view democrats as godless sodomites and the democrats view republicans as irrational religious zealots. Their election campaigns unfold in a poisonous atmosphere. Still we are asked to imagine that the two parties are engaged in a colossal charade? How to explain the dispute over off shore drilling and oil exploration in Alaska within this framework? Or the fact that most republicans are ardent cheerleaders for the petrochemical industry?
That scheme is frankly completely unbelievable. The idea that present leaders and those of the recent past, leaders of less than Machiavellian brilliance, could drag their nations along against the national interest in a scheme like this flatters them more than obsequiously.
You take one quote and extrapolate ad infinitum. Nice work. You might get a grant if you keep it up.
You ignored the caveat in my post so I won’t force you to properly read my posts.
So someone took a quote out of context a killer point
However I don’t I think you get the even greater context as you’ll find the context is the Club of Rome agenda and as I said the extent of the greater text is more alarming as the scientist is obviously clueless to the inherent accrual of benefit through compromise in the system or has willingly succumb to the hopelessness of it all and is blatantly disenfranchised with no other meaningful action but to play by their rules resigned to the compromise ill or good.
But hey if you don’t mind arguing on the side for the diminishing or ending of your life its your right to so as you please right!?. Personally I’m not here to save you but I know a bunch of Globalists who have this Carbon diet to die for!