Now its Global Cooling

[Comish]

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

[tschu]

You're the one posting crackpot blog posts and then expecting it to result in intelligent discussion, so you tell us.

[Junior]

 

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

 

Because "conflicting views" aren't steeped in science. You talk about demagoguery driving the climate debate, and then you completely deny scientific reasoning.

 

Should "mainstream media" report on flat earthers? They have as much stake in reality as global warming deniers. It isn't the job of media to report on every crackpot theory that exists out there. Nor should they. It's a waste of everyone's time.

[carlfense]

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

I know many, many people in positions of power who openly advocate and vote for things that would result in a "dirtier planet."

 

I think that whether that is their primary goal is quite a bit less important than the fact that it would be the result. Does that make sense to you?

[carlfense]

I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views.

If the most watched news channel isn't "mainstream media" then the right has completed it's protracted war on the idea that words have meaning.

[knapplc]

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

If we're really unhappy with "alarmist extremism" and want to have a real dialog, why are we following that with the entire next paragraph, which is alarmist in nature?

 

And why does the solution have to be wholesale? Can't we do this in steps? America reducing our emissions won't fix the whole problem, so let's fix none of the problem. That's not a real dialog, that's a temper tantrum.

 

How, exactly, without rancor at the people you deem to be "opponents" in this discussion, will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have had this debate numerous times. Bill Maher has debates with people on his panel who have a conflicting view on this issue. So I really don't know what shows you are watching but it's probably the wrong shows to watch.

Also, if you didn't hear the news last week. Obama struck a deal with the Chinese president for both countries to reduce emissions by 30%. If the chinese will follow through is a different story but the issue is being approached to chinese.

[Comish]

 

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

If we're really unhappy with "alarmist extremism" and want to have a real dialog, why are we following that with the entire next paragraph, which is alarmist in nature?

 

And why does the solution have to be wholesale? Can't we do this in steps? America reducing our emissions won't fix the whole problem, so let's fix none of the problem. That's not a real dialog, that's a temper tantrum.

 

How, exactly, without rancor at the people you deem to be "opponents" in this discussion, will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

I agree with everything you say in this post,,,, except please point out the rancor on my part.

I believe that description more aptly applies to those "offended" that not all of us are so easily cowed by the denigration terminology such as "flat earth society".

And, I would reference again my friend in climatology at UNL. He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Ah yes...........the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.....

[carlfense]

He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Bullsh!t. No other way to put it. That's bullsh!t.

 

If he is under fire from the peer reviewed community it's almost certainly because the data doesn't support his contentions.

 

We really need to get past the claim that all opinions are equally valid.

[Junior]

I agree with everything you say in this post,,,, except please point out the rancor on my part.

 

I believe that description more aptly applies to those "offended" that not all of us are so easily cowed by the denigration terminology such as "flat earth society".

And, I would reference again my friend in climatology at UNL. He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Ah yes...........the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.....

 

 

Prove that.

[Comish]

 

 

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have had this debate numerous times. Bill Maher has debates with people on his panel who have a conflicting view on this issue. So I really don't know what shows you are watching but it's probably the wrong shows to watch.

Also, if you didn't hear the news last week. Obama struck a deal with the Chinese president for both countries to reduce emissions by 30%. If the chinese will follow through is a different story but the issue is being approached to chinese.

 

That wasn't a deal, that was a capitulation.

If you are happy that the Chinese have "been approached", good for you.

I'll be happy IF and WHEN they actually transfer verbiage into action.

But I won't be holding my breath.

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

If we're really unhappy with "alarmist extremism" and want to have a real dialog, why are we following that with the entire next paragraph, which is alarmist in nature?

 

And why does the solution have to be wholesale? Can't we do this in steps? America reducing our emissions won't fix the whole problem, so let's fix none of the problem. That's not a real dialog, that's a temper tantrum.

 

How, exactly, without rancor at the people you deem to be "opponents" in this discussion, will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

I agree with everything you say in this post,,,, except please point out the rancor on my part.

I believe that description more aptly applies to those "offended" that not all of us are so easily cowed by the denigration terminology such as "flat earth society".

And, I would reference again my friend in climatology at UNL. He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Ah yes...........the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.....

 

THAT right there is the biggest problem with the debate on this issue. People on the right just simply believe it is a Liberal agenda. It's not, it is everyone's problem and it is not a political talking point. Do you really believe that 97% of scientists across the entire world is actually just saying this for US political talking points?

[knapplc]

 

 

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

If we're really unhappy with "alarmist extremism" and want to have a real dialog, why are we following that with the entire next paragraph, which is alarmist in nature?

 

And why does the solution have to be wholesale? Can't we do this in steps? America reducing our emissions won't fix the whole problem, so let's fix none of the problem. That's not a real dialog, that's a temper tantrum.

 

How, exactly, without rancor at the people you deem to be "opponents" in this discussion, will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

 

I agree with everything you say in this post,,,, except please point out the rancor on my part.

I believe that description more aptly applies to those "offended" that not all of us are so easily cowed by the denigration terminology such as "flat earth society".

And, I would reference again my friend in climatology at UNL. He comes under fire continuously from the "peer reviewed" community for daring to speak contrarily.

Ah yes...........the vaunted "tolerance" of the left.....

 

Can you answer the question? How will US industry be damaged by reduced emissions?

[Junior]

THAT right there is the biggest problem with the debate on this issue. People on the right just simply believe it is a Liberal agenda. It's not, it is everyone's problem and it is not a political talking point. Do you really believe that 97% of scientists across the entire world is actually just saying this for US political talking points?

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is an obvious "yes".

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

 

 

 

I don't even know why this is an argument? Why not try to have a cleaner planet with cleaner air to breath? Even if it is a "hoax". I just do not see the logic in denying this. Is it because Big Oil and Politicians (mainly republican) deny it? Really, I just can't wrap my head around as to why this is an issue.

I'd suggest it's an issue because the opinion that if one side claims "trying to have a cleaner planet" necessitates a zero sum game, then your easy and predictable solution is that the "other side" must prefer a dirty planet.

Sophistry at best, demagoguery at worst.

Do you really know anyone that WANTS a "dirty planet"?

That's the kind of alarmist extremism that besmirches any legitimate claim you might offer for real dialog.

A real discussion must include the fact that the U.S. offering feel good solutions without the mirroring of our major industrialized competitors is worthless. China opening a new coal plant every week while we hamstring U.S. industry and economies for the sake of symbolic restrictions? Even proponents admit that the proposed solutions won't have the overall desired outcomes even if all proposals are met.

And, by the way, I never claimed it was a "hoax". I've merely questioned why mainstream media won't report on conflicting views. Do you have an answer?

 

Fox News, CNN and MSNBC have had this debate numerous times. Bill Maher has debates with people on his panel who have a conflicting view on this issue. So I really don't know what shows you are watching but it's probably the wrong shows to watch.

Also, if you didn't hear the news last week. Obama struck a deal with the Chinese president for both countries to reduce emissions by 30%. If the chinese will follow through is a different story but the issue is being approached to chinese.

 

That wasn't a deal, that was a capitulation.

If you are happy that the Chinese have "been approached", good for you.

I'll be happy IF and WHEN they actually transfer verbiage into action.

But I won't be holding my breath.

 

And the only way to get the chinese to do this is to engage in talks with the chinese. Sanctions won't hurt them, and war definitely won't solve a damn thing. So all we can do is talk and debate with the chinese and state the facts. That is the reality my friend.