Copenhagen Climate Change Conference = The League of Nations

[redandblack]

Love it, Psyber

[Psyber]

Love it, Psyber

I'm so glad you do..

[redandblack]

I thought you were talking about yourself with your last sentence or two

[Gozu]

"Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial":

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

[Psyber]

"Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial": http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm

At present, "..right-wing climate denial" seems like a reasonable balance to the fashionable and PC "left wing climate hysteria" to me.
Hopefully, in time further research will establish the real truth about how much is natural cycles and how much we are contributing.
In the meantime, I think we should be actively reducing all our pollutant output anyway.
At the moment, it looks like governments and industry want to concentrate on CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, and token solutions, and ignore the wider issue of general toxic pollution.

[redandblack]

Psyber, once again you label arguments you disagree with as 'PC'.

I'll ignore the 'fashionable' and just point out that such labels are a weak substitute for reason and logic you expect from others.

[Psyber]

Psyber, once again you label arguments you disagree with as 'PC'.
I'll ignore the 'fashionable' and just point out that such labels are a weak substitute for reason and logic you expect from others.

This is not simply abuse...
They are a "fashion" in the sense of manner; way; mode:, and "PC" in the sense marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.
And those who hesitate to totally embrace the mode of thinking and orthodoxy tend to get treated as heretics.

There is logic on both sides of the argument about the causes of climate change, and only the literally faithful on one side or the other think their side has all the answers and the other side none.
Unfortunately, we don't yet have enough unarguable facts to know the truth, so it is a matter of which case you put your faith in if you embrace faith at all.
I'm just trying to maintain an agnostic balance here, and resisting being bullied by the present majority into accepting their dogma by constant repetition....

[Jimmy_041]

Psyber, once again you label arguments you disagree with as 'PC'.
I'll ignore the 'fashionable' and just point out that such labels are a weak substitute for reason and logic you expect from others.

This is not simply abuse...
They are a "fashion" in the sense of manner; way; mode:, and "PC" in the sense marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.
And those who hesitate to totally embrace the mode of thinking and orthodoxy tend to get treated as heretics.

There is logic on both sides of the argument about he causes of climate change, and only the literally faithful on one side or the other think their side has all the answers and the other side none.
Unfortunately, we don't yet have enough unarguable facts to know the truth, so it is a matter of which case you put your faith in if you embrace faith at all.
I'm just trying to maintain an agnostic balance here, and resisting being bullied by the present majority into accepting their dogma by constant repetition....

How true this is

[Leaping Lindner]

In breaking news it's been revealed by scientists that the earth isn't in fact flat after all. Sceptics have labelled this as scaremongering as by the PC minority.

[redandblack]

Psyber, once again you label arguments you disagree with as 'PC'.
I'll ignore the 'fashionable' and just point out that such labels are a weak substitute for reason and logic you expect from others.

This is not simply abuse...
They are a "fashion" in the sense of manner; way; mode:, and "PC" in the sense marked by or adhering to a typically progressive orthodoxy on issues involving esp. race, gender, sexual affinity, or ecology.
And those who hesitate to totally embrace the mode of thinking and orthodoxy tend to get treated as heretics.

There is logic on both sides of the argument about he causes of climate change, and only the literally faithful on one side or the other think their side has all the answers and the other side none.
Unfortunately, we don't yet have enough unarguable facts to know the truth, so it is a matter of which case you put your faith in if you embrace faith at all.
I'm just trying to maintain an agnostic balance here, and resisting being bullied by the present majority into accepting their dogma by constant repetition....

How true this is

You poor souls, fancy being bullied like that

[Jimmy_041]

errrr - we weren't the ones bitching about it.

Just pointing out that it is coming from both sides.

[Psyber]

You poor souls, fancy being bullied like that

The dogmatic always try to bully, whatever their pet faith, but some of us resist rather than be bullied. Unfortunately, there is too much of it about to respond to it all...
The aim of the PC push seems to be to convince people to accept it by constant repetition, or to pressure sceptics to stop objecting and toe the line.

[redandblack]

You're kidding yourself if you think that only comes from one side of the argumant, though.

[Psyber]

You're kidding yourself if you think that only comes from one side of the argumant, though.

I don't think it does only come from one side...
But, it does seem to come more from the side of any argument that is popular with those who like imposing morality on issues that are essentially technical.
The truth of these issues can't be decided, realistically, by the majority rules approach, but some people still try.

[Gozu]

"Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?":

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm

[Jimmy_041]

and by people comparing the argument with the "world is flat" argument

I do not deny mankind is injuring the globe with the pollution it creates and we need to do something about it, but what caused natural disasters before all of these emissions?

And I certainly do not think that Rudd's CPRS plan was the be all and end all that will save the world

[Psyber]

"Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?": http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm

That always comes down to a point of view doesn't it?
Those who try to enforce any faith will tend to see those who object, and challenge this enforcing behaviour, as bullying them.
Those who try to suppress a faith, will react the same way to that to that being challenged.
Both will feel justified if they believe in the righteousness off their cause..
Some will feel justified in suppressing those who simply dare to question the dogma.

From my perspective, in the climate change debate, I see the very use of the word "deniers" rather than "challengers" as bullying behaviour.
It carries an emotive implication they are denying a truth, rather than simply challenging a theory.

Similarly, calling people who question whether climate change is anthropogenic or not "climate change deniers" is also bullying in a sense.
They are clearly not denying, or challenging, that climate change is occurring - just questioning the assertion that man is the cause.
It is the use of emotive and moralising diversionary terms in the exchange that constitutes bullying.
Doing so attempts to prevent the questioning being heard by creating moral outrage in its place.

[Leaping Lindner]

and by people comparing the argument with the "world is flat" argument

I do not deny mankind is injuring the globe with the pollution it creates and we need to do something about it, but what caused natural disasters before all of these emissions?

And I certainly do not think that Rudd's CPRS plan was the be all and end all that will save the world

So what? Just do nothing and hope for the best? What's the worse thing that could happen if we clean up our act? Cleaner air, fresher water, less pollution......

[mick]

and by people comparing the argument with the "world is flat" argument

I do not deny mankind is injuring the globe with the pollution it creates and we need to do something about it, but what caused natural disasters before all of these emissions?

And I certainly do not think that Rudd's CPRS plan was the be all and end all that will save the world

So what? Just do nothing and hope for the best? What's the worse thing that could happen if we clean up our act? Cleaner air, fresher water, less pollution......

I think almost everyone would agree with this, I am a sceptic so far as human activity as a cause of climate change, however, I more convinced climate change is happening, until all the evidence is in we shouldn't sit on our hands and do nothing.

[Jimmy_041]

and by people comparing the argument with the "world is flat" argument

I do not deny mankind is injuring the globe with the pollution it creates and we need to do something about it, but what caused natural disasters before all of these emissions?

And I certainly do not think that Rudd's CPRS plan was the be all and end all that will save the world

So what? Just do nothing and hope for the best? What's the worse thing that could happen if we clean up our act? Cleaner air, fresher water, less pollution......

No, but unfortunately, some of Rudd's plans are badly thought out and designed to show that he is doing something.

The CPRS was about Rudd showing off and a huge tax - not cleaning up our act