Radical Environmentalism: Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie,

Since you say you are a kid, shouldn’t you be getting some sleep- it’s 4:30 in the morning! I mean school should be starting in like four hours.

Shouldn’t you be taking care of your own?

I know it bothers you when I post something you don’t like…The last time you sent me a rude e-mail…remember?

 

[kimmielittle]

I don’t think “denialist” is a mean word – I could think of worse terms – but If you have a kinder euphemism for such people, let me know.

Now, I assume you yourself are a skeptic who has just been bamboozled by denialists, since you do ask for evidence, and I am sorry if I have called you a denialist. I wouldn’t be wasting my time here if I really thought you were a denialist.

So… I guess eco freak or AGW freak is O’kay?

I am a Realist - Climate - changes.

Actually No…I have not been bamboozled by denielist…nor by RealClimate or IPCC.

 

[kimmielittle]

Here’s the answer to that from Gavin Schmidt and Jim Bouldin.

Hey! while you have Gavin Shmidt on the line could you ask why RealClimate no longer does time stamps on posts?

NASA has already provided Form 17-60 documents for Dr. Hansen’s subordinate Gavin Schmidt to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Schmidt writes for and edits the climate alarmism blog RealClimate.org, during normal ** NASA Tax Paid Time ]** business hours. That Hansen and NASA had not required Schmidt to file Form 17-60 seeking permission for these activities, until NASA was asked about this matter, triggered ATI’s inquiry into whether Hansen, too, was avoiding this requirement. Other records obtained by CEI and posted on ATI’s Web site indicate that Dr. Hansen has also used NASA staff for his own commercial activities.

[Response: Complete nonsense. The role of methane being discussed here is as a greenhouse gas, nothing to do with the heat generated or used in chemical reactions. It is in fact a testament to the lack of scientific knowledge that the skeptics bring to the discussion. - gavin]

[Response:I presumed the person was arguing that the heat absorbed in the dehydration would be a negative feedback to that process, thereby preventing or slowing down CH4 release. The second sentence is the giveaway that an agenda drives the argument.–Jim]

Ha ha ha…neither of your preciouses…addressed what I wrote about.

Originally Posted by kimmielittle
Since methane hydrate decomposition is an endothermic reaction absorbing heat ] it is self-quenching. This should have been a question that was asked and answered when it was first proposed. It’s a testament to the lack of scientific knowledge that the AGW’ ers bring to the discussion.

ARE THEY SO THREATENED?

 

[kimmielittle]

Kimmie,

Since you say you are a kid, shouldn’t you be getting some sleep- it’s 4:30 in the morning! I mean school should be starting in like four hours.

BTW: You might want to figure out your time keeping…The post you referred to… was posted at 6:34 A.M

 

[kimmielittle]

Whoever said the IPCC was up to snuff. It is exceedingly conservative and averse to making claims. It didn’t even guessimate the searise well, leaving out glacier and icesheet collapse mechanics and dynamics (because these are difficult to predict and quantify, tho they are certainly happening), and only considered seawater expansion from the warming. Single scientific studies are conservative in their striving to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims, which makes the IPCC (based on many such studies) conservative squared or conservative to some exponential factor.

I haven’t heard from David Archer yet, but another blogger at RealClimate, who seems to know what he’s talking about, writes about the CO2 issue:

Carbon dioxide is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere (with a mixing time of about 2+ years between the northern and southern hemisphere). In other words, even carbon dioxide is sufficiently light that a combination of Brownian motion, turbulence and simple convection keeps it aloft and well, but not perfectly, mixed.

Furthermore, at water surfaces it quickly equalizes the partial pressures of dissolved in the water and free in the air. So while a tracked molecule of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will eventually dissolve in watr another molecule will ‘evaporate’ to replace it.

David Archer’s “The Long Thaw” has rest of the carbonate story; its not such easy chemistry.

There is absolutely no observational evidence of Mr Archers claim that CO2 stays in the Atmosphere 100,000 years. NONE!

There is plenty of NORMAL SCIENCE that says approximately 5 years.

NORMAL SCIENCE = Transparent - Non-agenda driven - Non Politicized …AND definitely without exaggerated claims to sell a book.

 

[ringil]

BTW: You might want to figure out your time keeping…The post you referred to… was posted at 6:34 A.M

It says 2 hours earlier here and as you live in the “southern USA” I assume you meant the East Coast.

Your interest in this field and your extensive research, beyond your years, show that you may be called to a future in lobbying for Big Oil or Logging or something. You might make a real asset there.

It’s commendable to be so interested in a subject most teenagers would find pretty dry.

 

[kimmielittle]

And we are not only pushing women in to prostitution (as this thread suggests), but also abortion. I read about a woman during the Pakistani flood who had an abortion due to desperation and the need to be there for her other small children, to save them.

You may not feel these things on your conscience (nearly no one does), but I feel them on mine.

Does hypocrisy ever end?

Peer Reviewed:

Last summer’s disastrous Pakistan floods that killed more than 2,000 people and left more than 20 million injured or homeless were caused by a rogue weather system that wandered hundreds of miles farther west than is normal for such systems, new research shows…

Robert Houze, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor…, and colleagues examined radar data from the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite and were able to see that the rainfall that caused the Indus River in Pakistan to overflow was triggered over the Himalayas, within a storm system that had formed over the Bay of Bengal in late July and moved unusually far to the west. Because the rain clouds were within the moisture-laden storm from the east, they were able to pour abnormal amounts of rain on the barren mountainsides, which then ran into the Indus.

blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_and_pakistans_floods_werent_global_warming_either

You may not feel these things on your conscience (nearly no one does), but I feel them on mine.

Where is your rage here?

Armed Troops Burn Down Homes, Kill Children To Evict Ugandans In Name Of Global Warming

Neo-colonial land grabs carried out on behalf of World Bank-backed British company

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Friday, September 23, 2011

Armed troops acting on behalf of a British carbon trading company backed by the World Bank burned houses to the ground and killed children to evict Ugandans from their homes in the name of seizing land to protect against “global warming,” a shocking illustration of how the climate change con is a barbarian form of neo-colonialism.

The evictions were ordered by New Forests Company, an outfit that seizes land in Africa to grow trees then sells the “carbon credits” on to transnational corporations. The company is backed by the World Bank and HSBC. Its Board of Directors includes HSBC Managing Director Sajjad Sabur, as well as other former Goldman Sachs investment bankers.

The company claims residents of Kicucula left in a “peaceful” and “voluntary” manner, and yet the people tell a story of terror and bloodshed.

Villagers told of how armed “security forces” stormed their village and torched houses, burning an eight-year-child to death as they threatened to murder anyone who resisted while beating others.

This Mother didn’t ‘decide’ to kill her child - 8 year old “Monday”

Of note is that Al Gore is chairman of General Investment Management, a company that has invested in New Forests Company. So it’s probably a pretty safe assumption that he will profit from this climate genocide.

lonelyconservative.com/2011/09/thousands-of-ugandans-left-homeless-children-killed-by-climate-terrorists/

Honduran Farmers Slaughtered in Name of Global Warming

23 farmers in Honduras were slaughtered in cold blood by hired mercenaries as they tried to protect their land from being seized by a corporation who wanted to use the land to produce biofuels as part of a United Nations-accredited EU carbon trading scheme.

theswash.com/liberty/honduran-farmers-slaughtered-in-name-of-global-warming

prisonplanet.com/honduran-farmers-slaughtered-in-name-of-global-warming.html

 

[Raskolnikov]

kimmielittle:

So… I guess eco freak or AGW freak is O’kay?

I am a Realist - Climate - changes.

Actually No…I have not been bamboozled by denielist…nor by RealClimate or IPCC.

Are you a realist about lung cancer too? It happens naturally, of course. No need to resort to anthropogenic causes (like smoking). The idea that because something happens “naturally” it is outside the realm of human society is absurd. A methane or CO2 molecule resulting from human-caused combustion is the same as one produced by animal respiration. Forest-fires are natural; that doesn’t mean humans cannot burn them down, nor that we should be fine with people wantonly burning down forests, because it’s “natural.”

And denialist is a fitting term for one who denies somethin in spite of evidence. “Skeptic” is not because it implies openness to a conclusion. You’ll never admit it, but most climate scientists were more skeptica before they came to the logical conclusion. Which is why the cop out explanation is just to dismiss them as freaks or lunatics.

kimmielittle:

There is absolutely no observational evidence of Mr Archers claim that CO2 stays in the Atmosphere 100,000 years. NONE!

There is plenty of NORMAL SCIENCE that says approximately 5 years.

NORMAL SCIENCE = Transparent - Non-agenda driven - Non Politicized …AND definitely without exaggerated claims to sell a book.

“Normal science?” You know, kimmielittle, some of us “eco-freaks” would be less put off by your “arguments” if you were not so committed to the ad hominem approach. You cannot simply say “there is no evidence” and expect everyone else to believe it so. By your standards, just about every climate scientist or climatology, meteorology, or biogeorchemistry professor or student is a n “eco-freak” and a socciopath who only cares about selling books. Not like Exxon Mobil, Shell, or BP have any financial stake in funding global warming denialist research. On one hand there are these book revenues denialists keep talking about, and on the other hand there’s the fossil fuel industry. Take a guess kimmmielittle, which has more money at stake?

As for the duration
of CO2 in the atmosphere, your figure is ridiculously low; 200-500 years is more accurate. Here’s a link, if you’d like a citation, on the issue:

newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00296.htm

Another, this from a peer-reviewed journal: climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/

Both have your 5 year figure off by a couple orders of magnitude, far from the realm of what is accepted as reasonable in ‘norma’ science. I suppose the authors are probably leftist eco-freaks though and can be disregarded.

David R. Cook claims

kimmielittle:

ARE THEY SO THREATENED?

Who knows, maybe they are. But, kimmielittle, I’ve read quite a few of *your *posts on the matter, and if leaving a statement unrebutted is a sign of being threatend, then it doesn’t speak to your confidence in your views.

 

[Raskolnikov]

One cannot accredit any particular climate event on global warming. It is far too stochastic a process to be attributed to particular events. It would be like tryin to attribute a particular uptick in the stock market to a particular event. We should be dealing trends, not in events, which may of course be manifest in increased frequency of certain kinds of events.

As for Honduran farmers being killed by corporate-hired mercenaries (no surprise there; many a fortune 500 company has killed for the sake of profit), I suppose this is suppose to implicate all of us who don’t renounce the satan of anthropogenic global warming in murder. What I see is another ad hominem argument, and a hypocritical one at that, considering the sheer scale of the suffering and death that is befalling and will continue to befall so amny people as a result of food and water shortages and other ecological crises directly linked to various forms of accepted pollution.

 

[jilly4ski]

One cannot accredit any particular climate event on global warming. It is far too stochastic a process to be attributed to particular events. It would be like tryin to attribute a particular uptick in the stock market to a particular event. We should be dealing trends, not in events, which may of course be manifest in increased frequency of certain kinds of events.

As for Honduran farmers being killed by corporate-hired mercenaries (no surprise there; many a fortune 500 company has killed for the sake of profit), I suppose this is suppose to implicate all of us who don’t renounce the satan of anthropogenic global warming in murder. What I see is another ad hominem argument, and a hypocritical one at that, considering the sheer scale of the suffering and death that is befalling and will continue to befall so amny people as a result of food and water shortages and other ecological crises directly linked to various forms of accepted pollution.

I think what kimmie is pointing out is the hypocrisy. lynnvinc is trying to claim the higher moral ground and saying that kimmie is somehow deficient morally for not trying to reduce “global warming” (as if kimmie could do that). Claiming that global warming caused women to go into prostitution and getting abortions, because of specific climate events, (which by the way, are all events that have happened before without the aid of anthropic global warming), but not condemning the people who are trying to stem global warming by hiring goons to kill villagers so they don’t chop down trees, pursing fuel alternatives that cause people to starve and other measures that are much more within our power and control to stop than any kind of global warming.

We are not comparing the corporate goons who kill villagers to stop global warming with evil corporate goons who kill villagers for land or profit. We are comparing with people like lynnvinc, who say we need reverse global warming and show outrage at people’s moral indifference for the issue, but do not condemn and show no moral outrage for corporate goons who kill villagers to stop global warming and people like kimmie who show moral outrage at the deliberate killing of humans to “save the earth” but no moral outrage at global warming which even if true (of which the science is sketchy) there is little we can do about it).

 

[kimmielittle]

It says 2 hours earlier here and as you live in the “southern USA” I assume you meant the East Coast.

Assumptions are dangerous in debate

The post time reflects my computer time.

Your interest in this field and your extensive research, beyond your years, show that you may be called to a future in lobbying for Big Oil or Logging or something. You might make a real asset there.

Ha ha ha ha…

Ad hominem does you justice. How about Providing empirical observational evidence supporting the AGW claims?

It’s commendable to be so interested in a subject most teenagers would find pretty dry.

Let e introduce you to Kristen Byrne who at 15 started her pages Ponder the Maunder.

Welcome to Ponder the Maunder, the official site of the Climate Debate Research Group, formerly the Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation

As was announced on NPR and National Geographic, Kristen has moved on from climate studies and will focus her time on her desired course of study, Architecture. CDRG volunteers continue to conduct the work of the foundation. In 18 months with Kristen, Ponder the Maunder received 2.79 million hits

Despising insurmountable woes on its path, truth came out victoriously. This was revealed by the article of Kristen Byrnes, “Ponder the Maunder.” She made a meaningful research on the causes of global warming. Found a discouraging facts and made Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” absurd, inept, and unsuitable for children’s school use. She made known that Dr. James Hansen, NASA-GISS Director, was a partner of Al Gore and that Hansen made attempts and profited to misinterpret NASA’s data to suit the needs of his political friends’ business. She e-mailed government officials, the likes of US Senator James Inhofe who responded to her supporting her truth endeavour. Miss Byrnes is only 16, but her scientific pereceptions are astonishing that traffics to her site are redirected to different sites to accomodate all those searching for truth. She availed the services of her friends and was assisted by Anthony Watts who provided her uncontested photographs of temperaqture measuring stations throught the USA Climate Historic Locations. Majority of these stations show that it did not follow the rules on station locations. Some of these can be gleaned on Byrnes’ site that bolster the findings of the youthful nerd. Global warming alarmists and advocacies are on the look-out and it is not surprising if one day Byrnes’ site might disappeared into oblivion.

shvoong.com/social-sciences/1805322-ponder-maunder/

newsbusters.org/people/kristen-byrnes

zimbio.com/Ponder+the+Maunder

newsbusters.org/node/12968

15-Year-Old Outsmarts U.N. Climate Panel, Predicts End of Australia’s Drought

By Noel Sheppard | May 24, 2007 | 08:56]

BTW: She doesn’t want to be a climatologist she’s into architecture.

 

[ringil]

Assumptions are dangerous in debate

The post time reflects my computer time.

Ha ha ha ha…

Ad hominem does you justice. How about Providing empirical observational evidence supporting the AGW claims?

Let e introduce you to Kristen Byrne who at 15 started her pages Ponder the Maunder.

shvoong.com/social-sciences/1805322-ponder-maunder/

newsbusters.org/people/kristen-byrnes

zimbio.com/Ponder+the+Maunder

newsbusters.org/node/12968

BTW: She doesn’t want to be a climatologist she’s into architecture.

Well based on the Rightist links you provide, she does seem to be the darling of the anti-global warming crowd. How cute.

I find it really sad when I see children buying into the Rightist propaganda. They must have slim pickings in Higher Education choice to spew back their own narrow views.

I understand that Liberty University, where the “Young Earth” position is taught as “science” is a real bastion of such ideas.

 

[kimmielittle]

Are you a realist about lung cancer too? It happens naturally, of course. No need to resort to anthropogenic causes (like smoking). The idea that because something happens “naturally” it is outside the realm of human society is absurd. A methane or CO2 molecule resulting from human-caused combustion is the same as one produced by animal respiration. Forest-fires are natural; that doesn’t mean humans cannot burn them down, nor that we should be fine with people wantonly burning down forests, because it’s “natural.”

Is there a problem logically in this assumption?

And denialist is a fitting term for one who denies somethin in spite of evidence.

You mean it’s not rational to be skeptical of an unproven hypothesis?

“Skeptic” is not because it implies openness to a conclusion. You’ll never admit it, but most climate scientists were more skeptica before they came to the logical conclusion.

Actually wrong…NORMAL SCIENCE is Skepticism. Post-normal science is a religious believe in an unproven hypothesis.

HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs ].

THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth the theory of evolution ]. It should comply with and explain some observed behavior.

LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions the law of gravitation ].

WHAT is lacking in the AGW hypothesis? Causation - Correlation? Empirical Observational Evidence ?

“Normal science?” You know, kimmielittle, some of us “eco-freaks”

Reading comprehension? Did I call anyone an eco-freak? OR did I use it as an example?

Not like Exxon Mobil, Shell, or BP have any financial stake in funding global warming denialist research. On one hand there are these book revenues denialists keep talking about, and on the other hand there’s the fossil fuel industry. Take a guess kimmmielittle, which has more money at stake?

Actually wrong…

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

sppiblog.org/news/partial-list-of-cru-funders

americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

As for the duration
of CO2 in the atmosphere, your figure is ridiculously low; 200-500 years is more accurate. Here’s a link, if you’d like a citation, on the issue:

It sure isn’t 100,000 years as claimed without evidence - is it

 

[bbarrick8383]

Well based on the Rightist links you provide, she does seem to be the darling of the anti-global warming crowd. How cute.

I find it really sad when I see children buying into the Rightist propaganda. They must have slim pickings in Higher Education choice to spew back their own narrow views.

I understand that Liberty University, where the “Young Earth” position is taught as “science” is a real bastion of such ideas.

I find it really sad that a teenage girl run circles around you intellectually so fast that you have to resort to such nonsense to make yourself feel better about it.

Bruised ego? I think so.

 

[kimmielittle]

Another, this from a peer-reviewed journal: climateresearchnews.com/2009/08/atmospheric-residence-time-of-man-made-co2/

Did you Actually read this paper? It supports 4-5 years. AND concludes with this

This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion. The economic and political significance of that conclusion will be self-evident.

 

[exoflare]

I find it really sad that a teenage girl run circles around you intellectually so fast that you have to resort to such nonsense to make yourself feel better about it.

Bruised ego? I think so.

rofl

I really wish this thread could get stickied.

 

[kimmielittle]

I think what kimmie is pointing out is the hypocrisy. lynnvinc is trying to claim the higher moral ground and saying that kimmie is somehow deficient morally for not trying to reduce “global warming” (as if kimmie could do that). Claiming that global warming caused women to go into prostitution and getting abortions, because of specific climate events, (which by the way, are all events that have happened before without the aid of anthropic global warming), but not condemning the people who are trying to stem global warming by hiring goons to kill villagers so they don’t chop down trees, pursing fuel alternatives that cause people to starve and other measures that are much more within our power and control to stop than any kind of global warming.

We are not comparing the corporate goons who kill villagers to stop global warming with evil corporate goons who kill villagers for land or profit. We are comparing with people like lynnvinc, who say we need reverse global warming and show outrage at people’s moral indifference for the issue, but do not condemn and show no moral outrage for corporate goons who kill villagers to stop global warming and people like kimmie who show moral outrage at the deliberate killing of humans to “save the earth” but no moral outrage at global warming which even if true (of which the science is sketchy) there is little we can do about it).

 

[Raskolnikov]

kimmielittle:

Is there a problem logically in this assumption?

Umm, yes! Just because something happens without human intervention does not mean that human intervention does not effect it. Do you sincerely believe that smoking does not cause lung cancer, just because some people get lung cancer without smoking?

You mean it’s not rational to be skeptical of an unproven hypothesis?

It is rational to be skeptical, until the conclusion has been demonstated beyond reasonable doubt. That point has been reached with anthropogenic global warming. If it were a trial, the evidence would be more than sufficient to warrant a verdict. Could an imaginitive person concoct a theoretical narrative, involving conspiracies, the planting of evidence, and outlandish interpretations of facts to justify holding out for a mistrial? Sure, but it would be just that, a fanciful narrative.

Actually wrong…NORMAL SCIENCE is Skepticism. Post-normal science is a religious believe in an unproven hypothesis.

HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs ].

THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth the theory of evolution ]. It should comply with and explain some observed behavior.

Skepticism in science does not imply perennially waffling in the middle. It means waiting for smple evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Are you a skeptic about the theory of relativity? About Jonas Salk’s proposed polio vaccine? About germ theory? Why not? Why are scientists not more ‘skeptical’ of those theories? In fact, they were at one point, but evidence has piled up that has made the doubting position untenuous.

And when, pray tell, did “post-normal” science being? How much of the technology you use emerged from this “post-normal” science that is based on the same foundations as modern climate science? How much of the science of chemistry do you accept when you go to the doctor’s office or the pharmacist or in school but reject when applied to climate science because the conclusion doesn’t suit you?

THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth the theory of evolution ]. It should comply with and explain some observed behavior.

LAW implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions the law of gravitation ].

WHAT is lacking in the AGW hypothesis? Causation - Correlation? Empirical Observational Evidence ?

Quite wrong, it is not lacking, not by any stretch of the imagination. The proposed effects (such as net increase in temperature across the globe) have been observed with undoubtable evidence, as deviating from what “should” be happening were there no anthropogenic effects; mechanisms by which anthropogenic global warming would occur have been discovered and even tested; and these mechanisms are far and away simplest and most viable (by a long shot) explanation for the deviations.

Actually wrong…

cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

Actually, not wrong. Your article was befuddlingly irrelevant to my post. All the research mone yin the world given to scientists researching the climate does not even come close to the many trillions of dollars in annual revenue made by fossil fuel industries. The whole “scientists invented flobal warming to get research money” is laughable in the face of the fact that it’s pennies compared to what the energy industries stand to lose from the truth and they hold far more sway among higher officials in the most powerful countries than mere scienists. Generally, they even employ the same ‘pathologically skeptical’ scientists like Frederick Seitz and Frederick Singer, who fought against the truth in the past, like the whole in the ozone layer, acid rain, and even the effects of smoking on cancer. They used similar arguments back then too.

It sure isn’t 100,000 years as claimed without evidence - is it

Is that an implicit concession that your 5 year claim was way off? In keeping with my ongoing courtroom analogy, “I demand an elocution!”

 

[kimmielittle]

Well based on the Rightist links you provide, she does seem to be the darling of the anti-global warming crowd. How cute.

I find it really sad when I see children buying into the Rightist propaganda. They must have slim pickings in Higher Education choice to spew back their own narrow views.

I understand that Liberty University, where the “Young Earth” position is taught as “science” is a real bastion of such ideas.

Actually your logic is flawed:

Your use of “Rightist” and because you used it as a defense - making you a “Leftist” - THROWS your understanding of NORMAL SCIENCE out the window and supports the unproven hypothesis of AGW… as Post-normal science.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Did you Actually read this paper? It supports 4-5 years. AND concludes with this

No, I didn’t. Caught me off guard. I was looking for a figure, I had a ballpark idea from chemistry class, but needed the citation. I will see what the latest *Nature *or *Science *articles have to say about it. I will resist the temptation to simply check wikipedia.

jilly4ski:

I think what kimmie is pointing out is the hypocrisy. lynnvinc is trying to claim the higher moral ground and saying that kimmie is somehow deficient morally for not trying to reduce “global warming” (as if kimmie could do that). Claiming that global warming caused women to go into prostitution and getting abortions, because of specific climate events, (which by the way, are all events that have happened before without the aid of anthropic global warming), but not condemning the people who are trying to stem global warming by hiring goons to kill villagers so they don’t chop down trees, pursing fuel alternatives that cause people to starve and other measures that are much more within our power and control to stop than any kind of global warming.

We are not comparing the corporate goons who kill villagers to stop global warming with evil corporate goons who kill villagers for land or profit. We are comparing with people like lynnvinc, who say we need reverse global warming and show outrage at people’s moral indifference for the issue, but do not condemn and show no moral outrage for corporate goons who kill villagers to stop global warming and people like kimmie who show moral outrage at the deliberate killing of humans to “save the earth” but no moral outrage at global warming which even if true (of which the science is sketchy) there is little we can do about it).

This hypocrisy cuts both ways, and more in one direction I think than the other. The fact is, people will not apply the same moral principles to what they choose to consume or its effects on other people that they do otherwise in their daily lives. In fact, it’s not limited to environmental pollution. People who condemn murder will nonetheless by products from companies that commit the crime half way around the world. Or who loud generosity will refuse to buy a product from a company that pays its workers better than others because their prices are a little higher.