Buckdog

Phil, I know you but Buckdog readers do not - so - I have to tell them where you are coming from with that statement.

I like your comments generally, but the fact that you are a STRONG Conservative supporter indicates your right wing mindset.

When you were supporting Tory Premier Bernard Lord, I told you he was going down, and I was correct.

I know as a righty you don't like my comments quite often - but from time to time I don't like yours either.

I do find you, however, to be a valid contributor to the blogosphere. I just don't agree with you sometimes./

As a scientist, I find the current strategy of the global warming crusade to be fascinating. Particularly because I am a scientist, I also find it insulting. Everyone should find it very disturbing.

I am referring to the fact that the global warming issue is now regarded as a "moral" matter by its advocates. None other than The High Priest of Global Warming (Al Gore) has decreed it as such. Of course, there is some obvious humor in this because the liberals will also tell you that you "cannot legislate morality". Well, it does not take complicated logic to conclude that if global warming is indeed a moral matter and if it is true that you cannot legislate morality, then it should hold that you cannot legislate global warming.


The message of these pseudo-moralists is that "good" people must start by accepting the pre-ordained orthodox conclusion and then work backwards through the claimed facts, making not an intellectual assessment of whether they are indeed true, but rather a "moral" assessment of whether or not they agree with the conclusion. Things claimed as facts which are "good" (in this moral sense) should be embraced and those which are "bad" (in this same moral sense) should be discarded, not because they are factually false, but because they are "immoral".

In all honesty, this should scare the heck out of everyone. This is an atmosphere in which scientific inquiry is steered not by factual truth, but by a pre-ordained "moral" position. What is at work here is exactly what the liberals have always claimed to condemn. How is this any different from the decree of a radical theocratic dictator who will allow only those scientific conclusions which are approved by his church?

The liberals always claimed that such behavior - allowing moral considerations to trump factual ones - was the ultimate evil. But apparently, even this "ultimate evil" becomes "acceptable strategy" if the cause is justified. This is "liberal moral relativism" taken to a whole new level.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/why_did_global_warming_become.html

Buckdog, kate and her gang are just being bored on 'good friday' and wanting to have some religious fun. She is very proud of her artwork. I do hope she doesn't piss off the social conservatives that prop the Harper govt.

It is not a good idea to start treating Deniers in this way, with buillying references to mental illness. We have all read some years back on how the Russians treated dissenters as mentally ill, and they shipped them off to looney bins to turn them into vegetables with drugs.Looney jokes are used today by political bullies to denigrate their opponents bullies who once would tell "jokes" with a similar aim about spastics, cripples, Blacks, Indians and so on. I have heard a local psychologist addressing a big audience at a Jewish centre on how he believed that people who did not support Isreal were to be classified as Authoritarian personalities, described as a defect of the mind or character, it was not too clear which. I have recently read a blogger, describing a convicted anti semite as human garbage, the same sort of language that nazis used to describe Jews.

I realize that some may say, oh knock it off with that political correctness, or dismiss the usage as trivial, and I would agree that in many cases it just shows some one too lazy to work up the right words. But it will not do. It will not do at all. I do not favor hate laws which truly are a straight jacket imposed top down and there fore rightly to be despised. But a bully is worse.
On climate change I believe some are scholars for whom the science has passed them by, some are imposing a personal culture on the science or trying to, some are those who have wandered far off into a private intensity, and some are just saying things they have for years without having been strongly corrected. Only a very few , probably are reasonably regarded as paid liars, and it is hardly worth the time to do any more than follw the money or describe the provenance, as they say, very aptly, in the world of art. This too is genuine work, and you can see how well it can be done by looking at Desmogblog. What counts is to say they are wrong and large numbers of scientists have said so including our own National science orga nization in Canada. Beyond that it is fair game to attack directly any person or organization that funds deniers.
It may be time to finally drive some of these out of business by representations to the business that support them. There is nothing at all innocent or unknowing about those bastards. But knock it off with the bullying stuff

So what do you suggest????
Facts mean NOTHING to them.
Science means NOTHING to them.
They operate on 'beliefs' without anything logical or factual to back it up.
They are agressive in their denials.
They are abusive in their denials.
They are abrasive in the debate.

What do you suggest.

They would allow the destruction of the planet due to their stupidty.

They are like some lunatic driving 150 miles per hour through traffic in a 60 MPH zone.

Reckless, callous, idiotic, lacking in social or civic responsibility.

What do you suggest???????

"So what do you suggest????
Facts mean NOTHING to them.
Science means NOTHING to them.
They operate on 'beliefs' without anything logical or factual to back it up.
They are agressive in their denials.
They are abusive in their denials.
They are abrasive in the debate."

You’re talking about yourself and the religion of man cause global warming, right?

Man cause global warming is the new religion of the left where anyone that disagrees with them is a heretic who should be abused.

Since the scientific evidence does not support your faith in man made global warming, you need to lash out at anyone who has looked at the science and seen that most of the evidence is pointing to the sun for the resent warming and not CO2.

But then, why let the facts get in the way of your faith?

You sir are guilty of the very behaviour that you are screaming against.

Look in the mirror buddy.

Deno

You have just proven that the question I pose in the title of this post is valid. There is absolutely NO logic in what you just wrote ... 'the new religion of the left' ... I feel sorry for you.

When you turn 13 ... come back and post something less childish ....

Leftdog,

I realize that you have watched "An inconvenient truth" and probably feel very passionately about saving the planet. Probably not as passionately as Al Gore though. I mean I'm sure that you wish that you had your own private jet and mansion with heated swimming pools and a $30,000 power bill to boot so that you could save the planet too! I sure do! Anyways, I digress.

What do you have to say about scientists that are not preaching the gospel of man made global warming? There seems to be a growing list of scientists who disagree with the theory.

Have you watched 'the great global warming swindle'? Thoughts?

You took issue with the political nature of the science, but how do you argue that it isn't political? We have David Suzuki and Al Gore doing speaking tours across the country/world. Neither of these people are scientists. Gore is a former/current POLITICIAN!! You could argue that Suzuki is a scientist, but his field is genetics.

For me, I am skeptical of man made global warming for many reasons, but especially because of the parallels between this and the global cooling/coming ice age that scientists were alarming people about 30 years ago.

So .... I have allowed the extreme right wing to have their little say .... and I am glad Deno posted his bit of nonsense because it truly shows how the extreme right wing attempts to politicise science.

Here is the official site of the IPCC where the report can be accessed.

Faced with thousands and thousands of reputable academics and scientific experts explaining global warming, they dredge up one or two fundamentalist christian 'scientists' from somewhere - like the University of North Dakota - and argue that their one voice is equal to the vast pool of human scientific expertise.

This is the same mindset that argued there were WMD's in Iraq - who argue that Bush is a good president.

Their arguments would allow the destruction of our society.

A formula simple enough for all to understand.

GW =JS
Global Warming = Junk Science.

In a few years you will agree with me even if you now disagree.

Here is a wikipedia article summarizing the thoughts of some global warming denying scientists. Is your description of "one or two fundamentalist christian 'scientists' from somewhere - like the University of North Dakota" accurate?

Come on, seriously, watch the global warming swindle. Get an alternative view. Expand your horizons. I dare you!

Note also that there is nothing wrong with a Christian fundamentalist scientist, and I resent you having implied otherwise.

These are the same folks who once elected Stockwell Day as their political leader - a guy who is still convinced the earth is 6000 years old...and he is the Minister now in charge of our Public Safety.

Reat Assured Canada - Rest Assured!

Once again, if you can't argue the science, shoot the messenger. The science is not settled, even the IPCC admits areas of uncertainty and changes projections from report to report. Also, the actual reports from IPCC bear little connection to the policy makers document, the only one people read.

Has there been an increase in temperature? Yes, about 0.8 to 1.0 degrees Celcius since the absolute coldest period in the last 15,000 years. The accurracy of determining global average temperature is about plus or minus 0.7 degrees because of all the averaging and interpolation required. You could draw the conclusion that it the temperature change is barely above the systemic noise level.

Just so you know, I am not in the pay of an oil company or the tobacco industry,and I have no political affiliation.

Just a corection to my previous post. The global temp has increased by 0.6 degrees with a confidence of plus or minus 0.2 degrees C.