Comments on: Eco Crowd Growing Desperate—and Dangerous http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/ Climate Change News & Analysis Thu, 07 Feb 2013 05:41:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: LOLhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69438 LOL Sat, 05 May 2012 21:55:53 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69438 LOL, the eco crowd is also incredibly dumb and ignorant. There was no turkish town by roman times. LOL, the eco crowd is also incredibly dumb and ignorant. There was no turkish town by roman times.

]]> By: Edward J. Gallagherhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69426 Edward J. Gallagher Wed, 02 May 2012 02:09:45 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69426 Ahem, Patrick, there are over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. alone that do not agree with the so called "facts" of the AGW hypothesis, including a Nobel Prize winner, and they are very serious. The debate is not over, there never was one to start with. Your are correct in saying climate change is a fact, the fallacy lies in what you believe is the cause, and the social agenda behind this at best, ersatz field of study. You might try to use some facts yourself, instead of self serving rhetoric and misinformation. Ahem, Patrick, there are over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. alone that do not agree with the so called “facts” of the AGW hypothesis, including a Nobel Prize winner, and they are very serious. The debate is not over, there never was one to start with. Your are correct in saying climate change is a fact, the fallacy lies in what you believe is the cause, and the social agenda behind this at best, ersatz field of study. You might try to use some facts yourself, instead of self serving rhetoric and misinformation.

]]> By: tlawhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69421 tlaw Tue, 01 May 2012 16:18:03 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69421 Patrick is right climate change is not an opinion but fact. Has anyone every heard a skepitic deny climate change? Has anyone pointed to a quote by a skeptic that says co2 is not a greenhouse gas? Can anyone point to a skeptic that says that the earth has not wamed in the last 150 years? The debate which alarmists say is over is not about co2, global warming, or climate change. Any serious person will accept these facts as true. I do. Am I a skeptic? Yes. Skeptical of what? I am skeptical of CATASTROPHIC MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING. Patrick is right climate change is not an opinion but fact. Has anyone every heard a skepitic deny climate change? Has anyone pointed to a quote by a skeptic that says co2 is not a greenhouse gas? Can anyone point to a skeptic that says that the earth has not wamed in the last 150 years? The debate which alarmists say is over is not about co2, global warming, or climate change. Any serious person will accept these facts as true. I do. Am I a skeptic? Yes. Skeptical of what? I am skeptical of CATASTROPHIC MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

]]> By: Henri Suyderhoudhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69416 Henri Suyderhoud Tue, 01 May 2012 00:06:03 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69416 As I read the various commentators above, I can only conclude that a few have honest interest to address the real issue regarding Climate Change, or Global warming, ,or whatever you like to use to describe the issue. I can only say the following. Some 50 to 75 years ago, without sattelites and only limited observations, I can understand that some well intended scientist theorized that CO2 could well be the culprit of Global Warming. But such a hypothesis must be proven by incontrovertible experiment or utterly sound science. Then it became clear that far too little was known or understood about the phenomena of climate, and that unfortunately didn't sit well with those who postulated the Big Theory. It then became almost entirely political, and that, dear readers, is what it became. And it was their downfall, as will ultimately become clear. But also, if so much money was poured into the AGW cause, it has become a totally irrational debate form the point of view of the true believers. The good scientists that were willing to risk their reputation and well being, predicted and reasoned that the whole issue whad become a hoax, as we all know. Of course, non-scientists like Gore etc. just don't have the capacity to understand the course of events, and so he and others will keep on preaching doom due to AGW. But be assured, he and others will ultimately become old and decrepit, and just fade away, while true science will prevail. So my advice to the real scientists among my reeaders, it will all come to fruition what you have said and done in the name of true science. Mark my words, because I will not see it happen in my life time. But if you are young, you will be experiencing it. As I read the various commentators above, I can only conclude that a few have honest interest to address the real issue regarding Climate Change, or Global warming, ,or whatever you like to use to describe the issue. I can only say the following. Some 50 to 75 years ago, without sattelites and only limited observations, I can understand that some well intended scientist theorized that CO2 could well be the culprit of Global Warming. But such a hypothesis must be proven by incontrovertible experiment or utterly sound science. Then it became clear that far too little was known or understood about the phenomena of climate, and that unfortunately didn’t sit well with those who postulated the Big Theory. It then became almost entirely political, and that, dear readers, is what it became. And it was their downfall, as will ultimately become clear. But also, if so much money was poured into the AGW cause, it has become a totally irrational debate form the point of view of the true believers. The good scientists that were willing to risk their reputation and well being, predicted and reasoned that the whole issue whad become a hoax, as we all know. Of course, non-scientists like Gore etc. just don’t have the capacity to understand the course of events, and so he and others will keep on preaching doom due to AGW. But be assured, he and others will ultimately become old and decrepit, and just fade away, while true science will prevail. So my advice to the real scientists among my reeaders, it will all come to fruition what you have said and done in the name of true science. Mark my words, because I will not see it happen in my life time. But if you are young, you will be experiencing it.

]]> By: Hank Hhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69412 Hank H Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:38:58 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69412 Robert, the world needs a redistributive scheme to redistribute what? The fallacy of your thinking is the governments that do the redistributing don't generate any wealth to redistribute.It is a apparent that you've never studied history which documents that every iteration of communism and it's close cousin, socialism, has failed miserably in very short order. Why? Because such ideologies rely on redistribution schemes. When the collective productivity output of its disincentivized citizens drops below the massive cost of micromanaging the scheme, the government runs out of money and collapses.People like you champion sustainability as the ultimate goal. Communism and other redistribution ideologies are proven as unsustainable. So, why do you champion them? Robert, the world needs a redistributive scheme to redistribute what? The fallacy of your thinking is the governments that do the redistributing don’t generate any wealth to redistribute.

It is a apparent that you’ve never studied history which documents that every iteration of communism and it’s close cousin, socialism, has failed miserably in very short order. Why? Because such ideologies rely on redistribution schemes. When the collective productivity output of its disincentivized citizens drops below the massive cost of micromanaging the scheme, the government runs out of money and collapses.

People like you champion sustainability as the ultimate goal. Communism and other redistribution ideologies are proven as unsustainable. So, why do you champion them?

]]> By: Matt Patterson: Eco Crowd Growing Desperate—and Dangerous | JunkScience.comhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69411 Matt Patterson: Eco Crowd Growing Desperate—and Dangerous | JunkScience.com Mon, 30 Apr 2012 14:24:34 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69411 [...] Cooler Heads Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Climate Change, Environmentalism and tagged greenie obstructionists, insane greens, misanthropy, scare mongers. Bookmark the permalink. ← William Briggs: Love Of Theory Is The Root Of All Evil [...] [...] Cooler Heads Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Climate Change, Environmentalism and tagged greenie obstructionists, insane greens, misanthropy, scare mongers. Bookmark the permalink. ← William Briggs: Love Of Theory Is The Root Of All Evil [...]

]]> By: Quaestorhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69409 Quaestor Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:07:27 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69409 Fair play, eh? Let see. You've had some education, at least you can spell redistributive -- that's not fair. You probably can afford a PC or a tablet and a broadband connection -- that's not fair. You eat 1200 or more Calories a day -- that's not fair. You'd better pray life things don't get fair for you."How about you admitting that the world DOES need a redistributive scheme based on justice for all, not wealth for a few?" Lovelock has admitted his errors because the observed state of nature doesn't support the AGW theory, that's real science, not ManBearPig's bid for power. Simple fact: if you theory makes a prediction and it doesn't pan out you revise the theory or junk it, otherwise you're no scientist. We "deniers" have been telling you all along that the AGW hysterics were full of crap, so whose theory has predictive power? Not AGW, evidently. We deniers are the real scientists. As for your notion about "fair play," besides being a non sequitur in this context (Lovelock's admission is not logically connected to your premise) it is also jejune beyond words. Get some more education, become an entrepreneur, meet a payroll, then get back to us on this fair play business. Fair play, eh? Let see. You’ve had some education, at least you can spell redistributive — that’s not fair. You probably can afford a PC or a tablet and a broadband connection — that’s not fair. You eat 1200 or more Calories a day — that’s not fair. You’d better pray life things don’t get fair for you.

“How about you admitting that the world DOES need a redistributive scheme based on justice for all, not wealth for a few?” Lovelock has admitted his errors because the observed state of nature doesn’t support the AGW theory, that’s real science, not ManBearPig’s bid for power. Simple fact: if you theory makes a prediction and it doesn’t pan out you revise the theory or junk it, otherwise you’re no scientist. We “deniers” have been telling you all along that the AGW hysterics were full of crap, so whose theory has predictive power? Not AGW, evidently. We deniers are the real scientists. As for your notion about “fair play,” besides being a non sequitur in this context (Lovelock’s admission is not logically connected to your premise) it is also jejune beyond words. Get some more education, become an entrepreneur, meet a payroll, then get back to us on this fair play business.

]]> By: Ray Smithhttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69401 Ray Smith Mon, 30 Apr 2012 01:43:01 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69401 THE WHOLE WORLD IS GOING NUTS! I CAN ASSUME, NONE OD THESE DEMONSTARTORS HAVE A JOB?Ray Smith THE WHOLE WORLD IS GOING NUTS! I CAN ASSUME, NONE OD THESE DEMONSTARTORS HAVE A JOB?

Ray Smith

]]> By: John Roddahttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69394 John Rodda Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:24:46 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69394 Paatrick, of course the climate changes - it always has. At the moment it's getting cooler. Did you know that in the 116 years since 1896 when Arrhenius invented "greenhouse gases" no-one any where has found any evidence to support it and the evidence against it is incontravertible> So anyone stating it's proven is telling a lie.The so-called "greenhouse gas" theory is a superstition and simply untrue. Man-made global warming is a fraud, from which many peo0ple are making big money. Paatrick, of course the climate changes – it always has. At the moment it’s getting cooler. Did you know that in the 116 years since 1896 when Arrhenius invented “greenhouse gases” no-one any where has found any evidence to support it and the evidence against it is incontravertible> So anyone stating it’s proven is telling a lie.

The so-called “greenhouse gas” theory is a superstition and simply untrue. Man-made global warming is a fraud, from which many peo0ple are making big money.

]]> By: robert van der hopehttp://www.globalwarming.org/2012/04/27/eco-crowd-growing-desperate-and-dangerous/comment-page-1/#comment-69387 robert van der hope Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:34:58 +0000 http://www.globalwarming.org/?p=13991#comment-69387 Sure, Lovelock is game enough to admit he was in error. How about you admitting that the world DOES need a redistributive scheme based on justice for all, not wealth for a few? That's not communism, that's fair play. Sure, Lovelock is game enough to admit he was in error. How about you admitting that the world DOES need a redistributive scheme based on justice for all, not wealth for a few? That’s not communism, that’s fair play.

]]>