Two comments:
1. You have to see this to understand some mind sets regarding “global warming”.
2. I didn’t know trains still ran on time at the end of the world.
(h/t to Paul Biggs of Celestial Junk)
Two comments:
1. You have to see this to understand some mind sets regarding “global warming”.
2. I didn’t know trains still ran on time at the end of the world.
(h/t to Paul Biggs of Celestial Junk)
The spot is ridiculous. Specially the monkey and the kangaroo´s deads.
It is true that the system wants to use the Global Warming to install a feeling of human World Conscience which allows in a future the installation of a One World Government. That is why there is a lot of money on this and strong campaigns.
Anyway it does not means that Global Warming is a fake. There is a lot fo data that can be interpreted according to different theories. In my opinion the theory of Global Warming is good enough to explain the evolution in the data recorded in the last 20-30 years. The fact that a few men want to use this issue for their own purposes (establishment of taxes, trying to put together people around the world as already said) does not mean that it is a fake. Industry is flushing tons of chemicals, CO2, SO2, etc every year and it has to influence necessarily the environment. In France it has been recently published a documentary that deals with the contamination on the food we eat nowadays. It has been found that cancer has increased 90% in France in the last 30 years. Turning back to Global Warming, some of you make a simple extrapolation: if it is getting warmer why we have snow in California, Las Vegas, etc? The data show tha AVERAGE TEMPERATURE is increasing. As it is the average, it does not mean that one particular year the temperatures can go lower or higher than usual. There are small effects (some of them still unknown) that can influence particular behaviors, but the important is to see which is the trend which is given by the average parameters.
Nevermind about the “santa gone green” video – it “has been removed by the user” – well, no wonder…
Does anyone know who made the video?
Mary Hinge,
My comparison is true and accurate and those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. I think you simply take offense simply because you can’t rebuke the argument. Hitler was creating a religion and this is fact and has been covered and documented. I have never and will never compare or use horrific images to make a point. I let let the facts stand on their merit period.
The “Al Gore-X-mas” Carol – “The 12 Days Of Global Warming” at
Happy global war… err… I mean holidays, folks! 😉
Im disgusted, using animal suicide to play on peoples guilt, let alone their emotions is a disgust.
Brendan:
your Well done, Les. You’ve condensed your dissonance into a single thought. Good to see you’re improving on a fine old tradition of AGW scepticism.
Some, like Gore, have become quite wealthy on AGW.
Others, especially NGOs, see it as as a chance for global wealth distribution.
Still others, like Chirac, see it as the “first step towards global governance”.
There are even people that see it as genuine problem that needs resolution.
Now, cognitive dissonance is when someone’s world view, usually one single narrow view, is threatened by real world facts.
My world view accepts that there can be more than one answer to any question. My world view doubts any complex question with a supposedly single answer; as being too simplistic and unrealistic.
So, who is the cognitive dissonant, then? You, or me?
jeez: your
hmm…I would say that pithy wit beats an ill formed question.
My wife says I have a pithy wit. But she lisps.
You’ve already lost the argument.
Mary Hinge your logic eludes me. You didn’t rebuke any part of my statement. Saying because I said Hitler does not lose or make an argument only when used in context. I wont bloviate further since you seem unable to discuss anything that says Hitler. Simply getting upset because someone said Hitler does win a discussion. Hitler and the Nazi party created a religion to control the people and indoctrinate the young, the vary thing most cults do like PETA and AGW. This lead to the death of 10s of millions so if you can take the heat guess what…. PLLEEEAASSSEE show me where I called anyone a Nazi or Hitler. Next you will say I lose a discussion because I say slavery. Those other dirty words like truth, facts and history.
Reply: Mary Hinge does appear to have missed the point of my moderator reply. However, Jim Arndt, you could have responded without calling AGW a cult or referring to body counts as well. So let’s all try and raise the bar please! ~charles the moderator
I meant to say does not win a discussion ooppps. LOL
NP Charles sorry, just irks me when history is ignored or belittled. Ok AGW looks to be cult like. I usually keep myself under control but it just irked me.
Reply: Not to worry. For clarity to other posters, this is the point Mary Hinge seems to have missed in the article I cited:
~ charles the moderator
So we’re projecting ‘certain’ people’s guilt/depression/suicidalthoughts into animals and then amplifying the negativity by giving animals the subsequential behaviors that go along with those feelings?
Hmm. Creative. Does make you wonder if Polar Bears think about suicide. Too bad I’m a meat eating, winter loving, anti-gw meteorologist. Shame on people who think up this stuff. Same goes to you people who would rather save an animal’s life over a human.
WAR 3′ of snow for the inland northwest. w00t!
Les: “Now, cognitive dissonance is when someone’s world view, usually one single narrow view, is threatened by real world facts.”
Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. In the example in question it’s a double dissonance: capitalist/socialist plot versus the reality. The fact that some people might benefit from AGW, or that others might see an opportunity to further their agenda, is not evidence of conspiracy, merely the normal play of interests.
“My world view doubts any complex question with a supposedly single answer; as being too simplistic and unrealistic.”
I wouldn’t call AGW simplistic, but what matters in the end is the evidence
“So, who is the cognitive dissonant, then? You, or me?”
I don’t regard myself as cognitively dissonant. However, one aspect of AGW scepticism is particularly striking: the quick dismissal of AGW claims versus the ready acceptance of sceptic claims.
This phenomenon was very evident in a recent thread about a statistical study of the trend in sea ice since 1979. The results were received with acclamation and little, if any, critical comment from sceptics. This leads me to conclude that the scepticism of AGW sceptics is highly selective, which apart from anything else is ultimately damaging to the sceptics’ cause.
Brendan:
My:
Now, cognitive dissonance is when someone’s world view, usually one single narrow view, is threatened by real world facts.
your:
Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
And these two statements are different how?
your In the example in question it’s a double dissonance: capitalist/socialist plot versus the reality. The fact that some people might benefit from AGW, or that others might see an opportunity to further their agenda, is not evidence of conspiracy, merely the normal play of interests.
Its NOT double dissonance, whatever the heck that is. Its people with different agenda’s, which I implied with a succinct “Yes”. You are now seeming to understand my answer to your question.
your I wouldn’t call AGW simplistic, but what matters in the end is the evidence.
AGW is not simple. Insisting that anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit, however, is simplistic. The evidence, at best, is contradictory, which indicates a complex cause.
your I don’t regard myself as cognitively dissonant. However, one aspect of AGW scepticism is particularly striking: the quick dismissal of AGW claims versus the ready acceptance of sceptic claims. These two statements are related how? And how does this relate to my posting?
your This phenomenon was very evident in a recent thread about a statistical study of the trend in sea ice since 1979. The results were received with acclamation and little, if any, critical comment from sceptics. This leads me to conclude that the scepticism of AGW sceptics is highly selective, which apart from anything else is ultimately damaging to the sceptics’ cause.
Again, I fail to see the relevance to my post.
I’m having a bit of a chuckle over how wildly Mary has missed the point.
To suggest that any discussion of propaganda can’t include the Nazis……
But then, I usually view Mary’s goal as being to divert the discussion.
Hey, Douglas DC (21:53:18) !
I’ve met people like you all my life. You judge people by rumors.
Once that was excusable as ignorance, but not we have the internet
Cree-Cherokee. According to you, he was kin. Not from Italy, but Oklahoma, where my Blackfoot great-grandma came from. Wise up and stop repeating nonsense. See link below.
http://www.ironeyescody.org/
TV is chilling a little. Another CNN weather person does not think well of AGW.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspx
Brendan: your
So is AGW a get-rich capitalist scheme or a get-poor socialist scheme?
The correct answer is “YES”.
I think that a fine example of a manifestation of cognitive dissonance is the inability of a human brain to “get” this example of “pithy wit” in less than a microsecond.
Brendan, I think the makers of this video have a bigger bank balance now than before they made the video. Similarly, I’m sure kayak boy has a bigger bank balance by saying how delighted he was to have got so far north before his @rse froze to his kayak, as opposed to saying how delighted he was, for the planet’s sake, that the ice stopped him so far south !! Not to worry though Brendan, I won’t be able to prove it because it won’t be audited.
(1 microsecond pause)
Are there any doubts about the limo liberal’s agenda for AGW ?? It is not cognitive dissonance to observe two (or ten) politically distinct factions jumping on the same bandwagon.
Lastly, I’m wondering why you changed the word “scheme” to “plot” in your comments above. Minor, non-statistically significant change helps with the argument, eh ?
Mary , does this mean my father has won the argument long ago? David Suzuki has called him a denier ( with intentional allusions to all that word represents) for about 20 years now. In fact it was how I learned what ad hominem meant. I am sorry to point out that it was your side that used the Hitler reference decades before anyone that I know made any reference to that repulsive time in man’s history. So, by your logic, we won the argument a long, long, time ago, …….
I was convlused with laughter by the end. Thanks for sharing this.
Les J: “And these two statements are different how?”
Cognitive dissonance can also involve contradictory attitudes and beliefs.
“Its NOT double dissonance, whatever the heck that is. Its people with different agenda’s, which I implied with a succinct “Yes”.”
We are talking at cross purposes. Your “yes” answer to my question “So is AGW a get-rich capitalist scheme or a get-poor socialist scheme?” seemed to imply a belief that AGW was hatched to further the interests of certain people. Perhaps you meant that some people are jumping on the AGW bandwagon for their own purposes, but it’s hard to discern that from a one-word answer.
“Insisting that anthropogenic CO2 is the culprit, however, is simplistic. The evidence, at best, is contradictory, which indicates a complex cause.”
The fact that CO2 is the primary driver of AGW does not rule out other factors.
“your: ‘I don’t regard myself as cognitively dissonant. However, one aspect of AGW scepticism is particularly striking: the quick dismissal of AGW claims versus the ready acceptance of sceptic claims.’ These two statements are related how?”
I think the following fairly characterises the self-image of the AGW sceptic: “I am an independent, rational thinker who critically weighs the evidence for and against any claim.”
Or in the words of a self-proclaimed sceptic: “My personal belief is that we ’skeptics’ are, by and large, very open minded about climate science…and that the ‘other side’ is almost completely closed to any debate. We are willing to be altered by what we hear, but will also put any data through rigorous testing before giving any hypothesis our blessing.”
However, in the case of the sea ice thread, there was a general and immediate acceptance of the results, encapsulated in this view: “It also begs the question – of why hasn’t NSIDC noticed this and published these results?”
No “rigorous testing” on that thread. So the self-image of the sceptic was at odds with the professed attitude that the sceptic study must be right. This accords with a notable feature of AGW scepticism: a marked lack of scepticism about AGW scepticism. Hence the cognitive dissonance.
Philicalifornia: “I think that a fine example of a manifestation of cognitive dissonance is the inability of a human brain to “get” this example of “pithy wit”…”
No it’s not. And I got the joke. But one word doesn’t, for instance, distinguish between “scheme” and “plot”.
“Are there any doubts about the limo liberal’s agenda for AGW ??”
I guess that depends on the liberal. The communisation of America? A new Dark Age? Eco-terrorist genocide? Compulsory viewing of Oprah? I’m not really sure, but then I’m a sceptic.
“Lastly, I’m wondering why you changed the word “scheme” to “plot” in your comments above.”
Scheme, plot. Can AGW sceptics tell the difference?
“Long term business plan” – my favourite definition for conspiracy – and it ‘s really what current events – the crashing (read: centralization of) economy, AGW, geo-politics etc. – are all about.
And seems like everything is going according to plan – the plan of a certain “New World Order” – order out of chaos – and which has worked numerous times in the past.
BTW – ever heard of the “ten new commandments” – and/or the Georgia Guidestones? If not, well, now you have…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
paul (06:52:53) :
paul,
From the book “Red Hot Lies” by Christoper C. Horner, page 70: