Comments frankbi has made

No, that's _not_ the argument

Yes, Borzio the argument is that "we" should do nothing because the economy is booming, and "we" should do nothing because the economy is tanking.

Also, "we" should do something as long as the "something" involves building huge gargantuan nuclear reactors the size of New Jersey. Otherwise "we" should do nothing.

Help! Help! I'm being suppressed!

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

More "skepticism" from saluki

saluki, first you support drilling for oil, then you bait-and-switch to talking about nuclear energy, and finally you end by throwing out lots of insults. Wonderful.

GALILEO!!! would've been proud.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

^^^ copied wholesale from climateresearchnews.com

Ooh, a truly "skeptical" cut-and-paste.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Another counter-example to add to Lomborg's own

Justice John Hansen on a global warming debate in Avenues :

[...] an alleged stifling of free speech -- really? How is it then that his views, and similar views expressed by others, can be readily found not only in Avenues, but in other mainstream media as well?

People keep appearing on the media complaining about how the media are stifling their views. Yeah, right.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

The two functions of repetition

gmobus:

I think you have to choose one or the other basic premise as to why only simple words and persuasion based on repeating seems to be the only way forward.

The way I see it, repetition serves two functions:

(1) to force the repeated idea into people's minds, and
(2) to crowd out other ideas so that they don't even get a hearing.

Sometimes I wonder whether we're giving a bit too much credit to the inactivists' supposed "rhetorical prowess". Well, it's part of the story, but another part of the story is the existence of climate trolls, sockpuppets, and strawman sockpuppets who spam forums with illogical garbage 405 times a day just for the sake of it.

This doesn't even require much rhetorical skill; it just needs lots of brute force, lots of time, and lots of Cheetos.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

jabailo's: your "syllogism" isn't.

1. "Is" statement.
   
2. "Is" statement.
   
3. "Ought statement".

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Not about Big Government, but lack of mega-gizmos

"Conservatives don't believe there are that many underinflated tires out there. [...] It didn't surprise me that a Washington DC check of tires found a lot of underinflation [...]"

lolwut--...?

I'm now starting to think that what's at the heart of the Republican proposals is that it doesn't involve big fat mega-gizmos the size of New Jersey which can show those filthy Russkies/Arabs/Chinese that We Have Testicles. The minute that the proposed global warming `mitigation' solutions involve Death Star-like projects, the conservatives' dislike for Big Government will magically vanish.

By the way, please sign this petition to urge Coleman et al. to go ahead and sue Al Gore and Hansen!

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

More inactivist talking point spammage

Yeah, Black Wallaby. People dying in Myanmar? AIDS victims in Africa? Who cares! They're only useful as talking points.

After all, these people just need to adapt, right? Right? Adapt adapt adapt!

Hey look, if we spend our money on mitigating global warming, then we won't have any money left to conduct ad campaigns attacking Al Gore! Oh noes!

Compassionate capitalism!

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Inactivists, go to hell already

These climate inactivists are a bunch of rotten-minded vermin. People are dying and falling ill in Burma, and the first thing the inactivists do is to find a bogus way to attack Al Gore.

I'm sure they won't even try to donate anything to the victims either. After all, they just have to adapt, right? And if they'd just accepted nuclear energy, everything'd be fine...

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

And as for the inactivist _bloggers_...

Here's what I observed about the, um, reactions on the Heartland list from the inactivist blogosphere.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

Gore's Law and Green Economy Doom and Gloom

Gore's Law in one... wow that's fast.

And of course, there's the utter idiocy where the eco-inactivists claim on one hand that The Green Economy is Doomed And We Should Just Continue To Rely On Oil and Coal...

...and on the other hand when it comes to Dubya, suddenly we're "ready to solve the pollution and energy problems" and all the doom and gloom miraculously disappears.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

PhD in cutting and pasting graphs wrongly

Rabett Run informs us that Byrnes' "methodology" is pure hilarity.

-- bi, International Journal of Inactivism

"Truth Force" is working quite well

The "Truth Force" does seem to be working, to the point where jabailo has to openly confess his support for lawless murderers and assassins.

So I guess assassinating Al Gore isn't out of the question for these denialists either? If you can't convince them, if you can't stop them, kill them.On Gandhi, King, and climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 15 Responses

More on the ExxonMobil-centric co2science.org

From http://stopexxon.unfortu.net/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24 ...

"All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial."

Woohoo. Global warming doesn't exist, and it's good for you! Genius argument as always.

"Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $100,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998."

Wonder what they spend it on? Oh wait, it's their earth-shattering research which shows that global warming doesn't exist and it's good for you anyway.

So before the denialists try to quote co2science.org to counter the "NASA-centric" IPCC report again, maybe they can think twice. :-BOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

Denialists' double standards

"If Chapter 4 of the IPCC is `NASA-centric', then co2science.org is ExxonMobil-centric. Why doesn't manacker and Black Wallaby mention that co2science.org was funded -- and is still funded -- by ExxonMobil?" -- me

"Are you saying that an oil compny has no right to investigate the science that affects them and the World community?"

Well, to the same degree that NASA has no right to investigate the science... but of course, as every denialist knows,

• ExxonMobil is 100% GOOD GOOD GOOD!!!!!! because it's a Shining Bastion of Galileo-Like Freedom (well, its own freedom anyway); while

• NASA is 100% EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!!!! because it's the Big Statist Bogeyman who's the spawn of Hitler.

• * *

Grant Williams, give me one solid fact...

...that's not a fluffy generality. And tell me how this solid fact proves that the "hipster business community" are hypocrites.On Delayers and doomsayers receive a chilly reception from pragmatic business leaders posted 1 year, 8 months ago 37 Responses

No

"A good example of how I arrived at that fact was in my very first comment.  I pointed out that despite all of the feel-good talk by the pandering business men in this article, they pollution has not gone away."

No, you made up a bunch of crap and passed it off as some sort of "evidence".On Delayers and doomsayers receive a chilly reception from pragmatic business leaders posted 1 year, 8 months ago 37 Responses

Grant Williams still hates facts

"it still wouldn't change the fact that industrial civilization, in order to continue to exist, must be free of any and all environmental restrictions."

And you arrived at this "fact" how?

Of course, since Al Gore and others disagree with your supposed "fact", therefore you're effectively saying they're wrong. But yet you try not to say directly they're wrong, by acting all ignorant about what they're saying.

But after all, you're saying that some unspecified syllogisms from Aristotle allowed you to conclude that "industrial civilization" "must be free of" "environmental restrictions". Aristotle Aristotle Aristotle! Yeah, that's it.On Delayers and doomsayers receive a chilly reception from pragmatic business leaders posted 1 year, 8 months ago 37 Responses

Einstein > Galileo, goo goo goo joob

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."

So why did James Inhofe need to gather 400 "climate scientists" to dispute global warming?

As Einstein might have said, if the IPCC were wrong, then one scientist would be enough.On Roger Pielke Jr. defends his absurd delayer post ... by quoting a global warming denier posted 1 year, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Grant Williams still hates facts

I'm sure the "..." part of the Thomas Jefferson quote says why facts are evil evil evil!

So Grant Williams, when are you going to actually get around to providing evidence for your aspersions?

Oh yeah, because Thomas Jefferson said something, therefore the IPCC are obviously completely wrong and Al Gore is the Antichrist and Andrew Liveris is a pinko. Surprising how many "truths" one can pull out just from a snippet of Thomas Jefferson.On Delayers and doomsayers receive a chilly reception from pragmatic business leaders posted 1 year, 8 months ago 37 Responses

Hypocrite! Hypocrite! Hypocrite!

Do "free market" ideologues have any shred of evidence to back up their aspersions against the "hip execs"?

Wait, no. Aspersions without evidence -- that's the denialist way.On GE CEO explains practical realities to free marketeers posted 1 year, 8 months ago 11 Responses

Denialism = making stuff up

Not to mention that the "pollution"-heavy "Third World manufacturing base" of the "hipster business community" is entirely made up in the denialists' own heads.

While the CEI's attempts to get corporate welfare dole-outs from Good Capitalist Samaritans are... really real.

Denialists have been screaming that the entire group of non-"skeptics" is guilty of unspecified bias or undescribable hypocrisy or undetected fraud. While turning a blind eye to the well-proven, well-documented cases of distortion and inconsistency and pure garbage being pumped out by their own "camp".On Delayers and doomsayers receive a chilly reception from pragmatic business leaders posted 1 year, 8 months ago 37 Responses

Taxes on carbon, not energy

"yeah, it's a tax. We need to raise taxes on energy."

Even that isn't quite accurate. Not all energy usage produces carbon emissions (think e.g. solar power and wind power); and the tax is only on carbon.

And the support for Obama may be due to the "Obama cult" effect, but this is just my totally wild guess.On More notable stuff from a panel with the campaigns' energy folk posted 1 year, 8 months ago 4 Responses

Fair points, but...

"Second, `further bills' are simply irrelevant to the UN treaty, which will be agreed or not agreed in 2009."

Not true. There's also the possibility that the US doesn't join the treaty now, but decides to join later -- as Australia did with the Kyoto Protocol when Kevin Rudd came to power.

"A third point is that severe economic impacts are coming in the next year, entirely without the help of any climate bill."

Well, then whether with or without the UN, we're screwed... so what's there to lose?

Look, the denialists are now down to arguing that carbon caps lead to Economic Hell. We can sit here and keep talking about how the "Green Economy" is actually going to be well and good, but at the end of the day, the best way to debunk the denialists is to simply show them.On Bush administration quietly acknowledges climate plan is doable posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

To quote: Conspiracy of Academics = army of cats

"`Climate Change' is the `Global Islamic Terror' of the left."

Why yes, a Great Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy of a bunch of leftists headed by somehow managed to con the climate scientists of the entire world -- from China to India, from Brazil to Canada -- into pushing this "Gorebal Warming" crap.

The IPCC, Hansen, Lockwood, Frolich, Peterson, Oreskes, etc. -- they're all henchmen and hirelings of Al "Fat Al Bore the Great Satan who worships Gaia" Gore!

Who woulda thunk?On What drives climate change denial? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 34 Responses

Denialists have nothing but spin

SammyOwl portrays himself as being in the middle, he complains about "skeptics" spewing "the same old, tired talking points"... and then he goes on to spew some of the same old denialist talking points himself? Oops.

egbooth:

"What is truth?" Shucks, and I thought that was a parody:

http://www.thepoorman.net/tcs_parody/TCS_TheDayAfterTomor ...On Climate skeptic plays hookey posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses