Eco-Guilt

I agree. There are many religious methodologies, practices and mindsets exhibiting themselves in the 'eco-friendly' movement: manipulation by guilt (like you mention), scaring people into submission, ignoring contradicting evidence while accepting only re-inforcing evidence and on and on.As for the persons who say that global warming is a 'fact', that it may be however man-made global warming certainly isn't, far from it. Science is always tentative and assigning the same degree of credibility to the man-made-global-warming theory as to, say, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution is disingenuous.What I find really reprehensible is the cynical way that governments -in Europe at least- exploit this movement to extract more taxes and impose more controls.I call BULLSHIT too!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I would hardly call the scientists behind the IPCC report the "world's leading collaboration of scientists". They are a body of scientists selected by self-elected bureaucrats and whose livelihood and reputation are totally dependent on the acceptance of the man-made-global-warming theory.Within the IPCC itself there's a lot of bickering and self-doubt, exemplified by the resignation of scientists such as Dr Richard Lindzen and Dr Christopher Landsea who have both expressed their concern at the politicisation of the IPCC and the suppression of dissenting opinions.Treating the IPCC report as gospel only helps to reinforce the argument in the OP.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

That's exactly it: scientists are selected by governments, governments with agendas to fulfill. The IPCC report itself isn't written by scientists, it's written by bureaucrats, scientists merely contribute to the report and the bureaucrats put their spin on it. Dr John Christy - Lead Author for the IPCC- is one of the many who've admitted that scientists are told what to include in the report by politicians who want to push a particular agenda. No, but as most of the organisations you mention rely on funding by governments and organisations with vested interests in the acceptance of the MMGW theory, that's hardly a surprise at all.Fortunately scientific truth isn't decided by majority vote. The MMGW theory is used to make predictions of dubious relevance and specificity. The persistence of bodies such as the IPCC to have it accepted as scientific 'fact', of equal standing to the theories of relativity, evolution, etc. badly stinks of ulterior motives. If you're somehow suggesting that scientists like John Christy, Richard Lindzen and Christopher Landsea are not 'mainstream' because they disagree with the agenda pushed upon them I can only remind you that throughout history totalitarian regimes and religions have always marginalised and ostracised people who questioned and challenged their orthodoxy. The word 'Heretic' literally means 'someone who chooses to believe something different'.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. This is the equivalent of someone concluding they have a brain tumour just because they've had a headache for the last 2 seconds!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

A typical method of marginalising dissenting voices is to dismiss them as nutty, conspiracy theorists. However, I don't think there's a grand conspiracy here, just the ruthless pushing of a political and ideological agenda on the scientific community coupled with peer pressure. To quote Dr John Christy:

quote:

---

The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the "informational cascade") is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the "ones who know" (from the Latin sciere, to know).

​

You dare not be thought of as "one who does not know"; hence we may succumb to the pressure to be perceived as "one who knows".

​

This leads, in my opinion, to an overstatement of confidence in the published findings and to a ready acceptance of the views of anointed authorities.

---

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Yes, I can now see how my pointing out the political hue of the climate reports equates to blindly following dogma and ideology.Having seen the error of my ways, I shall now go and study the gospel (IPCC report) and the teachings of the prophet (Al Gore) just like you suggest oh wise Nuggin!P.S: if anyone else dares to question man-made-global warming should I warn them they're going to ozone-filled hell before firebombing their SUV, superglueing their eyelids open and forcing them to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth' 65 times ?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No it's not. You just made up a strawman to attack, like fundamentalists often do. Never mind, after many debates with creationists and evangelicals I'm quite used to this.Let me put it in black and white. My argument comes down to this question: Why are we being intimidated into accepting as undisputed 'fact' a theory which can't even tell us how much of the global warming -if any at all- is down to us?

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

Nope, I never claimed, implicitly or explicitly, that I believe their conclusion to be WRONG. I claimed that their conclusion is based on inadequate evidence and the theory doesn't make useful or specific enough predictions, therefore it shouldn't be assigned the same degree of credibility as other scientific theories, let alone be used to decide the future of western civilisation.Which you went on to misrepresent as: See how you make it sound as if I hold a pre-conceived opinion, which I refuse to change despite the facts and the consensus? Nice try. It's because of the facts and the lack of consensus -compared to other, established theories- that I hold the opinion that external factors have influenced the scientific community. And there are thousands of scientists within this community who confirm this view. But ofcourse you would dismiss them as nutjobs living in self-denial. Allow me then to throw one of your own quotes back at you (from Message 39):

quote:

---

We get it. You are right and EVERYONE ELSE, no matter how educated, is wrong because YOU'RE just soooooooo much smarter than everyone else, you've seen through the trick.

---

I couldn't have put it better myself!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

I'm here because I've had enough of people like you trying to control my behaviour, limit my movement, censor my speech and restrict my freedom because they are deluded enough to believe they're the annointed saviours of the world and damn it, we will be saved whether we want it or not!I'm here because I've had enough of people like you telling me, no...dictating to me what I should be thinking because they have the arrogance to believe they can fully understand and predict the climatic behaviour of a 4.5 billion year-old planet based on 100 years' worth of data.I'm here because I've had enough of people like you, when unable to answer my question of "so, what percentage of the current warming is actually caused by humans?" coming up with claptrap like "err..quite a lot I suppose", or "you're a creationist/republican/conspiracy theorist, so I'm not talking to you".That's why I'm here.So why don't you take your Messiah syndrome and your carbon-offset guilt tokens and head back to your smug little cult so you can all go burn some SUVs or whatever it is that you're doing when you're not spewing fascist drivel on web-sites like this one!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

No, YOU have a problem. YOUR problem is that Communism died in the 1980s and National Socialism has been dead for 60 years so Environmentalism is YOUR last means left for controlling the masses. Wow...and just who exactly appointed you as the Punisher?! Are you the new Commisar for making sure people fall in line? Maybe you already thought about putting 'deniers' in special camps with barbed wire and pillboxes and everything. Environmentalism ber Alles!! Creationists believe unquestionably what their annointed authorities tell them. Just like you do. YES. Regular temperature measurements begun in the 1850s and didn't become widespread until the 20th century. So at best we have measurements for the last 160 years. If you think otherwise now's the time to show why. If you can't, then please refrain from making incredulous statements like the one above. I don't know or care about what the Bible says about global warming. You're the religious type. You tell me. ....you didn't just pull this number out of your arse, did you....?? Oh yes..you did. No you can't. Yet you still vehemently claim that if I don't shut the windows RIGHT NOW the car will explode, and that I should start breathing at a lower rate to offset the energy wasted by having the windows open, or else I'll get penalised and that maybe if I send a cheque to the car manufacturer they can make a car with no windows and no air-conditioning and that everyone agrees with this idea and if they don't they're just a bunch of nutty creationists who don't know what they're talking about.I rest my case.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

TO ALL ENVIROMENTALISTS OUT THERE:That's why you're going to lose this war. Whatever validity your argument holds just evaporates when statements like the above are made in public.TO NUGGIN:Yavol mein kommandant!Now go wear your brown shirt and go out to burn some cars or something.TO EVERYONE ELSE:In previous posts I stated that National Socialism is dead. Nuggin kindly reminded me that this isn't the case. Nazism is well and spreading, it just happens to go by a different name nowadays.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"