Global Warming takes lives...

[NCVol]

Just like HITLER!!!!!

What part of the difference is hard for you to understand between disagreements fully aired in public, with no obvious signs of people getting gassed or murdered, no one in their families jailed or killed, their views FULLY BROADCAST AND PRINTED, since you just linked to them, with NO ONE fleeing to safe havens to save their lives and....what happened to people under Hitler.

There is NO COMPARISON.   

It's too bad after today I'll be unable to post for a week or two, this is so much fun.... 

[Dementia_Madness]

Once again you are wrong NC, and you have to add to what I say to make your argument, I didn't not say "JUST LIKE" Hitler, my argument was not that they were exactly the same only that "This is very similar to the way scientists who speak out against global warming" are treated...very similar and just like are two different things, and YOU are wrong that there is NO Comparison, it is YOU that seeks the extreme arguments here, either it is just like or no comparison, when in fact there is a comparison, scientists are indeed bullied, ridiculed, ostracized, and fired because of their views of global warming being a hoax...that is fact. So just like I stated aside from people being imprisoned THERE IS A COMPARISON. Another difference is today we have some freedom of speech here in America unlike Nazi Germany, and there are indeed means of publishing opinions other than state run, or state supporting outlets. History shows us that when science is politicized, and used to advance political agendas, it becomes twisted and not trustworthy, in fact it loses any semblance to real science at all...that is the exact result we are seeing today, and thus why global warming is being "outed". Yes, we do have allot more articles and scientists speaking out today...that is because in the end the truth is ultimately undeniable, and even when bullied, and threatened eventually the tide will turn to honor the truth.

[NCVol]

So, what you're saying is the way Hitler and Nazi Germany treated dissent is..... not at all similar to how dissent on global warming is treated.  

I mean, if you leave off the murder and the jailings and that even those IN GOVERNMENT are free to disagree, in our universities they are free to disagree, on TV, the radio, and on the internet - every single outlet for information regularly provides dissenting views.  So other than there is no censorship at all, the two eras are somewhat similar.  

What you don't like is people with some power disagree with the wingnut deniers, and they use their power to act in ways you don't like.  Well, WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD!!!  I disagree every day with the way our economic issues are presented and believe there is a large amount of corruption (for lack of a better term) in the way the media presents it and the way those issues are studied in think tanks and even our universities.  What I have NEVER alleged, because it is stupid, is that the dissenting views which I share are censored or those who hold them are oppressed in any way SIMILAR to Hitler's era.  

I read them every day, so I know they are not censored.  Do these people get invited to serve as Sec. Treas?  No, they do not.  Is their treatment like how HITLER!@!!!! treated his opponents?  NO there is no comparison, the people I trust write something new and get it published on teh intertubes nearly every day.  As far as I know their phone calls haven't even been monitored by Big Brother over at NSA....  

Dissent and opposition and even forceful opposition that ignores or rolls right over those who disagree is NORMAL and HOW IT WORKS!  I was OUTRAGED that the SC found as they did in Citizens United.  Is it just like Hitler because I don't get my way with the Supreme Court?  NO!  I'M NOT IN DANGER OF GETTING KILLED THIS EVENING FOR DISAGREEING! 

My goodness, you guys are only happy when the entire world kisses the rings of your annointed leaders and proclaims near perfect agreement with the views they hand down each day.  Anything remotely resembling actual dissent, or goodness, a decision that YOU don't like, is treated as CENSORSHIP by the Liberal BIASED Media and the end of the FREE WORLD  Oh NOOOOO!!!!! 

What a bunch of whiners.  It's actually quite pathetic.  

[Dementia_Madness]

NO NC what I AM saying is that science was used to push a political agenda....the Nazis claimed that Jews and other races were less than they were. "Science" was used to "prove" this. Where there was dissent it was squashed, using legal, and other means. YOU said that was not happening, YOU are the one arguing extremes....YOU are the one ignoring that blaming acts of men on the simple excuse of "EVIL" ignores every other aspect of human nature that drives wickedness, and fuels hatred, anger, and violence. YOU are the one ignoring the big evil monster created by global warming alarmists...a monster that MUST be dealt with today, or we are all doomed.

[NCVol]

NO NC what I AM saying is that science was used to push a political agenda....the Nazis claimed that Jews and other races were less than they were. "Science" was used to "prove" this. Where there was dissent it was squashed, using legal, and other means. YOU said that was not happening, YOU are the one arguing extremes....

What I'm saying is the Nazi's also had "socialist" in their NAME, and "some people" call Obama a "socialist" and that proves the eras to be similar in the way our governments deal with dissent!

 

[Dementia_Madness]

Who said anything about Obama or socialism? That is a perfect example of how you (and most other libs here) NEVER actually talk about what people REALLY say NC, you must add and interject your own meanings and preconceived arguments in order to make an argument against anything, in the end it always comes back to socialism and we can be sure that you have never met a tax you didn't like, as long as that tax was on someone, and in the end when all that fails you simply insult others, and claim that they are simply liars, idiots, or nuts.

Politicizing science is a great wrong, and only serves to destroy the integrity of any true science that may be involved. When one side's main recourse is to try and silence any dissent we can be sure that that side has no true faith in the strength of their own arguments. That is one thing I will always respect about GWB, I do not agree with everything he said and did, but his usual tactic of not feeling the need to answer every criticism of him showed great strength and faith in what he believed, even if some of the things he thought was wrong, he was not compelled to be on the defensive all of the time, considering how often he was criticized and ridiculed that is truly amazing.

[NCVol]

Who said anything about Obama or socialism? That is a perfect example of how you (and most other libs here) NEVER actually talk about what people REALLY say NC, you must add and interject your own meanings and preconceived arguments in order to make an argument against anything, in the end it always comes back to socialism and we can be sure that you have never met a tax you didn't like, as long as that tax was on someone, and in the end when all that fails you simply insult others, and claim that they are simply liars, idiots, or nuts.

Politicizing science is a great wrong, and only serves to destroy the integrity of any true science that may be involved. When one side's main recourse is to try and silence any dissent we can be sure that that side has no true faith in the strength of their own arguments. That is one thing I will always respect about GWB, I do not agree with everything he said and did, but his usual tactic of not feeling the need to answer every criticism of him showed great strength and faith in what he believed, even if some of the things he thought was wrong, he was not compelled to be on the defensive all of the time, considering how often he was criticized and ridiculed that is truly amazing.

Sorry, I'm traveling and haven't been able to respond.

1)  Just like everyone else, I'm not a fan of taxes.  What I am in favor of is paying the damn bills.  If republicans want to spend a trillion on the military and SS and medicare and farm subsidies and bailing out bankers and on everything else the good fiscal conservatives have voted repeatedly to spend money on, it takes taxes and preferably high enough taxes to pay the damn bills.  What you guys want is the spending, or else not to be honest enough to cut the spending or say where you would cut the spending, and not the tax, which is gutless and cowardly.  Then when the WH is occupied by a democrat, suddenly find religion again.

2) I try to argue facts, and when I get back nothing but empty talking points, I have fun by poking at the other side. I do try to use evidence, but it's hard to respond to a thread on the budget when I'm the only one using numbers with yet more numbers that you and everyone else ignore. 

3) Just because you disagree about the science doesn't mean it's politicized.  In fact, by claiming that the other side of you is wrong, and not even allowing the possibility that the 90% or so active in the research might actually know more than you and have a good grasp of the science and in fact be correct, you are engaged in a form of politicization yourself. 

[Dementia_Madness]

No, Ncvol you do not always argue facts, there was a time that was more true, but lately you are arguing more and more opinion, and passing it off as fact. By claiming to argue fact, you actually in effect seek to trump any opinions argued against your opinion, and then when there is evidence offered against your opinion it is attacked by mainly three means, first, you seek to discredit the source, next, when that doesn't work, you steer the argument in a direction other than the original discussion, add words that are not said and interject YOUR meanings on what others say, and the third tactic you and your tweedle twins try, is simply to make the broad claims that everything being argued against you is lies, crazy, or just stupid, and also that the people who disagree with you are liars, crazy, or stupid. I could offer a hundred instances of this, but a few, even evident in this discussion will suffice to remind us of all the other times.

Anytime one starts or ends a comment with, I don't believe you actually believe that..or a similar remark, which basically says, that is crazy and only a fool can think like that, when you create your own insane definition and argument to what someone else says, then to reject it wholly and with a broad stroke. Then to steer the topic away, you inteject that the real argument is NOT about how when lies are told, and people commit acts based on those lies, the lies are partly to blame for the acts being committed, an example is given, in this case the factual account of how nazi scientists used "facts" fabricated to give support to the belief that Nazis were a master race, and thus whatever they chose to do to other races was justified by their superior status, is indeed an exampled of how that science, created and manipulated to give a false image to people who are willing to believe it, to give support for what they want to believe anyway, is not good science but bad wicked things.....and anytime science is used for political ends the science is not trustworthy and must be scrutinized....that is the facts, but you choose to try and argue that there is no comparison between nazis making science say what they want it to...and global warming theorists doing the same thing...an argument that ignores the FACTS, and seeks to muddy the waters..when the truth is simple, though YOU prefer to ignore it because YOU would RATHER believe that your politically motivated science is somehow valid, and the tragic results of a lie being told to unhinged minds somehow do not fall on those perpetuating, and supporting such a lie.

So in the end your OPINION that there is no comparison is refutable, despite your argument from authority, and you OPINION that you argue only facts is not only hysterically laughable, but this very thread shows it to be completely absurd and self defeating. It's like the two doors, one always tells lies, and one always tells the truth, one leads to doom, and the other is your way out...which door do you choose? Oh, Ncvol says he always argues facts, his opinion therefore that he always argues facts, must also be a fact.....

My argument here is this and it's easily shown to have some basis in fact, both historically and using common sense. Science used for political means, and driven by political powers, to support a political view, is not trustworthy...and often times dangerous, and when something tragic happens based on that faulty and untrustworthy "science" the "science" itself, and those who push it and support it are indeed somewhat responsible for the results. That is all I am arguing, there is more truth to that than ANYTHING you or your brothers have said on this thread thus far..I do not have to add to what anyone says to make that argument, I do not have to steer it down a rabbit hole, nor do I have to claim some moral, or intellectually authoritative standpoint to make my argument, I do not have to say you are crazy, because you disagree, simply state my opinion, and let that do the arguing for me...if you can refute that then by all means try, but when you try and argue that big gas behind scientists do have anything to do with their work and opinions, or big tobacco yada yada yada...IF, though the evidence seems to show it's not going to happen, there is some horrendous disasters that result from global warming, and the science we support is proven to be as wrong as we think AGW is, then how will you argue that the results are not partly our fault, after all science and those who support them have no implications in tragic results that happen because of them, in the end perhaps the environment is just "evil" and our actions have no input on it whatsoever, is not a family an environment, is not sanity a climate...the facts are that we can manipulate the environment of peoples lives, and the climate of mental being far easier with science than we can the physical environment of nature, and the climate of the entire globe we live on. Nazi Germany proves that beyond any argument...and if you think science and politics were not an unholy marriage under the Third Reich then it is incumbent upon you to prove it.

[LTC]

The campaign against climate science has been enormously clever, and enormously effective. It's worth trying to understand how they've done it. The best analogy, I think, is to the O.J. Simpson trial, an event that's begun to recede into our collective memory. For those who were conscious in 1995, however, I imagine that just a few names will make it come back to life. Kato Kaelin, anyone? Lance Ito?

The Dream Team of lawyers assembled for Simpson's defense had a problem: it was pretty clear their guy was guilty. Nicole Brown's blood was all over his socks, and that was just the beginning. So Johnnie Cochran, Robert Shapiro, Alan Dershowitz, F. Lee Bailey, Robert Kardashian et al. decided to attack the process, arguing that it put Simpson's guilt in doubt, and doubt, of course, was all they needed. Hence, those days of cross-examination about exactly how Dennis Fung had transported blood samples, or the fact that Los Angeles detective Mark Fuhrman had used racial slurs when talking to a screenwriter in 1986.

If anything, they were actually helped by the mountain of evidence. If a haystack gets big enough, the odds only increase that there will be a few needles hidden inside.
 Whatever they managed to find, they made the most of: in closing arguments, for instance, Cochran compared Fuhrman to Adolf Hitler and called him "a genocidal racist, a perjurer, America's worst nightmare, and the personification of evil."

Similarly, the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt is in some ways a great boon for those who would like, for a variety of reasons, to deny that the biggest problem we've ever faced is actually a problem at all. If you have a three-page report, it won't be overwhelming and it's unlikely to have many mistakes. Three thousand pages (the length of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)? That pretty much guarantees you'll get something wrong.

The great irony is that the climate skeptics have prospered by insisting that their opponents are radicals. In fact, those who work to prevent global warming are deeply conservative, insistent that we should leave the world in something like the shape we found it. We want our kids to know the world we knew. Here's the definition of radical: doubling the carbon content of the atmosphere because you're not completely convinced it will be a disaster. We want to remove every possible doubt before we convict in the courtroom, because an innocent man in a jail cell is a scandal, but outside of it we should act more conservatively.

http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/02/climate-changes-oj-simpson-moment

[Dementia_Madness]

LOL nice try LTC, but that OPINION piece relies on the belief that the mountain of evidence is in favor of man-made Global warming....first the assumption that this is true must be believed before the argument it has has any validity to it at all. In FACT as we have shown here the mountain is actually the science against global warming and the scientists against it....and the needles is actually the science that has been manipulated, hidden, and lied about to prove AGW.

Just a few facts to chew on...

We were told by your side that global warming has been a steady increase for the last few decades due to man made co2 emissions....fact the leading supporter of Global warming has admitted there has been NO warming for the last 15 years when it should have been the most.

We were told that we are killing the polar bears...fact of the 13 known populations of polar bears 11 are actually increasing and only two have shown slight declines...there are nearly three times more polar bears today than there were in the 60s 50 years ago.

We were told that Africa was in trouble and that global wamringw as the cause, now they admit this is not true.

we were told the seas would be rising drastically now we are told this is not true.

we were told that the ice caps were melting, once again, not true.

we were told that the Himalayas were shrinking...not true

we could go on and on, it's not just needles in a hay stack, it's everything we have been told and warned about in global warming being proven false....

This article is a great example....."the immense pile of evidence now proving the science of global warming beyond any reasonable doubt" it makes an assertion, without any evidence or facts to back it up, just like you liberals do, which door leads to doom, the one that only lies...or the one that tells the truth? This articles argument is based on an opinion not only that there is vast evidence (none of which is ever offered to support such claims, does the emperor have clothes?) that AGW is real...but that it is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in other words, anyone with doubts is not reasonable, because why? because we say so....seriously? (liberal arguments #1 & #3 above)

But I digress this argument was not about the facts of global warming but whether or not politicized science is a good thing or a bad thing. It seems you liberals have no problem with it I guess.... since once again your only argument is not actually what is being argued....(liberal argument example two above). And that when harm is done because of a lie, that lie (and the liars), is part of the blame for the harm (hmmmm Bush lied people died sound familiar?).