WD-40 says… “//“shut down the public discourse // This is a favorite approach of the Right as of late: to equate disagreement with “stifling debate” or “shut[ting] down the public discourse.”
“

“”I say the [global warming] debate is over. We know the science,” California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared forcefully at a recent United Nations summit. “We see the threat, and we know the time for action is now.”"

Some, “debate” thing he’s got going there, eh!

…from this lefty e-rag…
http://www.desmogblog.com/schwarzenneger-the-debate-on-climate-change-is-over
JIM HOGGAN CONCLUDES

“Statements … from the leading scientific bodies in the world and Schwarzenegger’s quote [wouldn't carry the same weight without it] underscore how ridiculous the claims of “skeptic” scientists, like Pat Michaels, Tim Ball and Fred Singer, and polticians like Senator Jim Inhofe actually are.”

When screwball Lefties scream…

“The world must urgently act now by applying Sanctions, Boycotts, Green Tariffs and Reparations Demands against the chief climate racist, climate criminal, climate terrorist, climate genocidal countries Australia, US, and Canada that are acutely threatening the world with ecosystem collapse, climate genocide and indeed an all-encompassing Terracide”

…it’s time to realize they are the ones who are paranoid, delusional and dangerous, as is the malicious WD-40.

see also
http://freaquewaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/science-by-intimidation-by-desperate.html

Now, let’s see if I have this straight, …the AGW fascists say “the debate is over” and WD-40 tells us that we are over interpreting that, and then goes on to belittle us for our “silly” alleged “fears,” and tries to shame us into compliance. (Ooooo, psychology! I am so mystified! - NOT!) An argument he can’t win by reason, he attempts to win by deceit, mockery and intimidation, all the while telling us what we see him, and them, doing is just our imagination.

What a stinking load of _____________. (Oh, drat! My last dose of Penn&Teller just wore off, and now I just can’t bring myself to say it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t.)

The (non-existent) “debate” ISN’T over. How could it be, when the ecco-fascists never let it begin?!

It’s about censorship of opposing scientific foundings in the tech publications and even main stream media.

It’s about threat campaigns by elected officials, trying to dictate to private enterprise who they can donate to and not.

Then again, were such tactics waged against their beloved Sierra Clubs, Code Pink, or other pet causes, the stink raised would circumvent the globe. So we see yet another example of the narcissism of liberals… willing to slam the door on opposition using government, the courts, and media because it interferes with their preconceived BS that it’s “best for the people”. Amazing that these same bozos are the loudest voices for revival of “the fairness doctrine”. Chutzpah…

And to top it off, they think that the phrase “stifling debate” applies to them personally, and their 1st Amendment right…. crying “victim” when they haven’t been victimized.

That one here can actually say, with a straight cyber face, that anyone here would “be so terrified of disagreement on your own blog that you feel that the Lefties who post here might have the power to shut down the debate–even when you have control over which comments get posted. is beyond comprehension. Not to mention, an apt demonstration of an out of control ego - one endowed with a seriously over inflated sense of self import.

Such a statement is based on two serious flaws:

1: Only Curt, the FA “founding father” uses a nuclear option to ban anyone from comments here - and that’s for abusing 1st Amendment rights… not difference of opinion. And I can see that “banning” is a rare instance indeed. The rest of us are guest authors… tho we are in possession of the power to “delete”, I know of none who would do so to silence opposition. We all here know that we, in essence, represent Curt to the cyber world with our posts.

So there are many voices of dissent here, and censorship is non-existent. Some dissenters are actually a pleasure. Others are best ignored as the morning pimple appearing before a school dance. That I can read such a sentence as above here indicates that Curt has far more respect for our liberty than he does the desire to own a blog that only allows tasteful and intelligent contributors. Obviously even the least common denominator in humanity is allowed a voice on FA.

2: “Stifling debate” is not about our personal or cyber conversations on blogs. That is flowing fast and free, and the mere notion is applies to the common man is amazing self-focus. But we are debating with limited documentation and resources by the experts… one side is more heavily weighted than the other because of publication bans on the opposing viewpoint and data. I’d be willing to bet that most have never heard of Robert Carter’s article, the foundation of my “stifling debate” post. It wasn’t exactly widely broadcast, was it?

“Stifling debate” is what I reiterated above, and created a specific post about. It’s not about how some pacifist guppy feels about how his comment is received on a blog.

I’ll repeat this again for the attention and reading deficient: “Stifling debate” is about a documented, concerted campaign to silence opposing scientific views using not only high powered politicians and the most influential media, but also done by the science acadamies that have bastardized their very purpose as non-partisan researchers.

Instead the science community fuels this “stifling debate” in order to advance plans to alter the global economy with global energy mandates. And they further bastardize their base principles by being instrumental in creating the policy with data that is not only incomplete, but constantly morphing… proving their own notions more incorrect with every passing day.

shut down the public discourse

This is a favorite approach of the Right as of late: to equate disagreement with “stifling debate” or “shut[ting] down the public discourse.” If that memelet sticks, then they have a handle, however ill-made, from which to hang their “liberal fascist” crapola–because fascists stifle debate, am I right? I mean, that’s the way they roll.

Mike, it’s sad for you to be so terrified of disagreement on your own blog that you feel that the Lefties who post here might have the power to shut down the debate–even when you have control over which comments get posted.

This dovetails nicely with the Flight 93 memorial thread. I kind of feel sorry for the Right because they live in such fear of Left-wing commenters and inanimate objects and so on. What a scary place the world must be for Mike and his confreres.

Please tell me where I claimed to be an “authority” Ash?

I would say that

I am fully within my rights as a former official the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to demand your credentials

does the job nicely.

And how about this:

I had the opportunity to begin studying this issue many, MANY years ago at EPA and before it became the subject of global hysteria.

And I stand by my contention that I have been studying the issue far longer and in greater depth than the Al Gore parrots who regularly show up here and blah blah blah.”*

*”Blahs” added by me.

If you’re not saying that you’re an authority, then what the hell is that stuff all about?

Please tell me where I claimed to be an “authority” Ash?

I made my point quite clearly and I will repeat it because apparently you were not paying attention: I had the opportunity to begin studying this issue many, MANY years ago at EPA and before it became the subject of global hysteria.

And I stand by my contention that I have been studying the issue far longer and in greater depth than the Al Gore parrots who regularly show up here in an attempt to shout down and shut down the public discourse while their comrades in lab jackets try and do the same to the scientific debate.

Title?

I worked at AQMD, and while I had ‘opportunity’ to study many things, like Hydrogen distribution and the efficiency of Palm Spring’s windmills, at the end of the day my title meant I paddled ARCO’s paperwork on compliance from Box A to Box B.

Proximity does not equate authority.

No, that doesn’t make me a climate expert. But I’m willing to bet I’ve had far greater exposure to every aspect of the problem than you have.

P.S. Just where do you think those Dept. Ag bureaucrats went to study methane emissions? The Chicago stockyards? Nope…. Palm Springs. That caught my attention too.

DW 5000 is showing his best. He will probably ask you now what you are talking about.

some answers on comments 30 and 31.

Dear Einstein:

You’ll note that I didn’t write comments 30 and 31. You might even note that you wrote one of those comments, yet are here attributing it to me. Having noted that, you might further agree that your bringing them up here is distraction and noisemaking.

Oh boy.

Looks like DW is having major problems with simple reading comprehension.

DW, your post was #27. Within your post was a query.

The answers to your query were posted in #30 and #31 by scriptamanent and Mike’s America respectively.

Ummm… nowhere were you attributed authorship of either answer.

If you’re going to try and play with the grown ups at least pay attention to the game.

some answers on comments 30 and 31.

Dear Einstein:

You’ll note that I didn’t write comments 30 and 31. You might even note that you wrote one of those comments, yet are here attributing it to me. Having noted that, you might further agree that your bringing them up here is distraction and noisemaking.

Greenhouse gas buildup.

Little Ice Age ending.

Positive AO.

Decreased solar reflection due to natural incidents of polar ice cap melting.

Decreased sunspot activity.

Left-wing conspiracy.

Great guesses one and all, but which ones do you have evidence of?

The one that I was looking for is not in that list.

Care for a mulligan?

***

By the way DW, I’ve been meaning to ask you.

Are you related to Doc Washboard who was once a frequent poster here?

His screeds are very similar to your acerbic leavings that’s why I was wondering.

Check out your comment 27, and some answers on comments 30 and 31.

A. If you didn’t know that information about the Antarctica freezing, then you didn’t know some basics facts about AWG.

B. If you knew that information about the Antarctica, and yet you asked for proofs, then you just came here to distract and make noise.

If your situation is A, your comment 91 cannot be explained.
If your situation is B, your comment 27 and your comment 91 make sense.

DW: What do I have to do? Scan in my EPA badge, list my awards and other outstanding achievements?

Grow up.

And thanks once again for confirming that neither you, nor Dave Hussein Noble have ANY kind of credentials in this field. Period!

Thing one: I never said that I had any credentials in this field. That’s another one of those things that you kind of made up inside your head and then projected, Green Lantern-style, out into the rest of the world.

Thing two: you did assert that you have credentials. Your tenure as an “official” at the EPA is enough, you’ve written, to trump anyone else’s ideas about anything.

If you assert these credentials as conversation-stoppers, as you have several times now, you ought to, in your words, “man up” and prove that you have them.

A list of awards might be nice; a discussion of what your purview was at the EPA would be better. Otherwise, why on earth should we accept your word for anything?

It’s clear that the “fault lines” of this debate have been endlessly discussed on this thread, despite your best efforts to obfuscate the issue.

What we are seeing here with your efforts and those of your fellow troll DW is an attempt to deny the reality of the scientific process in favor of a political agenda.

This is something I also saw firsthand at EPA.

Guess you don’t get to set the “fault lines” of the debate, Mike. Not only is it not your America, it’s not even your blog.

Grow up.

And thanks once again for confirming that neither you, nor Dave Hussein Noble have ANY kind of credentials in this field. Period!