Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Comments on "CNN's JD Sutter wants to talk to skeptics"

It would be good to leave the Bishes post about Sutter as an empty to memorial to the CAGW Religionists idea of debate. So I'll put some notes here

Bish said "Sutter wants to talk TO sceptics".
.. It does seem the Bish got a word wrong
It seems more like Sutter is so certain of himself. ...he wants to talk AT skeptics.

...This Sutter the CNN Climate Nutter reminds a story New Yorker guy told me in 1990 about his trip to Australia
"Being a Greenpeace member I decided that I should there to SAVE the kangeroo, cos everyone told me it was becoming extinct
On my first night I went to stay with my Australian relatives
my cousin said to me 'just wait here I'll just go out the back and shoot a roo for the dog'
.. I was amazed I looked and there were thousands of the damm things
..god I realised I had been so naive"

- Lots of dogmatic believe systems/religions are based in science, but what they then do is cross the line and call their fantasies proven science.
eg scientology, communism, homeopathy are all examples of that.
eg. Muslim politicians argue that Islam is fundamentally true
In Sutter's report you can substitute the word skeptic for any non-believer e.g. non-muslims, non-scientologists, capitalist pigs
eg #1 Headline : "We can't ignore non-Muslims ..might run the headline"
- The difference is that Sutter doesn't just want to have the freedom to have his own beliefs (and sneer at others), no in a democracy he believes that Skeptics should PAY, but not have a SAY for his fantasy climate policies.

- As ever with any writing by a true-believer you can go through it line by line exposing when they have stated their fantasies as fact.
e.g. the 97%, Oreskes views, Lewondowsky's views, that Bloomberg graph for God's sake etc.etc.
and that is all after the emotional blackmail propaganda slideshow he tacked on the front with its polar bear photos and wild claims, like "In the coming decades climate change will unleash megadroughts lasting 10 years or more"

I see Sutter's particular EVANGELICAL CAMPAIGN is "Two° Degrees" , this magic line that he thinks CO2 is taking us to and must not be crossed, cos at the other side lies catastrophe.

Sutter didn't need to do all that drama queening about going to Oklahoma ..The skeptical discussion blogs are more popular than the alarmist ones so he could have just easily showed up on WUWT or Jonova here on BH etc. and engaged.
But for the Greenblob and CAGW religious it seems it's not really about true debate it's about PR tricks for their cause ever its not us skeptics they are talking to but rather their own faithful.

Jul 9, 2015 at 2:09 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

BTW there is one figure he gives
"Only 51% of the 22,000 people in Woodward County believe climate change is real .. 30% of people say the climate is NOT changing"
"For comparison, only 4% of people in Washington, D.C., say climate change is bunk"

..Well #1 he is comparing 2 different things, but lets roll with it. We are expecting something like 96% to say Climate change is around mostly human caused.
I just pulled up Yale Communication research map and zoomed in on Maryland which showed me DC's results
For : Global warming is happening it says 81%
For : Global warming is caused mostly by human activities it says 61%
28% say they are not worried
43% say global warming WILL not harm them
... not quite the 96% panic he alludes to

Interesting comment on that CNN page
"Paul Weber 1 hour ago
I would point out the fallacy in the premise of the story (again), but CNN seems to be deleting comments that don't support their narrative. And they wonder why people don't trust them anymore"

Jul 9, 2015 at 2:43 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

"At least Mr. Sutter has the integrity to use the proper word, "skeptic". "
@hunter, since Sutter has a name rhyming withn nutter he probably do insults much..

4 alarmists comment 7 times on the thread, yet all jump to quick conclusions about the Bishop's motives.
e.g. "What makes you think he is even aware of you?", PM had to point out that Bish had tweeted and that had been retweeted.
But the point is, if they jump to conclusions like tht so easily that explains why they are quick to be certain abut unproven climate things.

- I shouldn't have to explain to them that Bish means Sutter doesn't have to dramaqueen about "i'm going off to the dangerous place to talk to skeptics" he could just easily come over to the popular Climate skeptic blogs if it his sincere intention , not just a PR job.
- But there is something see that those 3 annoying alarmists are free to speak on a skeptic blog, but Sutter maybe only has experience on warmist blogs where the other side are pounced-on name-called, censored and banned ..and he just presumes skeptic blogs are the same.

- The're more that 1,3400 mostly skeptical polite comments on Sutter's CNN page ..but he hasn't engaged.

..There is the RealWorld ..and there is the GreenFantasyWorld .... some people don't know which one they are trapped in.

Jul 10, 2015 at 11:40 AM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Sutter won't be meaning the Bish, or any other sceptic that is likely to comment. He's talking about those who just doubt a bit and probably don't read about climate at all. He assumes the disinterested are just uninformed.

Jul 11, 2015 at 9:40 PM | Unregistered CommenterTinyCO2