Well said, but for me at least you've left out a few items.

8) The "science" is a deliberate fraud. Mann in particular designed and tweaked his so-called model to produce the result he wanted for political reasons. You can read this in his own e-mails in Montford's "The Hockey Stick Illusion".
9) The institutions that control both most scientific funding (research grants) and the "peer review" process, have become controlled by the fraudsters. It's easy to phony up a "consensus" when any scientist who speaks up against you stands to have his career taken away.
10) Even if the most extreme claims of "climate change" were all true, it has yet to be shown that it would adversely affect human beings at all, much less be the catastrophe predicted by IPCC; and
11) Even if you could also prove that catastrophe, there are known, simple ways to reverse that change at a much lower economic cost than the outrageous sacrifices the UN and EPA want to impose on us.

The big problem with the "believers'" whole argument is its reliance on the "precautionary principle," which is exactly backwards. The correct principle is this -- Extraordinary demands on other people require extraordinary proof. (Apologies to David Hume.)

Actually, you just proved my point. Look at the seven statements you just made. I agree that they constitute with some variation the claims of "deniers" referred to by the administrator. What percentage of people do you think would indicate approval of those points? The fifty three percent referenced in the article? Of course not. The administrator believes that those in agreement, the "deniers," are a very small coterie who are highly resistant to whatever "evidence" she cites to support her position. She is frustrated by that and in her frustration she used insulting language to describe them (i.e. she calls them not "normal"). That was intemperate. Sort of like calling someone you know little of a "religious zealot, useful idiot."

If the "inmates" were removed there would be nothing left. There is no need for the EPA or the environmental movement to exist at all.

Normal is one of those buzzwords that liberals misuse to fit their ideology. If you don't bow at the altar of progressivism, you're not "normal" according to them.

I've always been proud of being an _abnormal_ human being. I think. I question. I don't blindly believe the government is the be-all and end-all of supreme rulership.

...and 'settled science' is an oxymoron!

Jan

Yes. The arable farm land footprint was actually shrinking (as was the Sahara!) and forests were increasing all over the world...until biofuels caused more land to be put under cultivation (and deprived world populations of maize) and energy restrictions forced people to start cutting down trees for wood to warm their houses.

Jan

over half are not normal, and the same is true of the rest! -- j
.

Anthropogenic global climate change is a straw man argument designed to strengthen the power of the state over the individual. To the extent that there is a problem, which I will not deny, the best solution lies in the hands of entrepreneurial technology unencumbered by senseless regulations not a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats pretending to be scientists. A close examination of most of the models employed by the climate mongers are static rather than dynamic. Recent NASA data reveals that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has stimulated dramatic growth in rain forest and other vegetation. This acts as a natural carbon sequestration mechanism that places an upper limit on carbon content in the atmosphere. This is a dynamic phenomena that is conveniently ignored by those that wish to use AGW as a political tool.

I'm kinda partial to--boo!--Hecate myself.
She can dwell in the mess that Chaos leaves.

Since I am an Erisian, I would prefer Eris, the Greek Goddess of Chaos to be a part of this. Look at the success she's having in Greece. She might pull down the entire Euro fiasco.

Her implied definition of normal is not normal.

Thanks for pagan goddess messing with my Old Dino imagination.
I just envisioned the EPA filled with Wiccans and led by druid priests who' like to put all man-made climate change deniers inside The Wicker Man.
Carbon trailer Al Gore would approve of the smoke.

I'm doing my part to battle the increased CO2 production, I planted trees in my yard.. What has the government done other than try to tax their way to lower CO2?

To be "Normal" according to the current NCA of which she is a part, you must be liberal.

Strongly disagree.

No one claims that "climate change" is not occurring.

The climate *must* change, it is its nature.

What we "deniers" claim is that
1) The majority of the warming has been caused by the sun, not man.
2) Since the sun started a solar-minimum cycle 10 years ago, there has been no "warming" recorded for the past ten years (supporting the claim made in 1)
3) The 10 million year (or however long it is) data points tracking CO2 and heat are a strong correlation, however logic dictates that correlation is *not* causation (i.e.: the sun could be causing the carbon dioxide through greater evaporated seawater, or a third factor exists which causes both heat and CO2)
4) The "science" is bogus: from Monnett and Gleason's naked plea for funding ("peer reviewed" by Monnett's wife) which gave us Al Gore's polar bears, to East Anglia destroying data which did not fit the climate models, to Mann's hockey stick algorithm being debunked.
5) The "science" is political: the UN, globalist politicians, and even the Pope are pushing the idea in order to implement a global tax through the UN making the UN a de facto world governing body.
6) The "science" is consensus, by their own admission.
7) The "science" is a religion: the theory does not allow a method by which it can be disproved, so, according to Karl Popper (and echoed by Michael Crichton), it is the very definition of a religion. A religion complete with an apocalypse preacher (failed PhD in divinity studies) Al Gore and Papal support.

I may not be normal, but at least I'm not a religious zealot, useful idiot, who thinks Galileo should have shut the fuck up.

The inmates are running the EPA asylum. I saw some of them rise in praise of the lady's leftist blather.
Furthermore, my abnormally enhanced for hunting allosaur sensory system detected an applauding Obama in one of those empty chairs.
Think Joe Biden was in another.
Or maybe it was just Woodsy Owl.
Give a hoot, don't pollute.
Hey, EPA, the Tea Party is all for that.
Way unlike that Occupy (bowel) Movement.

Just maybe if she would stop banging her head against the wall she just may wise up. Don't think so. She's a goner.

One thing for sure: Gina is not normal. She has never been able to prove any of the "science" to which she adheres. Environmentalists think that the existance of some (little) warming in some places over some specific period of time constitutes man-made GW of serious proportions. And to ensure that we just accept such leaps of faith, they want to close science on this issue. Such gaul.

I dont believe anything that our government says actually. They have too many hidden agendas and have lost my trust. If the planet is warming, its warming at some slow rate that anyone living close to the ocean in low lying areas has enough time to move. Weather changes all the time, and the earth has heated and cooled many times over its existence. Why paying a carbon tax to governments is going to stop it, I really have my doubts....

Because she's being paid to promote an irrational agenda that will enrich her handlers....

Well the "newly defined" normal is not something I want to be even remotely associated with, so that is a good thing.

Well, let's be a little fair to the quoted administrator here. When she speaks of "climate deniers" she probably is referring directly to those who affirmatively advocate for the position that climate change is not occurring and deny the scientific validity of whatever studies she relies upon as showing the opposite. In other words, activists on this issue who take what is apparently a minority view in the scientific community with which she is familiar. Hers are the words of a frustrated advocate. She may well be wrong, but her barbs are directed at a narrowly defined group not the majority of people. At least that's the way I read her.

this poor excuse for a human is an idiot. why does anyone ever listen to her?

Yes, and for the Gaia worshipers, there would be only a small population of 100 million humans on the planet. They rest are an infection on the planet and must be eliminated.