Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 22, 2015 6:55:36 GMT -5
Here we go again. Not 24 hours after you insisted you don't easily take offense. Why is it that with increasing frequency you take my criticisms of your arguments as my assuming you're an idiot? There's nothing remotely critical of your intellect in my post. I'm using a rhetorical question to attack your car crash analogy. If you disapprove of my means, I can also point out to you in the past where you've said you yourself often introduce criticisms with rhetorical questions. I am not offended, Virgil. I am just curious. what made you think I was offended? that I used the word IDIOT?
if I were angry, I would tell you so. I just get perennially puzzled by your persistently pugnatious posts.
and I never claimed that you were being critical. It just seems like you assume the absolute worst in people.
you didn't answer that question, and it appears you have no intention to do so, so never mind. it is not that important.
just puzzling.
You consider Earth's mean temperature rising by two hundredths of a degree as meaningful to b2r's existence as dying in a car crash? you didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours. however, I will also point out that this is typical of our conversations. you spend more time mocking my questions than answering them. for the record, this rather benign question as meant in absolute earnest, and had nothing behind it other than my curiosity.
as to YOUR question, I think a great number of people perceive global warming as an existential threat. I am not one of them, for the record. but to those people, I think the analogy would seem rather meek. after all, it is not everyone else's life I was talking about.
the immediacy of the threat is also immaterial. the question was an analogy, not an attempt at creating a precise comparison. but in addition, who cares if there is only a 38% chance that last year is a record, when 8 out of the last 10 years were records, and the general trend is not good? do you think that last year NOT being a new record changes anything? I don't.
now, I could have called out b2r for being silly, for that reason. I didn't. instead, I tried to understand the thought process that was behind it by asking something I THOUGHT was analogous. but rather than getting credit for that, it appears that you seem to think I was mocking him or something, and rallied bravely to his defense. I could have also taken the piss out of you for defending people who can surely defend themselves, but I have noted that when I do this, you typically ignore it, so I didn't do that either, before now.
so, to conclude, I don't think your question reflects the original objection, nor does it present a counterargument that inspires anything other than ennui.
- Indeed when somebody claims I've called them an idiot when I haven't called them an idiot, I assume they're offended. I also tend to assume that when they refer to my posts as pugnatious or when they claim I assume the absolute worst in people.
- My answer to your question is: No, I wouldn't drive my car on a given day if I knew there was a 38% chance I'd be in an auto wreck. Thus we've established that I'm of sound mind and not suicidal.
Your question is exactly the rhetorical sleight of hand I'd expect from AGW alarmists. The pretense of the question, which you know perfectly well that b2r doesn't accept and which you yourself don't accept, is that the temperature data portends a disaster whose personal impact on b2r is comparable to a car crash.
Now, you claim you're genuinely curious and not being rhetorical, hence you'll have to forgive me for failing to conceive what exactly it is you hoped to learn from b2r's response to your question. Are you asking him whether he's suicidal? Are you hoping to determine whether his risk assessment is so poor that a 4-in-10 shot at being wiped out in a car crash is no big deal to him? Maybe you're trying to find out if he's aware of how alarmists view the problem, since he may have lived under a rock for the past decade and somehow managed to avoid being carpet bombed with "climate change action" propaganda?
Forgive me, but my interpretation of your question is: SWEET GLAZED HAMS, B2R!! THIS IS A 38% CHANCE OF TOTAL GLOBAL ANNIHILATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE!! CAR CRASHES IN THE COSMOS!! BABIES HAVING BABIES!! ARE YOU MAD?! DAMN THE TORPEDOES AND READY THE CARBON TAXES!! FORWARD IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY!! (Admittedly, your version isn't this overt or enthusiastic.)
Is this because I assume the worst of you? No. I interpret it this way because this is by far the most logical interpretation of your question. It's either that or "Are you suicidal, b2r? I'm just curious." and it's to your credit that I don't think you foolish enough to ask the latter.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 22, 2015 10:13:05 GMT -5
I'm in the pesticide business. Warm weather = $$$$$. So bring it.
P.S. 2014 was not a great year. So if the earth was warm, it wasn't in the USA.
They announced that Phoenix had a record hot year 2014.
I work out in the Phoenix weather, like thyme4chance I can tell you, NO IT WAS NOT.
Some one is just playing with the numbers to create a statistic that matches their agenda.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 22, 2015 10:15:18 GMT -5
Oooh, 1880. I thought the earth was "billions and billions" of old? So we are going to extrapolate what should be normal for a century or two of data? Oh ok.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 22, 2015 10:20:12 GMT -5
Oooh, 1880. I thought the earth was "billions and billions" of old? So we are going to extrapolate what should be normal for a century or two of data? Oh ok. normality only matter to humans and what we have created and built so the billions and billions of years that the earth is old is not really very helpful for that. But if the earth's temp rises a few degrees from what it was 2 centuries ago and it displaces almost 50% of the population. That does matter. It doesn't matter that the Earth was 500 degrees hotter 2 billion years ago or 50 degrees cooler 10 thousand years ago.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 10:27:39 GMT -5
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2015 10:27:39 GMT -5
I'm in the pesticide business. Warm weather = $$$$$. So bring it. P.S. 2014 was not a great year. So if the earth was warm, it wasn't in the USA. They announced that Phoenix had a record hot year 2014. I work out in the Phoenix weather, like thyme4chance I can tell you, NO IT WAS NOT. Some one is just playing with the numbers to create a statistic that matches their agenda. I am pretty sure you are aware the USA does not make up 100% of the world's total land area, let alone Phoenix and Arizona having all the land on the world's surface. The USA makes up about 6.6% of the land area. And as it pertains to the total surface area of the earth, the USA is about 1.9% of the surface area.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,514
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 10:37:13 GMT -5
Post by Tennesseer on Jan 22, 2015 10:37:13 GMT -5
I'm not going to worry too much about climate change, the supposed warming of the earth and whether or not man is partially or wholly responsible for it. If mankind is causing the warming, by the time mankind is suffering directly or indirectly from it, I will be long gone by then. It will be our children's children and their descendants who will pay the price.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 10:48:51 GMT -5
Post by OldCoyote on Jan 22, 2015 10:48:51 GMT -5
I look a scientist as being accurate in their studies, not massaging the numbers to help their agenda.
So when some one announces a statement that It was the hottest year on record in bold headline to make it more authentic.
Then to have some one else come out and say maybe it was only 38% accurate, Means not everyone is happy with fudging the numbers.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 12:15:57 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2015 12:15:57 GMT -5
I am not offended, Virgil. I am just curious. what made you think I was offended? that I used the word IDIOT?
if I were angry, I would tell you so. I just get perennially puzzled by your persistently pugnatious posts.
and I never claimed that you were being critical. It just seems like you assume the absolute worst in people.
you didn't answer that question, and it appears you have no intention to do so, so never mind. it is not that important.
just puzzling.
you didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours. however, I will also point out that this is typical of our conversations. you spend more time mocking my questions than answering them. for the record, this rather benign question as meant in absolute earnest, and had nothing behind it other than my curiosity.
as to YOUR question, I think a great number of people perceive global warming as an existential threat. I am not one of them, for the record. but to those people, I think the analogy would seem rather meek. after all, it is not everyone else's life I was talking about.
the immediacy of the threat is also immaterial. the question was an analogy, not an attempt at creating a precise comparison. but in addition, who cares if there is only a 38% chance that last year is a record, when 8 out of the last 10 years were records, and the general trend is not good? do you think that last year NOT being a new record changes anything? I don't.
now, I could have called out b2r for being silly, for that reason. I didn't. instead, I tried to understand the thought process that was behind it by asking something I THOUGHT was analogous. but rather than getting credit for that, it appears that you seem to think I was mocking him or something, and rallied bravely to his defense. I could have also taken the piss out of you for defending people who can surely defend themselves, but I have noted that when I do this, you typically ignore it, so I didn't do that either, before now.
so, to conclude, I don't think your question reflects the original objection, nor does it present a counterargument that inspires anything other than ennui.
- Indeed when somebody claims I've called them an idiot when I haven't called them an idiot, I assume they're offended. I also tend to assume that when they refer to my posts as pugnatious or when they claim I assume the absolute worst in people.
- My answer to your question is: No, I wouldn't drive my car on a given day if I knew there was a 38% chance I'd be in an auto wreck. Thus we've established that I'm of sound mind and not suicidal.
Your question is exactly the rhetorical sleight of hand I'd expect from AGW alarmists. The pretense of the question, which you know perfectly well that b2r doesn't accept and which you yourself don't accept, is that the temperature data portends a disaster whose personal impact on b2r is comparable to a car crash.
Now, you claim you're genuinely curious and not being rhetorical, hence you'll have to forgive me for failing to conceive what exactly it is you hoped to learn from b2r's response to your question. Are you asking him whether he's suicidal? Are you hoping to determine whether his risk assessment is so poor that a 4-in-10 shot at being wiped out in a car crash is no big deal to him? Maybe you're trying to find out if he's aware of how alarmists view the problem, since he may have lived under a rock for the past decade and somehow managed to avoid being carpet bombed with "climate change action" propaganda?
Forgive me, but my interpretation of your question is: SWEET GLAZED HAMS, B2R!! THIS IS A 38% CHANCE OF TOTAL GLOBAL ANNIHILATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE!! CAR CRASHES IN THE COSMOS!! BABIES HAVING BABIES!! ARE YOU MAD?! DAMN THE TORPEDOES AND READY THE CARBON TAXES!! FORWARD IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY!! (Admittedly, your version isn't this overt or enthusiastic.)
Is this because I assume the worst of you? No. I interpret it this way because this is by far the most logical interpretation of your question. It's either that or "Are you suicidal, b2r? I'm just curious." and it's to your credit that I don't think you foolish enough to ask the latter.
well, i was laughing when i typed that. i was not offended, bro.
and it is good that you can empathize with AGW alarmists. that was precisely my point, Virgil. if you can see that some people consider our present course suicide (not just some, but a great number), then you can envision the rhetorical problem. mocking it is actually not going to help. it is only going to set up a dichotomy of alarmists and deniers, when actually the spectrum is much greyer than that.
your interpretation was wrong only in one respect: that i was not actually advocating that position. but neither do i advocate b2r's (and your) DISMISSIVE position. i don't believe in providential thinking, Virgil. i loathe it, actually. i believe that we can change this world for the better or worse.
your way of addressing the point is only logical if you assume that i am totally irrational. and, based on our past discussions, i think you do think that. and honestly, that DOES hurt a bit. but the truth is that i am an explorer of mindscapes. i am interested in ideas, and why people think them. often, getting inside of those thoughts requires a blunt instrument. i don't think it is wise to completely dismiss the idea of AGW, even though i don't accept it as 100% fact. arguing AGAINST dismissing it as a joke is not the same as arguing FOR it's existence. i am merely arguing FOR considering it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 12:20:58 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2015 12:20:58 GMT -5
incidentally, i think alarmism is a real rhetorical problem on many fronts. i can't seem to type two words about what i see GOOD in the ACA without one poster or another climbing up my backside for being an Obama sympathizer and a socialist. it is really kinda immature and ridiculous, and i am absolutely opposed to it. but i don't consider dismissivism any better.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 16:28:16 GMT -5
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 22, 2015 16:28:16 GMT -5
incidentally, i think alarmism is a real rhetorical problem on many fronts. i can't seem to type two words about what i see GOOD in the ACA without one poster or another climbing up my backside for being an Obama sympathizer and a socialist. it is really kinda immature and ridiculous, and i am absolutely opposed to it. but i don't consider dismissivism any better. If you mean categorical "denial", gotcha. What it boils down to is awareness of how/why others might contest the pretext of our questions. "If you knew that you had a 38% chance of dying in a car crash today, would you drive?" ( obscure; many possible interpretations; loaded) "If you were convinced climate change portends the destruction of Earth, would the '38% probability' caveat matter to you?" ( meaning is clear; hypothetical is clearly established) As for your two words about the ACA, my advice is the same. Consider: Poster X: "I don't like the ACA because... ." DJ: "OK, but the ACA is also good because... ." ( makes only the most perfunctory acknowledgement of X's criticism; reverses the argument) Poster Y: "My premiums have gone up Z percent since... ." DJ: "Premiums were going up a lot before the ACA. Just look at this chart... ." ( makes no acknowledgement whatsoever of Y's criticism, and diminishes it by contrast; reverses the argument again) Poster Q: "The ACA sucks. Obummer sucks. I hate the democrats." DJ: "Q, I just finished explaining to X that the ACA is good because... ." ( disregards the obvious fact that Q won't give a hill of beans about why you think the ACA is good [hence why are you still talking about it?]; reverses the argument yet again) X,Y,Z: "DJ, we've had enough of your socialist, Obama-loving ACA talk!" DJ: *gasp* You wound me! The ACA has huge problems, I acknowledge that. But I still think we should focus on the good, and that is .... ." ( quite literally summarizes opponents' arguments in two words; disregards flashing neon sign that says, "if you continue to reverse the argument at every opportunity, we will consider you an Obamaphile"; reverses the argument one more time) I've seen you go on like this for pages. Hence I boldly suggest to you that what you perceive as alarmism may simply instances where you lack awareness of how presentation distorts your posts in the eyes of your readership. I can certainly sympathize. I've seen my contributions on some topics trigger torches and pitchforks based on nothing more than keyword use. For example, woe to the man who makes a "that's the way the world works" statement in one of NMSNM's victimization threads. The difference is that in those situations, if I truly care about being labeled the victim-hating ivory tower crank (the equivalent of your ACA-loving socialist Obamaphile), I stay out of the discussion. I know full well there are situations where no matter how logically presented or well-meaning my arguments might be, the fact that I'm defying the consensus speaks louder and clearer to some people than what I'm actually saying. On the few occasions where I opt to stay, I make absolutely sure my comments have only one defensible interpretation. I've gotten lazy a few times and made comments that were ambiguous or satirical, and I can tell you that being accused of socialism isn't the least of what's happened as a result. If you continue to wade into ACA or AGW threads, all I can tell you is to be exceptionally clear with the questions you ask, whether rhetorical or not. Otherwise others (and I) may well assume you're lawyering your words or trying to shoehorn in some bogus fact by association. You don't get a free pass just because you're DJ.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 22, 2015 18:18:46 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 22, 2015 18:18:46 GMT -5
incidentally, i think alarmism is a real rhetorical problem on many fronts. i can't seem to type two words about what i see GOOD in the ACA without one poster or another climbing up my backside for being an Obama sympathizer and a socialist. it is really kinda immature and ridiculous, and i am absolutely opposed to it. but i don't consider dismissivism any better. If you mean categorical "denial", gotcha. What it boils down to is awareness of how/why others might contest the pretext of our questions. "If you knew that you had a 38% chance of dying in a car crash today, would you drive?" ( obscure; many possible interpretations; loaded) "If you were convinced climate change portends the destruction of Earth, would the '38% probability' caveat matter to you?" ( meaning is clear; hypothetical is clearly established) As for your two words about the ACA, my advice is the same. Consider: Poster X: "I don't like the ACA because... ." DJ: "OK, but the ACA is also good because... ." ( makes only the most perfunctory acknowledgement of X's criticism; reverses the argument) Poster Y: "My premiums have gone up Z percent since... ." DJ: "Premiums were going up a lot before the ACA. Just look at this chart... ." ( makes no acknowledgement whatsoever of Y's criticism, and diminishes it by contrast; reverses the argument again) Poster Q: "The ACA sucks. Obummer sucks. I hate the democrats." DJ: "Q, I just finished explaining to X that the ACA is good because... ." ( disregards the obvious fact that Q won't give a hill of beans about why you think the ACA is good [hence why are you still talking about it?]; reverses the argument yet again) X,Y,Z: "DJ, we've had enough of your socialist, Obama-loving ACA talk!" DJ: *gasp* You wound me! The ACA has huge problems, I acknowledge that. But I still think we should focus on the good, and that is .... ." ( quite literally summarizes opponents' arguments in two words; disregards flashing neon sign that says, "if you continue to reverse the argument at every opportunity, we will consider you an Obamaphile"; reverses the argument one more time) I've seen you go on like this for pages. Hence I boldly suggest to you that what you perceive as alarmism may simply instances where you lack awareness of how presentation distorts your posts in the eyes of your readership. I can certainly sympathize. I've seen my contributions on some topics trigger torches and pitchforks based on nothing more than keyword use. For example, woe to the man who makes a "that's the way the world works" statement in one of NMSNM's victimization threads. The difference is that in those situations, if I truly care about being labeled the victim-hating ivory tower crank (the equivalent of your ACA-loving socialist Obamaphile), I stay out of the discussion. I know full well there are situations where no matter how logically presented or well-meaning my arguments might be, the fact that I'm defying the consensus speaks louder and clearer to some people than what I'm actually saying. On the few occasions where I opt to stay, I make absolutely sure my comments have only one defensible interpretation. I've gotten lazy a few times and made comments that were ambiguous or satirical, and I can tell you that being accused of socialism isn't the least of what's happened as a result. If you continue to wade into ACA or AGW threads, all I can tell you is to be exceptionally clear with the questions you ask, whether rhetorical or not. Otherwise others (and I) may well assume you're lawyering your words or trying to shoehorn in some bogus fact by association. You don't get a free pass just because you're DJ. actually, i would prefer that people NOT consider the pretext of my questions. frankly, i consider that line of thinking intrusive and presumptuous.
rather, i would prefer people to just answer the damned questions, rather than make a bunch of dubious assumptions and get all bent out of shape.
but hey, whatever draws your wagon, bro.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jan 22, 2015 18:47:22 GMT -5
If you mean categorical "denial", gotcha. What it boils down to is awareness of how/why others might contest the pretext of our questions. "If you knew that you had a 38% chance of dying in a car crash today, would you drive?" ( obscure; many possible interpretations; loaded) "If you were convinced climate change portends the destruction of Earth, would the '38% probability' caveat matter to you?" ( meaning is clear; hypothetical is clearly established) As for your two words about the ACA, my advice is the same. Consider: Poster X: "I don't like the ACA because... ." DJ: "OK, but the ACA is also good because... ." ( makes only the most perfunctory acknowledgement of X's criticism; reverses the argument) Poster Y: "My premiums have gone up Z percent since... ." DJ: "Premiums were going up a lot before the ACA. Just look at this chart... ." ( makes no acknowledgement whatsoever of Y's criticism, and diminishes it by contrast; reverses the argument again) Poster Q: "The ACA sucks. Obummer sucks. I hate the democrats." DJ: "Q, I just finished explaining to X that the ACA is good because... ." ( disregards the obvious fact that Q won't give a hill of beans about why you think the ACA is good [hence why are you still talking about it?]; reverses the argument yet again) X,Y,Z: "DJ, we've had enough of your socialist, Obama-loving ACA talk!" DJ: *gasp* You wound me! The ACA has huge problems, I acknowledge that. But I still think we should focus on the good, and that is .... ." ( quite literally summarizes opponents' arguments in two words; disregards flashing neon sign that says, "if you continue to reverse the argument at every opportunity, we will consider you an Obamaphile"; reverses the argument one more time) I've seen you go on like this for pages. Hence I boldly suggest to you that what you perceive as alarmism may simply instances where you lack awareness of how presentation distorts your posts in the eyes of your readership. I can certainly sympathize. I've seen my contributions on some topics trigger torches and pitchforks based on nothing more than keyword use. For example, woe to the man who makes a "that's the way the world works" statement in one of NMSNM's victimization threads. The difference is that in those situations, if I truly care about being labeled the victim-hating ivory tower crank (the equivalent of your ACA-loving socialist Obamaphile), I stay out of the discussion. I know full well there are situations where no matter how logically presented or well-meaning my arguments might be, the fact that I'm defying the consensus speaks louder and clearer to some people than what I'm actually saying. On the few occasions where I opt to stay, I make absolutely sure my comments have only one defensible interpretation. I've gotten lazy a few times and made comments that were ambiguous or satirical, and I can tell you that being accused of socialism isn't the least of what's happened as a result. If you continue to wade into ACA or AGW threads, all I can tell you is to be exceptionally clear with the questions you ask, whether rhetorical or not. Otherwise others (and I) may well assume you're lawyering your words or trying to shoehorn in some bogus fact by association. You don't get a free pass just because you're DJ. actually, i would prefer that people NOT consider the pretext of my questions. frankly, i consider that line of thinking intrusive and presumptuous.
rather, i would prefer people to just answer the damned questions, rather than make a bunch of dubious assumptions and get all bent out of shape.
but hey, whatever draws your wagon, bro.
Just answer the damned question.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 8:19:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Jan 23, 2015 12:53:17 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 12:53:17 GMT -5
That is gonna feed the "Oh my God, we're gonna self ignite!" movement, aka environmentalists for a while Heads up for more EPA restrictions in US, Canada and Western Europe while China doesn't care and keeps churning billions of litle things made of plastic to be sold in US.
The Earth, our planet, goes through cycles of self warming and cooling. Do humans have an impact on the warming process? Sure but not to the extent of that claimed. Nature itself produces more CO2and other gases due to decay of dead vegetation and animals. If the US stopped BUYING the plastic crap churned out in China, they wouldn't churn out so much of it. But sure...blame China. If you believe in AGW, here's a more appropriate thing to worry about if you're thinking about blaming China for something, think coal consumption. I believe they're on schedule to put a coal fueled power plant into service every ten days for the next decade. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9751
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 8:19:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 13:17:08 GMT -5
Oooh, 1880. I thought the earth was "billions and billions" of old? So we are going to extrapolate what should be normal for a century or two of data? Oh ok. normality only matter to humans and what we have created and built so the billions and billions of years that the earth is old is not really very helpful for that. But if the earth's temp rises a few degrees from what it was 2 centuries ago and it displaces almost 50% of the population. That does matter. It doesn't matter that the Earth was 500 degrees hotter 2 billion years ago or 50 degrees cooler 10 thousand years ago. My residence sits at 840 feet above mean sea level. Why should I be concerned about the coastal lowlanders being flooded out on some predicted future date? I prefer them to just keep flying over, non-stop. However,If they do need a place to live, I would have to steer them in the direction of the Inland Property Owners Association. We own large tracts of land we can subdivide and sell to displaced persons for a fair price.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Climate
Jan 23, 2015 13:19:40 GMT -5
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jan 23, 2015 13:19:40 GMT -5
normality only matter to humans and what we have created and built so the billions and billions of years that the earth is old is not really very helpful for that. But if the earth's temp rises a few degrees from what it was 2 centuries ago and it displaces almost 50% of the population. That does matter. It doesn't matter that the Earth was 500 degrees hotter 2 billion years ago or 50 degrees cooler 10 thousand years ago. My residence sits at 840 feet above mean sea level. Why should I be concerned about the coastal lowlanders being flooded out on some predicted future date? I prefer them to just keep flying over, non-stop. However,If they do need a place to live, I would have to steer them in the direction of the Inland Property Owners Association. We own large tracts of land we can subdivide and sell to displaced persons for a fair price. You don't have to be. Just don't be surprised if others are.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 8:19:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 13:26:35 GMT -5
My residence sits at 840 feet above mean sea level. Why should I be concerned about the coastal lowlanders being flooded out on some predicted future date? I prefer them to just keep flying over, non-stop. However,If they do need a place to live, I would have to steer them in the direction of the Inland Property Owners Association. We own large tracts of land we can subdivide and sell to displaced persons for a fair price. You don't have to be. Just don't be surprised if others are. I'm not surprised at all. Everyone wants their concerns addressed in some way. Even better to have others pitch in to pay for it.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Climate
Jan 23, 2015 13:41:52 GMT -5
Post by mroped on Jan 23, 2015 13:41:52 GMT -5
When it comes to environmental issues, I'm more concerned about erosion caused by aggressive agriculture and deforestation. That is something that we in fact can control within our borders. Gas emissions are an international issue and is hard to make all step up and do something
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 8:19:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Climate
Jan 23, 2015 13:53:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2015 13:53:41 GMT -5
When it comes to environmental issues, I'm more concerned about erosion caused by aggressive agriculture and deforestation. That is something that we in fact can control within our borders. Gas emissions are an international issue and is hard to make all step up and do something We are exactly on the same page when it comes to deforestation and erosion. I've reforested large tracts of land over the last 15 years.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Jan 24, 2015 0:57:23 GMT -5
1,700 private jets descend upon Davos to discuss climate change and global inequality.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 11:21:25 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 24, 2015 11:21:25 GMT -5
Again, I have never disputed the fact that the earth was in a pretty well-documented long term warming cycle since the end of the last ice age- with a few breaks like the "Little Ice Age" (which is the starting point for this latest analysis) and the recent 18 year "pause" which we are now in the middle of. However, this report doesn't change two undeniable scientific facts:
1. The claim itself that 2014 is the warmest year since the earth began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age was not taken from raw temperature data, but generated from computer models created from hand-selected data. Even in spite of this, the "warmest" claim- the number itself is statistically insignificant with a margin of error which makes it possible to say the earth may even have cooled.
2. And the most important fact for the man-made global warming cultists to deal with: there is NO LINK-- not even a correlation, let alone a causation-- link between CO2 levels and temperature.
It is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone with a brain that there never was any such thing as man-caused global warming. Clinging to such an unfounded notion is costing people credibility.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 24, 2015 11:30:52 GMT -5
I am not offended, Virgil. I am just curious. what made you think I was offended? that I used the word IDIOT?
if I were angry, I would tell you so. I just get perennially puzzled by your persistently pugnatious posts.
and I never claimed that you were being critical. It just seems like you assume the absolute worst in people.
you didn't answer that question, and it appears you have no intention to do so, so never mind. it is not that important.
just puzzling.
you didn't answer my question, but I will answer yours. however, I will also point out that this is typical of our conversations. you spend more time mocking my questions than answering them. for the record, this rather benign question as meant in absolute earnest, and had nothing behind it other than my curiosity.
as to YOUR question, I think a great number of people perceive global warming as an existential threat. I am not one of them, for the record. but to those people, I think the analogy would seem rather meek. after all, it is not everyone else's life I was talking about.
the immediacy of the threat is also immaterial. the question was an analogy, not an attempt at creating a precise comparison. but in addition, who cares if there is only a 38% chance that last year is a record, when 8 out of the last 10 years were records, and the general trend is not good? do you think that last year NOT being a new record changes anything? I don't.
now, I could have called out b2r for being silly, for that reason. I didn't. instead, I tried to understand the thought process that was behind it by asking something I THOUGHT was analogous. but rather than getting credit for that, it appears that you seem to think I was mocking him or something, and rallied bravely to his defense. I could have also taken the piss out of you for defending people who can surely defend themselves, but I have noted that when I do this, you typically ignore it, so I didn't do that either, before now.
so, to conclude, I don't think your question reflects the original objection, nor does it present a counterargument that inspires anything other than ennui.
- Indeed when somebody claims I've called them an idiot when I haven't called them an idiot, I assume they're offended. I also tend to assume that when they refer to my posts as pugnatious or when they claim I assume the absolute worst in people.
- My answer to your question is: No, I wouldn't drive my car on a given day if I knew there was a 38% chance I'd be in an auto wreck. Thus we've established that I'm of sound mind and not suicidal.
Your question is exactly the rhetorical sleight of hand I'd expect from AGW alarmists. The pretense of the question, which you know perfectly well that b2r doesn't accept and which you yourself don't accept, is that the temperature data portends a disaster whose personal impact on b2r is comparable to a car crash.
Now, you claim you're genuinely curious and not being rhetorical, hence you'll have to forgive me for failing to conceive what exactly it is you hoped to learn from b2r's response to your question. Are you asking him whether he's suicidal? Are you hoping to determine whether his risk assessment is so poor that a 4-in-10 shot at being wiped out in a car crash is no big deal to him? Maybe you're trying to find out if he's aware of how alarmists view the problem, since he may have lived under a rock for the past decade and somehow managed to avoid being carpet bombed with "climate change action" propaganda?
Forgive me, but my interpretation of your question is: SWEET GLAZED HAMS, B2R!! THIS IS A 38% CHANCE OF TOTAL GLOBAL ANNIHILATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE!! CAR CRASHES IN THE COSMOS!! BABIES HAVING BABIES!! ARE YOU MAD?! DAMN THE TORPEDOES AND READY THE CARBON TAXES!! FORWARD IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY!! (Admittedly, your version isn't this overt or enthusiastic.)
Is this because I assume the worst of you? No. I interpret it this way because this is by far the most logical interpretation of your question. It's either that or "Are you suicidal, b2r? I'm just curious." and it's to your credit that I don't think you foolish enough to ask the latter.
I not only want to give this post a thumbs up- which I did, but to make special mention of it as one of your best posts yet. I love your articulation of the question posed as "rhetorical slight of hand". It is frankly common among those who cling to and promote statist mysticism as the solution to a great many faux problems. Take voter fraud. We know that left-leaning "get out the vote" efforts are a deliberate and systematic means of destroying the electoral process by out and out fraudulent vote counts, or by the creation of enough confusion as to cast enough doubt on the process that they can hanging chad and dangling chad their way into office with a court order instead of an actual certified count. But nooooo, that's not the real problem, or the biggest problem. And you know what? Maybe it's not, but those of us who care about the integrity of elections can walk and chew gum at the same time, and address ALL threats to the integrity of the election process in a comprehensive way. Immigration- we want our country to have sound borders, we recognize that a borderless nation is no nation at all-- but the questions with regard to these issues is, "Why do you hate immigrants, and how come you don't want poor and minorities to vote?" They are questions which contain accusations like the above: if you don't agree with me you are racist, bigoted, homophobic, hate the poor, and are suicidal. It is in a nutshell why I ignore many such questions and accusations.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 24, 2015 12:18:26 GMT -5
Again, I have never disputed the fact that the earth was in a pretty well-documented long term warming cycle since the end of the last ice age- with a few breaks like the "Little Ice Age" (which is the starting point for this latest analysis) and the recent 18 year "pause" which we are now in the middle of. However, this report doesn't change two undeniable scientific facts: 1. The claim itself that 2014 is the warmest year since the earth began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age was not taken from raw temperature data, but generated from computer models created from hand-selected data. Even in spite of this, the "warmest" claim- the number itself is statistically insignificant with a margin of error which makes it possible to say the earth may even have cooled. 2. And the most important fact for the man-made global warming cultists to deal with: there is NO LINK-- not even a correlation, let alone a causation-- link between CO2 levels and temperature. It is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone with a brain that there never was any such thing as man-caused global warming. Clinging to such an unfounded notion is costing people credibility. So now you're claiming that people like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have no brains and as a real estate speculator, you're so much smarter than they are.
Never leave the boards Paul. You arrogantly think you're here to educate us but in all honesty, you provide some much-needed comic relief.
“…One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming brought about by rising levels of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The danger is that the temperature increase may become self-sustaining, if it hasn’t done so already. Drought and deforestation are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide recycled into the atmosphere and the warming of the seas may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide trapped on the ocean floor. In addition the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will reduce the amount of solar energy reflected back into space and so increase the temperature further." -Stephen Hawking.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 12:30:30 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 12:30:30 GMT -5
I not only want to give this post a thumbs up- which I did, but to make special mention of it as one of your best posts yet. I love your articulation of the question posed as "rhetorical slight of hand". It is frankly common among those who cling to and promote statist mysticism as the solution to a great many faux problems. Take voter fraud. We know that left-leaning "get out the vote" efforts are a deliberate and systematic means of destroying the electoral process by out and out fraudulent vote counts, or by the creation of enough confusion as to cast enough doubt on the process that they can hanging chad and dangling chad their way into office with a court order instead of an actual certified count. But nooooo, that's not the real problem, or the biggest problem. And you know what? Maybe it's not, but those of us who care about the integrity of elections can walk and chew gum at the same time, and address ALL threats to the integrity of the election process in a comprehensive way. Immigration- we want our country to have sound borders, we recognize that a borderless nation is no nation at all-- but the questions with regard to these issues is, "Why do you hate immigrants, and how come you don't want poor and minorities to vote?" They are questions which contain accusations like the above: if you don't agree with me you are racist, bigoted, homophobic, hate the poor, and are suicidal. It is in a nutshell why I ignore many such questions and accusations. there is so much wrong with this response that I don't know where to start, but I will give it a shot.
first of all- as to the "rhetorical slight of hand"- I argue by analogy. if that is a slight of hand to you, then you must think arguing is magical, because it is full of it. so is the Bible. it is the way people communicate difficult ideas to other people. if you don't get the analogies, I TRY to explain them- but merely dismissing them as imperfect is not actually arguing. it is arguing about arguing. which is lame, not praiseworthy, at least for me.
as to voter fraud, you once again are presenting the argument as if I and others don't care about voter fraud. we do, actually. we just care more about disenfranchisement. you care more about voter fraud. those are BOTH honorable things. your continual framing of your position as moral and mine immoral misses the point entirely. they are both moral arguments, Paul.
as to immigration, I don't remember ever arguing for illegal immigration. in fact, I have strenuously argued against illegal hiring, and enforcement of a system that is already in place. it would be simple. I doubt that a bill to do so would take more than 3 paragraphs. all it would do is insist that employers verify every I-9 with E-Verify, and to submit the receipt for that to the SSA when employees are added to the roster. it will never happen. that is because the idiots are in charge of the asylum.
oh, and thanks for throwing kerosene on what was a dead fire before you came along. I really appreciate that. not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 12:35:53 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 12:35:53 GMT -5
by the way, Paul and Virgil, I was NOT asking b2r if he was suicidal. like I say, I don't actually think global warming is an extinction threat.
BUT OTHERS DO.
what I was challenging b2r and others such as yourselves to try to see that perspective, and the logic that follows from it. if AGW is really an existential threat, then NO AMOUNT OF RESOURCES TO PREVENT IT is unjustified. and this logic should be familiar to you, because it is the same one that is employed for the terror war.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 15:23:22 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 24, 2015 15:23:22 GMT -5
Again, I have never disputed the fact that the earth was in a pretty well-documented long term warming cycle since the end of the last ice age- with a few breaks like the "Little Ice Age" (which is the starting point for this latest analysis) and the recent 18 year "pause" which we are now in the middle of. However, this report doesn't change two undeniable scientific facts: 1. The claim itself that 2014 is the warmest year since the earth began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age was not taken from raw temperature data, but generated from computer models created from hand-selected data. Even in spite of this, the "warmest" claim- the number itself is statistically insignificant with a margin of error which makes it possible to say the earth may even have cooled. 2. And the most important fact for the man-made global warming cultists to deal with: there is NO LINK-- not even a correlation, let alone a causation-- link between CO2 levels and temperature. It is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone with a brain that there never was any such thing as man-caused global warming. Clinging to such an unfounded notion is costing people credibility. So now you're claiming that people like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson have no brains and as a real estate speculator, you're so much smarted than they are.
Never leave the boards Paul. You arrogantly think you're here to educate us but in honesty, you provide some much-needed comic relief.
“…One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming brought about by rising levels of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. The danger is that the temperature increase may become self-sustaining, if it hasn’t done so already. Drought and deforestation are reducing the amount of carbon dioxide recycled into the atmosphere and the warming of the seas may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide trapped on the ocean floor. In addition the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets will reduce the amount of solar energy reflected back into space and so increase the temperature further." -Stephen Hawking.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage. Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.” But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree. Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.” “Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.” (The above is from an MIT Scientist: www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/ )
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 15:27:06 GMT -5
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 24, 2015 15:27:06 GMT -5
by the way, Paul and Virgil, I was NOT asking b2r if he was suicidal. like I say, I don't actually think global warming is an extinction threat.
BUT OTHERS DO.
what I was challenging b2r and others such as yourselves to try to see that perspective, and the logic that follows from it. if AGW is really an existential threat, then NO AMOUNT OF RESOURCES TO PREVENT IT is unjustified. and this logic should be familiar to you, because it is the same one that is employed for the terror war. I get that man-made global warming is the apocalyptic eschatology of the liberal cult. It doesn't matter what they think- it matters what they can prove. Look, the truly wise people like myself can see through the rouse to use the threat of extinction as a pretext for depriving people of their individual rights, taking their property, ordering them around, and putting them to forced labor-- all for the greater good-- to "save the planet".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 16:10:33 GMT -5
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 24, 2015 16:10:33 GMT -5
Lindzen? Richard Lindzen? ROTFLMAO! And he's no longer an "MIT" scientist. He works for the Cato Institute, which was founded by the Koch Brothers and largely funded by Big Oil.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 16:14:28 GMT -5
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 24, 2015 16:14:28 GMT -5
In a telling exchange with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria yesterday, long-time polluter apologist Pat Michaels admitted that “40 percent” of his funding comes from the oil industry. Michaels, introduced as “a scientist who now works for the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank that strongly opposes caps to carbon dioxide,” has promoted global warming denial for decades, funded by a network of oil and coal companies and their ideological allies. Michaels initially denied that he is funded by the petroleum industry, but backtracked under steady interrogation by Zakaria. thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/08/16/113717/oil-fueled-pat-michaels/
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 18:03:52 GMT -5
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 24, 2015 18:03:52 GMT -5
by the way, Paul and Virgil, I was NOT asking b2r if he was suicidal. like I say, I don't actually think global warming is an extinction threat.
BUT OTHERS DO.
what I was challenging b2r and others such as yourselves to try to see that perspective, and the logic that follows from it. if AGW is really an existential threat, then NO AMOUNT OF RESOURCES TO PREVENT IT is unjustified. and this logic should be familiar to you, because it is the same one that is employed for the terror war. I get that man-made global warming is the apocalyptic eschatology of the liberal cult. It doesn't matter what they think- it matters what they can prove. Look, the truly wise people like myself can see through the rouse to use the threat of extinction as a pretext for depriving people of their individual rights, taking their property, ordering them around, and putting them to forced labor-- all for the greater good-- to "save the planet". I think your term "liberal cult" is part of your scatology.
and truly wise people can see past the denialism of the possibility of AGW, and your pretend new world order prison camps, as well.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Climate
Jan 24, 2015 18:28:41 GMT -5
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 24, 2015 18:28:41 GMT -5
by the way, Paul and Virgil, I was NOT asking b2r if he was suicidal. like I say, I don't actually think global warming is an extinction threat.
BUT OTHERS DO.
what I was challenging b2r and others such as yourselves to try to see that perspective, and the logic that follows from it. if AGW is really an existential threat, then NO AMOUNT OF RESOURCES TO PREVENT IT is unjustified. and this logic should be familiar to you, because it is the same one that is employed for the terror war. I get that man-made global warming is the apocalyptic eschatology of the liberal cult. It doesn't matter what they think- it matters what they can prove. Look, the truly wise people like myself can see through the rouse to use the threat of extinction as a pretext for depriving people of their individual rights, taking their property, ordering them around, and putting them to forced labor-- all for the greater good-- to "save the planet". Lol! You're adorable ...and it's "ruse", not "rouse". A truly wise man would know that. Thanks for playing!
|
|