Official BBO Hijacked Thread Thread

[Zelandakh]

What does it mean that this thread has more replies than the climate change thread but fewer views?

This thread is also younger, which means that posts have come faster. Thus viewers see more posts per visit on this thread. Or it might just mean that there are more people interested in that thread but more active posters on this one...or just that people are using this thread to boost their post count.

[kuhchung]

poost their bost count

[ggwhiz]

What does it mean that this thread has more replies than the climate change thread but fewer views?

 

Climate change is happening much slower than nonsense but has more fans

[Winstonm]

What does it mean that this thread has more replies than the climate change thread but fewer views?

 

Because hot air rises.

[kenberg]

What does it mean that this thread has more replies than the climate change thread but fewer views?

 

This depends on what the meaning of "mean" is. What's it all about, Alfie? Life is a cabaret old chum. If that's all there is, then let's keep dancing, if that's all there is. Meaning has eluded great minds for ages. He could afford just one meatball. Now that has meaning. But what?

[y66]

I wonder if some forum mates are confusing bakin' with bacon.

[Aberlour10]

How do I move all my posts to this thread?

 

You did not manage it till now , so this could be the main reason the climate thread has still more views.

[Al_U_Card]

The comic relief/bad behavior/end-times fascination factor is much higher over there. ;)

[y66]

From Roger Cohen's Algeria’s Invisible Arab in today's NYT:

 

At the core of any conflict lies invisibility. The enemy cannot be seen, at least not if seeing betokens the start of understanding. The other is there, a menacing and ineffaceable presence, but is invisible in his or her human dimensions.

 

Demonization blocks any glimmer of shared humanity or sympathy. Only when the nameless foe becomes a man or a woman confronted with the puzzle of life does the path to understanding begin to open. No gun was turned to plowshare without some form, however tentative, of mutual recognition.

 

This question of invisibility is the starting point of Kamel Daoud’s remarkable first novel, “The Meursault Investigation.” His core idea is of startling ingenuity. Daoud, an Algerian journalist, takes Albert Camus’s classic novel, “The Stranger” — or more precisely the “majestically nonchalant” murder of an Arab at the heart of it — and turns that Arab into a human being rather than the voiceless, characterless, nameless object of a “philosophical crime” by a Frenchman called Meursault on an Algiers beach 20 years before the culmination of Algeria’s brutal war of independence.

 

The issue is no longer Meursault’s devastating honesty about the human condition — he does not love, he does not pretend, he does not believe in God, he does not mourn his dead mother, he does not judge, he does not repress desire, he does not regret anything, he does not hide from life’s farce or shrink from death’s finality — but the blood he has spattered on the sand with five gunshots into young Musa.

 

By inverting the perspective, and turning the anonymous Arab into a young man named Musa Uld el-Assas rather than someone “replaceable by a thousand others of his kind, or by a crow, even,” Daoud shifts the focus from the absurdity of Meursault’s act in the giddying sunlight to the blindness of the colonial mind-set.

 

...

 

Daoud’s novel has sometimes been portrayed as a rebuke to the pied-noir Frenchman Camus. But there is more that binds their protagonists than separates them — a shared loathing of hypocrisy, shallowness, simplification and falsification. Each, from his different perspective, renders the world visible — the only path to understanding for Arab and Jew, for American and Iranian, for all the world’s “strangers” unseen by each other.

[Winstonm]

Did you ever notice that when someone writes about "climate deniers" the same two people respond?

[y66]

From A Renegade Trawler, Hunted for 10,000 Miles by Eco-Vigilantes:

 

ABOARD THE BOB BARKER, in the South Atlantic — As the Thunder, a trawler considered the world’s most notorious fish poacher, began sliding under the sea a couple of hundred miles south of Nigeria, three men scrambled aboard to gather evidence of its crimes.

 

In bumpy footage from their helmet cameras, they can be seen grabbing everything they can over the next 37 minutes — the captain’s logbooks, a laptop computer, charts and a slippery 200-pound fish. The video shows the fishing hold about a quarter full with catch and the Thunder’s engine room almost submerged in murky water. “There is no way to stop it sinking,” the men radioed back to the Bob Barker, which was waiting nearby. Soon after they climbed off, the Thunder vanished below.

 

It was an unexpected end to an extraordinary chase. For 110 days and more than 10,000 nautical miles across two seas and three oceans, the Bob Barker and a companion ship, both operated by the environmental organization Sea Shepherd, had trailed the trawler, with the three captains close enough to watch one another’s cigarette breaks and on-deck workout routines. In an epic game of cat-and-mouse, the ships maneuvered through an obstacle course of giant ice floes, endured a cyclone-like storm, faced clashes between opposing crews and nearly collided in what became the longest pursuit of an illegal fishing vessel in history.

[Al_U_Card]

Did you ever notice that when someone writes about "climate deniers" the same two people respond?

Ever notice who uses that pejorative term to alienate, dehumanize and criticize? Now, if only a real argument was available, there would be no need to resort to rhetorical devices, would there?

[mikeh]

Ever notice who uses that pejorative term to alienate, dehumanize and criticize? Now, if only a real argument was available, there would be no need to resort to rhetorical devices, would there?

Now only if those who deny the reality of climate change had a real argument, rather than cherry-picked and (often) massaged data, taken out of context, maybe they wouldn't find themselves being described in pejorative terms? Nah, fixed delusional beliefs rarely give in to reality....there is always a way to rationalize everything. The average temperature of the world climbing every year? No...we can show that in one or even a handful of locations, the temperature isn't rising. The greenhouse gas level has risen in recent times in virtual lockstep with human activities? No...we can show that the models used by climate scientists aren't precisely correct, so let's ignore what they have to say about anything until they become infallible in every detail. And so on.

 

Climate change deniers would be merely the subject of ridicule were it not for the truly horrific consequences of their belief systems. As it is, it seems very likely that future generations will look back on people like you and regard them as guilty of the most serious crimes against humanity of all history. Not to mention the mass extinctions that are already underway...we were already living through one of the greatest extinction eras in the history of life on earth, but global warming is going to add countless species to the roll of the dead/extinct.

 

Whether it is salmon unable to spawn in the overly warm waters of the Columbia river, or honeybees seeing their range of habitat shrink by 300 kms of latitude over the past several decades, or mass fish kills due to the collapse of the underlying ecology made up of life forms that can tolerate only a small range of temperatures, or polar bears losing habitat as the ice sheets shrink, or the spread of diseases like West Nile as its geographical range increases with increased temperature....it goes on and on and on, and people like you find all kinds of reasons for humans to avoid doing anything about it. So what if the consensus view is flawed in some details? So what if the problem may turn out not to be quite as horrifically destructive as some predict? Ah, why bother? You're a waste of effort.

[Al_U_Card]

Do provide the causal nature of increased CO2 with all of your cited proofs of looming thermageddon.

We can only (with great difficulty, hardship and expense) control that particular climate forcing so other than adapting, mitigation even by IPPC numbers is virtually ineffectual.

But you need not waste your time on this particular subject if it is too vexing.

[kuhchung]

Anyone watching SGDQ marathon?

[Cyberyeti]

Now only if those who deny the reality of climate change had a real argument, rather than cherry-picked and (often) massaged data, taken out of context, maybe they wouldn't find themselves being described in pejorative terms? Nah, fixed delusional beliefs rarely give in to reality....there is always a way to rationalize everything. The average temperature of the world climbing every year? No...we can show that in one or even a handful of locations, the temperature isn't rising. The greenhouse gas level has risen in recent times in virtual lockstep with human activities? No...we can show that the models used by climate scientists aren't precisely correct, so let's ignore what they have to say about anything until they become infallible in every detail. And so on.

 

Climate change deniers would be merely the subject of ridicule were it not for the truly horrific consequences of their belief systems. As it is, it seems very likely that future generations will look back on people like you and regard them as guilty of the most serious crimes against humanity of all history. Not to mention the mass extinctions that are already underway...we were already living through one of the greatest extinction eras in the history of life on earth, but global warming is going to add countless species to the roll of the dead/extinct.

 

Whether it is salmon unable to spawn in the overly warm waters of the Columbia river, or honeybees seeing their range of habitat shrink by 300 kms of latitude over the past several decades, or mass fish kills due to the collapse of the underlying ecology made up of life forms that can tolerate only a small range of temperatures, or polar bears losing habitat as the ice sheets shrink, or the spread of diseases like West Nile as its geographical range increases with increased temperature....it goes on and on and on, and people like you find all kinds of reasons for humans to avoid doing anything about it. So what if the consensus view is flawed in some details? So what if the problem may turn out not to be quite as horrifically destructive as some predict? Ah, why bother? You're a waste of effort.

 

A few ignorant people deny that climate change is happening, but what most of the deniers argue is that the effect is not man made. This is of course much more difficult to definitively prove or rebut.

[blackshoe]

Is the climate changing? Certainly. How could it not?

 

There are so many, many variables. Is human action one (or more) of them? Certainly. How could it not be?

 

Is the current trend in climate change a looming catastrophe? Maybe. Hard to know, since our models seem to all be flawed in some way or other. I'd say there are other things one might call "looming catastrophes" that are, or should be, of more concern. Some of those are being ignored completely. See the recent thread on the tectonic situation in the American Northwest, for example.

 

Are some people trying to use the presumed "looming catastrophe" in climate change for their own gain? There sure are. On both sides, I suspect.

 

Should we ignore those people completely? Well, no, but we should take everything they say with a grain of salt. I don't trust people whose agenda seems to be fear-mongering for their own benefit. I don't trust people who say "don't worry, be happy, stick your head in the sand" either.

 

What should we do? Perhaps deal with some of the problems we know how to handle, while continuing to try to figure out how climate change works and whether there's anything good that we can do to influence it.

 

Bottom line, for me, is that the planet is a very big, very complex machine, and since we don't know how it works, messing with it, however noble our motives, may very well do more harm than good.

[Winstonm]

Is the climate changing? Certainly. How could it not?

 

There are so many, many variables. Is human action one (or more) of them? Certainly. How could it not be?

 

Is the current trend in climate change a looming catastrophe? Maybe. Hard to know, since our models seem to all be flawed in some way or other. I'd say there are other things one might call "looming catastrophes" that are, or should be, of more concern. Some of those are being ignored completely. See the recent thread on the tectonic situation in the American Northwest, for example.

 

Are some people trying to use the presumed "looming catastrophe" in climate change for their own gain? There sure are. On both sides, I suspect.

 

Should we ignore those people completely? Well, no, but we should take everything they say with a grain of salt. I don't trust people whose agenda seems to be fear-mongering for their own benefit. I don't trust people who say "don't worry, be happy, stick your head in the sand" either.

 

What should we do? Perhaps deal with some of the problems we know how to handle, while continuing to try to figure out how climate change works and whether there's anything good that we can do to influence it.

 

Bottom line, for me, is that the planet is a very big, very complex machine, and since we don't know how it works, messing with it, however noble our motives, may very well do more harm than good.

 

The 4.5 billion year history of the earth includes only about 100+ years of industrialization and fossil fuel use - I would say that fossil fuel use is more in line with "messing with earth" than reducing the use of fossil fuels.

[Al_U_Card]

And 100 years of nuclear fission...(notwithstanding radioactive decay in the core)

 

The key is our wise use of resources and the stewardship of what remains. Can we switch over to alternate sources of energy? Not quickly but how quickly is necessary? Alarmists say immediately, no matter what the cost (and it is BIG). The science seems to be sufficiently ambiguous to indicate that time is on our side. Since we have been using fossil fuels for several hundred, and the effects are mitigated by the benefits, we may well be best served by advancing prudently into the future and not rushing headlong into disaster.

 

Rather than the UNFCCC starting with the proposition that man is responsible for CAGW and then throwing money at trying to prove it, (could have been sulfate aerosols had the global temps been cooling at the time...) perhaps a Framework Convention on energy equity would have been more appropriate? Dealing with what we do have is the problem. Much more so than any projected rise of a few tenths of a degree C over the next century.

[ggwhiz]

What does it mean that this thread has more replies than the climate change thread but fewer views?

 

Means that this thread can be hijacked by that other one but will still be more entertaining

[Al_U_Card]

As described in the sub-heading of this thread, it is NOT about GW. IIRC It was started after the 2nd or 3rd GW thread was derailed so that non-consensus viewpoints would stop being presented.

The sub-heading may have been an attempt to forestall derailing if GW was mentioned in passing... ROFL

 

As we can see, both are going strong thanks to more active moderation.

[blackshoe]

And 100 years of nuclear fission...(notwithstanding radioactive decay in the core)

Ever heard of Oklo? It's in Gabon, in Africa. A couple of billion years ago, self-sustaining nuclear reactions occurred there, and ran for a couple hundred thousand years.

[Al_U_Card]

Ever heard of Oklo? It's in Gabon, in Africa. A couple of billion years ago, self-sustaining nuclear reactions occurred there, and ran for a couple hundred thousand years.

Indeed I have. Not so sure that SUV's were involved in that one, however, and fossil fuels weren't even in process then and since man was not even a gleam in anyone's eye, the anthropogenic nature of that energy source was nil. ;)

[gwnn]

Double snip

[gwnn]

snip