Climate change

[blackshoe]

"The sky is falling!" :P

[Cascade]

"The sky is falling!" :P

 

now there's something we can all believe ;)

[dwar0123]

You should probably say IF. Considering that over the past 100 years, the world temperature has only increased 0.35 degrees (unless you are quoting Fahrenheit), your rate of increase is twenty-fold higher that recently observed. Do you have any reason to believe that we will experience such a drastic increase in the coming five decades compared to the previous 10?

I plead guilty to being an American and still using the backwards Fahrenheit scale.

 

I should still probably say if, but I am hardly the only one guilty of that crime here.

[Daniel1960]

I plead guilty to being an American and still using the backwards Fahrenheit scale.

 

I should still probably say if, but I am hardly the only one guilty of that crime here.

Okay, we are on common ground now. I wholeheartedly agree that adaption is the better choice. It is significantly cheaper and more palatable to the general public, not to mention the agricultural benefits of a warmer, wetter world with high CO2 levels. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but that has happened throughout history, and those that have adapted best, come out on top. This is not to be callous, just practical.

[hrothgar]

Okay, we are on common ground now. I wholeheartedly agree that adaption is the better choice. It is significantly cheaper and more palatable to the general public, not to mention the agricultural benefits of a warmer, wetter world with high CO2 levels. Yes, there will be winners and losers, but that has happened throughout history, and those that have adapted best, come out on top. This is not to be callous, just practical.

 

Since World War II, people have grappled with the Holocaust. How could a civilized country like Germany go about trying to wipe a race of people off the earth. One of the telling phrases from these discussions is the banality of evil.

 

Your discuss about "winners and losers" and those "who have adapted best come out on top" is very reminiscent.

 

"It's a damn shame those Africans and Bangladeshis didn't adapt better when the developed world started poisoning the commons..."

 

FWIW, I know Godwin's law better than most.

Even so, when folks are advocating genocide it seems appropriate to bring the Nazi's into the picture.

[Al_U_Card]

Can you say: "Eco-fascists"?

 

...if: you’ve had your view ruined and your property value trashed by a wind farm; you’re one of the 2,700 people killed in Britain last year by fuel poverty; you can’t get a job; you’ve lost your job; you’re skint; your kids can’t sleep because they’re so worried about the pets that are going to be drowned by the carbon monster; you’ve ever wondered why occasionally — even once would be nice — the BBC doesn’t make a programme about ‘climate change’ which isn’t relentlessly alarmist.

 

There’s a reason for all this — one that the BBC has spent six years trying to conceal. The story goes back to a seminar, held in January 2006, where the BBC (to quote one of its own reports) gathered ‘the best scientific experts’ who concluded that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ on anthropogenic climate change...

[hrothgar]

Can you say: "Eco-fascists"?

 

Stop pretending that your asinine little circle jerk is a conversation.

 

You post reams of crap.

Every once and a while, people come on to mock you and let you know that you are despised.

 

The world would be a better place if you were dead.

[Daniel1960]

Since World War II, people have grappled with the Holocaust. How could a civilized country like Germany go about trying to wipe a race of people off the earth. One of the telling phrases from these discussions is the banality of evil.

 

Your discuss about "winners and losers" and those "who have adapted best come out on top" is very reminiscent.

 

"It's a damn shame those Africans and Bangladeshis didn't adapt better when the developed world started poisoning the commons..."

 

FWIW, I know Godwin's law better than most.

Even so, when folks are advocating genocide it seems appropriate to bring the Nazi's into the picture.

Since WWII, The Soviets wiped out millions in the gulags, The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1.5 million Cambodians, Up to a million may have been killed in the Rwandan genocide, The Ottoman Empire wiped out between 1 and 1.5 millian Armenians. Germany did not have a monopoly on evil or genocide. Mass killings neither began nor ended in the 20th century, and none of these had anything to do with climate adaptation.

 

History tells of many civilizations that likely disappeared due to climatic changes; the Mayans, Anasazi, Indus, and the Greenland Vikings for starters. Many of the World's poor depend upon the rich nations for assistance. Enacting draconian measures in an ill-fated attempt to curb climate change, would only result in economic decline of the Western world. How much money would be available then to help the poorest nations? Under the worst-case warming scenarios for the 21st century, Bangledesh and other low-lying nations would face disaster, but many of the wealthiest (U.S., Canada, Russia, and Western Europe) would prosper. It would then be our obligation to further assist these impoverished nations - and we would have added funds to do so. Would you deprive these countries of added assistance? By the way, Africa has experienced increase rainfall during past warming episodes, and decreased rainfall during cooling, very little adaption would be required on their part.

[dwar0123]

Since WWII, The Soviets wiped out millions in the gulags, The Khmer Rouge killed an estimated 1.5 million Cambodians, Up to a million may have been killed in the Rwandan genocide, The Ottoman Empire wiped out between 1 and 1.5 millian Armenians. Germany did not have a monopoly on evil or genocide. Mass killings neither began nor ended in the 20th century, and none of these had anything to do with climate adaptation.

 

History tells of many civilizations that likely disappeared due to climatic changes; the Mayans, Anasazi, Indus, and the Greenland Vikings for starters.

 

There is a difference between the previous falls of civilizations due to climatic changes and the proposed current one. A difference that makes it very relatable to the mass killings.

 

We are causing it.

[mike777]

gen·o·cide (jn-sd) KEY

 

NOUN:

 

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

 

 

 

I hope one can discuss alternative approaches to global warming and not be accused of fostering genocide.

 

 

Given how people hated being without power, cheap and reliable power after Sandy, it is rather mean to lay such a guilt trip on America if you hve reservations about some version of a carbon tax.

 

OTOH as I have mentioned before if you view global warming as an urgent problem, there are only bad choices today.

 

If the issue is less urgent, adaption is something worth looking into and pursing as one possible option among many including innovation.

[Cascade]

Stop pretending that your asinine little circle jerk is a conversation.

 

You post reams of crap.

Every once and a while, people come on to mock you and let you know that you are despised.

 

The world would be a better place if you were dead.

 

Richard I think this post is extremely abusive.

 

Other people are allowed opinions and they do not have to coincide with yours. Goodness knows your view may not even coincide with the truth.

 

In my fairly limited experience on this topic it is very hard to believe the dangers of climate change advocates often because they resort to ad hominems as you have done or hide or even run from the flaws in their data and even have to wait for legal rulings before releasing that data for inspection.

 

I for one would welcome a clear exposition of the facts and an open discussion to be able to determine the truth but that is not even close to what i see from the climate scientists who advocate AGW nor in many cases from their supporters. These people on the one hand acknowledge say things like "We don’t know what natural variability is doing." Professor Phil Jones whilst on the other hand trumpeting ad infinitum that the science is settled. To me these people want the cake and to eat it too.

 

As I say i am happy to read about facts in an open and straight forward way but to my mind the advocates of AGW have a long way to move to approach open and straight forward.

[hrothgar]

Richard I think this post is extremely abusive.

 

Other people are allowed opinions and they do not have to coincide with yours. Goodness knows your view may not even coincide with the truth.

 

In my fairly limited experience on this topic it is very hard to believe the dangers of climate change advocates often because they resort to ad hominems as you have done or hide or even run from the flaws in their data and even have to wait for legal rulings before releasing that data for inspection.

 

I for one would welcome a clear exposition of the facts and an open discussion to be able to determine the truth but that is not even close to what i see from the climate scientists who advocate AGW nor in many cases from their supporters. These people on the one hand acknowledge say things like "We don’t know what natural variability is doing." Professor Phil Jones whilst on the other hand trumpeting ad infinitum that the science is settled. To me these people want the cake and to eat it too.

 

As I say i am happy to read about facts in an open and straight forward way but to my mind the advocates of AGW have a long way to move to approach open and straight forward.

 

I would be happy to see a productive exchange that discusses global warming, however, trolls like Al_U_Card and Daniel make this impossible.

 

FWIW, "attacking the source" is entirely right and proper when the source demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior.

 

Al's posts are littered with errors which he never acknowledges.

He simply comes back and posts reams of new crap.

 

The volume and idiocy of his posts have completely poisoned the communication channel.

 

Why is that stupid people are always the ones complaining about ad-hominem attacks?

 

For what its worth, argumentum ad hominem is perfectly valid if you are drawing attention to character flaws that are directly relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

In this case, we're simply pointing out that you have a well established history of advocating crank conspiracy theories...

 

The fact that you spent several years arguing that the US government blew up the world trade center seems salient on a number of fronts.

 

I can't firmly establish whether this means that:

 

1. Al-U-Card is a troll, desperately hoping that being mocked on the internet somehow validates his existence

2. Al-U-Card is a crank, who get's drawn in to inane conspiracy theories

 

Either way, the fact that you advocate one stupid theory would seem to be a valid critique of your capacity for critical thinking.

 

As to why I bring this up...

 

It's the same reason that we gives D's and F's on report cards.

 

It's useful short hand for "This individual really shouldn't be trusted with anything important"

[Cascade]

I would be happy to see a productive exchange that discusses global warming, however, trolls like Al_U_Card and Daniel make this impossible.

 

FWIW, "attacking the source" is entirely right and proper when the source demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior.

 

Al's posts are littered with errors which he never acknowledges.

He simply comes back and posts reams of new crap.

 

The volume and idiocy of his posts have completely poisoned the communication channel.

 

Do you attack the proponents of AGW similarly when they demonstrably engage in dishonest behaviour? When their data is littered with blatant errors and unjustified omissions? "Hang on there is no medieval warm period in that data - you deserve to die". I suspect not.

[dwar0123]

Do you attack the proponents of AGW similarly when they demonstrably engage in dishonest behaviour? When their data is littered with blatant errors and unjustified omissions? "Hang on there is no medieval warm period in that data - you deserve to die". I suspect not.

Do they post here?

 

Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

[Daniel1960]

Do they post here?

 

Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

That is a statement with which I can agree. Unfortunately, too many people will vigorusly attack the dishonest peole with whom they disagree, but prefer to brush the dishonst ones with which they do agree under the rug. I have seen far too many dishonest claims made by people on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately, they convince the less informed, who use similar arguments themselves. The only thing more annoying than those who use dishonest arguments, are those who prefer to attack the person rather than their arguments (this usually occurs when they have no good argument of their own). For whatever reason, this has become all too popular in global warming cirlces (both pro- and anti-). One occurred just moments ago on this site.

[Cascade]

Do they post here?

 

Believe it or not, intellectually dishonest people are annoying to people with whom they agree with. It creates doubt about their own arguments.

 

That seems an irrelevant question.

 

I was neither suggesting they posted here nor that they did not just that I suspect the harsh vitriol was reserved for those with whom Richard disagreed not for those who "demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior" which was the reason given by him.

[dwar0123]

That seems an irrelevant question.

 

I was neither suggesting they posted here nor that they did not just that I suspect the harsh vitriol was reserved for those with whom Richard disagreed not for those who "demonstrably engages in dishonest behavior" which was the reason given by him.

You suspect that he reserves the harsh vitriol only for the intellectually dishonest people he disagrees with but you don't see how a lack of intellectually dishonest people he does agree with isn't relevant to whether or not he would flame them as well?

 

Boggle.

[billw55]

I have observed before, that hrothgar seems to have a low tolerance for people that hold opinions different from his own, and that he is willing to express himself offensively.

 

Al_U_Card may well be ignoring facts that would counter his assertions. But horthgar is the one posting "circle jerk" and "wish you were dead", etc. Actually, I found that post downright childish, but I cannot say I was surprised.

[Cascade]

You suspect that he reserves the harsh vitriol only for the intellectually dishonest people he disagrees with but you don't see how a lack of intellectually dishonest people he does agree with isn't relevant to whether or not he would flame them as well?

 

 

Exactly I did not ask if he would flame them, which I feel is somewhat euphemistic for what Richard actually said. I asked if he would attack them similarly there was no suggestion in that that I intended a similar mode of attack just that the attack was similar when he actually agreed with the dishonest presenters of information.

[dwar0123]

Exactly I did not ask if he would flame them, which I feel is somewhat euphemistic for what Richard actually said. I asked if he would attack them similarly there was no suggestion in that that I intended a similar mode of attack just that the attack was similar when he actually agreed with the dishonest presenters of information.

It is very base to assume someone is unfair in their methods when they have had no opportunities to prove they are fair. Hence the relevance. You are demanding he prove a negative in a vacuum of data.

 

I get from this latest post that you concede he might 'flame' people he agrees with for the methods they use but that you still think that the level of vitriol here is far beyond anything he would use against these people he agrees with. I am not sure how that exactly answers my point, it evades it. How do you know he wouldn't level the same amount of vitriol against someone he agrees with on some level about the methods they use, especially if they spam it constantly for years in the face of constantly ignored counter points.

 

You don't, so stop assuming he wouldn't.

[Cascade]

It is very base to assume someone is unfair in their methods when they have had no opportunities to prove they are fair. Hence the relevance. You are demanding he prove a negative in a vacuum of data.

 

I get from this latest post that you concede he might 'flame' people he agrees with for the methods they use but that you still think that the level of vitriol here is far beyond anything he would use against these people he agrees with. I am not sure how that exactly answers my point, it evades it. How do you know he wouldn't level the same amount of vitriol against someone he agrees with on some level about the methods they use, especially if they spam it constantly for years in the face of constantly ignored counter points.

 

You don't, so stop assuming he wouldn't.

 

I didn't assume. I asked a question. However I suspect the answer would be in the negative. A suspicion and an assumption are entirely different things.

[hrothgar]

Looks like every single post that I make now needs to be approved by a moderator

[hrothgar]

People show expect the frequency of my posting to be increasing dramatically

[hrothgar]

Alterantively it is possible that the frequency of my posting will decline enormously

[hrothgar]

Potentially dropping to zero