Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Paris Climate Disagreement

The Paris Climate Disagreement (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
But I also have to note it's an argument for pretending the problem is worse than it is.
It's ALL monkeys!!
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
We haven't heard about the ozone hole for awhile. Is that beacause everyone figured out it was a scam created by DuPont because the patent on freon on was expiring?
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Because the Montreal Protocol treaties worked. CFC phaseout caused the Antarctic hole's size to peak in the early 2000s. It's decreased since, but it's erratic from year to year. Also, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have the more recent data.

Edit: historical ozone hole max size / minimum ozone graphs can be seen here. The effect peaked around 2000, and has been (very slowly) recovering since. Also, DuPont developed R-12 and closely related refrigerants in the 1930s. The patents ran out in the 1950s.
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
aah point number 45656.
refuted.

awaiting point number 45657...
R12 is still in use and available for purchase online.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 05:44 PM
 
Not sure what the point is on that. The prohibition was on manufacture. R-12 manufacture wasn't phased out in developing countries until 2010. Since you can still buy new VCRs on ebay that haven't been made in decades, I expect you'll be able to buy R-12 online for the next 20-50 years. At steadily higher prices. An increasing percentage will be scavenged rather than new.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 07:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
You don't belive over 100,000 doctors?
Do you believe in love?

Since your arguments seem to be the same as Badkosh's, for over 60,000 peer reviewed articles, written by tens of thousands of individual authors, to all be bunk on a complete global scale is a conspiracy theory on the scale of completely and absolutely ridiculous.

If this is really what you think, expect more questions from me about how you feel about gravity, whether 9-11 was an inside job, whether the moon-landing was faked, whether the Earth is 6000 years old, and whether the Earth is flat.

Given your complete and utter irrational justifications for your beliefs (and that's leaving aside your religious beliefs which are a whole other matter), it honestly wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these other questions had interesting answers to them.
     
Waragainstsleep
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 25, 2017, 08:53 PM
 
Even I think 9-11 was probably an inside job.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 06:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Since your arguments seem to be the same as Badkosh's, for over 60,000 peer reviewed articles, written by tens of thousands of individual authors, to all be bunk on a complete global scale is a conspiracy theory on the scale of completely and absolutely ridiculous.

If this is really what you think, expect more questions from me about how you feel about gravity, whether 9-11 was an inside job, whether the moon-landing was faked, whether the Earth is 6000 years old, and whether the Earth is flat.

Given your complete and utter irrational justifications for your beliefs (and that's leaving aside your religious beliefs which are a whole other matter), it honestly wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these other questions had interesting answers to them.
Okay, fine. Let's do this.

State precisely the argument these 60K+ papers are making.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This argument is stupid for the reasons given.

Also, the plural of peer is not "peer's".
So besson, you discovered a new word "stupid"? Or is it your goal to be that continuously?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Since your arguments seem to be the same as Badkosh's, for over 60,000 peer reviewed articles, written by tens of thousands of individual authors, to all be bunk on a complete global scale is a conspiracy theory on the scale of completely and absolutely ridiculous.

If this is really what you think, expect more questions from me about how you feel about gravity, whether 9-11 was an inside job, whether the moon-landing was faked, whether the Earth is 6000 years old, and whether the Earth is flat.

Given your complete and utter irrational justifications for your beliefs (and that's leaving aside your religious beliefs which are a whole other matter), it honestly wouldn't surprise me if one or more of these other questions had interesting answers to them.
Still think you can read minds Besson? If these peers are in on the scam FOR THE MONEY why would you trust them? Show me some predictions that came true because of all their 'science'.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:21 AM
 
As I said, Conspiracy 101.

Double the number of people who know about the conspiracy, quadruple the chances of exposure. The amount of people who would need to be involved in this conspiracy is untenable.

The sweet-spot is around 13. Any more and it'll get discovered. Any less and the conspirators don't have the required depth and variety of resources.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 09:30 AM
 
I should clarify, this is for a world-spanning conspiracy, like would be required to fake that much science at the peer review level. A more humble conspiracy can make-do with less people.

Also note, this doesn't mean the science hasn't been faked, just that a pro wouldn't touch the idea of rigging the peer review a 10-foot pole.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Okay, fine. Let's do this.

State precisely the argument these 60K+ papers are making.
Why?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 10:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why?
Umm... because I can't assess the claim without knowing what it is?

I could trawl the thread to find out where the claim was initially made, but I imagined asking directly was within the bounds of constructive dialogue.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Umm... because I can't assess the claim without knowing what it is?

I could trawl the thread to find out where the claim was initially made, but I imagined asking directly was within the bounds of constructive dialogue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ific_consensus

James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[128] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[129] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research
My mistake, it was 69k authors, not articles in case I said that.

Not that it really matters, there is likely no number that will damper this idiotic conspiracy theory idea.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Still think you can read minds Besson? If these peers are in on the scam FOR THE MONEY why would you trust them? Show me some predictions that came true because of all their 'science'.
This argument is stupid. We've covered the concept of predictions.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 11:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ific_consensus



My mistake, it was 69k authors, not articles in case I said that.

Not that it really matters, there is likely no number that will damper this idiotic conspiracy theory idea.
Danke!
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 04:54 PM
 
A conventional "conspiracy"? No. That's not necessary, though. When you have control of 98% of the media, as the CC lobby does, it's easy to filter out dissent. What I've found interesting is that whenever an expert of another discipline (like physics) "crosses the aisle" to investigate, they almost invariably look at what passes for "proof" in climate science and have seizures. But then, after a good pummeling to their character (and unveiled threats), they mutter a few comments about a supposed misunderstanding and then lock themselves back in their labs, promising to not even so much as look at an outdoor thermometer again.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
A conventional "conspiracy"? No. That's not necessary, though. When you have control of 98% of the media, as the CC lobby does, it's easy to filter out dissent. What I've found interesting is that whenever an expert of another discipline (like physics) "crosses the aisle" to investigate, they almost invariably look at what passes for "proof" in climate science and have seizures. But then, after a good pummeling to their character (and unveiled threats), they mutter a few comments about a supposed misunderstanding and then lock themselves back in their labs.

So, I guess I'll count you as a climate change denier too.

Are you talking about this lobby group? https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/tot...668&cycle=2014
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 04:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When you have control of 98% of the media, as the CC lobby does,
[citation needed]

What I've found interesting is that whenever an expert of another discipline (like physics) "crosses the aisle" to investigate, they almost invariably look at what passes for "proof" in climate science and have seizures.
[citation needed]
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
[citation needed]
Look at all of this power!

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/tot...668&cycle=2014
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So, I guess I'll count you are a climate change denier too.
If you want to look even sillier than before, go right ahead.

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
[citation needed]
*looks at the Left-dominated MSM and then shakes his head at Laminar*

[citation needed]
Princeton physics professor William Happer and the character attacks against him are a good example of this happening recently, though you've likely not heard of it due to what I cited above.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:14 PM
 
The barrage of nastiness against Dr. Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest physicists to ever live, is another prime example. Though that did reach the news in a limited way, but only because the attacks were particularly nasty, and he's one of the most respected scientists of the last century.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The barrage of nastiness against Dr. Freeman Dyson, one of the greatest physicists to ever live, is another prime example. Though that did reach the news in a limited way, but only because the attacks were particularly nasty, and he's one of the most respected scientists of the last century.
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freema...Climate_change

Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[61] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends
Again, why are we getting hung up on prediction models?

Climate change is either real or it isn't. The first order of business is addressing this. You have not made it clear what you actually think about this. Badkosh and Chongo are clear climate change deniers.

When various bad things predicted happen is of secondary concern, as long as they are going to eventually happen. If you want to make the argument that they won't, go for it, but I'm gonna side with the scientists on this one.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freema...Climate_change

Again, why are we getting hung up on prediction models?
No reason to get "hung up" on the basics of what climate change is actually doing (or the claims made by climatologists, that have a direct effect on what we should do regarding it, or how its even being propagated) just listen and believe.

Climate change is either real or it isn't. When various bad things predicted happen is of secondary concern, as long as they are going to eventually happen. If you want to make the argument that they won't, go for it, but I'm gonna side with the scientists on this one.
How dare you claim that other people have a "simplistic view" on the subject, or call someone else stupid, after you voice something as patently ignorant as that. The stones on you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
though you've likely not heard of it due to what I cited above.
>implying
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When you have control of 98% of the media, as the CC lobby does, it's easy to filter out dissent.
So the Climate Change people control 98% of the media. I'll assume the main stream media. Since large corporations own most of the MSM, and everyone knows the liberal media is controlled by liberals, we can deduce some basic relationships.

• Large corporations are strongly liberal, and have been sold on climate change. Big Oil must not be so big any more.
• Since Citizens United allowed unlimited corporate donations to political campaigns, the large liberal corporations must have been hoodwinked to spend all that money putting Republicans in control. Classic case of liberals being hoodwinked into bribing - donating tons of money to the side they're against.
• As everyone knows liberals are pro-minorities, large corporations must be dominated by minority groups. Take that, glass ceiling.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No reason to get "hung up" on the basics of what climate change is actually doing (or the claims made by climatologists, that have a direct effect on what we should do regarding it, or how its even being propagated) just listen and believe.
We haven't talked about what we should do, policy wise. That would be jumping the gun when at least 2/3 of you MacNN climate change opponents haven't even gotten past the question of whether it actually exists, and believe that some bizarre and outlandish conspiracy theories outweigh the established facts. Policy debates will be a complete waste of time with anybody that doesn't believe in the policy's cause.

Please tell me so that I understand: is man-made global warming real or not? If you think it is, why don't you direct some of your focus towards Chongo and Badkosh in these debates?
( Last edited by besson3c; Jul 26, 2017 at 05:46 PM. )
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So the Climate Change people control 98% of the media. I'll assume the main stream media. Since large corporations own most of the MSM, and everyone knows the liberal media is controlled by liberals, we can deduce some basic relationships.
Only if you still think those particular corporate types still have media power, which they don't. (For good or ill) the power of the MSM is in the hands of the Googles of the world, not the Exxon-Mobils, cutting the rest of your argument to ribbons.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Only if you still think those particular corporate types still have media power, which they don't. (For good or ill) the power of the MSM is in the hands of the Googles of the world, not the Exxon-Mobils, cutting the rest of your argument to ribbons.

Even supposing this is true, why does this matter?

The consensus is in the scientific community, and that is the community that matters the most here. They've been entertaining dissent and debate for more than 10 years now. I care what they think, not Joe Sixpack CNN-watcher.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 05:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
We haven't talked about what we should do, policy wise. That would be jumping the gun when at least 2/3 of you MacNN deniers haven't even gotten past the question of whether it actually exists, and believe that some bizarre and outlandish conspiracy theories outweigh the established facts. Policy debates will be a complete waste of time with anybody that doesn't believe in the policy's cause.

Please tell me so that I understand: is man-made global warming real or not? If you think it is, why don't you direct some of your focus towards Chongo and Badkosh in these debates?
When some of the smartest physicists call into question some of what you're calling "basic facts", I can see why some people have reservations about joining a bandwagon that exhibits such cult-like behavior.

Why don't I focus on Chongo or Badkosh? Because I despise your group's methods and tactics; you go right to personal attacks, isolating and tearing down, rather than sticking to the subject matter, just like the CC lobby did to the scientists I linked to earlier. Your group on MacNN frequently behaves in a vile manner, and even though I agree with a great many of your points, I won't openly support you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 06:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When some of the smartest physicists call into question some of what you're calling "basic facts", I can see why some people have reservations about joining a bandwagon that exhibits such cult-like behavior.

Why don't I focus on Chongo or Badkosh? Because I despise your group's methods and tactics; you go right to personal attacks, isolating and tearing down, rather than sticking to the subject matter, just like the CC lobby did to the scientists I linked to earlier. Your group on MacNN frequently behaves in a vile manner, and even though I agree with a great many of your points, I won't openly support you.

Okay, so if that Wikipedia article I've posted a number of times claims 99% support of those articles, will you be comfortable with casting off Chongo and Badkosh as looney tunes deniers of reality when 100% of the scientists are in support, or if certain scientists you hold in high regards are on board?

Cause I'd like to know when the tipping point will be for you? Surely there will be a hypothetical point? I mean, if Chongo and Badkosh were going on about the earth being 6000 years old you wouldn't really give them the time of day, would you?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 06:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
you go right to personal attacks, isolating and tearing down, rather than sticking to the subject matter
NathanFillion.gif
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 06:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Cause I'd like to know when the tipping point will be for you? Surely there will be a hypothetical point? I mean, if Chongo and Badkosh were going on about the earth being 6000 years old you wouldn't really give them the time of day, would you?
So you then pull out a strawman? Given your past behavior, it's unlikely I'll ever support you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 06:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Okay, so if that Wikipedia article I've posted a number of times claims 99% support of those articles, will you be comfortable with casting off Chongo and Badkosh as looney tunes deniers of reality when 100% of the scientists are in support, or if certain scientists you hold in high regards are on board?

Cause I'd like to know when the tipping point will be for you? Surely there will be a hypothetical point? I mean, if Chongo and Badkosh were going on about the earth being 6000 years old you wouldn't really give them the time of day, would you?
The tipping point is coexisting in the same world as Chongo and BadKosh even if they'll never agree.

Even if their opinions make me angry, which they have at times, I'm disinclined to haul out on either of them because I consider them both to be my friends.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
NathanFillion.gif
feelsbadpepe.gif
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 07:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...ific_consensus



My mistake, it was 69k authors, not articles in case I said that.

Not that it really matters, there is likely no number that will damper this idiotic conspiracy theory idea.
I want to see if I can get my hands on this actual paper, it's paywalled.

I'm curious about the metric it uses.

For example, if I think there's a 10% chance the majority of global warming is anthropogenic, have I rejected anthropogenic global warming?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 07:19 PM
 
Aaaaand, here's the first thing I find...

"Alternative methods, such as James Powell's, that identify only explicit rejections of AGW and assume that all other instances are endorsements [emphasis in original]"

Which means my above example is not a rejection.

If this is what Powell is doing, he's stacking the deck.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 07:36 PM
 
To put it another way, unless the opinion of the "horses" is the chance AGW exists is effectively zero, by Powell's metric, they're not deniers.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 07:48 PM
 
When you broaden the scope that much, no wonder so many fit that category.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 07:50 PM
 
It's one way to build a consensus I guess.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 07:53 PM
 
Reminds me of the way feminists count their membership. They accept anyone who will publicly wear the label, no matter how they behave or what they believe.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No reason to get "hung up" on the basics of what climate change is actually doing (or the claims made by climatologists, that have a direct effect on what we should do regarding it, or how its even being propagated) just listen and believe.



How dare you claim that other people have a "simplistic view" on the subject, or call someone else stupid, after you voice something as patently ignorant as that. The stones on you.
I speak for myself, but would not surprise me if BadKosh was close.
I'll say this for the last time. Yes, climate changes occur, and there have been cooling and warming cycles for billions of years. What I question is the belief the latest warming, now cooling, trend is due solely to human activity.

The switch to "climate change" from "global warming" is due to the fact that the warming trend "paused" over a decade ago and a "plateau" aka a cooling trend started.
Unless some one has figured out how to control sunspot activity, prevent volcanic eruptions, and alter the Gulf Stream, (to name but a few) what we can do is nil compared to what nature does.

I have tried to find the episode of the PBS show "Connections" in which Burke laments the end of one of the warm period because it meant then end of those "fruity little English numbers." One of the things he attributed it to was a shift in the Gulf Stream.

One gets the idea the environmental alamist movemnt is populated with marxists.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I want to see if I can get my hands on this actual paper, it's paywalled.

I'm curious about the metric it uses.

For example, if I think there's a 10% chance the majority of global warming is anthropogenic, have I rejected anthropogenic global warming?

You're not going to do that annoying thing where you attempt to poke holes in his methodology, give fodder to the deniers here, while ignoring the mountains of other studies and information laid out in the same article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

There are 136 citations here, and our resident deniers are exceptionally good at throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it feels good to do so, so please do not lose track of the larger point which is that AGW exists and there is more than sufficient consensus of this so much that we can comfortably consider this a fact.

Have I gone through and challenged each of these studies like you are attempting to do? No. I would believe that to be arrogant, because I don't know better than the scientists and I don't have the time to go through all of this material, and quite frankly I would likely presume (rightly or wrongly) that some random person on the internet that claims they know better is a wanker anyway.

My point is this...

People are woefully under-informed about many things and are lazy researchers (myself included). The fact that Snopes exists is probably good evidence to support this notion. But why do we need to second-guess the mountains of information that exist that pretty much all conclude the same thing? It's like people are under-informed generally and in some special cases like this under-informed about what they think they are informed about?

What will it take to satisfy these people?

I say nothing, because their skepticism is based on their emotions. Their skepticism has become a mini-religion, which is largely based on emotions as well. Emotions/religion and science have always had a conflicting relationship throughout history. Humans are capable of more than being driven solely by their emotions, though.

So, let's cut to the chase... This debate is not about facts, it is about emotions. What you are attempting to do here is a dead-end path, IMO. What would be most productive is trying to find a way to dissect the emotional part of this, because there definitely is one. Emotions are a part of us all, they are a part of my support of the science too, so I'm not trying to dehumanize us.

I'm just saying that given the overwhelming and substantial amount of scientific data that exists and the overwhelming consensus, and given that it doesn't satisfy the deniers and we are hearing completely irrational refutes about global conspiracies and focusing on various predictions rather than the scientific underpinnings themselves, we gotta look at the emotional component.

I would guess that Chongo's emotions are based on the fact that science routinely shits on his religion? As for Badkosh, I dunno, I guess he's just weird...

Not that I'm expecting voluntarily submissions to the emotional microscope (and for the tables to not be turned where I'm also put under this microscope), but I think this is the road we have to go down if we really want to get to the bottom of this.

So, lead on subego! You are probably better at this than I anyway...
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:42 PM
 
besson, this strategy isn't working. Not over the last 3 pages. Perhaps a different strategy.

Since an unspecified cabal has bought off the world's climate scientists (which would take a fabulous amount of money) and you must be part of this cabal, it follows that you are obscenely loaded. Buy off your critics here already.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
What I question is the belief the latest warming, now cooling, trend is due solely to human activity.
I have a much bigger problem with not questioning that belief than I do with questioning it.

Not accounting for external factors in the final analysis is "doing it wrong".
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
besson, this strategy isn't working. Not over the last 3 pages. Perhaps a different strategy.

Since an unspecified cabal has bought off the world's climate scientists (which would take a fabulous amount of money) and you must be part of this cabal, it follows that you are obscenely loaded. Buy off your critics here already.

Okay, I'm now going to psycho-analyze the deniers to understand their emotions.

Chongo, Badkosh, CTP, what were your childhoods like?


Also, I would like to send you wire transfers.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 08:56 PM
 
Um, besson ... I think you have the wrong idea. When bribing people, it is best to use cash. Fewer embarrassing records, and attaché cases are generic.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Um, besson ... I think you have the wrong idea. When bribing people, it is best to use cash. Fewer embarrassing records, and attaché cases are generic.
What should I do with CTP? He claims to be super rich. Maybe I could send him celebrity pubic hair?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You're not going to do that annoying thing where you attempt to poke holes in his methodology, give fodder to the deniers here, while ignoring the mountains of other studies and information laid out in the same article?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

There are 136 citations here, and our resident deniers are exceptionally good at throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it feels good to do so, so please do not lose track of the larger point which is that AGW exists and there is more than sufficient consensus of this so much that we can comfortably consider this a fact.

Have I gone through and challenged each of these studies like you are attempting to do? No. I would believe that to be arrogant, because I don't know better than the scientists and I don't have the time to go through all of this material, and quite frankly I would likely presume (rightly or wrongly) that some random person on the internet that claims they know better is a wanker anyway.

My point is this...

People are woefully under-informed about many things and are lazy researchers (myself included). The fact that Snopes exists is probably good evidence to support this notion. But why do we need to second-guess the mountains of information that exist that pretty much all conclude the same thing? It's like people are under-informed generally and in some special cases like this under-informed about what they think they are informed about?

What will it take to satisfy these people?

I say nothing, because their skepticism is based on their emotions. Their skepticism has become a mini-religion, which is largely based on emotions as well. Emotions/religion and science have always had a conflicting relationship throughout history. Humans are capable of more than being driven solely by their emotions, though.

So, let's cut to the chase... This debate is not about facts, it is about emotions. What you are attempting to do here is a dead-end path, IMO. What would be most productive is trying to find a way to dissect the emotional part of this, because there definitely is one. Emotions are a part of us all, they are a part of my support of the science too, so I'm not trying to dehumanize us.

I'm just saying that given the overwhelming and substantial amount of scientific data that exists and the overwhelming consensus, and given that it doesn't satisfy the deniers and we are hearing completely irrational refutes about global conspiracies and focusing on various predictions rather than the scientific underpinnings themselves, we gotta look at the emotional component.

I would guess that Chongo's emotions are based on the fact that science routinely shits on his religion? As for Badkosh, I dunno, I guess he's just weird...

Not that I'm expecting voluntarily submissions to the emotional microscope (and for the tables to not be turned where I'm also put under this microscope), but I think this is the road we have to go down if we really want to get to the bottom of this.

So, lead on subego! You are probably better at this than I anyway...
There's stuff I'm frustrated by in this post, but I'm going to do my best not to blow a gasket.

In that vein, I'll take it a bit at a time, and I'll start with a bit which is confusing rather than frustrating.

Most of my contribution to the thread has been about the emotional aspects, but that kinda got the brush-off... hence my move into the actual science.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here exactly. Should I go back to the beginning?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There's stuff I'm frustrated by in this post, but I'm going to do my best not to blow a gasket.

In that vein, I'll take it a bit at a time, and I'll start with a bit which is confusing rather than frustrating.

Most of my contribution to the thread has been about the emotional aspects, but that kinda got the brush-off... hence my move into the actual science.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do here exactly. Should I go back to the beginning?

I'm sorry to frustrate you man.

There is just something about the way you post (generally) where you don't make your pivots clear to me, at all.

These threads always have a half dozen of subthreads going on within them, so it's not like there isn't room for multiple discussions, I guess I just feel like you don't really acknowledge my point or do much to segue (especially when you quote me), which makes me feel that you think that your response is in direct response to what you have quoted, and therefore I haven't articulated my points well. There are times too when you drill down into some narrow part of what I have said without acknowledging the larger point. It's kind of like that conversation with somebody where that person needs to make everything about him/her, if you know what I mean?

However, if it's just me that is thrown by this I'll just remember that this is what you do and will try to deal with it better so that neither of us are frustrated. I'm sure you don't mean to blow off what I'm saying and are just trying to fork new conversational threads, for the most part.

I'm also sorry for calling you a horse. Did I call you a horse? I don't remember, but you aren't a horse. I don't think? I mean, you could be a horse, but the chances of that are extremely low.
     
The Final Shortcut
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2017, 11:15 PM
 
This thread is mind numbingly stupid.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:10 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,