# IsItJustMe



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Is it just me or did I hear Chicken Little flop like an old slipper?

https://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/politics/white-house-climate-energy/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

And that's not all:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

If I had to stake my life on which of our members was foolish enough to be a climate change denier....................................who would I choose?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> If I had to stake my life on which of our members was foolish enough to be a climate change denier....................................who would I choose?


What? Come now man.. If the U.S. tried to insist upon enforcing climate control then their patriotic, home based companies would want to move out of the U.S. where they could pay less than $5.50 an hour (without benefits) to create a further "working poor" classe, while avoiding paying their share of taxes into the society that supports them(G.E. springs to mind here, as does Apple, as do many, many others).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

*I can remember when it was all ice fields around here.
*


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

Shaver said:


> *I can remember when it was all ice fields around here.
> *


One of the best examples of both evolution and effects of pollution is the "Peppered Moth". Before the Industrial revolution, it was white with dark speckles, durîng it became a dark brown (to match in with the pollution), and after, when industrial pollution controls where emplaced, it once again became white with dark speckles (which once again became the promenant feature in order to match the surroundings and survive).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ No evolutionary adaptation will allow for higher forms of life to survive a catastrophic collapse of the biosphere. 

Those who deny climate change are either ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> *I can remember when it was all ice fields around here.
> *


This is an example of what is basically climate-change propaganda. The ice-sheets shrink and grow on a cyclical basis, this is well-known. Anyone with any knowledge of the geological and meteorological record of the last 100,000 years or so (e.g. ice cores, sediments, tree rings, pollen data, topography etc) will agree that climate change has happened and in all probability is happening right now. However, to imply from this an anthropogenic cause is highly tendentious. Such a cause, if it existed, could only offer an account for the last 2,000 years or so, but not the periods before then, when the climate changed in quite dramatic ways, with several ice ages and interglacials. Other perhaps more fruitful explanations to consider include fluctuations in solar and volcanic activity.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> This is an example of what is basically climate-change propaganda. The ice-sheets shrink and grow on a cyclical basis, this is well-known. Anyone with any knowledge of the geological and meteorological record of the last 100,000 years or so (e.g. ice cores, sediments, tree rings, pollen data, topography etc) will agree that climate change has happened and in all probability is happening right now. However, to imply from this an anthropogenic cause is highly tendentious. Such a cause, if it existed, could only explain the last 2,000 years or so, but not the periods before then, when the climate changed in quite dramatic ways, with several ice ages and interglacials.


So which are you: ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> So which are you: ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed?


Au contraire Shaver - I believe it is the climate change believers who are best described in those terms.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ Of course the Earth's climate has evolved over time and of course there has been an element of cyclicity, no sensible person would dispute this.

There have even been quite dreadful extinction incidents, geomagnetic reversal for one example.

However none of these events, no matter how drastic, have precipitated anything more than top-down extinctions.

Saturated levels of carbon in the atmosphere, heavy metal & pesticide pollutants in the food chain, virtual water grabs and the draining of artesian wells thus stalling the hydrological cycle, arable land depletion from chemically supported over-farming, interminable slash and burn of the rain forests, all of these combine to induce a bottom-up extinction event, a tipping point once reached from which there is no reversal.

Never mind though, enough people are on anti-depressants nowadays that the water supply is contaminated from their expelling traces of the chemicals in urine. Effectively, everyone is on Prozac now*. That should keep you calm in the face of imminent destruction.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3545684.stm

* except me, of course, for I do not drink water. :thumbs-up:

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ^ Of course the Earth's climate has evolved over time and of course there has been an element of cyclicity, no sensible person would dispute this.
> 
> There have even been quite dreadful extinction incidents, geomagnetic reversal for one example.
> 
> ...


Whenever Norman Baker of the Liberal Democrats issues another of his alarmist statements, I cannot suppress a smile. If he believes everything he says, he must be a very worried man indeed.

The evidence put forward is flimsy in the extreme. It is no more than an urban myth that drinking water is being constantly recycled - even in London, this does not happen. If mass-medication in this way were a possibility, we would all be being dosed with such large amounts of contraceptive that procreation would have ceased (that would please you, I expect).

Pollution is a dreadful thing, and human activities have the potential for environmental consequences - e.g. deforestation, desertification - but only on a localised scale.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Didn't Al Gore buy ocean front property in Malibu a few years back? Interesting real estate investment for a guy who believes our coasts will disappear in the next 10 years. 

Even Lex Luthor was smart enough to buy land in Arizona and not California!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Whenever Norman Baker of the Liberal Democrats issues another of his alarmist statements, I cannot suppress a smile. If he believes everything he says, he must be a very worried man indeed.
> 
> The evidence put forward is flimsy in the extreme. It is no more than an urban myth that drinking water is being constantly recycled - even in London, this does not happen. If mass-medication in this way were a possibility, we would all be being dosed with such large amounts of contraceptive that procreation would have ceased (that would please you, I expect).
> 
> Pollution is a dreadful thing, and human activities have the potential for environmental consequences - e.g. deforestation, desertification - but only on a localised scale.


https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-in-water-supply/

Localised scale? :crazy:

You are aware of the Hydrological cycle, the Food chain and the function of the Amazon rain forests?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Didn't Al Gore buy ocean front property in Malibu a few years back? Interesting real estate investment for a guy who believes our coasts will disappear in the next 10 years.
> 
> Even Lex Luthor was smart enough to buy land in Arizona and not California!


Oh, of course. Well now you put it like that.... What the Hell was I thinking? Everything's grand. tra la la :devil:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-in-water-supply/
> 
> Localised scale? :crazy:
> 
> You are aware of the Hydrological cycle, the Food chain and the function of the Amazon rain forests?


I read Geography, as it happens, so I am familiar with these things.

The article mentions the point that the dilution is of such on order that even an ardent supporter of homoeopathy (are you?) would have to be highly optimistic to expect any effect to arise.

The matter of scale is central to the climate change debate - I believe its supporters, for various reasons, are prone to gross exaggeration. Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of it all is that many governments have seised on the whole inflated theory as a convenient way of raising taxes, regardless of whether they ruin our landscape in the process with wind turbines.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ The article also mentions the effect of the 'stew' and, again, do not neglect the concentrating effect of the Food chain. 

You 'believe' that (climate change) supporters are prone to gross exageration? Could you quantify this belief in any way? 

Conversely, I can quantify the rate of destruction of the rain forest and extrapolate. If you read Geography then I imagine you will be able to recognise what will happen when they are gone? Or do you believe that it will merely be a pesky localised effect?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ^ The article also mentions the effect of the 'stew' and, again, do not neglect the concentrating effect of the Food chain.
> 
> You 'believe' that (climate change) supporters are prone to gross exageration? Could you quantify this belief in any way?
> 
> Conversely, I can quantify the rate of destruction of the rain forest and extrapolate. If you read Geography then I imagine you will be able to recognise what will happen when they are gone? Or do you believe that it will merely be a pesky localised effect?


When they clear forest, generally it is for the purpose of planting crops, not to create a desert. If trees are replaced by crops, I'm not sure there is any harm.

I don't think it's for sceptics such as myself to disprove the climate change hypothesis, but rather for its supporters to make the point more convincingly than they have been able to so far.

I assume you can recall the 2009 exposure of the Norwich University Climate Research Unit's attempt to stifle publication of findings that the global climate is actually cooling, and has been for some time? This inconvenient fact was politically incorrect, and they were trying to hush it up. The climate change believers seem to be reliant on what is basically a torrent of lies.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> When they clear forest, generally it is for the purpose of planting crops, not to create a desert. If trees are replaced by crops, I'm not sure there is any harm.
> 
> I don't think it's for sceptics such as myself to disprove the climate change hypothesis, but rather for its supporters to make the point more convincingly than they have been able to so far.
> 
> I assume you can recall the 2009 exposure of the Norwich University Climate Research Unit's attempt to stifle publication of findings that the global climate is actually cooling, and has been for some time? This inconvenient fact was politically incorrect, and they were trying to hush it up. The climate change believers seem to be reliant on what is basically a torrent of lies.


There is a significant difference between forest and crop as it relates to the functions of both carbon dioxide sink and positive oxygen production. There _is _harm, I assure you.

Why is the burden of proof the responsibility of those you disagree with? Why can you not take responsibility and prove your own position?

The so-called 'Climegate' that you refer to was resultant of NUCR being hacked by loony climate change deniers who then sifted through millions of emails and files to find one or two sentences that suited them. But I suspect that you knew that already.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The term "climate change denier" has always amused me.

I believe if someone is postulating a scientific point, it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence.

Rather difficult to "prove" that climate change "is not" occurring. I witnessed climate change in Chicago this week when Monday started out like March and by Wednesday it felt like August.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

SG_67 said:


> Didn't Al Gore buy ocean front property in Malibu a few years back? Interesting real estate investment for a guy who believes our coasts will disappear in the next 10 years.
> 
> Even Lex Luthor was smart enough to buy land in Arizona and not California!


Even more humorous is that Al Gore's main residence in Nashville is very significantly less efficient and eco-friendly than GWB's ranch in Texas.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> The term "climate change denier" has always amused me.
> 
> I believe if someone is postulating a scientific point, it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence.
> 
> Rather difficult to "prove" that climate change "is not" occurring. I witnessed climate change in Chicago this week when Monday started out like March and by Wednesday it felt like August.


The evidence is overwhelming and only the ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed deny it - hence the perfectly apt term 'climate change denier'.

ExxonMobil subsidise the cranks who deny climate change with millions of dollars of funding. Do you wonder why?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> There is a significant difference between forest and crop as it relates to the functions of both carbon dioxide sink and positive oxygen production. There _is _harm, I assure you.
> 
> Why is the burden of proof the responsibility of those you disagree with? Why can you not take responsibility and prove your own position?
> 
> The so-called 'Climegate' that you refer to was resultant of NUCR being hacked by loony climate change deniers who then sifted through millions of emails and files to find one or two sentences that suited them. But I suspect that you knew that already.


Rates of photosynthesis and hence absorption of carbon dioxide vary considerably between types of tree, types of crop, temperature, humidity, intensity of planting etc etc. It is perfectly feasible that total clearance of the entire Amazon rainforest, followed by selective planting of cash crops, would greatly increase the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen - not that that is what is being proposed, nor am I by any means in support of forest clearance, but I regard the climate change arguments against forest clearance as bogus.

Why is the burden of proof on you? As was pointed out elsewhere, if someone claims there is a teapot in orbit earth somewhere between the earth and the moon, it is for them to prove it, not for me to prove the opposite.

Your final paragraph takes the usual climate-change perversion-of-truth approach, with a slight baroque touch.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ...
> 
> ExxonMobil subsidise the cranks who deny climate change with millions of dollars of funding. Do you wonder why?


Please tell me where one applies for this generous funding.

In fact, and rather unfortunately, there are enormous streams of funding self-interestedly invested in trying to prove climate change.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Rates of photosynthesis and hence absorption of carbon dioxide vary considerably between types of tree, types of crop, temperature, humidity, intensity of planting etc etc. It is perfectly feasible that total clearance of the entire Amazon rainforest, followed by selective planting of cash crops, would greatly increase the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen - not that that is what is being proposed, nor am I by any means in support of forest clearance, but I regard the climate change arguments against forest clearance as bogus.
> 
> Why is the burden of proof on you? As was pointed out elsewhere, if someone claims there is a teapot in orbit earth somewhere between the earth and the moon, it is for them to prove it, not for me to prove the opposite.
> 
> Your final paragraph takes the usual climate-change perversion-of-truth approach, with a slight baroque touch.


You misunderstand the notion of a carbon sink, this invalidates your position completely.

I counter that denying climate change is equivalent to believing a teapot orbits the moon, therefore the burden of proof is passed back to you.

Please highlight the perversion of truth in my entirely factual and accurate final paragraph.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Please tell me where one applies for this generous funding.
> 
> In fact, and rather unfortunately, there are enormous streams of funding self-interestedly invested in trying to prove climate change.


You need not apply - simply operating a crank climate change denial website will likely find you being approached by a major global polluter. https://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

Enormous investment streams are not required to prove climate change. It is already proven. Except to the ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> There _is _harm, I assure you.


So you say, but so far the only 'proof' seems to be a polar bear.



> The so-called 'Climegate' that you refer to was resultant of NUCR being hacked by loony climate change deniers who then sifted through millions of emails and files to find one or two sentences that suited them. But I suspect that you knew that already.


That is not the generally accepted account of events.



Shaver said:


> You misunderstand the notion of a carbon sink, this invalidates your position completely.


In the context of long-term meteorological change, whether the crop lasts a season or 500 years is pretty immaterial --- I assure you.



Shaver said:


> Enormous investment streams are not required to prove climate change. It is already proven. Except to the ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed.


Yes of course you must be right - I was forgetting that poor polar bear.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

There is proof, but denialists (of all stripes) willfully apply a blind spot to the truth and choose instead to fixate upon peripheral detail where they feel that they might find comfort cf repeated mention of the (clearly) humorous polar bear image.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

You're right Shaver . The '13 hurricane season is a prime example.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

The predictive accuracy of the Global Warming advocates is right on par with television evangelists end of the age prognostications and amazingly similar in tone.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> The predictive accuracy of the Global Warming advocates is right on par with television evangelists end of the age prognostications and amazingly similar in tone.


Come again? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

Climate change?

Shouldn't we be more concerned about about Guam capsizing??

Congressman Hank Johnson, a Democrat, expressed his concern that adding thousands of Marines and their families to Guam might cause that small island to "tip over and capsize":

Hank Johnson: This is a[n] island that at its widest level is what ... twelve miles from shore to shore? And at its smallest level ... uh, smallest location ... it's seven miles between one shore and the other? Is that correct?

Admiral Willard: I don't have the exact dimensions, but to your point, sir, I think Guam is a small island.

Hank Johnson: Very small island, about twenty-four miles, if I recall, long, twenty-four miles long, about seven miles wide at the least widest place on the island and about twelve miles wide on the widest part of the island, and I don't know how many square miles that is. Do you happen to know?

Admiral Willard: I don't have that figure with me, sir, I can certainly supply it to you if you like.

Hank Johnson: *Yeah, my fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.*

House Armed Services Committee meeting held on 25 March 2010


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

How about the dreaded sequestratin??

It is possible that Reid misspoke. We don’t like to play gotcha, but we also get suspicious when a politician’s aides do not respond to queries. 
In any case, even if Reid was relying on the CBO estimate, 1.6 million is the high-end of a range for next year, not this year. 
A more careful speaker would have chosen the midpoint — 900,000 — which is also the first employment number highlighted in the CBO letter. 
While the dust has not settled on the impact of the sequester on employment this year, the available evidence shows that Reid’s claim that 1.6 million jobs already have been cut this year appears wildly off course.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Stubbly said:


> Climate change?
> 
> Shouldn't we be more concerned about about Guam capsizing??
> 
> ...


Can you prove that Guam _won't _tip over?

Rep. Johnson's consensus of one is enough for me. Are you being a "tip over denier"?


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> How about the dreaded sequestratin??
> 
> It is possible that Reid misspoke. We don't like to play gotcha, but we also get suspicious when a politician's aides do not respond to queries.
> In any case, even if Reid was relying on the CBO estimate, 1.6 million is the high-end of a range for next year, not this year.
> ...


Sadly the BS from both sides of the aisle on most issues gets so deep, that I feel a need to wear calf high boots everytime I enter the U.S. and have considered sporting full SCUBA gear just in case.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Are Chicken Littles ever ashamed??

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../*sequestration*-costs-*jobs*_n_3907741.html ‎



Similar

Sep 11, 2013 *...* But the *loss* of federal *jobs* because of *sequestration* will continue. The authors of 
the report note that federal government employment has ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

justonemore said:


> Sadly the BS from both sides of the aisle on most issues gets so deep, that I feel a need to wear calf high boots everytime I enter the U.S. and have considered sporting full SCUBA gear just in case.


It is definately more deep over there than over here on my side.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> It is definately more deep over there than over here on my side.


Hmm. Strange enough 
but I seem to find most everything in Switzerland works well compared to the same U.S. systems..For the monez I have to pay out, I, my family, and my community get a rather decent amount of services versus service providers. OR...were you confusing me with an american democrat..


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Like a Swiss Watch!!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Come again? :icon_scratch:


Surely you know what a television evangelist is, and what ethical midgets they can be especially when it comes down to separating the gullible from their money. The similarities are almost spooky.


----------



## justonemore (Jul 2, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Like a Swiss Watch!!


Hmm. Compared to the better American version. Such as...ummm...Such as who.... Do American made watches even exist anymore....


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Shaver said:


> So which are you: ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed?





Langham said:


> Au contraire Shaver - I believe it is the climate change believers who are best described in those terms.


Very few climate scientists have any doubt that we are experiencing warmer global temperatures as a result of rapidly climbing CO2 concentrations in the past few decades, so I view the deniers as being pretty ignorant. But I don't agree that, having acknowledged climate change as primarily man-caused, we have automatically defined the appropriate response.

In other words, the time to stop burning fossil fuels has not yet arrived. I agree we need to encourage efficiency and alternative energy sources more energetically, though.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Very few climate scientists have any doubt that we are experiencing warmer global temperatures as a result of rapidly climbing CO2 concentrations in the past few decades, so I view the deniers as being pretty ignorant. But I don't agree that, having acknowledged climate change as primarily man-caused, we have automatically defined the appropriate response.
> 
> In other words, the time to stop burning fossil fuels has not yet arrived. I agree we need to encourage efficiency and alternative energy sources more energetically, though.


Maxbuck, you're free to spout about CO2 concentrations, but before you castigate fellow members as ignorant - presumably because they deny the anthropogenic theory of carbon emissions - I suggest you study the longer-term picture regarding atmospheric composition, which I find casts some doubt on the rather shrill and intellectually myopic supporters of the suspect climate-change hypothesis. Concentrations may be increasing, and quite rapidly, but the reasons that are being advanced for this cannot explain the historical picture millions of years ago:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

One day in the '70s just before we ran out of oil:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I'm glad you mentioned that. I have a distinct recollection of some panic, in my late childhood, about an impending Ice Age.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> ^ I'm glad you mentioned that. I have a distinct recollection of some panic, in my late childhood, about an impending Ice Age.


That's why it's easier to call it "climate change". You can cover all your bases. At some point it becomes a circular argument.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Interesting when a scientist comes out and is skeptical of global warming he is a crackpot.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Vermont Maple Syrup Producer Complains: NBC Edited My Remarks to Support 'Global Warming'

Read more:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting when a scientist comes out and is skeptical of global warming he is a crackpot.


Look what happened to David Bellamy.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> The term "climate change denier" has always amused me.
> 
> I believe if someone is postulating a scientific point, it is incumbent upon him to provide the evidence.
> 
> Rather difficult to "prove" that climate change "is not" occurring. I witnessed climate change in Chicago this week when Monday started out like March and by Wednesday it felt like August.





SG_67 said:


> Interesting when a scientist comes out and is skeptical of global warming he is a crackpot.


There are incalculable financial profits to be made off "climate change." Also, the climate change issue is (obviously) highly politicized. Whenever large sums of money & politics are involved in *anything*, one should be skeptical.

When a politician, or political operative, cannot win a debate with facts, he uses other tactics.

Tactic #1. Dig up some dirt in his opponent's past and use it to smear his opponent. 
Tactic #2. If no dirt can be found, fabricate a scandal about his opponent.
Tactic #3. If a scandal cannot be fabricated, discredit his opponent by *portraying his opponent as an idiot and/or a crackpot.

*


SG_67 said:


> Can you prove that Guam won't tip over?
> 
> Rep. Johnson's consensus of one is enough for me. Are you being a "tip over denier"?


I cannot prove that Guam will NOT tip over.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Speaking of money, Mr. Stubby, my own personal two cents is that something has been afoot with the climate for some time. This is based solely on personal, anecdotal experience. The "pro-climate change" advocates, however, must realize that to deliver their message convincingly, they must do so with credibility. Here is where they run into problems with the heavy lift they are trying. For example, some pro change talking heads will freely admit they tend to overstatement because of their goal is a noble one. Others lose their sway when internal emails become public raising questions whether data has been massaged. "Global warming" becomes "climate change". Al Gore has his own credibility problems and my favorite is Leo flying around the globe in a private jet to "raise consciousness" of the problem. Is it any wonder that the "deniers" continue to dispute the argument?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Langham said:


> Maxbuck, you're free to spout about CO2 concentrations, but before you castigate fellow members as ignorant - presumably because they deny the anthropogenic theory of carbon emissions ...


Yep, the reason I term people as ignorant that deny anthropogenic causation of climate change is that they haven't read, or else do not understand, the background documentation supporting that conclusion. "Ignorant" isn't necessarily pejorative; it simply means the ignorant person hasn't fully educated himself/herself on the details of the issue at hand, or else that they lack the background to understand what they've read.

I have a background in radiative heat transfer, and have done modeling in macroclimatology. I have the necessary technical training to understand the global-level meteorologic modeling. I'm fully aware that most people do not.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Interesting when a scientist comes out and is skeptical of global warming he is a crackpot.


It's not so much that. It's that the "scientists" who come out as skeptics are typically either professional iconoclasts (i.e., contrarians by nature as demonstrated by their work product generally) or speaking on a scientific discipline they are not trained in nor competent to practice. That's not always the case, but usually it is.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

Joseph Peter said:


> ... my own personal two cents is that something has been afoot with the climate for some time.


The Earth's climate has been changing for billions of years. Now, Al Gore along with other political hacks want to exploit climate change for political & financial gain. Rahm Emanuel may have explained the misappropriate use of a "crisis" best.

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." -- Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama Chief of Staff


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Stubbly said:


> Al Gore along with other political hacks want to exploit climate change for political & financial gain. Rahm Emanuel may have explained the misappropriate use of a "crisis" best.


I completely agree with both of these comments, neither of which has FA to do with whether man is profoundly affecting our climate.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> It's not so much that. It's that the "scientists" who come out as skeptics are typically either professional iconoclasts (i.e., contrarians by nature as demonstrated by their work product generally) or speaking on a scientific discipline they are not trained in nor competent to practice. That's not always the case, but usually it is.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

MaxBuck said:


> I completely agree with both of these comments, neither of which has FA to do with whether man is profoundly affecting our climate.


Surely, you are not implying that money & corrupt politicians don't have any influence on scientific research.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming


The survey cited by Forbes was of geoscientists and engineers. Neither group is particularly better suited to understanding macroclimatology than, for example, postal workers or preschool teachers.

Freeman Dyson is quoted in your Wikipedia excerpt as follows:


> 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."


So I'm not quite clear what your point is - are you now agreeing with me?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Stubbly said:


> Surely, you are not implying that money & corrupt politicians don't have any influence on scientific research.


Do I argue that funding sources don't affect reported research findings? Of course not. Scientists are humans, and humans want to please those to whom we owe our livelihoods. I do dispute the idea that politicians are any more corrupt than the population at large; I have personally known enough Congressmen, Governors and local legislators to believe that they're no more nor less honest than the average schoolteacher, engineer or physician.

Note, however, that ConocoPhillips and Chevron have made corporate acknowledgements of their acceptance of the IPCC report and of the role of GHGs in climate change. And peer reviews of the IPCC reports have been conducted by numerous disinterested professionals who concur with the consensus findings.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> The survey cited by Forbes was of geoscientists and engineers. Neither group is particularly better suited to understanding macroclimatology than, for example, postal workers or preschool teachers.
> 
> Freeman Dyson is quoted in your Wikipedia excerpt as follows:
> So I'm not quite clear what your point is - are you now agreeing with me?


Read the rest of what Dyson states. Selective quoting is the last refuge of a scoundrel! (I mean that with all affection)

Geoscientists are on par with postal workers with respect to their knowledge on climate change?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Selective quoting is the last refuge of a scoundrel! (I mean that with all affection)
> 
> Geoscientists are on par with postal workers with respect to their knowledge on climate change?


First, Dyson acknowledged that man is the primary cause of climate change. The rest of that section of the Wikipedia commentary indicated he is critical of the "ostracizing of climate change critics," which I agree with; science must be challenged by capable people in order to be improved. But the kernel of his belief is, in fact, that GHGs have been the largest influence on climate change in recent history.

Geologists are trained in understanding rocks, soils, and the structure of the earth, not in climatology. They're generally no more competent to assess climate science than laypersons.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Atmospheric studies and atmospheric sciences fall within the scope of geosciences. I seriously doubt component scientists with no knowledge of the atmosphere beyond a lay person would put his professional reputation on the line by speaking on things they have no knowledge of. Would you in your profession?

As for Dyson, I'm not bringing him up to refute the fact of global warming or it's causes. You stated that these people were professional iconoclasts and contrarians and I'm simply pointing out one person who is a sober scientist who disagrees. 

And to disagree on any level is a mortal sin to the climate change crowd isn't it? Dyson agrees that there is global warming and even agrees that it's caused by humans, but simply disagrees with the predictive modeling use to show the effects. For this he's criticized! 

There is almost an inquisition like atmosphere regarding critics of the conclusions reach by the so called "consensus" crowd. Does anyone ever think to consider such issues as group think and the political / career ends of these folks?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Atmospheric studies and atmospheric sciences fall within the scope of geosciences. I seriously doubt component scientists with no knowledge of the atmosphere beyond a lay person would put his professional reputation on the line by speaking on things they have no knowledge of. Would you in your profession?
> 
> As for Dyson, I'm not bringing him up to refute the fact of global warming or it's causes. You stated that these people were professional iconoclasts and contrarians and I'm simply pointing out one person who is a sober scientist who disagrees.
> 
> ...


Adding that all possibilities are negative, as if slightly warmer winters could have no possible positive affect on the global population, most of whom live in the northern hemisphere.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Atmospheric studies and atmospheric sciences fall within the scope of geosciences.


Actually, historically they haven't. And most geoscientists are ignorant of most climatological studies. Believe me, I know; I work with geologists all the doggone time.



SG_67 said:


> I seriously doubt component scientists with no knowledge of the atmosphere beyond a lay person would put his professional reputation on the line by speaking on things they have no knowledge of. Would you in your profession?


It was a survey! Of course I'd provide an opinion on whatever I was asked about, but I wouldn't claim to be an expert; those polled by Forbes did not, so far as I can tell, purport to be experts on macroclimatology. I've provided opinions on elementary education in another thread here, but full disclosure - I'm completely unqualified to provide an expert opinion.



SG_67 said:


> As for Dyson, I'm not bringing him up to refute the fact of global warming or it's causes. You stated that these people were professional iconoclasts and contrarians and I'm simply pointing out one person who is a sober scientist who disagrees.


But the point is, he doesn't disagree! As the article makes clear, he believes GHGs are the major cause of climate change.



SG_67 said:


> And to disagree on any level is a mortal sin to the climate change crowd isn't it? Dyson agrees that there is global warming and even agrees that it's caused by humans, but simply disagrees with the predictive modeling use to show the effects. For this he's criticized!


You seem to be conflating bad behavior on the part of environmentalists (and they often do behave badly) with the science of climate change. This sort of confusion unfortunately dominates the discussion of the Right, as they extrapolate their distaste for proposed solutions to climate change (e.g., outlawing of fossil fuel use and other absurd ideas) to denial of the consensus scientific view. (I'm not suggesting you belong to the Right here; merely that this confusion of what they're arguing is common to them.)



SG_67 said:


> There is almost an inquisition like atmosphere regarding critics of the conclusions reach by the so called "consensus" crowd. Does anyone ever think to consider such issues as group think and the political / career ends of these folks?


"Does anyone ever think to consider?" Jeepers, you must not see Fox News. They consider it incessantly.

I agree that the tone employed by meteorologists in arguing with climate change deniers can seem like the inquisition, but they've been confronted by a flock of know-nothing right-wing dilettantes who know nothing about the science but insist that the whole climate-change argument is fiction. Sometimes frustration leads to sharp language ... doesn't excuse it, of course.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Hitch said:


> Adding that all possibilities are negative, as if slightly warmer winters could have no possible positive affect on the global population, most of whom live in the northern hemisphere.


To the extent that a macroclimatologist argues that all effects of climate change are negative, they're obviously wrong. Again, though, pointing out a fallacious comment made by some climatologists doesn't invalidate the entire study.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> To the extent that a macroclimatologist argues that all effects of climate change are negative, they're obviously wrong. Again, though, pointing out a fallacious comment made by some climatologists doesn't invalidate the entire study.


"The" study? Which study? And if fallacious comments made by some don't invalidate a claim, what does?

That's like claiming that if the witnesses lied, it still doesn't mean that the suspect is innocent.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> "The" study? Which study? And if fallacious comments made by some don't invalidate a claim, what does?
> 
> That's like claiming that if the witnesses lied, it still doesn't mean that the suspect is innocent.


I'm saying that a comment by a climatologist to the effect that all effects of climate change are negative doesn't mean that GHGs don't lead to climate change.

I'm done here. Believe whatever you want.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ...to disagree on any level is a mortal sin to the climate change crowd isn't it?


Yes. This is the bottom line.



MaxBuck said:


> I do dispute the idea that politicians are any more corrupt than the population at large; I have personally known enough Congressmen, Governors and local legislators to believe that they're no more nor less honest than the average schoolteacher, engineer or physician.


This is not a convincing argument. It seems more like an apology for corrupt politicians & their minions. Also, equating politicians with average citizens does not fly. Politicians are held to a higher standard that the average citizen.

Take a look around. The public sector is a breeding ground for crime & corruption. If one is a crook looking to practice one's craft, the public sector offers an abundance of low-hanging fruit.



















*The most corrupt state(s) in America*


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> To the extent that a macroclimatologist argues that all effects of climate change are negative, they're obviously wrong. Again, though, pointing out a fallacious comment made by some climatologists doesn't invalidate the entire study.


The overwhelming majority is information coming from the global warming side is alarmist, hardly relating to'a fallacious comment'.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Surely you know what a television evangelist is, and what ethical midgets they can be especially when it comes down to separating the gullible from their money. The similarities are almost spooky.


I can confirm that I do know what a televangelist is. Very entertaining men, by and large. Jim Bakker, what a lad he was. Old Jimmy Swaggart seemed to be quite capable of enjoying himself too. If the English were gullible enough for that type of thing I would have set up my own pray-per-view channel long ago. However, what does this have to do with climate change exactly?

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Shaver said:


> I can confirm that I do know what a televangelist is. Very entertaining men, by and large. Jim Bakker, what a lad he was. Old Jimmy Swaggart seemed to be quite capable of enjoying himself too. If the English were guillible enough for that type of thing I would have set up my own pray-per-view channel long ago. However, what does this have to do with climate change exactly?


It is scary and entertaining how theses threads evolve (or devolve depending on how you look at it) on the interchange. I am wondering if I can start a thread about my love for summer sausage that eventually covers third world poverty, corporate greed, politics, or how evil the U.S is (if justonemore decides to grace the thread with his presence)?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

immanuelrx said:


> It is scary and entertaining how theses threads evolve (or devolve depending on how you look at it) on the interchange. I am wondering if I can start a thread about *my love for summer sausage *that eventually covers third world poverty, corporate greed, politics, or how evil the U.S is (if justonemore decides to grace the thread with his presence)?


Now..... is this a euphemism?


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Shaver said:


> Now..... is this a euphemism?


I guess I have to choose my obscure topics better........


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I can confirm that I do know what a televangelist is. Very entertaining men, by and large. Jim Bakker, what a lad he was. Old Jimmy Swaggart seemed to be quite capable of enjoying himself too. If the English were guillible enough for that type of thing I would have set up my own pray-per-view channel long ago.


 Actually the Dispensationalism ( the underlying cause of their sensational claims) those men were committed to originated in Plymouth England * (see # 78)


> However, what does this have to do with climate change exactly?


 You are a poor reader ,did I say it/they had anything to do with climate change?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Actually the Dispensationalism ( the underlying cause of their sensational claims) those men were committed to originated in Plymouth England You are a poor reader ,did I say it/they had anything to do with climate change?


Of course but, and I may be in error here, to the best of my knowledge, televisions did not exist when the Mayflower set sail.

As to televangelists and climate change ...... you did make a case that 'The similarities are almost spooky.'


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Of course but, and I may be in error here, to the best of my knowledge, televisions did not exist when the Mayflower set sail.
> 
> As to televangelists and climate change ...... you did make a case that 'The similarities are almost spooky.'


 Perhaps in your younger days it was fashionable for English mothers to reward feigned ignorance with sugary treats?

At any rate a copy of what I actually posted might help;



> The predictive accuracy of the Global Warming advocates is right on par with television evangelists end of the age prognostications and amazingly similar in tone.


The Mayflower sailed two centuries before England blessed the world with Dispensational theology.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

And it's happening a lot more often lately. (From the recent WH report)
The report says the intensity, frequency and duration of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes have increased since the early 1980s, but it is still uncertain how much of that is from man-made warming. Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and shifted northward since the 1950s, it says. Also, heavy downpours are increasing - by 71 percent in the Northeast. Heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected to intensify nationwide. Droughts in the Southwest are expected to get stronger. Sea level has risen 8 inches since 1880 and is projected to rise between 1 foot and 4 feet by 2100.


The *2013 Atlantic hurricane season was the first Atlantic hurricane season since 1994 to feature no major hurricanes,[SUP][nb 1][/SUP]and the first since 1968 to feature no storms of at least Category 2 intensity. The season began on June 1 and ended on November 30, dates that conventionally delimit the period during each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic Ocean. The first storm of the season, Andrea, developed on June 5, while the final cyclone, an unnamed subtropical storm, dissipated on December 7. Throughout the year, only two storms - Humberto and Ingrid - reached hurricane intensity; this was the lowest seasonal total since 1982.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Atlantic_hurricane_season


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Hitch said:


> Actually the Dispensationalism ( the underlying cause of their sensational claims) those men were committed to originated in Plymouth England You are a poor reader ,did I say it/they had anything to do with climate change?


Can you enlighten me as to where Plymouth England is please? I've never heard of it. 
As far as Dispensationalism is concerned, it seems to have originated in Ireland, Dublin in fact. 
As I've pointed out before, you're not very knowledgeable about British History. I should avoid mentioning things that you don't really understand, or don't really know much about if I were you, to avoid further gaffes. They might make other members tend to not respect your views otherwise.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Can you enlighten me as to where Plymouth England is please? I've never heard of it.
> As far as Dispensationalism is concerned, it seems to have originated in Ireland, Dublin in fact.


 You are correct and so kind to point that out , especially since that facts you took the time to present are of incalculable import , not only to the point I was making but to the thread over all, thanx again.


> As I've pointed out before, you're not very knowledgeable about British History. I should avoid mentioning things that you don't really understand, or don't really know much about if I were you, to avoid further gaffes. They might make other members tend to not respect your views otherwise.


See above


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

immanuelrx said:


> It is scary and entertaining how theses threads evolve (or devolve depending on how you look at it) on the interchange. I am wondering if I can start a thread about my love for summer sausage that eventually covers third world poverty, corporate greed, politics, or how evil the U.S is (if justonemore decides to grace the thread with his presence)?


Touché !

Some of us occasionally digress. However, justonemore rarely strays from his America bashing.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Stubbly said:


> Touché !
> 
> Some of us occasionally digress. However, justonemore rarely strays from his America bashing.


Summer sausage is the ultimate expression of American fascism and capitalist elitism. Only capitalist elites would have the time to enjoy sausage in the Summer time while the rest of the world toils in the fields in order to support her appetite for oil and money.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Summer sausage is the ultimate expression of American fascism and capitalist elitism. Only capitalist elites would have the time to enjoy sausage in the Summer time while the rest of the world toils in the fields in order to support her appetite for oil and money.


:icon_hailthee:

You took the steam away from my eventual thread, but I applaud you good Sir.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

France, definitely, France.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> You need not apply - simply operating a crank climate change denial website will likely find you being approached by a major global polluter. https://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
> 
> Enormous investment streams are not required to prove climate change. It is already proven. Except to the ridiculously stubborn or tragically misinformed.





MaxBuck said:


> Yep, the reason I term people as ignorant that deny anthropogenic causation of climate change is that they haven't read, or else do not understand, the background documentation supporting that conclusion. ...
> I have a background in radiative heat transfer, and have done modeling in macroclimatology. I have the necessary technical training to understand the global-level meteorologic modeling. I'm fully aware that most people do not.


Yet, so far, not a jot of argument to explain why global warming (if indeed that is an accurate description) *must* have an anthropogenic origin.

All I have heard so far from its supporters, after 50+ posts, seems to be overbearing rudeness and a sheeplike acceptance of a palpably unsatisfactory hypothesis, since it does not account for the same phenomenon in periods when there cannot possibly have been an anthropogenic origin.

People may be justifiably sceptical - if not downright dismissive - of 'global warming' when its supporters appear to be so tainted by the vested interests of a highly elaborate global warming industry, and when those supporters, handicapped by blinkered vision and a rather Stalinist mind-set, are incapable of questioning their own orthodoxy. That is a rather defective way to carry an argument.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Langham said:


> Yet, so far, not a jot of argument to explain why global warming (if indeed that is an accurate description) *must* have an anthropogenic origin.
> 
> All I have heard so far from its supporters, after 50+ posts, seems to be overbearing rudeness and a sheeplike acceptance of a palpably unsatisfactory hypothesis, since it does not account for the same phenomenon in periods when there cannot possibly have been an anthropogenic origin.
> 
> People may be justifiably sceptical - if not downright dismissive - of 'global warming' when its supporters appear to be so tainted by the vested interests of a highly elaborate global warming industry, and when those supporters, handicapped by blinkered vision and a rather Stalinist mind-set, are incapable of questioning their own orthodoxy. That is a rather defective way to carry an argument.


I couldn't agree with you more. Anyone who understands how government funding of science and research works knows this. I have a friend who is a microbiologist and he told me that in the 1990's anyone doing research on any kind of virus, plant or animal, had better odds of funding due to Aids.

No one ever seems to bring up the fact that there is an entire industry that has been supported, mostly through foundation and government money, that has it in its interest to keep this going.

But the thing that really gets me is the way skeptics are treated. They're called "deniers" as those who "deny" the holocaust. In many ways, it has moved from the realm of science to the realm of a religion, replete with it's holy men, opposing heretics and it's holy writings.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham said:


> Yet, so far, not a jot of argument to explain why global warming (if indeed that is an accurate description) *must* have an anthropogenic origin.
> 
> All I have heard so far from its supporters, after 50+ posts, seems to be overbearing rudeness and a sheeplike acceptance of a palpably unsatisfactory hypothesis, since it does not account for the same phenomenon in periods when there cannot possibly have been an anthropogenic origin.
> 
> People may be justifiably sceptical - if not downright dismissive - of 'global warming' when its supporters appear to be so tainted by the vested interests of a highly elaborate global warming industry, and when those supporters, handicapped by blinkered vision and a rather Stalinist mind-set, are incapable of questioning their own orthodoxy. That is a rather defective way to carry an argument.


Well said! And I've been saying this for years: _"sheeplike acceptance of a palpably unsatisfactory hypothesis, since it does not account for the same phenomenon in periods when there cannot possibly have been an anthropogenic origin."
_
Too many people are making too much money out of climate change scaremongering aimed at getting us to change our livestyles to even consider looking into the scientific findings of experts who espouse any theory even remotely contrary to the mind-set of the govts that have bought into the "climate change caused by us" fraud, hook, line and sinker. That would kill a huge cash-cow for them.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Langham said:


> ... *sheeplike acceptance* of a palpably unsatisfactory hypothesis, since it does not account for the same phenomenon in periods when there cannot possibly have been an anthropogenic origin.


Oh, God.

So there's only one possible explanation for a given climatalogical condition? What an inane commentary. It's like arguing that a strikeout can result from either an overpowering pitcher (like Nolan Ryan) or an inept hitter (I'm thinking Mario Mendoza, after whom the infamous Mendoza Line was named), but not both.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Perhaps in your younger days it was fashionable for English mothers to reward feigned ignorance with sugary treats?
> 
> At any rate a copy of what I actually posted might help


Here is a copy of what you actually posted:



Hitch said:


> Surely you know what a television evangelist is, and what ethical midgets they can be especially when it comes down to separating the gullible from their money. The similarities are almost spooky.


Remember it now?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Yet, so far, not a jot of argument to explain why global warming (if indeed that is an accurate description) *must* have an anthropogenic origin.
> 
> All I have heard so far from its supporters, after 50+ posts, seems to be overbearing rudeness and a sheeplike acceptance of a palpably unsatisfactory hypothesis, since it does not account for the same phenomenon in periods when there cannot possibly have been an anthropogenic origin.
> 
> People may be justifiably sceptical - if not downright dismissive - of 'global warming' when its supporters appear to be so tainted by the vested interests of a highly elaborate global warming industry, and when those supporters, handicapped by blinkered vision and a rather Stalinist mind-set, are incapable of questioning their own orthodoxy. That is a rather defective way to carry an argument.


Here is an experiment. I hit someone in the face. They cry out and ask me not to do it again. I deny having struck them and then strike them again. They cry out and ask me to cease. I deny having hit them, hit them again, and ask them to prove that I have hit them. Every reasonable explanation they offer to support their knowledge that I am hitting them I merely dismiss as insufficient evidence. What larks!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Oh, God.
> 
> So there's only one possible explanation for a given climatalogical condition? What an inane commentary. It's like arguing that a strikeout can result from either an overpowering pitcher (like Nolan Ryan) or an inept hitter (I'm thinking Mario Mendoza, after whom the infamous Mendoza Line was named), but not both.


You seem to have got things in a muddle, Max. I would say it is the climate-change obsessives who seem to be fixated - incorrectly in my view - on a single possible explanation for climate change, i.e. CO2 emissions arising from human activity.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Here is an experiment. I hit someone in the face. They cry out and ask me not to do it again. I deny having struck them and then strike them again. They cry out and ask me to cease. I deny having hit them, hit them again, and ask them to prove that I have hit them. Every reasonable explanation they offer to support their knowledge that I am hitting them I merely dismiss as insufficient evidence. What larks!


What's this all about, then? I'm sure there are other ways of settling this difference of opinion, Shaver.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> What's this all about, then? I'm sure there are other ways of settling this difference of opinion, Shaver.


Assuredly, as I recall you are about a foot taller than I. :icon_pale:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oh how we laughed in Sweden when they said "in the next two decades the mean global temperature will rise by about 2 degrees"
And we were like "yea....okaaaay....and, the problem with that exactly... is...? We live in Sweden mate where the average mid-winter temperature is minus 18 C!"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

FIGHT!!!!!  

I'd kick the sh*te out of both of ya though  
Ex-gunner, ex-bodyguard, ex-police, ex-teddybear collector, currently an altar boy, bring it on


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> FIGHT!!!!!
> 
> I'd kick the sh*te out of both of ya though
> Ex-gunner, ex-bodyguard, ex-police, ex-teddybear collector, currently an altar boy, bring it on


Time for your meds my friend. :devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Time for your meds my friend. :devil:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Wow! I've just noticed something with that photo that I hadn't noticed before, as I've never seen it this large before. Between out heads reflected in the side of the US 773rd CST mobile lab is the range of mountains to the north, beyond which is Russia!! Cool!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Here is a copy of what you actually posted:
> 
> Remember it now?


Of course I remember it. It was a response to your asking about the previous. Perhaps you will remember to show exactly where it says anything akin to * As to televangelists and  ...... you did make a case that 'The similarities are almost spooky.'*


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> The predictive accuracy of the Global Warming advocates is right on par with television evangelists end of the age prognostications and amazingly similar in tone.





Hitch said:


> Surely you know what a television evangelist is, and what ethical midgets they can be especially when it comes down to separating the gullible from their money. The similarities are almost spooky.


:icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I feel your pain Shaver!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Given the impossibility of winning an argument against climate change skeptics, the best I can do is to offer up as the most rational position to take by far, Pascal's Wager. In essence, act as if the climate change theory is correct, for if it turns out to have been false, you've lost little, whereas if you do the opposite: you act as if the theory's false, but it turns out to be true, you've done us all great harm.'


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Langham said:


> You seem to have got things in a muddle, Max. I would say it is the climate-change obsessives who seem to be fixated - incorrectly in my view - on a single possible explanation for climate change, i.e. CO2 emissions arising from human activity.


Perhaps if you were to actually read the macroclimatological modeling reports, you'd understand how you've completely missed the point here.

No one -- I repeat, *no one* -- who is knowledgeable about climate would think the *only* cause of changing climate is greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. That's hardly the point. The point is that the major cause of the most-recent climate changes we've observed is those rapidly increasing GHG concentrations.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Very few climate scientists have any doubt that we are experiencing warmer global temperatures as a result of rapidly climbing CO2 concentrations in the past few decades, so I view the deniers as being pretty ignorant. But I don't agree that, having acknowledged climate change as primarily man-caused, we have automatically defined the appropriate response.
> 
> In other words, the time to stop burning fossil fuels has not yet arrived. I agree we need to encourage efficiency and alternative energy sources more energetically, though.





tocqueville said:


> Given the impossibility of winning an argument against climate change skeptics, the best I can do is to offer up as the most rational position to take by far, Pascal's Wager. In essence, act as if the climate change theory is correct, for if it turns out to have been false, you've lost little, whereas if you do the opposite: you act as if the theory's false, but it turns out to be true, you've done us all great harm.'


Although, as is perhaps clear by now, I am sceptical about the claims regarding climate change, I am a believer in the precautionary principle - I see no harm at all in reducing carbon emissions, and in Europe the fiscal system is such that one is more or less compelled to anyway.

What I find rather puzzling is Maxbuck's plainly conflicted attitude - on one hand, he says this:


> the major cause of the most-recent climate changes we've observed is those rapidly increasing GHG concentrations.


 while on the other,


> the time to stop burning fossil fuels has not yet arrived.


:icon_scratch::icon_scratch::icon_scratch:

Does he blame it all on flatulent cattle, perhaps?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> Does he blame it all on flatulent cattle, perhaps?


There are those that do.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Langham said:


> Although, as is perhaps clear by now, I am sceptical about the claims regarding climate change, I am a believer in the precautionary principle - I see no harm at all in reducing carbon emissions, and in Europe the fiscal system is such that one is more or less compelled to anyway.
> 
> What I find rather puzzling is Maxbuck's plainly conflicted attitude - on one hand, he says this: while on the other,
> :icon_scratch::icon_scratch::icon_scratch:
> ...


No. I just don't believe that it's prudent to wreck the world economy (which draconian restrictions on fossil fuels would do) in order to moderate climate change. I'm eager to see what progress can be made in carbon sequestration, solar-cell efficiency improvements, reforestation, and other initiatives.

The fact that my beliefs don't seem to fit into either the Box on the Left or the Box on the Right hardly means I'm "plainly conflicted."


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> No. I just don't believe that it's prudent to wreck the world economy (which draconian restrictions on fossil fuels would do) in order to moderate climate change. I'm eager to see what progress can be made in carbon sequestration, solar-cell efficiency improvements, reforestation, and other initiatives.
> 
> The fact that my beliefs don't seem to fit into either the Box on the Left or the Box on the Right hardly means I'm "plainly conflicted."


I'm not convinced it would wreck the economy. There would be winners and losers, as there always is when new things come on line, like going from sail power to steam power, coal to oil, etc. People would adapt.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> ...
> The fact that my beliefs don't seem to fit into either the Box on the Left or the Box on the Right hardly means I'm "plainly conflicted."


I think I went too far in my assumptions, I'm sorry.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

tocqueville said:


> Given the impossibility of winning an argument against climate change skeptics, the best I can do is to offer up as the most rational position to take by far, Pascal's Wager. In essence, act as if the climate change theory is correct, for if it turns out to have been false, you've lost little, whereas if you do the opposite: you act as if the theory's false, but it turns out to be true, you've done us all great harm.'


It depends on what you mean by acting as if the climate change theory is correct. If you mean we should give more power to government, then I respectfully disagree.

IMO, there's only a minuscule chance that bureaucrats could do anything to affect climate change. However, there's a very high probability that any increase in government power would result in higher taxes and further misappropriation of public funds.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Shaver said:


> :icon_headagainstwal


Get a grip Shaver, and make a clear point. Or have that anatomy to admit you confused ' climate change' itself with the tactics and tone of 'climate change' advocates. Could it be you are as moronic as you seem?



> I can confirm that I do know what a televangelist is. Very entertaining men, by and large. Jim Bakker, what a lad he was. Old Jimmy Swaggart seemed to be quite capable of enjoying himself too. If the English were gullible enough for that type of thing I would have set up my own pray-per-view channel long ago*. However, what does this have to do with **climate change exactly?*


*
*
Moron.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Hitch said:


> Get a grip Shaver, and make a clear point. Or have that anatomy to admit you confused ' climate change' itself with the tactics and tone of 'climate change' advocates. Could it be you are as moronic as you seem?
> 
> [/B]
> Moron.


Keep the insults coming Hitch old fellow, abuse me to your heart's content. :thumbs-up:










Oh BTW I had believed that we were speaking of 'climate change - the debate' rather than the actual measurements on a thermometer, no matter.

.
.

.
.
.
.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If memory serves, "Pascal's Wager" was regarding belief in God. I suppose much of the climate change debate can be characterized as a belief, be it for or against. I won't argue the merits of that however, I don't believe Pascal's Wager is appropriate. 

The Wager is related to an individual choice with the effects being in the afterlife. With regard to climate change, we're talking about state policy and the effects are in the physical world, not supernatural. 

If we're right, great! If we're wrong, then it effects our economy and our way of life. The terms of the game have changed, therefore the same game no longer applies. 

By the way, we can go as far as we want, but the phenomenon of global warming is......well, global! China and India are rapidly expanding economies and I'm willing to bet neither really cares about pollution. Certainly in the case of China we know this as the air in Beijing is literally toxic. Their focus is on economic expansion so regardless of what we do, they will keep spewing toxic chemicals into the environment, not to mention the dumping they probably do either off shore or into their own soil. I have no proof of this obviously, but I'm willing to wager that something to that effect goes on.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ There is, of course, a remarkably elegant solution - depopulation.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

The analogy works, since it's hard to prove climate change conclusively (I am a believer, I should add), and the results are abstract and generally in the future, sort of like the afterlife. The point is that it makes more sense to assume the theory is correct than to assume it is incorrect. That said, I think the "cost" of acting as if the theory were true is usually overstated.

India and China are serious problems. Their use of coal alone makes our driving hybrid cars seem like nothing more than a vanity.



SG_67 said:


> If memory serves, "Pascal's Wager" was regarding belief in God. I suppose much of the climate change debate can be characterized as a belief, be it for or against. I won't argue the merits of that however, I don't believe Pascal's Wager is appropriate.
> 
> The Wager is related to an individual choice with the effects being in the afterlife. With regard to climate change, we're talking about state policy and the effects are in the physical world, not supernatural.
> 
> ...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ There is, of course, a remarkably elegant solution - depopulation.


A good plague?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ There is, of course, a remarkably elegant solution - depopulation.


Global warming will take care of that!!


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> The analogy works, since it's hard to prove climate change conclusively (I am a believer, I should add), and the results are abstract and generally in the future, sort of like the afterlife. The point is that it makes more sense to assume the theory is correct than to assume it is incorrect. That said, I think the "cost" of acting as if the theory were true is usually overstated.
> 
> India and China are serious problems. Their use of coal alone makes our driving hybrid cars seem like nothing more than a vanity.


Chief Obama science advisor John Holdren famously said: "A massive campaign must be launched to &#8230; de-develop the United States &#8230; bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.&#8230; [Economists] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable [re]distribution of wealth." - See more at: https://www.cfact.org/2014/05/12/ma...on-the-hype-and-reality/#sthash.fB7SWDky.dpuf

https://www.cfact.org/2014/05/12/manmade-climate-disruption-the-hype-and-reality/


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> The analogy works, since it's hard to prove climate change conclusively (I am a believer, I should add), and the results are abstract and generally in the future, sort of like the afterlife. The point is that it makes more sense to assume the theory is correct than to assume it is incorrect. That said, I think the "cost" of acting as if the theory were true is usually overstated.
> 
> India and China are serious problems. Their use of coal alone makes our driving hybrid cars seem like nothing more than a vanity.


Chief Obama science advisor John Holdren famously said: "A massive campaign must be launched to &#8230; de-develop the United States &#8230; bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.&#8230; [Economists] must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable [re]distribution of wealth." - See more at: https://www.cfact.org/2014/05/12/ma...on-the-hype-and-reality/#sthash.fB7SWDky.dpuf

https://www.cfact.org/2014/05/12/manmade-climate-disruption-the-hype-and-reality/


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

We could all just go back to subsistence farming. That would solve everything.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> We could all just go back to subsistence farming. That would solve everything.


Only if you don't raise any cattle or other ruminants.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> Only if you don't raise any cattle or other ruminants.


Oh yes! We don't want the methane gas.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> A good plague?


Exodus 12:13


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

'Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position.
His views on the weakness of the "consensus" haven't changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.'

https://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart...e-Defector-Forced-to-Resign-by-Alarmist-Fatwa


----------

