AGW extremists are dangerous

[a_unique_person]

If you are not an expert in an area in which you are required to make important decisions, then you should educate yourself as much as possible about all the subjects relevant to that area and then, if that education is insufficient on its own, consult with individuals acknowledged as experts in pertinent fields. "Deferring" is a lazy way of going about the making of a significant decision and should only be seen as a last resort.

Deferring is the realistic option in cases like this. Not many people will have the time or education to really understand this topic in depth. I count myself as one of those who does not, and I have spent years now reading up on various aspects of it. The more I learn, the more I realise how much there is to learn. No one is going to be a specialist in all the areas of research, and many of the experts and authors of the reports would defer to authorities themselves.

There is nothing like watching a few 'sceptics' on a denialist forum kidding themselves they can debunk AGW, and understand why such non-science as Gerlich and Teuschner makes perfect sense, and how it explains so much to them.

 

[athon]

Extremists are dangerous.

This is why it is useful to label people who are very passionate as 'extremists' when you disagree with them.

Glad somebody said this. I was going to.

Extremism automatically reflects a willingness to go to lengths to promote your view that others would not. The fact they are an extremist on anything makes a person dangerous.

As for anti-AGW, I'm all for people trying to argue that global warming isn't happening, or if it is it isn't being influenced by man, or if it is then it won't do a lot of harm, or if it is then we can't do anything about it...

In fact, good debate is necessary in science. It drives it on, finds flaws and strengthens theories. AGW theories would not be as strong as they are if not for the dissenting parties.

So, thank you. From the bottom of my heart (and in all seriousness) thank you.

Unless you're an extremist.

Athon

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You are addressing a topic that doesn't exist. There is no such thing as scientific extremism or scientific fundamentalism. There is no middle ground between science and non-science. It's just science.

Who ever said "scientific extremism" or "fundamentalism. This is not about the science but about the attitude of the humans within the (any) debate.
However (and I might be wrong here) Highly Selassie might just be throwing in another red herring, which is a common tactic of the zealots in either camp.

 

[jakesteele]

I missed something, what is an AGW extremist?

 

[bobdroege7]

Once again the argument about whether or not AWG is real or not is tossed up. It is not relevant to the thread and made abundantly clear in the OP. This is a question on extremists on any side of the fence (and we could extend it to any topic).
That said, I quite agree that the validity of an argument may not be affected by the attitude of the person giving it. However, do you truly expect anyone to pay serious attention to someone with a psycological disorder and/or inability to control themselves and/or provide considered thinking to all arguments and considerations and/or tolerance issues and/or and/or etc etc.

Would you hand the extremist the reins to your future and your life?


As an aside, I have heard football, tennis and a variety of other sports and pursuits being called a religion. The point is that it relates to a following i.e. in the sense that religion = following. There is more than one definition and not just a blind proofless belief (or similar) that someone else suggested and I am certain that is what meant when first used.

It seems to me that you are calling all AGW proponents extremists. Care to name any names?

Who are you accusing of having psychological disorders?

It is true that the predictions made by AGW proponents are dire, but to dismiss them without a full understanding of the science is reckless and unscientific. And to dismiss them on the basic of their state of mind is folly.

On the other side, I think anyone who professes a belief in unbridled capitalism, shows an ignorance of the economic history of western civisilation.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It seems to me that you are calling all AGW proponents extremists. Care to name any names?

Who are you accusing of having psychological disorders?

It is true that the predictions made by AGW proponents are dire, but to dismiss them without a full understanding of the science is reckless and unscientific. And to dismiss them on the basic of their state of mind is folly.

On the other side, I think anyone who professes a belief in unbridled capitalism, shows an ignorance of the economic history of western civisilation.

Sigh..

Please re-read the OP. I am suggesting that at either end of the spectrum there is a percentage (I threw up 1% based on another discussion and claim by an "activist") who will go to any lengths to achieve their goals. Similarly (and this would be a separate topic altogether) they would go to extreme lengths to reflect their beliefs. I have never accused all "AWG proponents extremists", far from it. As I said, but the zealots at EITHER end of the spectrum.


On Psychological disorders. No one in particular is being accused of anything. I believe I asked a question on whether you would trust the person who is incapable of controlling themselves? Impulsive and angry behaviour in debate just proves to me they are impulsive and angry. So I ask myself, "if their bahaviour to obtain their means is extreme and lacking self control, what behaviour will be acceptable to obtain their ends"? Do I give these people the reins of my life and my future. Would you give yours?


I have not dismissed AWG and nowhere in my posts have I said this - sadly I still squirm unconfortably on the fence due to reasons already outlined; at this point I neither believe nor disbelieve in AWG, neither do I deny its existience while the debate among experts still rages. That I "reserve as my right".
But again, this is not the point of the OP. I have constantly said that it would not matter where I sit in the spectrum. It is the zealots on BOTH ends that (try and) stifle healthy debate and force their positions on others and it is they who are dangerous.


Your last point on capitalism is very good. I think you are getting it. Is our believer in "unbridled capitalism" an etremist/zealot? Sounds like it. Unbridled anything is dangerous (I know that's a huge generalisation so please dont call me on it) and there must be checks and balances. So I similarly dismiss/question/am suspicious of/fear the loud, angry zealot who is pro capitalism as I would with someone opposing it with similar 'zest'.

 

[technoextreme]

If you are not an expert in an area in which you are required to make important decisions, then you should educate yourself as much as possible about all the subjects relevant to that area and then, if that education is insufficient on its own, consult with individuals acknowledged as experts in pertinent fields. "Deferring" is a lazy way of going about the making of a significant decision and should only be seen as a last resort.

Yes because the amount of studying that you will never compare to the ten years of education that every single scientist has. That is so moronically stupid because the education will never be sufficient. What is it with people like you? What in your head makes you think that you have the abilities to quickly learn about extremely complicated topics? This is part of the problem with the so called skeptical movement.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yes because the amount of studying that you will never compare to the ten years of education that every single scientist has. That is so moronically stupid because the education will never be sufficient. What is it with people like you? What in your head makes you think that you have the abilities to quickly learn about extremely complicated topics? This is part of the problem with the so called skeptical movement.

Funny thing 'though techno is that the person with this "moronically stupid" attitude is not a sceptic; he's on your side.

 

[technoextreme]

Funny thing 'though techno is that the person with this "moronically stupid" attitude is not a sceptic; he's on your side.

Yeah so?????? I like pointing out stupidity in everyone's posts. Mentioning that all you have to do is "study hard" and you will be able to completely comprehend the science in global warming is stupid because its the same logic that people base a lot of wrong opinions on. Also, I have no allegiances. I typically enter into this threads because it is logical fallacies galore.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yeah so?????? I like pointing out stupidity in everyone's posts. Mentioning that all you have to do is "study hard" and you will be able to completely comprehend the science in global warming is stupid because its the same logic that people base a lot of wrong opinions on. Also, I have no allegiances. I typically enter into this threads because it is logical fallacies galore.

Fot the record I agree with what you are saying, if not how you are saying it.
What our friend suggests is that if we need to do car repairs, we should learn mechanics, when we get sick, learn medicine, when we need medications, learn chemistry, want to buy a house, learn how to build, and so on and so forth. Who has the time, the broad range of talents or the drive to become an expert in everything? Perhaps Methuselah could have nearly managed that, apparently he managed to live 969 years.

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

Yes because the amount of studying that you will never compare to the ten years of education that every single scientist has. That is so moronically stupid because the education will never be sufficient. What is it with people like you? What in your head makes you think that you have the abilities to quickly learn about extremely complicated topics? This is part of the problem with the so called skeptical movement.

I never suggested that the process of educating oneself about an area would be commensurate with gaining expertise in that area; to the contrary, I said that experts should be consulted if education alone is not enough to come to a fully informed conclusion. This is quite distinct from "deferring" to experts, where expert opinion is taken as fact without further consideration.

My grandfather had an operation at a hospital a few years ago, and in the days following his procedure, it was very difficult to get him to eat. As a consequence of this, one of the physicians at the hospital took my mother aside and made her hysterical by telling her that my grandfather's unwillingness to eat was a sign that he was beginning the dying process and that estimating him to have only two weeks to live, she recommended for him to be sent to hospice and sedated until he died. This idea didn't sit well with my grandmother, my mother, and me, so my grandmother confronted the physician and asked her why she was so confident my grandfather was going to die just on account of his not wanting to eat right after he had undergone surgery and been put under general anesthesia. After all, some people lose their appetites when they feel sick, which is how a lot of people feel after an operation, and general anesthesia can make you queasy. The physician got very flustered and couldn't give a convincing response to my grandmother's question, so we decided to disregard her advice that we send my grandfather to hospice to die and instead took him home. Over the next few days, he began to eat again, and thanks to our "moronic stupidity" in challenging the infallibility of the all-knowing expert, he is still alive today. To reiterate, a mistrust of experts can be an intellectually healthy thing; in this case, it was a plain healthy thing too.

 

[bobdroege7]

Sigh..

Please re-read the OP. I am suggesting that at either end of the spectrum there is a percentage (I threw up 1% based on another discussion and claim by an "activist") who will go to any lengths to achieve their goals. Similarly (and this would be a separate topic altogether) they would go to extreme lengths to reflect their beliefs. I have never accused all "AWG proponents extremists", far from it. As I said, but the zealots at EITHER end of the spectrum.

The OP is pretty poor, almost as much straw as the EIB network. You have got to get beyond the zealotry and analyze the actual arguements being made. Then you can make the decision on which side has the evidence on its side. A little basic science education will certainly help.

On Psychological disorders. No one in particular is being accused of anything. I believe I asked a question on whether you would trust the person who is incapable of controlling themselves? Impulsive and angry behaviour in debate just proves to me they are impulsive and angry. So I ask myself, "if their bahaviour to obtain their means is extreme and lacking self control, what behaviour will be acceptable to obtain their ends"? Do I give these people the reins of my life and my future. Would you give yours?

You need to read your own posts and be aware of what you write.

However, do you truly expect anyone to pay serious attention to someone with a psycological disorder and/or inability to control themselves and/or provide considered thinking to all arguments and considerations and/or tolerance issues and/or and/or etc etc.

Again, you are not listening to the right sources on the AGW issues. Look to the peer reviewed stuff in reputable journals, heck it's introductory textbook stuff. Don't listen to the extremists, I certainly don't.

I have not dismissed AWG and nowhere in my posts have I said this - sadly I still squirm unconfortably on the fence due to reasons already outlined; at this point I neither believe nor disbelieve in AWG, neither do I deny its existience while the debate among experts still rages. That I "reserve as my right".
But again, this is not the point of the OP. I have constantly said that it would not matter where I sit in the spectrum. It is the zealots on BOTH ends that (try and) stifle healthy debate and force their positions on others and it is they who are dangerous.

The debate still rages is a crock. The debate is over, there is no research being published that denies AGW. There are a few crackpots, but nothing real that denies global warming.
There is no healthy debate because the science is truely settled.

There are far fewer zealots on the AGW side as the science is on their side.

Your last point on capitalism is very good. I think you are getting it. Is our believer in "unbridled capitalism" an etremist/zealot? Sounds like it. Unbridled anything is dangerous (I know that's a huge generalisation so please dont call me on it) and there must be checks and balances. So I similarly dismiss/question/am suspicious of/fear the loud, angry zealot who is pro capitalism as I would with someone opposing it with similar 'zest'.

You think I'm getting it? Thanks for the condescending tone.

Come to the science forum if you want to debate the science, there are several posters who have a good understanding of the science and can help you to get off the fence.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The OP is pretty poor, almost as much straw as the EIB network. You have got to get beyond the zealotry and analyze the actual arguements being made. Then you can make the decision on which side has the evidence on its side. A little basic science education will certainly help.



You need to read your own posts and be aware of what you write.



Again, you are not listening to the right sources on the AGW issues. Look to the peer reviewed stuff in reputable journals, heck it's introductory textbook stuff. Don't listen to the extremists, I certainly don't.




The debate still rages is a crock. The debate is over, there is no research being published that denies AGW. There are a few crackpots, but nothing real that denies global warming.
There is no healthy debate because the science is truely settled.

There are far fewer zealots on the AGW side as the science is on their side.




You think I'm getting it? Thanks for the condescending tone.

Come to the science forum if you want to debate the science, there are several posters who have a good understanding of the science and can help you to get off the fence.

Again you miss the point entirely and here I was thinkiing you were starting to understand where I was coming from. This argument is not about the science.
The fact is you agree with me that you don't listen to the zealots and crackpots which is precisely the healthy attitude I am suggesting is required. I am saying there are two ends with zealots on both ends of any discussion, the zealot at either end should be a concern. But, yet again you (anyone) thinks I am targeting just one side not the other and frankly it smacks of the very paranoia again outlined in my OT.

 

[lionking]

The debate still rages is a crock. The debate is over, there is no research being published that denies AGW. There are a few crackpots, but nothing real that denies global warming.
There is no healthy debate because the science is truely settled.

That well-known right wing, crackpot organisation, the BBC, just published this article, no doubt quoting crackpot climate scientists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

So no warming for the next 20 years. But we still have AGW. I see.......

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That well-known right wing, crackpot organisation, the BBC, just published this article, no doubt quoting crackpot climate scientists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm





So no warming for the next 20 years. But we still have AGW. I see.......

Thanks Lionking
This is the sort of stuff that keeps me so confused?!
But I guess bobdroege7 et al would say this is not "the right sources" to listen to. No doubt they will also say that the BBC, the journalist, the scientist and the organisation they work for all have ulterior motives.

 

[David Wong]

That well-known right wing, crackpot organisation, the BBC, just published this article, no doubt quoting crackpot climate scientists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm





So no warming for the next 20 years. But we still have AGW. I see.......

Yep. The article you linked says so. The one actual climate scientist they quoted said we were in a temporary cooling followed by a resumption of the AGW.

But you didn't read the article, did you? No, saw it linked on anti-AGW blogs and posted the link here, thinking you were scoring points for your side.

ACTUALLY FIND OUT WHAT THE FREAKING SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING!!!!!

Because they're all saying the same thing.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yep. The article you linked says so. The one actual climate scientist they quoted said we were in a temporary cooling followed by a resumption of the AGW.

But you didn't read the article, did you? No, saw it linked on anti-AGW blogs and posted the link here, thinking you were scoring points for your side.

ACTUALLY FIND OUT WHAT THE FREAKING SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING!!!!!

Because they're all saying the same thing.

You're not serious are you?


"He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures."
i.e. NOT AWG.

There are a number of scientists quoted from a number of institutions, some say one thing, some another.

Your yelling does not make what you say true. and only serves to prove my point about zealots with an inability to control themselves and discuss things rationally - as outlined in the OP.

So, thanks for your continued support

 

[lionking]

Yep. The article you linked says so. The one actual climate scientist they quoted said we were in a temporary cooling followed by a resumption of the AGW.

But you didn't read the article, did you? No, saw it linked on anti-AGW blogs and posted the link here, thinking you were scoring points for your side.

ACTUALLY FIND OUT WHAT THE FREAKING SCIENTISTS ARE SAYING!!!!!

Because they're all saying the same thing.

I didn't find it on anti AGW blogs and did read it. Of particular relevance was the point that not one climate model predicted the current cooler period.

And your rather uncivil response actually supports the OP.

 

[a_unique_person]

That well-known right wing, crackpot organisation, the BBC, just published this article, no doubt quoting crackpot climate scientists:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm





So no warming for the next 20 years. But we still have AGW. I see.......

Climate models indicate there can be extended periods of cooling, then rapid warming. The climate will not just warm from year to year. The reason they are saying there will be cooling is not because there is an absence of AGW, but because there are other, more powerful, short term cyclical forcings on the climate. Being cycles, they leave you back where you started. Meanwhile, the AGW continues it's slow but steady climb up to dangerous levels of permanent, not cyclical, change.

Bear in mind, this decade has been consistently warmer than the previous decade, which was consistently warmer thant he decade before that.

The reporter seems to be new to the job, as he refers to Piers Corbyn, who is a loner nutter. Corbyn keeps his research secret, shares it with no one, and has no record actually taking part in any serious science. He constantly plays games with the press, coming out with claims his predictions were correct. He doesn't tell you when they are wrong.

 

[a_unique_person]

This report on Realclimate addresses the issue of 'has warming stopped' well.