AGW extremists are dangerous

A.A.Alfie said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's right, that's exactly what I would say. The BBC is not the place to get science, they may give leads to good sources but they may misquote scientists as is what has happened in this instance.



Mojib Latif was misquoted, you would actually have to find out what he actually said. He made no prediction of cooling. What he said was that there could be periods of cooling of a decade or so during a long period of AGW warming, he was discussing a hypothetical scenario.

I wouldn't make any statement as to their ulterior motives without good information.

They just got the quote wrong.

Just check this link out.

http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/20...mojib-latif-predicted-two-decades-of-cooling/



And back to your OP, it is about the science because you are listening to the zealots rather than learning enough about the basic science to make an informed decision.
 
lionking said:
Of particular relevance was the point that not one climate model predicted the current cooler period.
Click to expand...



Of course not one climate model predicted the current cooler period because we are still in a warming trend. The data still shows warming. Some climate models do predict periods of cooling in a general warming trend and you may not be aware of that.

Check out realclimate for discussions of the issues.

http://www.realclimate.org/

And stay off the denialist sites.
 
bobdroege7 said:
And back to your OP, it is about the science because you are listening to the zealots rather than learning enough about the basic science to make an informed decision.
Click to expand...



As outlined more eloquently than I, I dont have the time nor talents to learn the science, mechanics, law, medicine etc etc to be learned on all topics that involve the human race and the day-to-day affairs of my life. As such, - like most, I keep an eye on the news regarding AWG/GW, the politics about it along with many, many other subjects. I have no intention of following up on everything that is reported but look more on balance as to what is being said rather than by whom. I will accept your criticism of scientific ignorance however I do not accept there is no debate.

You suggest I am only listening to the zealots (presumably you measn the 'deniers'). On the contrary, I do not believe I am listening to the zealots on either side, rather I prefer to dismiss them - especially the ones who display a lack of self control.

This thread is not about the science, I wrote it for three reasons mainly, as follows:
1. In an effoirt to explain and apologise for some poor behaviour on my part in another thread. I attacked a zealot and wish to explain my position.
2. Raise the point that zealots at either end of the spectrum of any topic are dangerous. As an aside, why is it that most who attack me here are AWG believers who try to 'convert' me through bullying-type tactics?
3. On AGW/GW reserve my right to make my own mind up, in my time especially in the face of continued claims, disclaims, debates, controversy etc that come from each side.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
As outlined more eloquently than I, I dont have the time nor talents to learn the science, mechanics, law, medicine etc etc to be learned on all topics that involve the human race and the day-to-day affairs of my life. As such, - like most, I keep an eye on the news regarding AWG/GW, the politics about it along with many, many other subjects. I have no intention of following up on everything that is reported but look more on balance as to what is being said rather than by whom. I will accept your criticism of scientific ignorance however I do not accept there is no debate.

You suggest I am only listening to the zealots (presumably you measn the 'deniers'). On the contrary, I do not believe I am listening to the zealots on either side, rather I prefer to dismiss them - especially the ones who display a lack of self control.

This thread is not about the science, I wrote it for three reasons mainly, as follows:
1. In an effoirt to explain and apologise for some poor behaviour on my part in another thread. I attacked a zealot and wish to explain my position.
2. Raise the point that zealots at either end of the spectrum of any topic are dangerous. As an aside, why is it that most who attack me here are AWG believers who try to 'convert' me through bullying-type tactics?
3. On AGW/GW reserve my right to make my own mind up, in my time especially in the face of continued claims, disclaims, debates, controversy etc that come from each side.
Click to expand...


Well then, remain ignorant, but expect to called out when you claim people have psychological disorders and claim AGW is a relligion.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Well then, remain ignorant, but expect to called out when you claim people have psychological disorders and claim AGW is a relligion.
Click to expand...

Well let's go back to those topics (disorders and religion) too if you like.
I am pretty sure they were explained earlier - I suggest you re-read what was written and discuss it again when you have become educated.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Well let's go back to those topics (disorders and religion) too if you like.
I am pretty sure they were explained earlier - I suggest you re-read what was written and discuss it again when you have become educated.
Click to expand...

AGW is a religion, right, you are sticking to your guns, admiralble.





A.A.Alfie said:
Both ends are responsible for misinformation and outright lies and avoidance in defence of their position and the whole debate then becomes clouded with same.

These self appointed protectors of humanity and rightiousness for mine are the real dangers to humanity - more dangerous perhaps than any GW threat.

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.
Click to expand...


This is some of the stuff you have posted.

Care to provide any evidence?

You have not supported your arguments in any fashion. Just your unsupported opinionated drivel.

Care to support your arguements that the extremists are dangerous. How are they dangerous?

Care to expose any outright lies by anyone on either side.

Care to support any of your arguements with like evidence?

You can of course, choose to remain ignorant and condescending.
 
Sigh....

Religion - please recheck the definitions. In terms of a 'following' then yes it qualifies the same as ardent football fans are following their religion.

Misinformation and outright lies. From what I have read in this post alone; the deniers are telling lies (BBC report above). I have read reports and understand that that Al Gore's 'An inconvenient Truth' had to have 11 (I think) mistakes and/or exaggerations removed to enable it to be shown in Britain (schools).
There's two without doing any extra research.

When I say "For mine" that is a personal opinion and guess what - I'm entitled to it. Do with it what you will.

Now, should I pop you in the angry zealot category now or would you like to continue to do it yourself?
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie:
Firstly: Talking about science as a religion isn't going to win you any friends. If you aren't deliberately trying to annoy people I suggest you stop. But of course its up to you.
Secondly: If you're trying to use the word "extremism" as you intend in the OP, can you actually give any concrete examples of this more substantial than what basically amounts to "a movie by a non-scientist may contain some exaggerations". If that's as bad as the extremism gets then there's an easy solution: don't pay any attention to movies by non-scientists.
The other possibility is that you are using "extremism" in a completely different way to the OP. i.e. those who think the effects of climate change will be extreme are extremists. You have already admitted you would be in no position to judge whether they were right or wrong and such a use of the word would be very disingenuous given you're OP.
 
Tubbythin said:
A.A. Alfie:
Firstly: Talking about science as a religion isn't going to win you any friends. If you aren't deliberately trying to annoy people I suggest you stop. But of course its up to you.
Secondly: If you're trying to use the word "extremism" as you intend in the OP, can you actually give any concrete examples of this more substantial than what basically amounts to "a movie by a non-scientist may contain some exaggerations". If that's as bad as the extremism gets then there's an easy solution: don't pay any attention to movies by non-scientists.
The other possibility is that you are using "extremism" in a completely different way to the OP. i.e. those who think the effects of climate change will be extreme are extremists. You have already admitted you would be in no position to judge whether they were right or wrong and such a use of the word would be very disingenuous given you're OP.
Click to expand...

This 'religious' aspect is an interesting one and a really big digression from what the OP is actually abvout. If you review the thread you will see that it was simply used in terms of a 'following'. Nothing more, nothing less. Some seem to consider the word in a somewhat biblical connection only - as in the 'blind adherence' (or similar) that was put up as the objected to the use of the wrod. The word Religion has more than one meaning/definition.

Regarding extremists in terms of extremes caused by climate change, it's a fair point. I was not trying to infer those that see the catastrophic events due to any GW are extremists (although they may be), more that those who go to exstreme lengths to get their message accross and/or impose their beliefs.

Again I reject the assertion I am being disingenious. I point my finger at both sides of the debate.

Scientists and who we listed to: Please don't stretch me too far out of context, I was asked to give examples and I simply threw up two from the top of my head. You might be right about not listening to non-scientists however, it is this sort of information that the public at large receive their 'education' on this matter - due to a whole lot of reasons already outlined - I include myself in that public.

Lastly and again on religious matters. Why is it that I - or anyone else - who is 'on the fence' is abused, berated and/or screamed at in an attempt by others to be 'converted'. Perhaps that is another reason why some might liken them to religious fanatics. By the way, this is not my assertion for those in the main but we might pop them in the zealot category too, OK?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
This 'religious' aspect is an interesting one and a really big digression from what the OP is actually abvout. If you review the thread you will see that it was simply used in terms of a 'following'. Nothing more, nothing less. Some seem to consider the word in a somewhat biblical connection only - as in the 'blind adherence' (or similar) that was put up as the objected to the use of the wrod. The word Religion has more than one meaning/definition.
Click to expand...
Would you ever use to describe say somebody who understood quantum mechanics or zoology?

Regarding extremists in terms of extremes caused by climate change, it's a fair point. I was not trying to infer those that see the catastrophic events due to any GW are extremists (although they may be), more that those who go to exstreme lengths to get their message accross and/or impose their beliefs.
Click to expand...
Just suppose, hypothetically, that the consequences of GW will be really extreme. In such a case, how do you define an "extreme length"?

Scenario 1) Supposing you've discovered a red button which says "do not press". To what lengths would you go to make sure nobody pressed the button?
Scenario 2) Now, say you know (somehow) that pressing the red button would cause devastation to the Earth. Meteor impact, massive earthquakes, whatever. To what lengths would you go to to make sure nobody pressed the button?
To what extent would your actions differ between the two scenarios? If you were in scenario 1, would the actions of a person in scenario 2 seem extreme and unnecessary? How can you evaluate what is and isn't extreme if you don't understand the context?

Again I reject the assertion I am being disingenious. I point my finger at both sides of the debate.
Click to expand...
Its all very well pointing your finger. But can you back that up with evidence?

Scientists and who we listed to: Please don't stretch me too far out of context, I was asked to give examples and I simply threw up two from the top of my head. You might be right about not listening to non-scientists however, it is this sort of information that the public at large receive their 'education' on this matter - due to a whole lot of reasons already outlined - I include myself in that public.

Lastly and again on religious matters. Why is it that I - or anyone else - who is 'on the fence' is abused, berated and/or screamed at in an attempt by others to be 'converted'. Perhaps that is another reason why some might liken them to religious fanatics. By the way, this is not my assertion for those in the main but we might pop them in the zealot category too, OK?
Click to expand...
Ever been "abused, berated and/or screamed at" by an actual climatologist?
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Sigh....

Religion - please recheck the definitions. In terms of a 'following' then yes it qualifies the same as ardent football fans are following their religion.

Misinformation and outright lies. From what I have read in this post alone; the deniers are telling lies (BBC report above). I have read reports and understand that that Al Gore's 'An inconvenient Truth' had to have 11 (I think) mistakes and/or exaggerations removed to enable it to be shown in Britain (schools).
There's two without doing any extra research.

When I say "For mine" that is a personal opinion and guess what - I'm entitled to it. Do with it what you will.

Now, should I pop you in the angry zealot category now or would you like to continue to do it yourself?
Click to expand...


I looked at a site that listed the 11 mistakes and or exagerations in An Inconvenient Truth.

Do you want to discuss the first one, that Mr Gore claimed the glaciers on top of Mt Kilimanjaro are disappearing, and that this is due to global warming.

Well the truth is way more complicated than a one line answer. There are three things that have negatively affected the glaciers of Mt Kilimanjaro. One is changes in precipitation having nothing to do with global warming that occurred in the 19th century and can be related to the levels of Lake Victoria. A prolonged drought caused both the levels in the lake and the mass of the glaciers to decrease. this has also occurred recently to some extent. Others have claimed that land use changes in the area are responsible for the retreat of the glaciers, but then land use changes are also part of the AGW scenario. The last part is that as the temperature rises, the glaciers melt more at their lowest elevation.

Look at these sources and what do you think is the most important.

http://www.pecad.fas.usda.gov/crope...ionid=eafrica&region=&reservoir_name=Victoria

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/tropical-glacier-retreat/

http://www.olympus.co.jp/en/gww/kilimanjaro/summary/index.html

Now I don't know why I went to all this trouble as it appears to me that you already believe that Al Gore got all 11 or 35 things wrong and you do not want to learn the science behind all the controversy.

Are the glaciers on Mt Kilimanjaro melting because of global warming, regional drought, land use changes or all three.

Is Al Gore wrong because he said global warming has caused shrinkage of the Mt Kilimanjaro glaciers?

You posted that there are 11 errors in Al Gore's movie, I just examined one of them, care to look at another?
 
Well, all of this definitely reminds me why I normally stay off of AGW boards...

I used to work for an NBC affiliate, and IMHO standard news sources are frankly kind of vile. They should only be trusted for infotainment and celebrity gossip. Forget real news, and as for accurate science news... you have got to be kidding! You want to know about science, read what real scientists have written and published in peer-reviewed journals or, well, places like this. Come on, people... when was the last time you heard a climatologist screaming at anybody?

What else? On the internet, we should all play nice and be happy... ignore everyone who yells... don't run with scissors... share your snack at recess...
 
The last three threads. All out of context, all citing science, all justifying behaviour and/or repeating statements or questions and all off topic.
You all miss the point and wish to argue your case for the reasons why GW/AGW is real. Let me make this perfectly clear so you understand...

IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THIS THREAD!
 
A.A.Alfie said:
The last three threads. All out of context, all citing science, all justifying behaviour and/or repeating statements or questions and all off topic.
You all miss the point and wish to argue your case for the reasons why GW/AGW is real. Let me make this perfectly clear so you understand...

IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THIS THREAD!
Click to expand...

I did no such thing. I was requesting to know how you justified what you thought amounted to extremism when you fully admit you don't understand the issue at hand.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
The last three threads. All out of context, all citing science, all justifying behaviour and/or repeating statements or questions and all off topic.
You all miss the point and wish to argue your case for the reasons why GW/AGW is real. Let me make this perfectly clear so you understand...

IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THIS THREAD!
Click to expand...


Then stop posting stuff that can be refuted by science.

I am only responding to what you post.

It's your own fault.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
The last three threads. All out of context, all citing science, all justifying behaviour and/or repeating statements or questions and all off topic.
You all miss the point and wish to argue your case for the reasons why GW/AGW is real. Let me make this perfectly clear so you understand...

IT DOES NOT MATTER TO THIS THREAD!
Click to expand...

Exactly what is an AGW extremist?
 
Maia said:
Come on, people... when was the last time you heard a climatologist screaming at anybody?

What else? On the internet, we should all play nice and be happy... ignore everyone who yells... don't run with scissors... share your snack at recess...
Click to expand...

To repeat, this is meant as at least some sort of answer to the OP question (although I don't know if it's very realistic to expect answers to be exactly what the OP was looking for when additional material relating to the science of AGW is indeed posted. People are going to respond to that issue.)

First, scientists who actually study AGW and publish their conclusions are not the ones who do the yelling and screaming and weird internet posting. Second, ideal internet interactions would, in fact, consist of behaviors learned in kindergarten. Unfortunately, this is sometimes not the case.

However, this fact about interpersonal relations does not change scientific reality. The law of gravity is true whether someone snarls it at you or tells you about it with a pleasant smile on their face. Newton's laws of motion work whether your eighth-grade teacher hands you the book nicely or throws it at your head. Conversely, jumping off a cliff to see if you can fly as well as Superman is a really, really bad idea, even if your best friend begs you to do it. The way that we feel about people who make a particular argument has absolutely nothing to do with the truth or falsity of that argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom