AGW extremists are dangerous

[shadron]

Um, you seem to contradict yourself which also proves a point of mine. You say there are "two sides to the argument" in this "controversy" however GW is "not a matter of opinion but science". If that were true then there wouldn't be two sides would there? And by extension there would be no debate.

Well, I think we found a major part of the problem right here. I searched through my posting for where I said "two sides to the argument", and it isn't in my posting at all. I don't have any phrasing that even approaches that. It would seem that you either elided mine with someone else's or you simply write what you want to argue about regardless of the facts.

I will ignore your insults also as irrelevant however they also prove a point I made in the OT regarding derision, scorn etc and your justification for it.

Insults? Please point out the insult. The worst I said is that you will be treated harshly on this forum if you insist on coming into the argument unprepared, and so you have. If that's an insult you better get your hip waders on.

Back to the main point in the OT.
My claim is not a protest that there is no GW but that in the face of public and scientific debate there has to be doubt. And whilst the experts disagree how could anyone in this forum be 100% cetain? As you say this is the internet.

There was doubt in the 80's. There is still some doubt today, but it has been much whittled down and paved over by investigations and experimentation into causes and effects, and latter day observations which appear to support the theses about GW. That is where the anti- argument today should be, but it's not - it's still stuck in the 80s, fighting wars already lost.

Smarter people than you or I disagree, one side says it's black, the other say white. Who represents the shades of grey?
Why should I believe one faction and not the other.
Why should I trust you and not them and
Why, for Gods sake would I trust the zealots at either end of the spectrum?

I'm a zealot? Just because I'm arguing with your irrational, non-science enlightened position? You appear to have answered those questions on your own. Good luck with it.

 

[shadron]

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!

This one really threw me. Science is not of the essence of this question? So I went back to your OP.

I claim as my right as an intelligent, articulate and caring human being; parent, husband, tax payer and resident; a member of the global community to make my own decision. My opinion is as relevant as eveyone elses. I choose to make my decions, in my own time, without the aggressive and self-rightious ravings of those on the extreme.

So you claim the right of making an uninformed decision. Since you eschew science, what, then, was your basis for making said decision? Was it the relative charm of the proponents? Was it the perceived effects upon your pocketbook, or your comfortable existence? (Warning: no insult implied. Unfortunately I can't think of any flattering reasons one would do what you did and are asking us to do as well.) You aren't telling us, so there is no argument here; there is only obstinacy.

I judge that your point is not tenable and hardly worth making; that is my own decision, as illogical as years, based on a lack of positive statement on your side. I would argue further, but without being able to cite the real underpinnings of the basic topic without being labeled a zealot, then there simply is no argument.

Describe exactly what IS ON TOPIC.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then stop posting stuff that can be refuted by science.

I am only responding to what you post.

It's your own fault.

Really? I am not sure why you think I am refuting anything. I don't actually recall saying anything along those line. What I have said is that there is still debate and we ignorant masses are confused.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

Thanks Maia
Fair enough.
Paragraphs in order
On the science - I do not debate it - I can't and wont - any of you will run rings around me. Throwing it up as evidence in an effort to convert the non believer (especially in aggressive ways) does nothing for the cause at all.

I agree also that it is not the scientists. Never said it was.

Lastly the veracity of an argument . I have conceded on this point already

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Shadron - I've run out of time now, I'll get back to you tonight.

 

[Wangler]

I just came from a thread where Wangler basically dismisses the conclusion of several thousand climate scientists based on some "back of the envelope" calculations he did.

Well, David has put me on "ignore", but just for the record, this claim is entirely false.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well, I think we found a major part of the problem right here. I searched through my posting for where I said "two sides to the argument", and it isn't in my posting at all. I don't have any phrasing that even approaches that. It would seem that you either elided mine with someone else's or you simply write what you want to argue about regardless of the facts.



Insults? Please point out the insult. The worst I said is that you will be treated harshly on this forum if you insist on coming into the argument unprepared, and so you have. If that's an insult you better get your hip waders on.



There was doubt in the 80's. There is still some doubt today, but it has been much whittled down and paved over by investigations and experimentation into causes and effects, and latter day observations which appear to support the theses about GW. That is where the anti- argument today should be, but it's not - it's still stuck in the 80s, fighting wars already lost.



I'm a zealot? Just because I'm arguing with your irrational, non-science enlightened position? You appear to have answered those questions on your own. Good luck with it.

Para #1. You are correct and I apologise; I have misquoted you. What you said was "There are websites designed to explain both sides of the controversy." I have picked up on your statement here that there are in fact "two sides". But again, sorry for the misquote, I honestly did not mean it.

Para #2. The insults were mild, but there. You say my opinion is irrelevant as a two year olds at an election and that I’m not grownup enough to debate this. Mildly insulting and provocative I’d suggest and intended as such. No?

Para #3. You may well be right. However my point remains that the average man sees debate the area of AGW/GW. They (I) hear many things from both sides. Short of becoming wholly engrossed in the topic, learning the science etc (dont call me on this one again either - I have addressed it a number of times) we listen to the debate. Information fIlters down from many sources and media and we hear "there is", "there isn't", There is", "there isnt". ad nauseum.
Any wonder we are confused as to what is real or isn't.

Para #4. Did I actually call you a zealot? I couldn't find that anywhere - I may be wrong.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well, David has put me on "ignore", but just for the record, this claim is entirely false.

You're not suggesting that someone is posting misinformation?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

This one really threw me. Science is not of the essence of this question? So I went back to your OP.



So you claim the right of making an uninformed decision. Since you eschew science, what, then, was your basis for making said decision? Was it the relative charm of the proponents? Was it the perceived effects upon your pocketbook, or your comfortable existence? (Warning: no insult implied. Unfortunately I can't think of any flattering reasons one would do what you did and are asking us to do as well.) You aren't telling us, so there is no argument here; there is only obstinacy.

I judge that your point is not tenable and hardly worth making; that is my own decision, as illogical as years, based on a lack of positive statement on your side. I would argue further, but without being able to cite the real underpinnings of the basic topic without being labeled a zealot, then there simply is no argument.

Describe exactly what IS ON TOPIC.

I repeat what I said earlier...

"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.
(As an extension to this, I might have just as readily attacked the zealot on the other end).
2. Raise the point that zealots at either end of the spectrum of any topic are dangerous. Also that they do your own 'side' a complete disservice.
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.

On my opinion...
I have constantly been reminded that my opinion is irrelevant. There are millions and millions just like me who see information coming from valid sources. Honestly, for many it's more the source that's important than what is said. We see "there is - there isnt - there is - there isnt" type discussion, ad nauseium and frankly it gets really really boring. The science would go over our heads anyway and so we don't bother pursuing it.
Now, the opinions of these masses are totally relevant, as follows:
In a two party based political system, let's say we have one that believes in the GW argument and one that doesn't. Who do I vote for? The side whose supporters tell me I'm an idiot or the ones that remain calm. My vote counts in terms of the direction that the country will take on this (or any other issue that happens to be topical) and other matters.
My opinion does count simply by virtue that I vote, and this is especially true in a country where voting is compulsory.

 

[lomiller]

A A Alfie, when two sides disagree you don’t always meet in the middle. Sometimes one side is clearly unequivocally wrong. You are indeed free to hold whatever opinion you want on the issue but just as surely rational people are to assume you are an idiot when you hold an opinion that is in direct contradiction to the established science and don’t have a single shred of evidence to back up that opinion.

What you need to understand is that there is no scientific debate to speak of on this topic. Nearly every paper published in every journal of note, not only accepts the idea the humans are warming the planet but build their further research on it. This is a debate between those who think the conclusions drawn by science don’t mater and those who value science and rational thought.

It’s certainly true notions like science and rational thought have “followers” after a fashion which is as it should be. This in no way makes them equivalent to a religion where following is based on simple faith and belief.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A A Alfie, when two sides disagree you don’t always meet in the middle. Sometimes one side is clearly unequivocally wrong. You are indeed free to hold whatever opinion you want on the issue but just as surely rational people are to assume you are an idiot when you hold an opinion that is in direct contradiction to the established science and don’t have a single shred of evidence to back up that opinion.

What you need to understand is that there is no scientific debate to speak of on this topic. Nearly every paper published in every journal of note, not only accepts the idea the humans are warming the planet but build their further research on it. This is a debate between those who think the conclusions drawn by science don’t mater and those who value science and rational thought.

It’s certainly true notions like science and rational thought have “followers” after a fashion which is as it should be. This in no way makes them equivalent to a religion where following is based on simple faith and belief.

Your argument is compelling especially in light of the name calling. As I say, your (and others) efforts to taunt and ridicule people such as myself really do your cause very little good whatsoever.
You really do highlight so many of my points in such a short space of time.
Thanks

 

[tsig]

A man who defends himself has an idiot for a lawyer.

And a fool for a client.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It’s certainly true notions like science and rational thought have “followers” after a fashion which is as it should be. This in no way makes them equivalent to a religion where following is based on simple faith and belief.

No need to convince me. I believe and agree with you for the most part. However you have stated an opinion only of your definition here, I have provided a definition that - in short - states
Following = Religion.
That said, some of the more ardent followers (again both sides of any argument) certainly do act with a seeming religious conviction in their efforts to 'convert' people to their way of thinking using any number of tactics.

 

[Tubbythin]

Sorry (honestly), I'm not quite sure what you mean.

You can define extremism as "somebody who goes to extreme lengths to get there point across". But if you don't understand the issue at hand, how do you go about deciding what constitutes an "extreme length"?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You can define extremism as "somebody who goes to extreme lengths to get there point across". But if you don't understand the issue at hand, how do you go about deciding what constitutes an "extreme length"?

Good question and a really difficult one to answer. Extreme lengths to achieve their ends will be judged differently for everyone, I think. Here's some examples (and that's all it is, I pass no judgement).

A few years ago there was a G20 summit (or similar) here in Melbourne. There were plenty of protesters doing all sorts of things. Some of the protesters used 'passive' means by (say) blocking the traffic of the guests, speakers etc and getting themselves arrested. Extremist?
Others thought it was quite acceptable to assault police, throw marbles under the hooves of police horses, wilfully and violentlt damage private property, and attack public passers-by in an effort to make themselves seen and/or heard. Extremist?

Many object to religious followers knocking on their front doors and trying to convert the householder to their form of religion. Is this extreme?
And what of religions that think it's perfectly acceptable to kill non believers in their efforts to convert the world. Are they extremists?


Why do I need to "understand an issue" to say what extreme measures are? I heard about a young man today, (19 years old) the son of an acquaintance who suicided last week. A terrible loss for the family naturally, and my heart goes out to them. He left a note and said that he could not live any longer after the breakup with his girlfiend, which had occurred just a few days prior.
I do not, for one second believe I can get inside this kids head and understand his issue, but I can be pretty certain that his actions were extreme in relation to the problem he had.

 

[lomiller]

I’m not taunting you I am, as you say you are, simply expressing my opinion. It’s not my fault if you present yourself is a way that puts you in a negative light and I am certainly under no responsibility to avoid pointing out non-rational thought processes such as “my opinion trumps published science” when I see them.

I think such attitudes are dangerous and feel they need to be confronted whenever possible. If this hurts your feelings, well too bad, it’s hardly my fault you chose to present these opinions on a public forum.

 

[lomiller]

However you have stated an opinion only of your definition here, I have provided a definition that - in short - states
Following = Religion.

Ignoring generally accepted definition in favor of your own is never a good practice, especially when you chose a definition that simply doesn’t work. Science and religion have markedly different approaches to understanding the universe; the fact that we choose to follow the scientific approach to understanding the universe certainly does not make that approach a religion.

 

[a_unique_person]

No need to convince me. I believe and agree with you for the most part. However you have stated an opinion only of your definition here, I have provided a definition that - in short - states
Following = Religion.
That said, some of the more ardent followers (again both sides of any argument) certainly do act with a seeming religious conviction in their efforts to 'convert' people to their way of thinking using any number of tactics.

Would you call the conclusions of the IPCC report religious in tone?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I’m not taunting you I am, as you say you are, simply expressing my opinion. It’s not my fault if you present yourself is a way that puts you in a negative light and I am certainly under no responsibility to avoid pointing out non-rational thought processes such as “my opinion trumps published science” when I see them.

I think such attitudes are dangerous and feel they need to be confronted whenever possible. If this hurts your feelings, well too bad, it’s hardly my fault you chose to present these opinions on a public forum.

My feelings aren't hurt. Neither you nor anyone else have that power. You simply asked me where you had insulted me - I showed you your efforts,

Now, please show me exactly where I have said "my opinion trumps public science".

Non rational?! Pfft!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Ignoring generally accepted definition in favor of your own is never a good practice, especially when you chose a definition that simply doesn’t work. Science and religion have markedly different approaches to understanding the universe; the fact that we choose to follow the scientific approach to understanding the universe certainly does not make that approach a religion.

You are taking this whole definition thing out of context I think. Please re-read the thread. Another contributor used the word and I believe in terms of a following, not blind faith.
Your 'generally accepted' version of the definition simply shows a lack of education with the english language; it is very versatile, many many words havemultiple meanings. You might consider starting a new thread to get some examples - there would be thousands - a whole really big book worth actually.