Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[DC]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

basis of ignorance? you seem to be happy with your ignorance in regard to the climate system. others are researching it since decades and know a good deal about it already. its mainly ignorant people that hinder us from solving this problem.

 

[r-j]

What nonsense. Nobody is forcing you, or anyone else to use fossil fuels, or find solutions to your problem. Crying that some vast conspiracy is preventing you from going off fossil fuels is as woo woo as it gets.

 

[DC]

What nonsense. Nobody is forcing you, or anyone else to use fossil fuels, or find solutions to your problem. Crying that some vast conspiracy is preventing you from going off fossil fuels is as woo woo as it gets.

what the heck are you talking about? i didn't talk about any conspiracy...
and its not my problem, its our problem.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Anyone who pretends to anywhere-near understand the global climatic system, with its trillions of simultaneously changing and interacting organisms, systems, sub-systems, micro-climates, cycles, patterns, feedbacks, variables, trends, external factors etc.. etc.. is just full of ****.

As they would be in a century from now.

On that basis, any proper skeptic should rightly be focusing attention on the political/economic decisions derived from such a basis of ignorance, and simply asking cui bono?.

How unoriginal of you! You are the umpteenth guy here that is basically comparing climate science with medicine and telling "what does a physician know and what will he know in a century from now, with all those intricacies and complexities of the human body and biology? But, beware of the pharmaceutical companies, timeo danaos et dona ferentes*" .

That's why medicine doesn't exist and people use religious rituals when they have a toothache. But you and the umpteen surely would call quackery both medicine and climate science. Or maybe you consult doctors to ensure your presence in the face of the Earth -on the outside- for the longest possible time but you're trying to make people think that climate science is dull, that is, you're trying to sell snake oil to femmes de ménage*.

What's your real business here?

*following your style of adding classy pseudo-intellectual quips to inflate the run of the mill popcorn.

 

[aleCcowaN]

What nonsense. Nobody is forcing you, or anyone else to use fossil fuels, or find solutions to your problem. Crying that some vast conspiracy is preventing you from going off fossil fuels is as woo woo as it gets.

Could you stoop any lower? Claiming that the global climate is a personal problem and a matter of individual choice is moronic. You're now losing grip on reality as it seems like you don't care if you look like a complete idiot here.

 

[r-j]

and its not my problem, its our problem.

No, if you are still creating more CO2 than you take up, it's your problem. I've been carbon negative for a very long time. I believed global warming was, and is, a serious issue decades ago. But even more importantly, I believe fossil fuels are a health risk, gasoline is a carcinogen, and coal exhaust is a killer.

What really irritates is somebody complaining about fossil fuels, when they are still using them. Don't tell somebody else what to do when you won't do it. Go plant a tree today, instead of burning fuels to complain about global warming. It will do more good. If you can't plant a tree, pay somebody to do it.

Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[r-j]

And yes, I just planted dozens of CO2 consuming plants this week. Including a dozen trees.

I even try to get people to let me plant trees on their property. It's amazingly hard to get people to agree to it. Most people just don't care., or worry about it causing them work.

 

[Buckaroo]

No, if you are still creating more CO2 than you take up, it's your problem. I've been carbon negative for a very long time. I believed global warming was, and is, a serious issue decades ago. But even more importantly, I believe fossil fuels are a health risk, gasoline is a carcinogen, and coal exhaust is a killer.

What really irritates is somebody complaining about fossil fuels, when they are still using them. Don't tell somebody else what to do when you won't do it. Go plant a tree today, instead of burning fuels to complain about global warming. It will do more good. If you can't plant a tree, pay somebody to do it.

Put your money where your mouth is.

And yes, I just planted dozens of CO2 consuming plants this week. Including a dozen trees.

I even try to get people to let me plant trees on their property. It's amazingly hard to get people to agree to it. Most people just don't care., or worry about it causing them work.

Now you're just *********** with us.

 

[DSo]

...and leave science to those who have both an education and a morality.

So anyone who does not agree with you and or your viewpoint is amoral?

 

[Megalodon]

Someone who says he believes global warming was and is a serious issue for decades, but thinks the last two weeks' cold spell disproves it?

There's all kind of strange birds nesting in these parts, and I think we just sighted Trollus floridiens, with it's enchanting "Give me attention!" call...

 

[Buckaroo]

So anyone who does not agree with you and or your viewpoint is amoral?

On this particular subject? Not necessarily amoral. Just ignorant.

 

[Megalodon]

So anyone who does not agree with you and or your viewpoint is amoral?

No, not really. We live in a society where, globally, a crushing majority of the population would not be alive today except for Science.

Science is responsible for our health and wealth, our longevity and quality of life.

In this society, to go against a scientific consensus warning us of serious consequences for our actions, armed with nothing but your bellybutton observations and stuff you heard on the internet, all the time adding to the noise and trying to feel important by doubting working scientists, it's not amoral... far from it...

It's IMMORAL!

You want to have a say on this matter? Study it! After 3+2years you'll have a MSc and will be in a good position to start contributing to the scientific discourse.

Idiots with big mouths and no shame is the reason why we lost 20+ years since Rio. And during those years the only thing we see is validation of what we feared, and got reasons to believe that is going to go down faster and harder than expected.

And still the braying can be heard, louder than any scientist due to the pulpit of petro-dollars.

We're going down, but I'm not sweetening the ride for the cretins that are dragging us. They don't get both to be stupid and get their feelings spared.

 

[aleCcowaN]

So anyone who does not agree with you and or your viewpoint is amoral?

Good sophistic try, but utterly failed logic. A pre-teen knows that there are intelligent people and good people, and one quality doesn't imply nor prevent the other. Then, the "so" in your phrase is clearly invalid and what follows it is just a rhetorical twist on your part to sophisticate the discussion. Come back when you can follow what is replied to you.

About immorality -I wasn't implying amorality- I'm sure we'll see more about it in the next posts.

 

[aleCcowaN]

On this particular subject? Not necessarily amoral. Just ignorant.

A person who uses sophisms to argue about a subject almost completely unknown to him or her yet showing a rigid position (feigning flexibility when it's convenient), can't be called just ignorant. Immoral is the right term.

Passive ignorance is a matter of knowledge and intelligence. Active ignorance is a matter of morality. A butcher who doesn't know how to drain a subdural haematoma is at most ignorant in that specific matter; a butcher who volunteers to drain it or offers his opinion about the convenience of following these or those steps or not, is a full-fledged immoral.

 

[r-j]

If you are just complaining and wanting somebody to do something, and you won't do a thing yourself, you are a hypocrite.

Most people are. The global warmers are just the most recent bunch of crybabies who don't actually do anything, they just want to tell other people what to do.

Shameless and ignorant.

 

[DSo]

Good sophistic try, but utterly failed logic. A pre-teen knows that there are intelligent people and good people, and one quality doesn't imply nor prevent the other. Then, the "so" in your phrase is clearly invalid and what follows it is just a rhetorical twist on your part to sophisticate the discussion. Come back when you can follow what is replied to you.

About immorality -I wasn't implying amorality- I'm sure we'll see more about it in the next posts.

Wow. If someone can parse this response to my question into comprehensible language, I'd appreciate it ...

Going up-thread, aleCccowan seemed to imply that persons not concerned with AGW are amoral. I am trying to get confirmation that that is in fact his postion.

 

[freesk]

No, not really. We live in a society where, globally, a crushing majority of the population would not be alive today except for Science.

Science is responsible for our health and wealth, our longevity and quality of life.

In this society, to go against a scientific consensus warning us of serious consequences for our actions, armed with nothing but your bellybutton observations and stuff you heard on the internet, all the time adding to the noise and trying to feel important by doubting working scientists, it's not amoral... far from it...

It's IMMORAL!

You want to have a say on this matter? Study it! After 3+2years you'll have a MSc and will be in a good position to start contributing to the scientific discourse.

Idiots with big mouths and no shame is the reason why we lost 20+ years since Rio. And during those years the only thing we see is validation of what we feared, and got reasons to believe that is going to go down faster and harder than expected.

And still the braying can be heard, louder than any scientist due to the pulpit of petro-dollars.

We're going down, but I'm not sweetening the ride for the cretins that are dragging us. They don't get both to be stupid and get their feelings spared.

Here's a question: what do you mean by ignorance? Let me rephrase it: suppose one is a…say…basic particles physicist. Poor guy (don't jump, all applies equally to the ladies) doesn't possess a clue about climate sciences. This guy hears about all the GW debate and gets curious. He reads a book or two, googles around some, watches 2-3 TV shows, watches this Nobel laureate - Oskar winner 's film and concludes that GW might be real but, to his liking, there is not enough evidence to support a notion that the anthropogenic component has significant enough roll in GW. Remember, he does not have MSc. in climate, however he can recognize scientific reasoning and evidence should such be presented. Would you let him "have a say" on the AGW/GW debate or you would call him names (ignorant, immoral…)? Attention: I am not asking whether you agree with this guy or not.

 

[Megalodon]

Here's a question: what do you mean by ignorance? Let me rephrase it: suppose one is a…say…basic particles physicist. Poor guy (don't jump, all applies equally to the ladies) doesn't possess a clue about climate sciences. This guy hears about all the GW debate and gets curious. He reads a book or two, googles around some, watches 2-3 TV shows, watches this Nobel laureate - Oskar winner 's film and concludes that GW might be real but, to his liking, there is not enough evidence to support a notion that the anthropogenic component has significant enough roll in GW.

It depends.
Is he denying the role of GHG? The physics is well established.
Is he denying the temperature record? The data and the methods are public and have been scrutinized.
Is he denying the proxy reconstructions? Multiple reconstructions have been made and are in agreement?
Is he denying the role of anthropogenic CO2? Isotope analysis puts it as a major contribution for the CO2 accumulation.

Where is he get this "lack of evidence"?

And if he has scientific training, why isn't he treating it as such? TV shows? Al Gore? A poor scientist this guy is turning out to be.

Is he bringing anything to the debate? A new understanding of the physics of GHG? A new way to compute the global data? Improvement of the models?

Remember, he does not have MSc. in climate, however he can recognize scientific reasoning and evidence should such be presented.

If he can, he should know to defer to the scientists that are working on this for years, or at least ask politely to be referred to the appropriate literature. After all, how would he feel if a paleontologist decided to second guess his work because he saw a couple of PBS NOVA's?

Would you let him "have a say" on the AGW/GW debate or you would call him names (ignorant, immoral…)? Attention: I am not asking whether you agree with this guy or not.

No, he shouldn't have a say in the virtually nonexistent AGW/GW scientific debate. If he wants to, he should go the normal way in science. Research, publish, convince. He also shouldn't have a say in the very existent, highly political debate regarding AGW/GW. Politicians should be advised by the leading experts in the field, not by amateurs.

Tell me, would your particle physicist also want to join the debates on fisheries? Biodiversity? Ocean acidification?

At what point does your physicist think to himself "maybe I'm out of my depth and making a huge ass of myself"?

That hubris is immoral, as are it's consequences. That's why you got the infamous lists of "scientists" against AGW: arrogant idiots wanting to make a stand on a subject they didn't grasp. I'm not counting here the people whose names were added fraudulently to those lists, of course.

 

[Buckaroo]

...concludes that GW might be real but, to his liking, there is not enough evidence to support a notion that the anthropogenic component has significant enough roll in GW. Remember, he does not have MSc. in climate, however he can recognize scientific reasoning and evidence should such be presented.

Apparently he can't, if that is indeed his conclusion. There is no evidence that contradicts AGW, only "evidence." He might as well doubt evolution, based on the "evidence" of creationism. So your scenario is ill-posed.

 

[Megalodon]

Here's a question: what do you mean by ignorance?

I didn't refer to ignorance in my post. Ignorance is something we all have to live with. We're all ignorant of something.

But since I'm ignorant of civil engineering, I don't go around projecting buildings. Having watched "How they do it" doesn't qualify me.

In my field, we are plagued by people who saw all of Cousteau's docu's and think they're oceanographers. Hint: they're not. They are boorish people who second guess what they have no clue about in the first place.