Ice Age on the Way!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, you don't get to claim my hill; I'm the progressive, science-backing one here.

Most CC deniers are (choose one)
A) Younger and/or more-educated and/or liberal
B) Older and/or less-educated and/or conservative


Show all work.

In the whole scheme of things i have been correct. I prefer to stick with my origional assesment. we are cooling due to low solar output and will continue to do do for the next several years.
I have shown my work many times .
Your turn.
Btw older and well educated .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, you don't get to claim my hill; I'm the progressive, science-backing one here.

Most CC deniers are (choose one)
A) Younger and/or more-educated and/or liberal
B) Older and/or less-educated and/or conservative

C) Better educated and therefore taught the folly of false stereotyping
D) Old enough to understand there can be no such thing as a Denier of scientific theories that haven't reached a reasonable degree of certainty
E) Neither A nor B
F) C & D only

[markpierce]

The absolute reality is that we're all going to die.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by markpierce

The absolute reality is that we're all going to die.

And I reckon that in a couple of million years there will be no evidence whatsoever that the human race ever existed.

[nelly]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Nature doesn't quite work like the stock market. Be sure to get back to us with an "I told you so" when, or most likely - if, it all comes tumbling down.

Easy argument for you to win. I don't think many people will care much about winning internet arguments if I'm "right."

Seems like one side cares more about being "right" than what is likely to happen if they are wrong.

I hope that I'm wrong with my interpretation of the data - I see a rough future for many people. I really do hope you're right.

Originally Posted by newhaul

didn't say we are not polluting the system but I just don't feel that humans have any significant effect on the temperature of the earth .
Considering that the driver of all things earth is 1.3 million times the size and mass of the planet.

We certainly have a major impact on the air and our health surrounding it.

Unless you don't think it is bad for your health to live in a city b/c well, volcanoes happen and red tides so some people will have a rough time breathing anyway?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

To take one of your examples, if you're a secular, science-based thinker, which of the following would be more confirming of your own view of evolution, as well as have the best chance of persuading others who may be like-minded? Encouraging a civil debate between an evolutionist and a creationist, or silencing, shunning, shaming, labeling or stereotyping the creationist to the point where he/she takes his or her beliefs underground?

The issue that I believe the BBC had to tackle is: do you have to invite a CC denier every time you do a AGW story? Most credible media organizations can and do seek out all the sides of an important issue. But if one side of the argument is consistently weak and intellectually dishonest, and has failed to land a body-blow to what they challenge... do you have to keep giving them a pedestel week after week?

Once in a while is enough. Or when they come up with something that's a credible challenge. Sorry, newhaul.

btw, up here we love discussing ideas. Earlier this month we had Steve Bannon debating David Frum about the rise of populism. An important and interesting debate.

How did people ascribing to a party of so-called "Progressives" become so afraid and therefore utterly intolerant of IDEAS & OPINIONS that differ from their own??
...

I can only speak for me. It was about the same time that opinions denying CC were manufactured and disseminated by political and corporate interests who saw a potential future impact on their bottom line, as well as a new wedge with which to help firm up "identities". Sort of like demonizing undocumented immigrants without lifting a finger to punish those who hire some 11 million of them, in order to court a certain type of voter. The attack upon science itself didn't exactly thrill me either.

D) Old enough to understand there can be no such thing as a Denier of scientific theories that haven't reached a reasonable degree of certainty

Denial in this context is expressing an anti CC viewpoint ("it's not happening"/"we can't do anything anyways"/"it's all a soshulist plot/religion/cult") without having the interest, expertise or diligence to actually look into it first.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

Easy argument for you to win. I don't think many people will care much about winning internet arguments if I'm "right."

Seems like one side cares more about being "right" than what is likely to happen if they are wrong.

I hope that I'm wrong with my interpretation of the data - I see a rough future for many people. I really do hope you're right.

unfortunately I fear I am correct .
Honestly I do hope I am incorrect however my record so far wrt the global warming issue says the opposite .

[newhaul]

https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
this was the recent talk by Dr Zharkova it is just over 90 minutes long.
There are a couple slides that are intentionally blurred due to them still undergoing a far reaching peer review as we type .

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That IS, essentially, climate-change denial. Sorry.

Welcome all, to Orwell's World, where when someone says the climate is always changing they are accused of being a climate change denier. Goebbels would have had a job for you LE.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a less hyperbolic proposition (...progress!) but still exaggerated proposition, a classic strawman, a windmill to tilt at.

Hate a conclusion (even one that's made up)? Attack the messenger. Deny the research.



Another Bingo! Yet we keep doing them.

Is it your assertion that the combined global cost of carbon sequestration or reduction schemes of less than trilions$? Is that what you think is hyperbole on my statement, or is it that warmists think MMGW is an impeding catastrophe that warrants sending said trillions? Or are you just creating your own straw man/windmill to distract from the obvious truth of my statement?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

Welcome all, to Orwell's World, where when someone says the climate is always changing they are accused of being a climate change denier. Goebbels would have had a job for you LE.

People can go back and see for themselves which part I was calling denial. It wasn't the "climate is always changing" part.


And congrats on invoking Godwin's law so soon in the thread.

Is it your assertion that the combined global cost of carbon sequestration or reduction schemes of less than trilions$? Is that what you think is hyperbole on my statement, or is it that warmists think MMGW is an impeding catastrophe that warrants sending said trillions? Or are you just creating your own straw man/windmill to distract from the obvious truth of my statement?

It's your implication that the price of doing ANYTHING about addressing climate change will be unaffordable.


God, this constant wrestling with your strawmen is aggravating my hay-fever.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

And I reckon that in a couple of million years there will be no evidence whatsoever that the human race ever existed.

Keith Richards can tell them all about us.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

Keith Richards can tell them all about us.

I love that quote!


I heard one version (attribution forgotten) where the last two living things to see the sunset on a post-apocalyptic Earth will be Keef... eating a cockroach.

[Delfin]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

People can go back and see for themselves which part I was calling denial. It wasn't the "climate is always changing" part.


And congrats on invoking Godwin's law so soon in the thread.

I believe it was you that said that those you disagree with should not be able to speak, right? So perhaps you fall under the exception to Godwin's law, which is that authoritarians with religious zeal for their position actually exist, and frequently behave like authoritarians.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's your implication that the price of doing ANYTHING about addressing climate change will be unaffordable.


God, this constant wrestling with your strawmen is aggravating my hay-fever.

Since I said spending trillions$, I understand why the absurdity of that, given Lomborg's data that shows that those trillions$ to be spent under the Paris Accords will have zero effect on climate, causes you to pretend I said something I didn't by creating one of those pesky strawmen you refer to. AFAIC, you can go ahead and spend billions$ if you like to make yourself feel virtuous, but can we agree that we might want to direct the balance to solving problems that really do exist, like clean water in the third world, or childhood diarrhea, or other simple and cheap problems that can be solved that will reduce human misery? After all, the cost of your feeling virtuous is going to kill some number of poor people and I can't imagine you want to maximize that ill effect.

I'm afraid you won't see it that way, but I guess that is because you are a MMGW scam denier.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Delfin

I believe it was you that said that those you disagree with should not be able to speak, right? So perhaps you fall under the exception to Godwin's law, which is that authoritarians with religious zeal for their position actually exist, and frequently behave like authoritarians.

Check your exhaust system. You might be getting fumes in the cabin.

...but can we agree that we might want to direct the balance to solving problems that really do exist, like clean water in the third world, or childhood diarrhea, or other simple and cheap problems that can be solved that will reduce human misery?

I'd be more swayed by that argument if the people making it were actually doing more to solve those problems that really do exist, like clean water, childhood diarrhea, child poverty, affordable healthcare, overcrowded prisons, systemic voter disenfranchisement... that should keep you going til the end of the month, at least. Let us know how you do.


The sad fact is that all the "environmental" eggs have landed in the AGW basket, and by successfully stalling meaningful progress on that front, progress on many other significant environmental endeavours has also been affected. But that's what you wanted, right? So many people picking the rich-man's pockets...

I'm afraid you won't see it that way, but I guess that is because you are a MMGW scam denier.

"Scam" implies there's a beneficiary. So who benefits from trying to slow down the onset of more warming (cos stopping is no longer in the cards)?

Bonus question - what industries benefit from stalling/stopping action on AGW?