Ice Age on the Way!

[odonnellryan]

Originally Posted by Exile

You make dubious if not bogus assumptions & then attempt an argument based on them (see 1-3 below). You constantly use strawmen and/or distort other peoples' posts. It's a level of discourse about as illuminating as The View, and equally transparent. You have about as much knowledge about what AGW science really says as you did with your embarrassingly ignorant posts in the last science thread about overboard discharge, and you ignore any valid & reasonable skepticism in the science that departs from what you've been told to think. Do you really believe you are that much smarter than everyone else and others can't see through this?

1. Most credible media organizations can and do seek out all the sides of an important issue.

I'm not sure anyone really believes this anymore. They're all biased, particularly the mainstream ones. But I'm sure you believe that only Fox is biased & BBC & CNN are neutral. You're in so deep I don't think you understand what objectivity looks like.

2. 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...

Depending on what position within the myriad of sub-issues that encompass the AGW issue, both sides deserve this criticism. Tagging one side is classic, simple-minded partisanship, and after sitting in on all these threads over the years I can only conclude you are engaging in it deliberately.

3. do you have to keep giving them a pedestel week after week?

This is what I mean. The BBC was used as but one example of the much larger issue of the modern liberal/progressive trend towards suppressing dissenting or even just non-conforming opinions. Nobody suggested a timetable or limited it to one news outlet. But the fact remains that the dominant theme out of mainstream media is one that not only supports the AGW meme, but assumes it. Rarely if ever is there coverage of even reasonable skepticism from the Curry/Spencer/Christie faction, and alarmism is what is generally peddled (it sells). This is why we always have new posters on these threads who sound incredulous that any contrary opinions even exist!

Even though I don't always share their level of certainty & conclusions over facets of the overall issue, I have learned a TON from the likes of posters such as Jackdale, GordMay, StuM and many, many others who have a more technical background or can just think logically & articulate their positions well. I'm sure many have their political biases like anyone else, but their credibility usually renders such bias irrelevant (well, not always with Jack ). You, on the other hand, and really you alone for the most part, are the single largest contributor to acrimony within the ranks. You are either not smart enough to get past being in ideological lockstep and thinking for yourself, or you are smart enough and you're just trying to suppress peoples' opinions by creating a hostile atmosphere. You're right that it's a public forum, but it's also a public adult forum as far as I know, so maybe you should consider a different forum where everyone thinks like you do, and return here when you've become an adult and can better handle it.

You've made a lot of claims here about what I said, none of which I ever said either indirectly or directly. This is pretty much my point. You can try to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not, and maybe you can change the perception of what I'm saying: but it doesn't make me actually say those things.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

I'm not saying people should be silenced or anything. I'm just saying if all you're bringing to the table is "Look, last two years were actually colder - see the planet isn't warming up!" then no, you don't deserve to be sitting across the table from someone who is trying to bring real information to the table. Largely this is the people who are on the side of the table who deny climate change.

I'm not certain about climate change. Not by a long shot. However, I take the "bet" that it is better for me and everyone involved to go as all-in as possible to work towards a remedy.

If I'm wrong (and I hope I am), well, we lost out on some profit but we have healthier air, water, and population.

If climate deniers are wrong? Well?

In other threads this has been framed as the "Precautionary Principle" (or something like that) and there's nothing wrong with it, certainly in the abstract. The devil's in the details, however, and there seems to be an aversion from the other camp to even acknowledge the human costs (not just $$) to dramatic reductions in emissions, let alone actually debating them in a civil tone. In the meantime, the only major emitter country that has not signed the Paris Accords is the same country who has achieved the largest single reduction in CO2 emissions, namely the US. This seemingly infuriates some because it was done through fracking technology & cleaner burning natural gas, but others have made the point that the atmosphere could care less how it is achieved. Not a permanent solution, of course, but a hugely successful stopgap until more permanent solutions can be found, and one which doesn't threaten to reverse the 30 year historic trend (sorry, that word again ) of millions in the developing world being lifted out of poverty due in large part to cheap fossil fuels.

Until there can be a meaningful & realistic cost-benefit analysis that each side is willing to sit down & discuss, I'm afraid that many on the fence will simply conclude that it's not really about warming, but another social justice agenda doomed to repeat its 100 year-old pattern of human misery & failure (see Newhaul's links posted above). This is a real threat to a lot of people, especially those who have lived through it, or emigrated to escape it. I certainly don't believe this is what motivates all AGW advocates, but it's often shouted the loudest so is what people naturally hear.

Newhaul has always been of the opinion that the sun is the dominant driver and so the sunspot cycle now being at a minimum is responsible for the past couple of years of cooling, and this trend(!) will continue. This is Newhaul's opinion and there have been plenty of posts at this point that purport to refute it. There's not much sense getting infuriated about such opinions when you likely have the tools to make up your own mind.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by odonnellryan

You've made a lot of claims here about what I said, none of which I ever said either indirectly or directly. This is pretty much my point. You can try to make it seem like I'm saying something I'm not, and maybe you can change the perception of what I'm saying: but it doesn't make me actually say those things.

This was directed at L-E, the thread king of putting words in other peoples' mouths (see post #236). If you feel I've done that in your case, I don't want to leave that impression so please correct me as needed by posting accordingly. I honestly believe this is about the unfriendliest & manipulative thread tactic regularly used, and if you feel I did this in your case I can assure you it was inadvertent & should be corrected.

[newhaul]

An interesting paper I found concerning co2 concentration and the falability of the measures in glacial ice.
It doesn't fit the MMGW narrative so it was buried .
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/stoten92.pdf
It is quite eye opening . I welcome any research that confirms or disproves the conclusions in it.

[newhaul]

It also shows that co2 levels may have been as high as 430ppm as late as 1941.
https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2...el-in-history/

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

This was directed at L-E, the thread king of putting words in other peoples' mouths (see post #236).

Uh, pardon - why would you link to #236? That's just you leading off with an unsupported accusation, and then launching into some of your favourite assumptions.


If you wanted to illustrate ME putting words in other peoples' mouths, maybe you should actually link to those?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

First, thank you for walking your accusation back, however imperfectly.

I don't subscribe to the right-wing assertion that all media are heavily biased (so that's why it's ok that so many RW outlets have such an obvious skew). Amount of bias varies, intent and integrity of the different editorial boards vary. You won't persuade me, for example, that the BBC and Fox are equal but opposite. I don't watch CNN, so can't judge there.

And we all have identical access to better sources. No excuses.
I do not accept that there are two equal but opposite positions on the climate science itself. There's a majority opinion, and some dissenters on some or all of the points accepted by the majority.

Of course, the best people to sort it all out are the climate scientists themselves. Not the popular press, and not some bored boaters on CF.

This has been studied for over two decades; there is a dominant position supported by the majority of the field, and some credible dissent about parts of it.

But seriously - if there was really some serious fundamental flaws to the majority opinion, don't you think the dissenting work would have led to the uncovering of those flaws? Don't you think their discoverers would have issued press releases and found MANY outlets willing to air that discovery?

It simply hasn't happened. Further research mainly supports the currently-held majority opinions. Scientists can of course be wrong, but it's kind of ludicrous to think that it's the majority, and not the dissenting handful who have it wrong, for so long. Could happen... but not likely.

News media and governments can't wait forever for every last dissenter to change their mind. There's a time for studying, and a time for acting.
I don't think CF should be a safe space for false and misleading statements on such an important topic.


About that thread, and the imposition that a DMZ imposes on cruisers with just Type-1 systems: you folks actually persuaded me that it was an undue hardship. I was offering concessions and accomodations. In the real world, if we were the commission deciding this... you would have won my vote and been pleased about it. But noooo, not in happy-fun CF debate world. I'm supposed to also smile and eat ALL the bulls#!t about how the entire concept of DMZs are just a ploy to gain votes and not at all ecologically justified.

Same thing here - I'm supposed to smile and nod politely at all the tired old denier tropes (and there was nothing new revealed here, really, pro or con)?

No. Sorry.

Same old us vs. them, divisive labeling, putting people you know nothing about into categories, believing you're smarter and therefore know what's good for everyone else. And you still don't understand Brexit & Trump??? You were wrong about Type 1's & DMZs, and more importantly the environmentalists & gullible voters who advocated for it were wrong too. Some if not many environmentalists were wrong about ethanol (yes, there were other motivations), and many believe some were and continue to be wrong about nuclear power generation. In many, many other areas -- like the huge successes of the Clean Air & Water Acts over 40 years -- they have been proved right. So in difficult areas of environmental science, there is nothing wrong with questioning the prevailing wisdom, and not resorting to blindfolded obedience to popular dictates.

Go try out your partisan-inspired "scientific certainty" blabbing on the Curry blog or some other bona fide science site and see how fast you get laughed out of the room.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Uh, pardon - why would you link to #236? That's just you leading off with an unsupported accusation, and then launching into some of your favourite assumptions.


If you wanted to illustrate ME putting words in other peoples' mouths, maybe you should actually link to those?

Because I already have . . . many, many times. And yet you keep doing it, which is why I think it's deliberate in order to stifle discussion. Can't your assertions stand on their own without distorting the issues? And then you just use the same critiques that have been leveled against you in response. Can't come up with anything original?

What accusations of mine are unsupported? What assumptions am I making that are unfounded? What exactly are you so afraid of that you can't respond honestly & intelligently, and on the merits? Or more specifically, what so threatens you about opinions which don't simply repeat the prevailing AGW doctrine? What part of the many facets of dissent makes you so angry?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Go try out your partisan-inspired "scientific certainty" blabbing on the Curry blog or some other bona fide science site and see how fast you get laughed out of the room.

Why don't you all move over there? Why CF for this useless and aggravating bunfight? Other than as a trolling pond for Kenomac, that is?


But I abide by the choices made by the CF moderators. If they ok these threads... here we are.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Why CF for this useless and aggravating bunfight?

You're the only one who seems to be making it useless & aggravating. Well, I suppose I am too by even responding to your nonsense. I think most people here have sincerely held views and would like to learn more, including those from the other side. I for one have no problem with people with different views, only people who are intolerant & abusive towards other peoples' views. Civil discussion & debate is how we all become better educated.

[noelex 77]

This thread has little to do with cruising and has now degenerated into personal abuse so the thread is closed.