PhillipS Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 I told you that you couldn't believe in the solutions to AGW that are being promoted by world governments. Please stop this, and reread our posts. Let me make sure I understand your position. So if science determines to a 99% confidence level that our present Business As Usual (BAU) is going to cause major catastrophies for the next generation, you would oppose government efforts to avert those catastrophies? Remember, BAU, i.e. the free market, is in large part the source of the impending crisis so the fact that it hasn't changed is strong evidence that it won't change. At least not in time to avert the crisis. Would your answer be the same if the impending crisis was a newly discovered asteroid that is going to impact Earth in the future? Would you oppose efforts by world governments, and instead rely on the free market to avert the asteroid strike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Please help us understand your point. Dr. Giaever's expertise is in the fields of Superconductivity, Tunneling, Immunology, Tissue Culture, and Manipulating Single Molecules. How does any of that translate into expertise in climatology? Dr Giaever is certainly entitled to his opinions, and resigning from the APS because he disagrees with the organization's position on climate change is without doubt his right. But if you are saying that we should adopt his opinion because he won the Nobel Prize, then you are making the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. Did it not occur to you that the APS adopted its position because the majority of its members, which includes a number of Nobel Prize winners, agreed that global warming is incontrovertible? Would you like to settle the climate change 'debate' by adding up the number of Nobel Prize winners on each side? I'm confident I know how that count would turn out. My point is that it was posted that in essence, only anti-science blogs are against AGW. I merely pointed out that a Nobel laureate also disagrees with the AGW doctrine. For that, he's been blasted as ONLY a mechanical engineer (who obviously has no business with an opinion on climate) or a possible malcontent. Again, this is typical of the AGW crowd. Rather than admit that a very smart man has an opinion, you instead try to tear the man apart at the seams so that no one can have an opposing view. In the 70's we called that a CULT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Let me make sure I understand your position. So if science determines to a 99% confidence level that our present Business As Usual (BAU) is going to cause major catastrophies for the next generation, you would oppose government efforts to avert those catastrophies? Remember, BAU, i.e. the free market, is in large part the source of the impending crisis so the fact that it hasn't changed is strong evidence that it won't change. At least not in time to avert the crisis. Would your answer be the same if the impending crisis was a newly discovered asteroid that is going to impact Earth in the future? Would you oppose efforts by world governments, and instead rely on the free market to avert the asteroid strike? Phillip, this has nothing to do with the implications of Global Warming. Please reread my original post, which was an economic one, on the causes for the public losing interest in AGW. Instead of arguing it didn't exist, I was ACTUALLY pretending it DID exist. Now I was asking for how we can make a convincing message to the PUBLIC at large about Global warming. We haven't been getting any lately, based on the polling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 what fear and doomsday comments do I make? Here you go bud I think I derive some twisted satisfaction watching people have there ideology, doctrine, and self worth on the line with there beliefs here. And since AGW is real and the ice is going to melt out. It's like watching the train wrecks of all trains wrecks in real time. Don't tell me the lag is still happening. Climates have already begun to change everywhere. It's a shame. The ice is almost gone. How sad. Those poor folks put there neck out there in hopes of helping mankind getting the word out and they have been destroyed by it. But here we sit with 4000km3 of ice left. I gotta be honest I am pretty shocked myslef at how fast this has happened. But I was also fed some misinformation and told on this forum about the arctic when I got here. And if they were not lies they were old outfdated philosphies on the arctic that applied to a different age with a different system. Now I just hope when bleep hits the fan my family and fellow man can find there way out with minimum damage and loss of human life, all life that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 The theory of AGW has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore or Pachauri. Talk about an empty response. Strongbad brings to the table a cogent point, which you attempt to deflect rather than answer. On one hand we are told not to pay attention to a nobel laureate, and on the other hand we are asked to ignore the fact that Pachauri and Gore are of much lesser ilk than a nobel laureate. Is that your position Mr Free Marker Capitalist (LOL) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 partly because there is very little reporting available from news outlets, partly because Americans have adopted a new anti-science/anti-intellectual ethos, partly because most Americans have very little understanding of the basics of science and the scientific method, and partly because most scientists have poor communication skills, leading to a perfect storm of ignorance. I work in scientific publishing and am well aware of this disconnect. Have you seen polls that also show a decrease in believers amongst the Aussies, Brits, and Canadians? I believe they have also lost believers since 2000...Are they also adopting an "anti-science" ethos? Also, by name-calling, how do you plan on winning back the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 what does public polling have to do with hard science? believing something doesn't make it so. who said it does? But public mood has a part to play in public policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Once again skier, here it is for you and it is a Post after the one you are quoting me on. Now, let's have you answer this. Yes exactly. It is one post later. The post previous you accused me of not being a capitalist. You told me specifically to stop describing myself as a capitalist. You have backtracked. Now to answer your question. As a capitalist who believes in the value of the free-market, but also as somebody who understands the facts of AGW, it is easy for me to see the tension between the need to prevent AGW and the desire to preserve the freedom of the market and our current standard of living. It is not an easy issue. It requires an extensive cost benefit analysis. Now just because I believe in the free market doesn't mean I don't think there are exceptions. ALL free-market thinkers, except anarchists, acknowledge a wide array of exceptions known as 'externalities.' For example, the government bans mercuy dumping even though the free-market says it would be much cheaper. Obviously whatever solution is arrived at should preserve the free market as much as possible and our standard of living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Talk about an empty response. Strongbad brings to the table a cogent point, which you attempt to deflect rather than answer. On one hand we are told not to pay attention to a nobel laureate, and on the other hand we are asked to ignore the fact that Pachauri and Gore are of much lesser ilk than a nobel laureate. Is that your position Mr Free Marker Capitalist (LOL) Couldn't have said it better myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You don't think so? How many tons of materials have humans dug out of the Earth? Do we have enough zeros to put a number on it? How many have we dug out 100,000k years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Talk about an empty response. Strongbad brings to the table a cogent point, which you attempt to deflect rather than answer. On one hand we are told not to pay attention to a nobel laureate, and on the other hand we are asked to ignore the fact that Pachauri and Gore are of much lesser ilk than a nobel laureate. Is that your position Mr Free Marker Capitalist (LOL) Except AGW theory is not based on anything to do with Gore or Pachauri. Neither are climate scientists. Couldn't have said it better myself! It is dissapointing to see you stooping to such low levels. I think you are much smarter than S&W and if you would take a more critical thoughtful approach you would see the very shallow logic for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 What? <sigh> you say higher SST's are caused by CO2/AGW, and is the cause for the melting of the ice. I say those SST's are caused by decadel cycles such as the AMO and PDO and have nothing to do with CO2 or AGW.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 My point is that it was posted that in essence, only anti-science blogs are against AGW. I merely pointed out that a Nobel laureate also disagrees with the AGW doctrine. For that, he's been blasted as ONLY a mechanical engineer (who obviously has no business with an opinion on climate) or a possible malcontent. Again, this is typical of the AGW crowd. Rather than admit that a very smart man has an opinion, you instead try to tear the man apart at the seams so that no one can have an opposing view. In the 70's we called that a CULT. Show me where I tried to tear Dr Giaever down. I've said that he is entitled to his opinion - but given that his expertise is not in climatology his opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight. Al Gore has a Nobel Prize, too. How much weight do you give his opinion? There is nothing cultish about encouraging everybody to think for themselves on the issue of climate change. And to emphasize facts over opinions. If anything the cults are the denialsit sites that don't allow dissenting comments to be posted. Watts has a long history of banning commenters who insist on pointing out his mistakes. And Dr Pielke Sr keeps the comments turned off on his blog so it's not blemished by any AGW heresy. There's your cult behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 As a capitalist who believes in the value of the free-market, but also as somebody who understands the facts of AGW, it is easy for me to see the tension between the need to prevent AGW and the desire to preserve the freedom of the market and our current standard of living. It is not an easy issue. It requires an extensive cost benefit analysis. Now just because I believe in the free market doesn't mean I don't think there are exceptions. ALL free-market thinkers, except anarchists, acknowledge a wide array of exceptions known as 'externalities.' Obviously whatever solution is arrived at should preserve the free market as much as possible and our standard of living. Quite the conundrum, eh? I don't know if free marketers can make "exceptions" for the free market solutions. But that is a discussion for another thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 You don't think so? How many tons of materials have humans dug out of the Earth? Do we have enough zeros to put a number on it? How many have we dug out 100,000k years ago? How were we living like 100k years ago? Life expectancy back then? How about today? Quality of life today? Life expectancy of today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Except AGW theory is not based on anything to do with Gore or Pachauri. It is dissapointing to see you stooping to such low levels. I think you are much smarter than S&W and if you would take a more critical thoughtful approach you would see the very shallow logic for what it is. Once again, why with personal attacks? What levels have I stooped to? You did not understand the context of my agreeing with him. I have not insulted you once, not even when I said you aren't a capitalist (although that can be debated) As for my support, I was simply in agreement with him over something you are misunderstanding. I brought up Gore and Pachauri as men who can not be believed for what they hype due to their credentials, and only brought this up after someone else tried to discredit a skeptic for being a Mechanical Engineer. It had nothing to do w/ AGW, you are correct. But you still did not understand the context. Ad Hominems are not going to get you anywhere. Why do you use them w/ me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Except AGW theory is not based on anything to do with Gore or Pachauri. Neither are climate scientists. It is dissapointing to see you stooping to such low levels. I think you are much smarter than S&W and if you would take a more critical thoughtful approach you would see the very shallow logic for what it is. He certainly is. He's brought you to heel much faster than I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Quite the conundrum, eh? I don't know if free marketers can make "exceptions" for the free market solutions. But that is a discussion for another thread... So you would say somebody that favors no government regulation except a prohibition on the dumping of mercury is not a free-marketer? The free market says dumping mercury is cheaper and better than properly disposing of it, which is why that is what the free market did until the government banned it. ALL free-market thinkers acknowledge such exceptions (Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, Hayek, etc) . Except anarchists. What you seem to be describing seems to be more along the lines of anarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 He certainly is. He's brought you to heel much faster than I could. Haha, you and me, S&W By the way, Hilton Head is a beautiful place. Hope it isn't swallowed up by the rising seas soon, as I'd love to visit it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 <sigh> you say higher SST's are caused by CO2/AGW, and is the cause for the melting of the ice. I say those SST's are caused by decadel cycles such as the AMO and PDO and have nothing to do with CO2 or AGW.. How do these effect the Arctic ocean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Show me where I tried to tear Dr Giaever down. I've said that he is entitled to his opinion - but given that his expertise is not in climatology his opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight. Al Gore has a Nobel Prize, too. How much weight do you give his opinion? There is nothing cultish about encouraging everybody to think for themselves on the issue of climate change. And to emphasize facts over opinions. If anything the cults are the denialsit sites that don't allow dissenting comments to be posted. Watts has a long history of banning commenters who insist on pointing out his mistakes. And Dr Pielke Sr keeps the comments turned off on his blog so it's not blemished by any AGW heresy. There's your cult behavior. So, Real Climate and Skeptical Science are denialist sites now?? WOW. As far as I know, WUWT and CA allow, and even promote, dissenting views. Care to try again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 science doesn't exist in geographical vacuums, and Rupert Murdoch owns a worldwide media empire. where did I name call? what is your deal? I believe you used the terms "anti-science" and "anti-intellectual". While you may in fact believe these to be truths, they are nothing more than slander and they are certainly terms beneath a person seeking for answers by using science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 How were we living like 100k years ago? Life expectancy back then? How about today? Quality of life today? Life expectancy of today? what does that have to do with the impact of digging up elements that otherwise would not have been dug up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 So, Real Climate and Skeptical Science are denialist sites now?? WOW. As far as I know, WUWT and CA allow, and even promote, dissenting views. Care to try again? I know for a fact that ClimateRealists goes out of its way to show opposing points of view. I have not seen the same from Real Climate or Skeptical Science, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 science doesn't exist in geographical vacuums, and Rupert Murdoch owns a worldwide media empire. where did I name call? what is your deal? Strongbad, Sunny and warm, and Gracetoyou have no profile info filled out except for cities. They all argue the exact same way, same points, same style, same lengths, and have conveniently universally agreed with each other. There is your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Haha, you and me, S&W By the way, Hilton Head is a beautiful place. Hope it isn't swallowed up by the rising seas soon, as I'd love to visit it again. Don't tell anyone, but I bought both properties down here about six feet in elevation from the ocean. So even though I fight AGW on here, I'm actually hedging that Al Gore and James Hansen are right, and that I will own ocean front property in 2015, er 2025, er 2032, er you get the point. How wrong can they be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Strongbad, Sunny and warm, and Gracetoyou have no profile info filled out except for cities. They all argue the exact same way, same points, same style, same lengths, and have conveniently universally agreed with each other. There is your answer. yes, we are sock puppets and bots as I recall earlier in the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Strongbad, Sunny and warm, and Gracetoyou have no profile info filled out except for cities. They all argue the exact same way, same points, same style, same lengths, and have conveniently universally agreed with each other. There is your answer. Wow, Friv. You really have gone off the deep end if you are trying to infer we are bots/same person/cyborgs/time travellers/dinosaurs/carnies, or whatever... Why not track our IP addresses? Better yet, ask a Moderator to. Either way, just wow. You are losing your grasp on reality ever since the Arctic reached its Minimum. Must be hard for you not to see negative numers any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted September 20, 2011 Share Posted September 20, 2011 Strongbad, Sunny and warm, and Gracetoyou have no profile info filled out except for cities. They all argue the exact same way, same points, same style, same lengths, and have conveniently universally agreed with each other. There is your answer. They are all bots from a flash drive.... or Exxon employees.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted September 20, 2011 Author Share Posted September 20, 2011 Wow, Friv. You really have gone off the deep end if you are trying to infer we are the same person? Why not track our IP addresses? Better yet, ask a Moderator to. Either way, just wow. You are losing your grasp on reality ever since the Arctic reached its Minimum. Must be hard for you not to see negative numers any more. don't worry, he's switching to anomolies in 3.. 2..1.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.