Climate Change, real or codswallop?
Comments
-
[WMC tangent mode]Codswallop is a great word isn't it?[WMC tangent mode]“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
I'm never sure of the derivation is from Cods Wallop or Cod Swallop. Always wondered what Swallop would mean if it was a real word.0
-
Personally I think climate change is due to a decline in Pirates (the yo ho ho, aaarrrrrr Jim lad kind, not the nasty Somalian ones). If you plot the two on a graph you can instantly see that as global temperatures have increased since the 1800's, pirate numbers have decreased. By extrapolation there may be a direct link between the two.
By way of proof In 2008 the pirate activities in the Gulf of Aden grew massively, oddly Somalia has "the highest number of Pirates AND the lowest Carbon emissions of any country. Coincidence, I think not
pain is temporary, the glory of beating your mates to the top of the hill lasts forever.....................
Revised FCN - 20 -
I blame the smoking ban in pubs.
Think about, millions of people outside, smoking..... not only does the heat get out, but in a lot of beer gardens they not have patio heaters. I mean you know it is wrong when you are heating up the outdoors."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Shiver me timbers he's right!
0 -
Must admit, it says a lot that when faced with a bit of resistance, the hair-shirt wearing doomsaying GW Cardinals/zealots/evangelists all flee for the hills like a gigantic flock of chickens, clucking and spilling feathers all the way.
Ah well, never mind. It was fun while it lasted.
0 -
Greg66 wrote:Must admit, it says a lot that when faced with a bit of resistance, the hair-shirt wearing doomsaying GW Cardinals/zealots/evangelists all flee for the hills like a gigantic flock of chickens, clucking and spilling feathers all the way.
Ah well, never mind. It was fun while it lasted.
Didn't run to the hills - just gave in to the inevitable - that the more mindless deniers were going to wreck the thread anyway by setting up pointless side arguments and using insulting terms such as zealot, evangelist, and bringing up green stereotypes (tree-hugger, sandal wearing, hair-shirt, etc.)
It's the deniers who have swallowed a line hook and sinker with absolutely no evidence. And its the deniers who keep bringing up already refuted arguments, bizarre conspiracy theories, referencing disreputable snake oil salesmen and corporate propaganda, and constantly accusing their more scientific adversaries of being exactly what they are.
If anything is evangelistic its the behaviour of the self appointed "sceptics" and their sheep like followers all latching on to anything that means they do not have to change their wasteful lifestyles. The climate denying evangelists then inundate us with their fake data, non-arguments and seem to equate their personal delusions for a scientific theory.
I'm waiting to see how the material in this post gets cherry picked to be used for the next attack.
Go on Gregg66 - accuse me of censorship again, or maybe one of your good climate change denying mates can come back on and call me a gobsh1te over and over. That'll be helpful.
Merry xmas!0 -
Always Tyred wrote:How can people not understand why global action (by way of international high level squabbles) is necessary, rather than simply the sum of independent, incoherent and inconsistent national-level action?
Let me ask you this - imagine hypothetically that the US, India, China, Canada, Australia and Indonesia all spew out massess of CO2 and are getting wealthier.
The UK prime minister, or even the Eurocrats, raise taxes, cause industry to relocate (what there is of it) and spends vast quantities of money reducing the UK's CO2 emissions. It does no good because of the above, and makes us all poor.
Would you say (a) well done chap, you did the right thing and even though East Anglia no longer exists, we are all on the moral high ground or (b) what on earth were you thinking, there was no point in doing this without international consensus, we are all poor and doomed.
But doesn't this assume that international squabbles are independent (in the sense of being objective), coherent and consistent, which, given that politicians (and particularly our govt) fight for their political lives?
I agree that there needs to be an international consensus of some sort, but it's all about "you go first, no you go first". Ultimately, one country has to take a sort of leap of faith and take action regardless of what the other countries are doing. Take the UK for example, if they want begin the process of preventing East Anglia from disappearing, they have to take those steps regardless of what other countries are doing - people in China aren't going to give a hoot whether Cromer disappears. If one country leads, others might follow. I'm not saying they will, but someone's got to have a go, and that doesn't necessarily involve making the country less competitive in the commercial world.
Also, population control must surely be a feasible option? Control population, you control demand on the world's resources. I heard recently that if China hadn't imposed population control in the 1970s, China's population would now be 250m higher i.e. the population of the US.
Certainly, migration needs to be controlled in, but that's another debate...FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Always Tyred wrote:cjcp wrote:UndercoverElephant wrote:Slightly dubious as I am about CO2 being the be-all and (particularly the) end-all with global warming, I do believe it's a useful, albiet blunt instrument to get people to use less fossil fuels. "We'll run out someday", just doesn't work worldwide.
Actually, following on my point 1 above, and UE's point, I don't see how putting plants in the pub keeps the temp down if more and more people enter the room. I know that sounds flippant, but I was no scientist at school and een less of one now, so if someone could explain the CO2 point, or how I've misunderstood it, that would also be good.
Plants keep the surroundings cold due to surface respiration. Evaporation, basically. Same effect as descending a long hill when sweaty. (Did you like how I worked a cycling analogy in there?)
CO2 absorbs electromagnetic (light) radiation from the sun. Energy that is diffracted or reflected back out of the atmosphere in the absence of CO2 is absorbed, stored and transmitted back into the atmosphere by "greenhouse gasses" as heat. i.e. a molecule absorbs light energy, becomes excited and moves around a bit faster, which means it hotter.
Its really very similar to the selective absorption of microwaves by water molecules. For example, the water molecules in the bit of your brain near the ear you hold your mobile phone up to.
:shock: My head hurts. Ta.
FCN 2-4.
"What happens when the hammer goes down, kids?"
"It stays down, Daddy."
"Exactly."0 -
Porgy wrote:Go on Gregg66 - accuse me of censorship again, or maybe one of your good climate change denying mates can come back on and call me a gobsh1te over and over. That'll be helpful.
An even better word than codswallop “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
-
Greg66 wrote:Must admit, it says a lot that when faced with a bit of resistance, the hair-shirt wearing doomsaying GW Cardinals/zealots/evangelists all flee for the hills like a gigantic flock of chickens, clucking and spilling feathers all the way.
Ah well, never mind. It was fun while it lasted.
I think we've just got a bit bored of you Greg. I've put some clear responses to you points which you selectively ignored.
After that we're really left with slagging people off and the spelling corrections which dont really take the discussion much further.
It's pretty clear neither of us is going to change our minds about this, I for one am happy to leave it at that.0 -
Porgy wrote:Greg66 wrote:Must admit, it says a lot that when faced with a bit of resistance, the hair-shirt wearing doomsaying GW Cardinals/zealots/evangelists all flee for the hills like a gigantic flock of chickens, clucking and spilling feathers all the way.
Ah well, never mind. It was fun while it lasted.
Didn't run to the hills - just gave in to the inevitable - that the more mindless deniers were going to wreck the thread anyway by setting up pointless side arguments and using insulting terms such as zealot, evangelist, and bringing up green stereotypes (tree-hugger, sandal wearing, hair-shirt, etc.)
It's the deniers who have swallowed a line hook and sinker with absolutely no evidence. And its the deniers who keep bringing up already refuted arguments, bizarre conspiracy theories, referencing disreputable snake oil salesmen and corporate propaganda, and constantly accusing their more scientific adversaries of being exactly what they are.
If anything is evangelistic its the behaviour of the self appointed "sceptics" and their sheep like followers all latching on to anything that means they do not have to change their wasteful lifestyles. The climate denying evangelists then inundate us with their fake data, non-arguments and seem to equate their personal delusions for a scientific theory.
I'm waiting to see how the material in this post gets cherry picked to be used for the next attack.
Go on Gregg66 - accuse me of censorship again, or maybe one of your good climate change denying mates can come back on and call me a gobsh1te over and over. That'll be helpful.
Merry xmas!
Once again you have just repeated the same old diatribe, some of which is debatable and some simply untrue. The use of the term "denier" is inflammatory and as someone who has argued his case cogently, I am disappointed that you chose to lower yourself to this level. Ultimately, the use of such insults is unlikely to win over as many neutrals.
The tactic of simply dismissing any counter - argument as wrong, and implying that those people are in some way inferior, either intellectually or morally, is again a cheap shot. You know very well that there are plenty of highly qualified scientists prepared to argue against your perspective and call for a proper debate. A number of reasonable points have been made by various posters and as always seems to be the case, these have been dismissed as bogus without any substantive explanation.
This tactic has been used by the US Environmental Protection Agency, who have even ignored their own internal report that there is no evidence of significant global warming and and will doubtless attempt a cover up, as they attempt by bypass the democratic process by stating that GHGs are a danger to mankind. It has also been used by Prof Michael Mann who, after three years ignoring the FOI laws, eventually has to be summoned before congress and forced to make his "hockey stick" data available. His argument was that the data would not be used for scientific purposes. Similarly, we know that the CRU arranged to have incriminating evidence deleted so that they would not have to comply with FOI laws. We know that the leading providers of IPCC data became increasingly frustrated that they could not find any evidence of recent global warming "and its a travesty we can't". We know that a leading CRU scientist stated that he'd like to "beat to crap" of Prof Pat Michaels, and that furthermore they spent a lot of time attempting to have his PHD rescinded. We know that Edward Cook, of the Tree-Ring Laboratory / INQUA wrote to Keith Briffa and stated that " without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know fcuk-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know fcuk-all).
Is it unreasonable therefore that there should be some doubt in peoples minds? Dogma is not the same as science.
As has already been said here, the onus is on those who wish to make changes to explain why they are needed - backed up by scientific research. It is very simple - if you wish to impose carbon taxes, you need to explain how adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes additional warming. If you can't do this, the we should be clear that we are proposing to divert money away from other things such as finding a cure for cancer or feeding Somalian babies for no good reason.
People who argue that AGW is not a problem don't need to prove anything. Why is this such a difficult concept for warmists to grasp?Bike1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3258551288/
Bike 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N ... otostream/
New Bike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3479300346/0 -
Christophe3967 wrote:
The use of the term "denier" is inflammatory and as someone who has argued his case cogently, I am disappointed that you chose to lower yourself to this level.
Excuse me - but who lowered himself? It was Greg66 who lowered himself to the level of "denier" which is why i used the word - advisedly and very much on purpose. A wrod I did stop using becasue i wanted to foster an atmosphere of healthy debate - but that was on a different thread. On this thread I have been called a zealot and a evangelist, and so far Gregg66 has done nothing to contribute to a scientific and rational debate - only name calling and setting up phoney side issue arguments and personally attcking people. I haven't read your post past here as I have somehting else I should be doing right now but I will be back, maybe not until tomorrow though.0 -
Porgy wrote:Excuse me - but who lowered himself? It was Greg66 who lowered himself to the level of "denier" which is why i used the word - advisedly and very much on purpose. A wrod I did stop using becasue i wanted to foster an atmosphere of healthy debate - but that was on a different thread. On this thread I have been called a zealot and a evangelist, and so far Gregg66 has done nothing to contribute to a scientific and rational debate - only name calling and setting up phoney side issue arguments and personally attcking people. I haven't read your post past here as I have somehting else I should be doing right now but I will be back, maybe not until tomorrow though.
First off, to be a "denier" (which I believe to be a grade of ladies hosiery), one has to be confronted with a truth. Bzzzt. Fail. We're confronted with lots of opinion, and where there are facts, they're so deeply buried in the opinion and accompanying noise that they're pretty much impossible to identify.
Second, if you don't like being stereotyped, too bad.
Third, personal attacks - re-read the thread and find one by me. If you're counting stereotypical labels as personal attacks, your skin is too thin for this.
Fourth, "phoney side arguments": is that how you characterise anything that isn't biddable submission to the cause?
What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.
Us deniers, OTOH, do have the luxury of saying "lalalala we can't hear you"; or "not satisfied; more please"; or even "maybe, but I don't care. My behaviour stays the same".
This is more than rational debate. You're trying to convert people's minds to a way of thinking and a way of life. You want people to spend their money in the ways you want them to. You need to up your game considerably to pull that off. Especially if you can't use force or prey on ignorance, as the Church has done in the past. And here's a tip: referring to those who refuse to agree with you as "lower" ain't gonna win you no arguments either.0 -
just accidentally deleted my reply to you, bugger.
I'm not sure I have your enthusiasm for writing long posts at this time time of night.
Will give you a full answer at some point tomorrow though - not sure you deserve an answer tbh you intellectual colossus. Wish I was one of them. :roll:0 -
-
DonDaddyD wrote:Prompted by LiT
Do you believe in climate change, global warming etc?
Do you think its a plausible theory but only theory waiting to be disproved?
Do you simply think its yet another means of scaremongering?
Do you cycle because you fear climate change and want to do your bit?
With everybody's favorite, a Poll.
Discuss.
Probably a yes to all of the above.
It is real, it is contributed to by man, it is scaremongering in an attempt to generate money, I do fear it and want to contribute to cutting down on pollution.
I don't think it will make any difference :xNone of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
Greg66 wrote:What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.
You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. If you're going to ignore the consensus by people who have devoted their lives to the subject then you've made your (stupid ) mind up already. 0 -
Slimbods wrote:You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. If you're going to ignore the consensus by people who have devoted their lives to the subject then you've made your (stupid ) mind up already.
Be careful.
When people devote their lives to things, or even worse get in groups of people who
devote their lives to things, they tend to find the answers they're looking for.
Doesn't mean they're wrong, but I urge people to look at the data (not opinions) to make
their own conclusion.
It's not as certain as everyone is making out.
Also, I keep seeing 95% of scientists are in agreement, but can't find the study this has
come from. I've found many with a much lower number.
0 -
Here's what a few of the scientists are saying;While Wegman's advice -- to use trained statisticians in studies reliant on statistics -- may seem too obvious to need stating, the "science is settled" camp resists it. Mann's hockey-stick graph may be wrong, many experts now acknowledge, but they assert that he nevertheless came to the right conclusion.
To which Wegman, and doubtless others who want more rigourous science, shake their heads in disbelief. As Wegman summed it up to the energy and commerce committee in later testimony: "I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn't matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science." With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.
Note;
Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.
And
Most scientists who are labelled as "deniers" for their views on global warming don't embrace this role. They cringe at the thought of disagreeing with colleagues who think that the science is settled, they do their best to avoid making waves, and they fear being marginalized as cranks who disagree with the scientific consensus. Dr. Richard Lindzen is an exception.
His detractors can't dismiss him as a crank from the fringe, however, much as they might wish. Dr. Lindzen is a critic from within, one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in a landmark report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
As an example, Dr. Lindzen provided the committee with the summary that was created for Chapter 7, which he worked on. "Understanding of climate processes and their incorporation in climate models have improved, including water vapour, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean heat transport," the summary stated, creating the impression that the climate models were reliable. The actual report by the scientists indicated just the opposite. Dr. Lindzen testified that the scientists had "found numerous problems with model treatments -- including those of clouds and water vapor."
The 11 members of the panel, which included Richard Lindzen, concluded that the science is far from settled: "Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)."
Lindzen wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy (funding for climate research). Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."0 -
Greg66 wrote:First off, to be a "denier" (which I believe to be a grade of ladies hosiery), one has to be confronted with a truth. Bzzzt. Fail. We're confronted with lots of opinion, and where there are facts, they're so deeply buried in the opinion and accompanying noise that they're pretty much impossible to identify.
Second, if you don't like being stereotyped, too bad.
Third, personal attacks - re-read the thread and find one by me. If you're counting stereotypical labels as personal attacks, your skin is too thin for this.
Fourth, "phoney side arguments": is that how you characterise anything that isn't biddable submission to the cause?
What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.
Us deniers, OTOH, do have the luxury of saying "lalalala we can't hear you"; or "not satisfied; more please"; or even "maybe, but I don't care. My behaviour stays the same".
This is more than rational debate. You're trying to convert people's minds to a way of thinking and a way of life. You want people to spend their money in the ways you want them to. You need to up your game considerably to pull that off. Especially if you can't use force or prey on ignorance, as the Church has done in the past. And here's a tip: referring to those who refuse to agree with you as "lower" ain't gonna win you no arguments either.
Do you have some sort of rain man style obsession with dictionaries Greg? You just can't leave the spelling can you.
With a little time off from this thread it's pretty clear to me we have 2 sets of views equally firmly held, neither of which are going to change. This is of course fine, living in a free world as we do.
Can you not see the hipocrisy in your comments in bold above though Greg.
First, your responses to me and others are full of personal attacks, here's a couple of examples in response to me putting forward some pro-CC evidence:
"Wow. I'm really happy to know that not only are you super clever, you're super patronising too.
That's awesome. You're definitely my hero."
"Seriously, if this is the best you have, go back into the cave, get scared when the moon comes out, and shut up."
Second point, you criticise Porgy for shouting people down and dismissing any evidence from your side. Can you not see that this is exctly what you do in all your posts as well, just from a different standpoint??
Time to just agree to differ.0 -
Slimbods wrote:Greg66 wrote:What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.
You're not going to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. If you're going to ignore the consensus by people who have devoted their lives to the subject then you've made your (stupid ) mind up already.
OK, so Galileo, the father of modern science was a contrarian. He was tried by the Inquisition, found guilty of heresy, forced to recant his views, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. It only takes one scientist to disprove anything.
Global warming theory has now become a political orthodoxy. So entrenched is it that those showing any resistance to it may be ignored, ridiculed or occasionally intimidated. What we have here is an example of the "madness of crowds", a phenomenon which turns a widely shared prejudice into an irresistible “authority”.
A thet Kyoto summit in 1997 the IPCC appointed Fenton Communications, a PR firm, which advised “green NGOs and leaders”, including Maurice Strong and Al Gore on how to “mainstream the climate threat” and to “harness the public ‘tipping point’” on the issue. And indeed, the public have been totally tipped without, it seems, considering whether any of these organisations and individuals might have any vested interests or political axes to grind.
The IPCC reports, which were dull but widely used by governments as the basis for their policy discussions, have become steadily more dramatic and their claims increasingly hysterical. If you listen to proponents of climate-change theory, there is nothing that counts as evidence against it. Increased rainfall in the northern hemisphere is evidence of climate change, but so is decreased rainfall in the southern hemisphere. Melting of ice in the Arctic is evidence of global warming, but cooling of the Antarctic is not evidence against, but attributed to “other effects”. The language of fear has now become normal and doubters are dismiised as zombies and told they must fall into line with “the science”. But this is not science, this is propaganda. We are back to Galileo. Bike1
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3258551288/
Bike 2
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N ... otostream/
New Bike
http://www.flickr.com/photos/35118936@N07/3479300346/0 -
Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or who/what is responsible; why would you want to waste natural resources anyway?
Surely it makes sense to reduce waste, reduce reliance on depleting fossil fuels etc whichever way you want to go?
It's like people leaving lights on at home - why on earth would you want to waste your money?0 -
I've missed this place
Quote from Ben Goldacre - Bad Science column in the Guardian. He tends not to pretend to be an expert in the specific scientific fields but does know about data and how it is reported.So as we career towards a mediocre outcome in Copenhagen, why do roughly half the people in this country not believe in man-made climate change, when the overwhelming majority of scientists do?
Firstly we have the psychological issues. We're predisposed to undervalue adverse outcomes which are a long way off, especially if we might be old or dead soon. We're inherently predisposed to find cracks in evidence that suggests we should do something we don't want to do, hence the enduring appeal of stories about alcohol being good for you.
Suggesting that personal behaviour change will have a big role to play, when we know that telling people to do the right thing is a weak way to change behaviour, is an incomplete story: you need policy changes to make better behaviour easier, and we all understand that fresh fruit on sale at schools is more effective than telling children not to eat sweets.
This is exacerbated because climate science is difficult. We could discuss everything you needed to know about MMR and autism in an hour. Climate change will take two days of your life, for a relatively superficial understanding: if you're interested, I'd recommend the IPCC website.
On top of that, we don't trust governments on science, because we know they distort it. We see that a minister will sack Professor David Nutt, if the evidence on the relative harms of drugs is not to the government's taste. We see the government brandish laughable reports to justify DNA retention by the police with flawed figures, suspicious missing data, and bogus arguments.
We know that evidence-based policy is window dressing, so now, when they want us to believe them on climate science, we doubt.
Then, of course, the media privilege foolish contrarian views because they have novelty value, and also because "established" views get confused with "establishment" views, and anyone who comes along to have a pop at those gets David v Goliath swagger.
But the key to all of this is the recurring mischief of criticisms mounted against climate change. I am very happy to affirm that I am not a giant expert on climate change: I know a bit, and I know that there's not yet been a giant global conspiracy involving almost every scientist in the world (although I'd welcome examples).
More than all that, I can spot the same rhetorical themes re-emerging in climate change foolishness that you see in aids denialism, homeopathy, and anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists.
Among all these, reigning supreme, is the "zombie argument": arguments which survive to be raised again, for eternity, no matter how many times they are shot down. "Homeopathy worked for me," and the rest.
Zombie arguments survive, immortal and resistant to all refutation, because they do not live or die by the normal standards of mortal arguments. There's a huge list of them at realclimate.org, with refutations. There are huge lists of them everywhere. It makes no difference.
"CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas", "Global warming is down to the sun", "what about the cooling in the 1940s?" says your party bore. "Well," you reply, "since the last time you raised this, I checked, and there were loads of sulphites in the air in the 1940s to block out the sun, made from the slightly different kind of industrial pollution we had then, and the odd volcano, so that's been answered already, ages ago."
And they knew that. And you know they knew you could find out, but they went ahead anyway and wasted your time, and worse than that, you both know they're going to do it again, to some other poor sap. And that is rude.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Aguila wrote:Greg66 wrote:First off, to be a "denier" (which I believe to be a grade of ladies hosiery), one has to be confronted with a truth. Bzzzt. Fail. We're confronted with lots of opinion, and where there are facts, they're so deeply buried in the opinion and accompanying noise that they're pretty much impossible to identify.
Second, if you don't like being stereotyped, too bad.
Third, personal attacks - re-read the thread and find one by me. If you're counting stereotypical labels as personal attacks, your skin is too thin for this.
Fourth, "phoney side arguments": is that how you characterise anything that isn't biddable submission to the cause?
What the AGW proponents don't seem to get, or like, as Christophe3967 points out, is this: you have to to persuade people you're right because you want us to change our behaviour. You're not going to do that by (a) shouting "WE'RE RIGHT!"; (b) running around saying "we're all doomed!"; or (c) dismissing every objection as phoney.
Us deniers, OTOH, do have the luxury of saying "lalalala we can't hear you"; or "not satisfied; more please"; or even "maybe, but I don't care. My behaviour stays the same".
This is more than rational debate. You're trying to convert people's minds to a way of thinking and a way of life. You want people to spend their money in the ways you want them to. You need to up your game considerably to pull that off. Especially if you can't use force or prey on ignorance, as the Church has done in the past. And here's a tip: referring to those who refuse to agree with you as "lower" ain't gonna win you no arguments either.
Do you have some sort of rain man style obsession with dictionaries Greg? You just can't leave the spelling can you.
With a little time off from this thread it's pretty clear to me we have 2 sets of views equally firmly held, neither of which are going to change. This is of course fine, living in a free world as we do.
Can you not see the hipocrisy in your comments in bold above though Greg.
First, your responses to me and others are full of personal attacks, here's a couple of examples in response to me putting forward some pro-CC evidence:
"Wow. I'm really happy to know that not only are you super clever, you're super patronising too.
That's awesome. You're definitely my hero."
"Seriously, if this is the best you have, go back into the cave, get scared when the moon comes out, and shut up."
Second point, you criticise Porgy for shouting people down and dismissing any evidence from your side. Can you not see that this is exctly what you do in all your posts as well, just from a different standpoint??
Time to just agree to differ.
Ah. Back again. I thought you'd gone. Still smarting, eh?
Right: dictionaries. I am concerned with spelling and grammar, because to me, if a person can't be bothered to check their spelling or grammar, it undermines my confidence in them having checked their facts, or thought about the issue properly. You might think that's old fashioned, but there you are.
(BTW: Rain Man was good at sums, as I recall, not spelling
Second BTW: as I've explained before, what you advanced wasn't evidence. It was a collection of assertion and opinion. It's what gets generated after evidence has been considered. Distinguishing fact from evidence isn't always obvious. Example "You are 5'2"" is a fact. "You are short", OTOH, is an opinion. See the point?).
Secondly, "denier" is a spelling both of someone who denies, and a hosiery grade. It was a little J-O-K-E (see dictionary under "J").
Thirdly, yes, I've had a go at you, but read what you've quoted me as saying: in this thread. That's what Porgy was referring to. That's what I was referring to. Pedantic, you'll say. Careless, I say; see point 1 above.
Fourthly, your second point. Again - re-read what I wrote. It's not for me to convince anyone of anything. That's the task of those who want (for example) to dictate what cars people should buy.
Finally, I agree that we're not going to agree; IIRC I suggested some time ago we come back in 20 years and see who was right. Somehow, though, I suspect this isn't the last word.0 -
simple_salmon wrote:Regardless of whether you believe in climate change or who/what is responsible; why would you want to waste natural resources anyway?
Surely it makes sense to reduce waste, reduce reliance on depleting fossil fuels etc whichever way you want to go?
It's like people leaving lights on at home - why on earth would you want to waste your money?
Yes and no.
I am a bit OCD about switching off the lights in our house, and also shutting doors (incl cupboard doors - no green angle there), unlike some (THAT'S YOU MRS G66!). And I do so because I don't like waste. Ditto food that gets into the fridge then ends up in the bin unopened.
But I choose to have a fast car that can (if driven to "make progress") go through petrol as if Peak Oil were an urgent target. And I like to go on long haul holidays when short hauls would no doubt do the job of refreshment/fulfillment just as well.
I agree that good custodianship is a good thing. But I don't think it can be an immutable rule; that's not really human nature. And I'm not persuaded that it really crosses over into the CC debate (although I fully appreciate that the CC advocates like to deploy it as an argument), because it assumes that CC is man made at a macro level, which is the point that's rather up for grabs.0 -
The point I think I was trying to make is that by working towards goals that benefit us individually (lower costs) we can benefit the planet globally (less waste, emissions etc).
Of course you then brought into the discussion human nature (I wish to drive a wasteful car despite the costs) and of course I don't have a response to that other than to appeal to people's caring side versus their selfish side.
I guess I'm onto a loser though.
Back to that Utopia Spen accused me of living in... 0
