wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Sounds like the denial "witch hunter" has become the hunted! And how long have you been making up words waldo (denialsphere)? WWWTT that's the beauty of our language we can and do create new words there are no rules disallowing word creation...i prefer "denierworld" to "denialshpere"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Yep. In waldo world you can't have nuanced positions. You either completely support every policy that he wants or you are "denier". He is a modern leftist version of a fundamentalist christian. I wouldn't call him a modern leftist. I'm a left winger,but I am also a truth seeker. I can guarantee you,waldo is no truth seeker! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 c'mon, make your case... GostHacked could use your invaluable help! Of course, before you actually attempt to substantiate the value add of "tree planting" to mitigate global warming... you'll actually have to accept it's warming. Such a quandary for you, hey? Even if one accepts the world is warming, there is still much debate as to what is causing the warming. I don't believe that CO2 from human activity (specifically fossil fuels, but even us exhaling Co2 is part of the problem, and when talking CO2 it is lumped all together). And when dealing with the AGW crowd, you have to debate in their reference, and even then, people like me are still getting all the nice labels that go with it. So I really don't care what information you put forth, because I believe there is a whole agenda behind it. The way you 'debate' with people shows desperation on your part when trying to convince others of your stance. Also I did good with some carbon credit trades last week, made a small fortune off it. /sarcasm. But in the end, in my view AGW is a scam. Yes I am a denier, yes I make no apologies about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 that's the beauty of our language we can and do create new words there are no rules disallowing word creation...i prefer "denierworld" to "denialshpere"... Same here! But we do not criticize each other for doing so.There's nothing wrong with being creative. Good old waldo likes to bash those for not checking their grammar,therefore making him a hypocrite! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Same here! But we do not criticize each other for doing so.There's nothing wrong with being creative. the english language is has some stupid rules but at the same it's highly adaptive in adopting new terminology...I'll only make a point of correcting grammar or spelling if someone else does it first...spelling mistakes happen, typos, wrong word choice, esl people, just let it be imo... Good old waldo likes to bash those for not checking their grammar,therefore making him a hypocrite not sure that's true and I don't care to go back pages pages rereading posts to find out who started it, waldo, moonbox or maybe jgb...it's become a silly distraction I'd rather not get involved in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Even if one accepts the world is warming, there is still much debate as to what is causing the warming. No there is not. You can pretend that there is, but that does not change reality. The "debate" exists solely among those on the far fringe of scientific commnunity. I don't believe that CO2 from human activity (specifically fossil fuels, but even us exhaling Co2 is part of the problem, and when talking CO2 it is lumped all together). You have formed an opinion which is directly opposed to scientific knowledge despite not even understanding the very basics. In most other fields people doing something so completely arrogant would be rightly criticized for what they are. But when it comes to things like climate change, deniers feels that everyone's opinion no matter ridiculous has to considered equally. It doesn't. Human exhaled CO2 does not contribute to climate change. There is this thing called the carbon cycle. Plants take carbon out of atmosphere, convert it into sugars, humans or other animals eat those plants and convert those sugars back into CO2. There is no new CO2 entering the system. It is not like humans just created carbon atoms and released them into the atmosphere. That is wholely 100% different than taking huge amounts of carbon that has been excluded from the carbon cycle for 180 million years and dumping it into the system. Edited October 1, 2012 by Wayward Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 not sure that's true and I don't care to go back pages pages rereading posts to find out who started it, waldo, moonbox or maybe jgb...it's become a silly distraction I'd rather not get involved in... Then don't defend waldo. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 That is wholely 100% different than taking huge amounts of carbon that has been excluded from the carbon cycle for 180 million years and dumping it into the system. Yes I agree. However life on Earth is very eager to exploit opportunity! You are assuming that the total amount of CO2 being consumed for photosynthesis will never increase. Or that the consumption of CO2 can not increase. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'm a left winger,but I am also a truth seeker. I can guarantee you,waldo is no truth seeker! Lots of people claim to be truth seekers: Anti-vaxers, 9/11 truthers, Alex Jones and his followers, along with followers of Ayn Rand, religious folk and so one. The problem is how does one evaluate truth, and one thing that all these people have in common with climate change deniers, holocaust deniers and the like, is that they are extremely crappy at evaluating the truth, or the evidence, for their claims. I don't claim to be a truth seeker as I think that it is a completely ridiculous concept. I evaluate claims by first looking for fallacious or fraudulent arguments. Then I look at the evidence. If I am not an expert on a subject, and the subject falls within the domain of science, then I look to see if there is what could be considered a scientific consensus. If there is a high degree of agreement among legitimate experts and I feel that they are mistaken then I look at my position with a high degree of skepticism. I don't claim to ever have "the truth", but I can claim that a position of mine is a strong inference based on the best available evidence, and that it does not violate known laws or contradict observed facts. Not many "truth seekers" can make the same claim, including you on the subject in question. What is wrong with the so-called skeptics in this thread is that they are not using skepticism at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I wouldn't call him a modern leftist.Perhaps some more context: a subset of the population craves moral certainty and dislikes the messiness of reality. This is the subset that is attracted to fundamentalist religions but this presents a problem for someone who also a leftists since modern leftist largely reject traditional religion. For this group of people environmentalism has become a religion that provides the moral certainty they crave. They are the fundies of the left and are indistinguishable in any meaningful way from their counterparts in fundamentalist christian churches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) What is wrong with the so-called skeptics in this thread is that they are not using skepticism at all.Actually, the real problem is the complete lack of skepticism coming from people pushing the IPCC agenda. We are told over and over again that this agenda must be accepted without question and if you do not accept this agenda then we get called "deniers". There are also many different claims being made with different levels of evidence. Many people cannot comprehend this nuance and start labeling people "conspiracy theorist" whenever any single claim is called into question.If we could free this debate from the fanatics like waldo we could have a sensible discussion about the state of knowledge. i.e. what we know for sure and what is really unknown - and more importantly: what can we practically do about it anyways. Edited October 1, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Yes I agree. However life on Earth is very eager to exploit opportunity! You are assuming that the total amount of CO2 being consumed for photosynthesis will never increase. Or that the consumption of CO2 can not increase. WWWTT I don't assume that the total amount of CO2 being consumed by photosynthesis will never increase or decrease. I do assume that any increase or decrease is largely irrelevant as it is part of the carbon cycle. Lets say that plants tomorrow start consuming 25% more CO2. What does that mean for climate change? Basically nothing as the carbon remains in the carbon cycle. In simplistic termes those plants consume more in spring and summer and simply release it again in the fall. Yes, some of the plants could consume the carbon on a longer term basis by storing more carbon in the soil, or in the form of trees, but the numbers are not that large, and science has a pretty good understanding of it. Not a perfect understanding, but pretty damn good. There are not a whole lot of mechanisms in which CO2 is removed from the system, and they have been studied pretty extensively. We know for instance that there used to be a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere 180 million years ago, and CO2 was being removed from the atmosphere - carbon that became oil - as it was consumed by single-celled plankton that subsequently died and drifted to the bottom of the lakes and shallow ocean/sea beds where it was covered quickly by sediment. The conditions that favoured this process do not exist today. That does not mean that we can not engineer a similar process to do the same thing today, but the solutions (whether they are practical or not, available now or not) are irrelevant to the reality of the science. Edited October 1, 2012 by Wayward Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kairos Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I was just up watching the glacier disappear before my eyes in Juneau Alaska. It recedes now 600 feet a year. At the hostel people from all over the world are suffering severe climate warming. Alot of people working in Juneau came from the South, and can`t live anymore from the heat. The migrations are already in effect. People are being affected in India, in Europe, in Africa and all over the world. In fact the world GDP is now being cut massively by global warming. http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Climate+change+cuts+world/7323879/story.html Ironic, because our idiot prime minister says we cant do anything to prevent global warming, because it would hurt his precious profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) Actually, the real problem is the complete lack of skepticism coming from people pushing the IPCC agenda. We are told over and over again that this agenda must be accepted without question and if you do not accept this agenda then we get called "deniers". There are also many different claims being made with different levels of evidence. Many people cannot comprehend this nuance and start labeling people "conspiracy theorist" whenever any single claim is called into question. If we could free this debate from the fanatics like waldo we could have a sensible discussion about the state of knowledge. i.e. what we know for sure and what is really unknown - and more importantly: what can we practically do about it anyways. I disagree, and by the way you are one of the few people in this thread "on the other side" who I don't feel deserves the label. At least I think it was you who several pages ago urged people to stop denying known science - like CO2 being a ghg, and the real debate was over what should be done, if anything, about it. I have no real problem with such a position, as I am only concerned with the science, and not policy decisions that may or may not be made based on the science. When it comes to science and skepticism it is really simple. What does the science say, what are the facts, and to what degree of certainity do we know those. The degree of skepticism that should be used depends on the degree of evidence that supports a claim and the extraordinariness of the claim (Claiming that CO2 is a greenhouse gas does not require skepticism, as the claim has been amply demonstrated. Claiming that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas does require skepticism, and lots of it, for the same reasons). If I am in a lab somewhere and I come up with results that contradict scientific knowledge, my results could be correct, but I had better use a damn high degree of skepticim when looking at my own results and my own methods or else when I come forward with my claims I risk being shown to be a complete idiot who either used poor methods or standards, or did not understand the results etc. The wrong way to do it would have been to say to myself, I came up with results that contradict scientific knowledge, so I am going to be extremely skeptical of the established scientific knowledge. What we have here, when it comes to the science (again, I am not really interested in the policy claims one way or another, and just skim over them) is people bringing forth ideas they have dreamt up that go against the scientific consensus. They do not apply any skepticism to their own idea. They don't bring those ideas forward by saying, hey how come this doesn't work? What am I missing here?, but instead say the science is wrong because I spent 2 minutes on the can thinking about the issue and I have discovered something really simple that thousands of well trained scientists completely missed even though they have spent a decade training and do this for a living. Edited October 1, 2012 by Wayward Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 And how long have you been making up words waldo (denialsphere)? yes, clearly... when you can't actually argue/interpret the science, you revert to a standard denier tactic - personalization and/or marginalization. This example only goes to show just how much of a noob you are to any climate change discussion. 'Denialsphere' is a long-standing definition applied to denier confines... 'DenierTown', 'DenierWorld', 'Denialsphere'... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 waldo is not interested in a logical debate. logical debate? Is that what you call your blustering nonsense unsubstantiated opinion... "It's the Earth's inner core!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 He is a modern leftist version of a fundamentalist christian.Perhaps some more context: a subset of the population craves moral certainty and dislikes the messiness of reality. This is the subset that is attracted to fundamentalist religions but this presents a problem for someone who also a leftists since modern leftist largely reject traditional religion. For this group of people environmentalism has become a religion that provides the moral certainty they crave. They are the fundies of the left and are indistinguishable in any meaningful way from their counterparts in fundamentalist christian churches. ah yes, MarginalizationTimG! Hey, go with your strengths! Of course, your past MLW posts contain a very liberal dose of assigning others a "religious zealotry" labeling... others who continually kick your denier-self to the curbside. I do note I have been most negligent in distinguishing one of the items on your list... let me take the liberty to properly expand on your, 'ideological bias', talking point... to properly emphasize one of your regular themes: ... TimG, as has been repeatedly highlighted, your MLW posts, your stated positions are founded on, "themes of conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, religious zealotry , confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking, wealth transfer, world government, etc., etc., etc.". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I'm a left winger,but I am also a truth seeker. oh my! You're a truth seeker! You are the last thing from a genuine skeptic. You can't fathom the idea that many who are proponents of the theory of AGW have actually taken the time to act as real skeptics... in any case, you're getting way more attention than you're worth - way more attention than the value of anything you can bring of significance or bearing on the discussion (which, to date, has been bupkis, nada, zilch,...). as for your self-declared leftist position, I'd suggest you invest cycles (many cycles) in understanding what your regressive position on AGW/ACC does to that position - since you're such a proponent of the NDP, you might start by asking yourself how you can so out of touch with your party, hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 Actually, the real problem is the complete lack of skepticism coming from people pushing the IPCC agenda. We are told over and over again that this agenda must be accepted without question and if you do not accept this agenda then we get called "deniers". There are also many different claims being made with different levels of evidence. Many people cannot comprehend this nuance and start labeling people "conspiracy theorist" whenever any single claim is called into question.If we could free this debate from the fanatics like waldo we could have a sensible discussion about the state of knowledge. i.e. what we know for sure and what is really unknown - and more importantly: what can we practically do about it anyways. enter the concernTroll. As you have been challenged to do, many times over, step-up make your case for an alternate principal cause for global warming and related climate change... an alternate other than anthropogenic source CO2 related to the burning of fossil-fuels. Equally, if you're feeling particularly emboldened take another shot at climate sensitivity... you haven't provided a laugh over that in a while! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I disagree, and by the way you are one of the few people in this thread "on the other side" who I don't feel deserves the label. At least I think it was you who several pages ago urged people to stop denying known science - like CO2 being a ghg, and the real debate was over what should be done, if anything, about it. you're simply being suckered by the ever inconsistent TimG... it depends which day you catch him and what denier blog he's fresh from. As for the long-standing, ad nauseum, TimG position on, "what can be done", his ever present answer is... nothing... often couched in the, 'delay at all costs' ConcernTroll persona. TimG is the self-appointed MLW representative for BigOil, where he has regularly taken positions against any form/manner of mitigation/emission reduction. To TimG, the solution is to simply, "deal with it"; i.e., he favours adaption only - to the absolute exclusion of any form/manner of mitigation/prevention. Just deal with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayward Son Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 (edited) you're simply being suckered by the ever inconsistent TimG... it depends which day you catch him and what denier blog he's fresh from. As for the long-standing, ad nauseum, TimG position on, "what can be done", his ever present answer is... nothing... often couched in the, 'delay at all costs' ConcernTroll persona. TimG is the self-appointed MLW representative for BigOil, where he has regularly taken positions against any form/manner of mitigation/emission reduction. To TimG, the solution is to simply, "deal with it"; i.e., he favours adaption only - to the absolute exclusion of any form/manner of mitigation/prevention. Just deal with it! I may very well be suckered, which if true, would be my own fault, as I have not gone back to see what people actually post. I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt (which is easier when one has not been here very long). Still, at least in this thread, I do not recall Tim bringing forth the zombie arguments that arise here with striking regularity. By zombie arguments I mean arguments that seem to rise from the dead again year after year despite being even more nonsensical than they were when they were intially lowered into graves that are never deep enough for some people to leave them where they belong: In the grave of ideas that not only were not supported by evidence, but contradicted known evidence and facts. I generally don't interest myself in the policy side, although for those who do I can understand it being just as frustrating to deal with what seems to be the one area where doing absolutely nothing in favor of future technology (with out even putting policies in place to encourage research and development into those future technologies) seems to be in vogue by the same people who often first denied climate change was happening at all, then admitted that while it may be happening, humans are not the cause, and then finally adopted the position that either we cant' do anything, or that there is no sense doing anything right now anyways. I understand the frustration, and those pushing for policy adoption and emissions cuts right now may be correct. The problem for me is that it is not something that falls within my fields of knowledge, and unlike the many people on here who I see make bold statements about why climate change is wrong, despite knowing almost nothing about the topic, I choose to not make claims about things outside my areas of knowledge. Edited October 1, 2012 by Wayward Son Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I may very well be suckered, which if true, would be my own fault, as I have not gone back to see what people actually post. I generally like to give people the benefit of the doubt (which is easier when one has not been here very long). Still, at least in this thread, I do not recall Tim bringing forth the zombie arguments that arise here with striking regularity. By zombie arguments I mean arguments that seem to rise from the dead again year after year despite being even more nonsensical than they were when they were intially lowered into graves that are never deep enough for some people to leave them where they belong: In the grave of ideas that not only were not supported by evidence, but contradicted known evidence and facts. I generally don't interest myself in the policy side, although for those who do I can understand it being just as frustrating to deal with what seems to be the one area where doing absolutely nothing in favor of future technology (with out even putting policies in place to encourage research and development into those future technologies) seems to be in vogue by the same people who often first denied climate change was happening at all, then admitted that while it may be happening, humans are not the cause, and then finally adopted the position that either we cant' do anything, or that there is no sense doing anything right now anyways. I understand the frustration, and those pushing for policy adoption and emissions cuts right now may be correct. The problem for me is that it is not something that falls within my fields of knowledge, and unlike the many people on here who I see make bold statements about why climate change is wrong, despite knowing almost nothing about the topic, I choose to not make claims about things outside my areas of knowledge. with sensible logic like that you're going going to give the forum a bad internet reputation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 I don't assume that the total amount of CO2 being consumed by photosynthesis will never increase or decrease. I do assume that any increase or decrease is largely irrelevant as it is part of the carbon cycle. Lets say that plants tomorrow start consuming 25% more CO2. What does that mean for climate change? Basically nothing as the carbon remains in the carbon cycle. In simplistic termes those plants consume more in spring and summer and simply release it again in the fall. Yes, some of the plants could consume the carbon on a longer term basis by storing more carbon in the soil, or in the form of trees, but the numbers are not that large, and science has a pretty good understanding of it. Not a perfect understanding, but pretty damn good. There are not a whole lot of mechanisms in which CO2 is removed from the system, and they have been studied pretty extensively. We know for instance that there used to be a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere 180 million years ago, and CO2 was being removed from the atmosphere - carbon that became oil - as it was consumed by single-celled plankton that subsequently died and drifted to the bottom of the lakes and shallow ocean/sea beds where it was covered quickly by sediment. The conditions that favoured this process do not exist today. That does not mean that we can not engineer a similar process to do the same thing today, but the solutions (whether they are practical or not, available now or not) are irrelevant to the reality of the science. I read this and it does not sound right.Or is limited. First off you have to consider the proven theory of conservation of matter and energy. Matter can not be created nor destroyed(exception being the splitting of atoms to destroy and create new elements). Almost all molecules in the environment at some point in time will be recycled into our ecosystem. Either consumed by a land form of photosynthetic producer(plant tree etc) or water borne(algae or plankton)Plankton I believe is the greatest photosynthetic producer on the planet defined by mass. Plankton is consumed by other life forms.Just like plants are. All the carbon produced is stored within the bodies. Simply put.More available carbon = greater mass of combined life forms. The only variable of concern is that we are releasing carbon at a faster rate than the consumers can catch up with. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 oh my! You're a truth seeker! You are the last thing from a genuine skeptic. You can't fathom the idea that many who are proponents of the theory of AGW have actually taken the time to act as real skeptics... in any case, you're getting way more attention than you're worth - way more attention than the value of anything you can bring of significance or bearing on the discussion (which, to date, has been bupkis, nada, zilch,...). as for your self-declared leftist position, I'd suggest you invest cycles (many cycles) in understanding what your regressive position on AGW/ACC does to that position - since you're such a proponent of the NDP, you might start by asking yourself how you can so out of touch with your party, hey? I'm getting more attention than what I am worth? Who are you to make such proclamation? Why not just ignore my comments instead of more trolling buddy! Feel like a big man when you insult others here buddy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted October 1, 2012 Report Share Posted October 1, 2012 enter the concernTroll. As you have been challenged to do, many times over, step-up make your case for an alternate principal cause for global warming and related climate change... an alternate other than anthropogenic source CO2 related to the burning of fossil-fuels. Equally, if you're feeling particularly emboldened take another shot at climate sensitivity... you haven't provided a laugh over that in a while! How about engaging and discussing? Why the insults buddy! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.