roy baty Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 (edited) Indeed. While waldo often has valid scientific points and references, his sneering condescension style of "debate" makes it impossible to engage with him. People want to discuss issues without every sentence containing an implied insult, a thinly veiled slur, or a mocking tone, but that is impossible on climate change topics. Trust me, debating this guy results in the same thing for any topic that he opposes an alternate view on. His debating tactics are quite common on the left and do often result in anyone who debates him in just giving up. I suppose in his mind he sees that that as a huge victory in the debate. I just see it as a textbook example of behaviour from a left wing ideologue. I am sure waldo will refer to me, you or anyone with any form of right leaning views in a similar fashion and frankly I could care less. Some people cannot and will not be open to any alternate point of view or respect it and he is one of them., Edited March 19, 2013 by roy baty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 19, 2013 Report Share Posted March 19, 2013 Indeed. While waldo often has valid scientific points and references, his sneering condescension style of "debate" makes it impossible to engage with him. People want to discuss issues without every sentence containing an implied insult, a thinly veiled slur, or a mocking tone, but that is impossible on climate change topics. It is not just impossible for climate change, its impossible to discuss anything with this guy without entering a war. On the contrary, I appreciate being "bettered" in discussions on interesting issues, and that certainly happens when debating political and ethical issues here from time to time. If I never learned anything new or encountered a challenging idea; if I believed this forum to be a den of fools, I wouldn't be here. He used the exact same line on me after I wouldn't back down. The truth is that he has no intention of welcoming new ideas or good conversation. When he does get "bettered" he will quickly change the discussion point so that he doesn't have to admit it. As TimG said....classic waldo. He feels its his job in life to make everyone think the same thing as him. I'm all for listening to an opinion but not when it gets shoved down your throat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Trust me, debating this guy results in the same thing for any topic that he opposes an alternate view on. His debating tactics are quite common on the left and do often result in anyone who debates him in just giving up. I suppose in his mind he sees that that as a huge victory in the debate. I just see it as a textbook example of behaviour from a left wing ideologue. I am sure waldo will refer to me, you or anyone with any form of right leaning views in a similar fashion and frankly I could care less. Some people cannot and will not be open to any alternate point of view or respect it and he is one of them., oh really - and here I thought I answered you quite positively... you were one of the two members I spoke of in terms of 'cutting them slack over their naivety'. Let's look at our exchanges from this thread just to see the smoke you'll blowing: Many of you "believers" believe this is all man-made and we need to spend trillions to fix it. That's great. You're entitled to believe that, but just stop and acknowledge the "possibility" that there just may be other reasons behind the current changes in global temperatures and weather patterns that are not man-made before supporting mass spending that could lead to economic ruin long before environmental ruin. no - natural forces are factored; however, the principal causal tie to account for global warming is mankind's burning of fossil-fuels. Nothing other than anthropogenic sourced increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration can account for the relatively recent accelerated increase in warming - nothing other than. Legitimate skeptics have accepted this and have moved on to question/challenge the degree of warming that will/may occur - just how sensitive is the climate... just how warm will/may it get? Your speaking broadly and most generally of, 'spending trillions, mass spending, economic ruin', is simply an alarmist strawman position that is a blanket avoidance of an actual discussion of related policy changes required to support/enact mitigation, adaptation and prevention measures intended to reduce and manage the effects of global warming. . Believers can post charts of CO2 emmissions per country, scientific studies and Al Gore documentaries as they'd like but until they can undenyably DISPROVE what many other studies now claim are natural cycles in global temperature and weather anomolies associated with it, it's still just a form of environmental theology. undenyably (sic) DISPROVE... what? Please, don't hesitate to bring forward examples of legitimate studies solely and/or principally attributing GW/CC to "natural cycles/weather anomalies"... studies that can't be/haven't been refuted. Considering that if such a legitimate study actually existed, other than in your fevered denier imagination... existed as a long-standing piece of seminal work/research/analysis, that study would have caused world-wide ramifications, casting aside decades of knowledge/understanding. That study would have set forward a whirlwind of disruption, reaching far and wide into all manner of scientific organizations, academia, industry, etc. and, of course, national/international political bodies. Like I said, don't hesitate to bring your examples of those studies forward! anything to say about the greening Arctic... about this thread's topic? You must have some studies, right... those that can't be, as you say, "undenyably (sic) DISPROVED". . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 It is not just impossible for climate change, its impossible to discuss anything with this guy without entering a war. He used the exact same line on me after I wouldn't back down. The truth is that he has no intention of welcoming new ideas or good conversation. When he does get "bettered" he will quickly change the discussion point so that he doesn't have to admit it. As TimG said....classic waldo. He feels its his job in life to make everyone think the same thing as him. I'm all for listening to an opinion but not when it gets shoved down your throat. as I recall we've had one significant... extended... exchange. One you did not fair well in. At some point you'll need to move on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Agreed, as this is a public square for all members to express their views without fear of personal attack or insult. In many ways, the relentless campaign against "deniers" or "adapters" of any stripe reflects the larger national (Canada) and international tactics of the climate change faithful. Critics and alternate views must be silenced, so great is their self anointed and appointed cause to save the Earth ! your personal frustrations aside, your side just needs to get better scientists, hey! Again, your "adapters" delineation is a false front... it's nothing more than a false narrative that simply allows you to completely divorce yourself from any considerations toward mitigation/prevention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 your personal frustrations aside, your side just needs to get better scientists, hey! Again, your "adapters" delineation is a false front... it's nothing more than a false narrative that simply allows you to completely divorce yourself from any considerations toward mitigation/prevention. ..and there we have it ladies and gents, an outright admission of the silencing strategy. Fortunately, it has not worked, and the hydrocarbon economy that we all depend on (including this member) marches on nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 ..and there we have it ladies and gents, an outright admission of the silencing strategy. silencing strategy??? Well, at least you haven't pulled your censorship card yet! it was you that delineated, using the word "adapters"...how is it that my pointing out your 'Adapt-R-Us-Only' position is one that precludes you from accepting any need toward mitigation/prevention... is a "silencing strategy"? Am I so simple/sensitive, as you, to claim you're silencing me when you push your adaptation (only) position! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy baty Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 oh really - and here I thought I answered you quite positively... you were one of the two members I spoke of in terms of 'cutting them slack over their naivety'. Let's look at our exchanges from this thread just to see the smoke you'll blowing: . . I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I rest my case. you can rest your case... as you have no case. In re-quoting our 2 exchanges in this thread, I exposed your claim for what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 as I recall we've had one significant... extended... exchange. One you did not fair well in. At some point you'll need to move on! Not the case at all but you go back to your hole and tell yourself whatever you want to beleive. Its very clear that the people in this forum are quite wise to your antics so I don't need to prove anything to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Not the case at all but you go back to your hole and tell yourself whatever you want to beleive. back to my... hole! Is that, as you state, my government job, the cubicle at my government post, my parents basement, my chat room... or what? From that same extended exchange we had, I quoted back to you some of your more insightful commentary directed at me... as I said, "clearly, you have difficulty with being challenged - and bettered" But really, let's look at some of your gems, your treasures from this thread that you directed to me: You really are a little slow....aren't you Unlike you, I don't have all day to troll the internet Wow....slow indeed The thing that you will never understand (probably because you work in some government institution and don't see the effects of real life) Keep you head in the sand Waldo....its much better there. I don't want you to hurt your brain.... Things a little slow with your government job these days? You most likely stick it out in your cubicle at your goverment post and then hide back in your parents basement at night trolling the internet thinking of ways to try and look smart. Don't worry....you can go home tonight and tell your chat room friends about how cool you are. Have fun with your head in the sand! clearly, you have difficulty with being challenged - and bettered. I'd suggest you have a long hard read of what I quoted. How old are you, anyway? . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 back to my... hole! Is that, as you state, my government job, the cubicle at my government post, my parents basement, my chat room... or what? From that same extended exchange we had, I quoted back to you some of your more insightful commentary directed at me... as I said, "clearly, you have difficulty with being challenged - and bettered" I have yet to be bettered by you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 I have yet to be bettered by you.then what's your beef... what would cause you to so personalize with the most juvenile of commentary, as I re-quoted back to you (now twice). That you've now extended upon with your latest "go back to my hole" comment? If you adamantly feel you weren't being bettered in the exchange, that you weren't bettered in the exchange, what would cause you to so personalize your posts with the most juvenile of commentary? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Right - so let's move on from this. 'Go back to your hole' isn't any kind of discussion, nor is pointing out that the poster has anything else to say on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 then what's your beef... what would cause you to so personalize with the most juvenile of commentary, as I re-quoted back to you (now twice). That you've now extended upon with your latest "go back to my hole" comment? If you adamantly feel you weren't being bettered in the exchange, that you weren't bettered in the exchange, what would cause you to so personalize your posts with the most juvenile of commentary? My beef is that you don't actually converse with people. You talk down to them and try to outpost them with links and stats that most times you haven't even read. At first I thought it was just me but I see you do it with everyone and it drastically takes away from the conversation that people are having. Even when someone does better you, you choose not to acknowledge it. Rather you go on condescending tirades with sarcastic remarks and ultimately flip the conversation. Obviously you won't listen to reason and logic so I throw out 'juvenille comments" becasue that is how you approach people however like most people, I will just choose to ignore you from now on. Right - so let's move on from this. 'Go back to your hole' isn't any kind of discussion, nor is pointing out that the poster has anything else to say on it. Sorry Michael. I am done with him on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Right - so let's move on from this.yes - most definitely, let's move on. This thread has had spurts of meaningful input, of interesting commentary on the state of a "greening Arctic". However, clearly, counter to that meaningful/interesting commentary, there is no place for the unsubstantiated charges claiming to be, as a purposeful strategy, "silenced"... there is no place for unsubstantiated commentary from a member labeling alternate views as "left wing ideology from a left-wing ideologue"... there is no place for juvenile drive-by commentary... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Obviously you won't listen to reason and logic so I throw out 'juvenille comments" or... your self-acknowledged 'juvenile comments' match your level of reason/logic. But remember... we're moving on from here... in this thread where you only dropped in for a drive-by slam. Do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread related to the greening Arctic - that would be a nice change for you, yes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 or... your self-acknowledged 'juvenile comments' match your level of reason/logic. But remember... we're moving on from here... in this thread where you only dropped in for a drive-by slam. Do you actually have anything to contribute to this thread related to the greening Arctic - that would be a nice change for you, yes? Yup moving on.... PS...I did add to this with the discussion about the Antarctic...go back and look. You were too busy being condescending to others to notice. Lucky me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 PS...I did add to this with the discussion about the Antarctic...go back and look. You were too busy being condescending to others to notice. Lucky me! oh no... I saw it... but it paled against Simple's input (that you were replying to). I scored more mileage by concentrating on Simple's post, particularly being able to show it was more of his continued recycling of already debunked attempts to counter the Arctic conditions by referencing the Antarctic - my reply, here: But hey now, I thought you were ignoring me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 oh no... I saw it... but it paled against Simple's input (that you were replying to). I scored more mileage by concentrating on Simple's post, particularly being able to show it was more of his continued recycling of already debunked attempts to counter the Arctic conditions by referencing the Antarctic - my reply, here: But hey now, I thought you were ignoring me? Wrong again waldo. I had contributed before that. I trust you just went back and saw this one because it was the most recent which clearly shows you didn't see it in the first place. Here is my original contribution on it http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22453-the-only-thing-going-green-is-the-arctic/?p=887886 Hmmm....two contributions both of which support your argument. So either you admit that I did contribute or you have to state that my data on AGW is flawed which adds to the arguement of the AGW non-believers. Oooooh...what a pickle!! Bettered once again waldo. See ya around! Don't be surprised if I don't respond anymore because you clearly have shown that all you want is to argue even when I'm contributing to your side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 20, 2013 Report Share Posted March 20, 2013 Wrong again waldo. I had contributed before that. I trust you just went back and saw this one because it was the most recent which clearly shows you didn't see it in the first place. Here is my original contribution on it http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22453-the-only-thing-going-green-is-the-arctic/?p=887886 Hmmm....two contributions both of which support your argument. So either you admit that I did contribute or you have to state that my data on AGW is flawed which adds to the arguement of the AGW non-believers. Oooooh...what a pickle!! Bettered once again waldo. See ya around! Don't be surprised if I don't respond anymore because you clearly have shown that all you want is to argue even when I'm contributing to your side. no, no... I saw that one too!!! Of course, this was Antarctic distraction #1... which I ignored given this threads emphasis on the Arctic. But really, if you thought that post was... uhhh... as you say, "contributing to my side" (my side - mine!!!), you obviously don't know anything about ozone layer depletion as a supposed contributor to global warming... where temperature trending continues upwards while ozone (net) has stopped declining since 1995. Equally, discussion of ozone has no bearing in the Arctic - there is no large and recurring ozone hole taking place in the Arctic. I also was taken with your attempt to qualify the increasing Antarctic westerly circumpolar winds as being attributed to, singularly, the yearly developing ozone hole... without any acknowledgement to the contribution of increased GHGs. Of course, you bettered that by negating your own (half) point with a suggestion the increasing winds were possibly "natural in origin"... (but you were on my side!!!) Equally, you also botched the standard CO2 versus temperature, lead/lag, cause and effect, which-came-first argument... which is really neither, as it's really a case of CO2 being both a cause and an effect on further warming given its positive feedback emphasis. Please, please... don't do me ("my side". as you say), any more favours! but now I remember more clearly from the other thread... this is just like there where you were continually offering yourself congratulations on your presumed arguments! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 (edited) your personal frustrations aside, your side just needs to get better scientists, hey! Again, your "adapters" delineation is a false front... it's nothing more than a false narrative that simply allows you to completely divorce yourself from any considerations toward mitigation/prevention. Unhuh, it might also be that realists don't think the world will voluntarily march toward a future where we don't burn a lot of fossil fuel, the world won't willingly give up the fuel that almost completely on its own allows us to live the way we do. Of course if there was an actual real alternative available now i think people could be convinced, but no matter how hard you close your eyes and wish it to be so, it isn't. Wait, is there some super secret energy technology that will completely replace, or very nearly so all of our current usage and allow the world to get off oil?...bring it on. But until then what should we do, you come across as the type of person who feels we, particularly the west, should be forced away from carbon, even if that means our standard of living is drastically changed (improved no doubt in your mind), after all some people around the world don't have electricity and are perfectly happy, they have virtually no carbon foot print, they also live in huts, but hey that's they way we should all live right, it isn't fair to them that we are successful. You really appear to be the type who thinks some version of communism, perhaps an eco communism political philisophy should be imposed upon us, it's whats best for us and gaia after all. Or we could accept that global warming, if it is being caused by us, will almost certainly continue. We could turn off all the lights in this country and have no appreciable effect on global CO2, it isnt going to happen, so prepare for the future, don't deny the inevitability of it at least not until something better comes along. Personally i don't care what kind of left wing angst leads people to have pollyanna opinions like yours, you know, people who prostest against oil projects over environmental concerns when the world is already awash in oil, in its transport and refining. Tankers on the east coast.., o my no we cant have them on the west, pipelines across the country..., o my no we can't have new pipelines in the country...it's always the same stupidity, it's about an agenda, not about the reality. Of course the majority, the vast majority, don't think like you do. Sure, that attitude gets us into some trouble, but it also built the world we live in, the same world that most everyone wants to live in or create for themselves, because it's better for incividuals to live comfortably and longer, (but this isn't about individuals right comrade?). So yes, lets try to make the future better, but lets not pretend that masive improvements in the standard of living of some nations isn't driving huge increases in CO2 production, and it isn't going to stop, at least not until the magic new energy source is found or a significant improvement on current green tech is made. So whats your choice then, to accept the reality, that even if modern nations made huge cutbacks that would cripple our societies developing nations would overcome our reductions with increases of thier own and of course people here would not go along with this. Or accept that at least in the near future CO2 will continue to rise and we should prepare for the possible consequences. Or, we go all the way and force the west to turn off the lights while allowing those other poor people (its our fault they are poor anyway) to have their time to develop and pollute like we did, perhaps we could force the west to do this at the point of a green bayonet. Thankfully for most of us, reality is a better option, of course there will be consequences, but they are the only consequences that could ever realistically be. Edited March 22, 2013 by gunrutz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 Unhuh, it might also be that realists don't think the world will voluntarily march toward a future where we don't burn a lot of fossil fuel, the world won't willingly give up the fuel that almost completely on its own allows us to live the way we do. well done - your false narrative fits snugly with the alternate reality you presume to project. Keep fronting that economic doom, crippling societies, drastic life-style change strawman of yours - you wear it well, very well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 well done - your false narrative fits snugly with the alternate reality you presume to project. Keep fronting that economic doom, crippling societies, drastic life-style change strawman of yours - you wear it well, very well! It's not false. Extreme environmental policies negatively impact the economy. There's a trade off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 22, 2013 Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 It's not false. Extreme environmental policies negatively impact the economy. There's a trade off.more broad-based alarmist generalizations - be specific in both your claimed extremes and trade-offs. 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.