Jump to content

Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem


Recommended Posts

What the alarmists are looking to do is throttle growth in the West, not to limit emissions.. They pointedly omit the fact that China and India are outside of the discussion. As you point out nuclear is off the table. These people are anti-growth and anti-West.

why do you keep parroting the same lines... you were just advised in this post, "China & India are NOT outside of the discussion".Step up and support your statement that: "What the alarmists are looking to do is throttle growth in the West"... and define just who are your "alarmists". Either bring something definitive/specific forward or keep your prattle to yourself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This is why you will see them change their position on occasion to say, "I agree with the data; I just don't think we should do anything about climate change." They've gone from the climate change denial narrative to the economic alarmist narrative. We can't and shouldn't do anything to fund alternative fuels or control emissions because it would be economically disastrous. These argument too are bunk. Since the economic destruction that would result from ignoring climate change is completely ignored by the economic alarmist narrative.

So... because a person changed their mind about a position... asking someone to justify that the benefits of mitigation policy exceed the costs is a 'bunk' request? Did I understand that correctly?

Edit: Btw, this conversation's quality is deteriorating rapidly.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... because a person changed their mind about a position... asking someone to justify that the benefits of mitigation policy exceed the costs is a 'bunk' request? Did I understand that correctly?

or someone could step forward to offer qualified substantiation that mitigation costs exceed the benefits of mitigation policies - please proceed Governor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Speaking of justified positions Sport, how about those timelines on when things start getting groovy as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2?

Just in time to save us all a big increase in food prices I hope.

Btw, this conversation's quality is deteriorating rapidly.

I'm pretty sure that ship set sail way way back when you were still just a little squirt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So... because a person changed their mind about a position... asking someone to justify that the benefits of mitigation policy exceed the costs is a 'bunk' request? Did I understand that correctly?

Edit: Btw, this conversation's quality is deteriorating rapidly.

I said the NARRATIVE changed, not their position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what's important to note too is that scientists welcome disagreement too.

BS. Everything I have seen coming from climate scientists in the last 10 years shows they DON'T welcome disagreement and actively seek to suppress it. Your statement is nothing but your expression of your faith in the climate religion that has no basis in fact.

This is why you will see them change their position on occasion to say, "I agree with the data; I just don't think we should do anything about climate change." They've gone from the climate change denial narrative to the economic alarmist narrative.

Again BS. I have thought that CO2 mitigation policies are wasteful excesses in pandering to religious zealots since the 90s. The difference was at that time I took climate scientists at their word and assumed the world was headed for disaster and there was nothing that we could do about it. Since then I have taken the time to learn the science and discovered what a disgraceful mess it is and that makes me optimistic for the future provided we can stop the climate zealots imposing their stupid and ineffective policies on the country.

We can't and shouldn't do anything to fund alternative fuels or control emissions because it would be economically disastrous.

Spare me. That is not the argument. The argument is policies to mandate the adoption of uneconomic energy sources is wasteful and doomed to fail. No skeptic I know is against research into new energy sources. Emissions controls are also not technological practical and any real attempt to control them would be economic Armageddon. However, no one is actually talking about real controls - all they are talking about are pointless measures that transfer wealth from one group of people to another. The argument is we should not waste our time and money with pointless gestures.

You can't change these people's minds with facts when the cognitive biases are so strong.

When I first discovered how venal the climate science establishment was I expected people to understand what I found when it was explained. I was naive. Alarmists are simply too wedded to their illusions and refuse to even entertain the possibility that their beloved scientists are acting badly. The earth could plunge into an ice age tomorrow and people like you would still insist that climate models are the infallible word of god and cannot be questioned.

So sorry, the people with cognitive biases that prevent them from analyzing information rationally are the alarmists like you. Skeptics are the only people in this debate that show any sign of independent rational thought.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you're in absolutely no position to talk of cognitive biases when you dismiss scientific consensus because it disagrees with your beliefs and you hold up bloggers who agree with you as the bearers of "truth."

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you're in absolutely no position to talk of cognitive biases when you dismiss scientific consensus because it disagrees with your beliefs and you hold up bloggers who agree with you as the bearers of "truth."

And therein lies how intransigent your beliefs are. Even among the full scope of the Climate community (not just those scientists who receive funding), the "consensus" has been proven to be tenuous - both in its definition and it's adherence. Cyber - there is no "truth" - only theories to be tested against observations. That is the foolishness of the alarmist community - they construe these theories as truth when as each year passes, real-world observations tell us we have a lot to learn. When prediction after prediction is shown to be false or exaggerated, don't you think it's time to take a step back and at least question the suggestion that we are fast heading for climate Armageddon? Won't you at least consider that positions taken 20 years ago were perhaps, somewhat inaccurate? Is there room for any doubt at all?

A rational person should be overjoyed to see cracks in Climate Change theories that could benefit mankind - that could reduce the exposure to short-term planetary ruin. This is not your team against my team - it's not about winning or losing or who's right and who's wrong. It's about continually searching for what you referred to as "the truth" - and you don't do that by sniffing at skeptics - because science is about skepticism - and not about the arrogance of "the debate is over".

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, you're in absolutely no position to talk of cognitive biases when you dismiss scientific consensus because it disagrees with your beliefs and you hold up bloggers who agree with you as the bearers of "truth."

First, this is strawman than has absolutely nothing to do with my position. Creating such strawman is simply one of the techniques you use to protect yourself from information that might disrupt your ideologically driven belief system.

Second, many times I have tried to carefully lay out my arguments against the consensus and supported with data and rational arguments. I don't bother anymore because the response always I get from zealots like you is "I don't care what your argument is - you disagree with the consensus therefore you must be wrong".

You have absolutely no business lecturing others about cognitive biases when you are so blind to your own.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do you keep parroting the same lines... you were just advised in this post, "China & India are NOT outside of the discussion".Step up and support your statement that: "What the alarmists are looking to do is throttle growth in the West"... and define just who are your "alarmists". Either bring something definitive/specific forward or keep your prattle to yourself!

I read the way that India and China are in the discussion. In 2015 they theoretically must make some vague, unenforceable proposal.

Let's face it, no leader that wants to survive, whether electorally in India or otherwise in China, is going to throttle his or her own country's growth. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown wouldn't. You are dreaming in Technicolor if you believe otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the way that India and China are in the discussion. In 2015 they theoretically must make some vague, unenforceable proposal.

Let's face it, no leader that wants to survive, whether electorally in India or otherwise in China, is going to throttle his or her own country's growth. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown wouldn't. You are dreaming in Technicolor if you believe otherwise.

do you know what the word... binding even means? I asked you to "Step up and support your statement that: "What the alarmists are looking to do is throttle growth in the West"... and define just who are your "alarmists"." You have representatives from your (claimed) country actively involved in the ongoing lead-up negotiations to COP21-Paris... are those your "alarmists"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, many times I have tried to carefully lay out my arguments against the consensus and supported with data and rational arguments. I don't bother anymore because the response always I get from zealots like you is "I don't care what your argument is - you disagree with the consensus therefore you must be wrong".

no - you "don't anymore" because each and every one of your "fake skeptic, blog science" arguments was punted for the nonsense they are. Your act today has simply been relegated to you continually dropping unsupported/unsubstantiated statements... clearly, you dropping fake-skeptic/denier blog cite and references gets you into trouble, hey!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And therein lies how intransigent your beliefs are. Even among the full scope of the Climate community (not just those scientists who receive funding), the "consensus" has been proven to be tenuous - both in its definition and it's adherence. Cyber - there is no "truth" - only theories to be tested against observations. That is the foolishness of the alarmist community - they construe these theories as truth when as each year passes, real-world observations tell us we have a lot to learn. When prediction after prediction is shown to be false or exaggerated, don't you think it's time to take a step back and at least question the suggestion that we are fast heading for climate Armageddon? Won't you at least consider that positions taken 20 years ago were perhaps, somewhat inaccurate? Is there room for any doubt at all?

for someone who didn't know what the consensus actually was, you certainly speak from authority now, hey! In terms of the consensus that you struggled with, there is no uncertainty... there is no "tenuous" nature to it. But really cutesy liberties you're taking with MLW member 'cybercoma's' use of the quoted "truth" reference. You have the nerve to speak of, as you say, "lots to learn"... while at the same time you categorically deny what is known, what has been learned. Those scientists you perpetually label as "alarmists" couch their work/research/findings in degrees of uncertainty and error measurements and, accordingly, your ilk choose to simply ignore/negate those findings because they don't provide you your requisite "fake skeptic" strawman absolute 100% certainty. Of course you do!

.

A rational person should be overjoyed to see cracks in Climate Change theories that could benefit mankind - that could reduce the exposure to short-term planetary ruin. This is not your team against my team - it's not about winning or losing or who's right and who's wrong. It's about continually searching for what you referred to as "the truth" - and you don't do that by sniffing at skeptics - because science is about skepticism - and not about the arrogance of "the debate is over".

more strawman Simple? You can ploy your "the debate is over, the science is settled" nonsense for all you're worth... we've danced that dance many times over. No reputable scientist claims any such thing... try again Simple! Please step up with those so-called "cracks" you speak of!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - you "don't anymore" because each and every one of your "fake skeptic, blog science" arguments was punted for the nonsense they are. Your act today has simply been relegated to you continually dropping unsupported/unsubstantiated statements... clearly, you dropping fake-skeptic/denier blog cite and references gets you into trouble, hey!

Waldo - your bluster has now elevated itself to foaming-at-the-mouth levels. Theories, predictions, projections - call them what you may - they've all been blunted by real world observations. Observation Waldo - the key to science. Keep watching Waldo......but hey, I know you're a shill - it's your personal goal to deflect, obfuscate, deny, change the channel, ignore.....and I'm wasting my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo - your bluster has now elevated itself to foaming-at-the-mouth levels. Theories, predictions, projections - call them what you may - they've all been blunted by real world observations. Observation Waldo - the key to science. Keep watching Waldo......but hey, I know you're a shill - it's your personal goal to deflect, obfuscate, deny, change the channel, ignore.....and I'm wasting my breath.

you're the one "foaming"... I related a straight-forward statement of fact in relation to what you quoted. I challenged you to step-up and speak to your "cracks". Instead, you deflect... with your bluster! Well done Simple, well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo - your bluster has now elevated itself to foaming-at-the-mouth levels.

Waldo's technique:

1) post a response that completely ignores the argument being made.

2) respond with insults/incoherent blather when the fact that the response does not address the argument is pointed out.

3) prolong the pointless discussion until the original post is lost among pages of long irrelevant follow ups.

FWIW: I never assume that I "won" a debate just because someone did not bother to post a follow up.

All it really means is there was nothing further to add.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first discovered how venal the climate science establishment was I expected people to understand what I found when it was explained. I was naive. Alarmists are simply too wedded to their illusions and refuse to even entertain the possibility that their beloved scientists are acting badly. The earth could plunge into an ice age tomorrow and people like you would still insist that climate models are the infallible word of god and cannot be questioned.

So sorry, the people with cognitive biases that prevent them from analyzing information rationally are the alarmists like you. Skeptics are the only people in this debate that show any sign of independent rational thought.

considering this, your latest tirade, was directed at one of the more logical and questioning MLW members... that you (and now Simple too) have taken to labeling MLW member 'cybercoma' an "alarmist" because he had the apparent audacity to question/challenge you, well... just how desperate are you (and Simple)?

you've been challenged many times over to put up or STFU... name these lying, scheming, fraudster scientists of yours. As I've said, even if you could name a half-dozen (a dozen even) of those scientists held up by your favoured denialsphere as the "worst of the worst"... what percentage of the greater whole of scientists would that reflect upon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess when you have nothing left to say about the topic, you just start posting about the way people post. It's not the most graceful way to concede defeat, but there you have it.

You have stopped responding to me on numerous occasions. I do not assume I changed your mind and assume you just got tired of the discussion. Should I start assuming that you are conceding defeat?

Also, can you honestly say that there is no posters which you do not bother with because you know the discussion will be derailed with irrelevancies?

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waldo's technique:

1) post a response that completely ignores the argument being made.

2) respond with insults/incoherent blather when the fact that the response does not address the argument is pointed out.

3) prolong the pointless discussion until the original post is lost among pages of long irrelevant follow ups.

FWIW: I never assume that I "won" a debate just because someone did not bother to post a follow up.

All it really means is there was nothing further to add.

I didn't ignore anything... I came right back at Simple's nonsense. As for technique, I will gladly take the opening to, once again, provide the framework for your "technique"... a framework built around your perpetual themes of, "conspiracy, group think, ideological bias, confirmation bias, job protection, fraud, data manipulation, peer-review corruption, selling disaster porn, rent seeking, etc., etc., etc.".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have stopped responding to me on numerous occasions. I do not assume I changed your mind and assume you just got tired of the discussion. Should I start assuming that you are conceding defeat?

Also, can you honestly say that there is no posters which you do not bother with because you know the discussion will be derailed with irrelevancies?

no MLW member should be concerned about, as you say, "conceding defeat", to you..... you offer nothing more than your unsupported and unsubstantiated statements. Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,538
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    mercurygermes
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...