Oh dear, just look at your reply ! Highly vindicative, looks like you've been pretty presumptious about me along the way..
wesmorris said:
Not really. I did now though, just skimmed it. I would have read it perhaps were it relevant.
It is highly relavent to an understanding of where the "its okay the kyoto scientists are talking crap) mentality that swept the globe after that announcement was made...
( Of course, as anybody with a brain can tell, it is quite simple to twist words around and feed anything as a response to what I say here). It seems that you don't have much compassion for other points of view, and I am imagining that your immediate response to that comment will be vindicative. As if I am some sort of a fool to propose something which I believe is happening....
Ah, so it's a conspiracy. Good that you can politicize science. You don't have a choice do you? I mean, you don't understand science, but anyone can talk cheap politics eh? All it takes is a smidge of the non-sensical rhetoric and shazaam, people like you, convinced they're informed about something that is pure rhetoric. You're a stooge. Perhaps you can think for yourself but you're lacking the tools to do so rationally. You think you know what you're talking about, but you don't even know what questions to ask.
Rhetoric eh ? I'm not sure where you're coming from. I've mentioned a few
signs of things that have been happening, and I will not go over the signs again because it seems you wish to sidetrack the conversation constantly, not good for a discussion, a bit of Ad Hominem on your behalf there ay ?
The UN sanctions 10 000 scientists around the world and they determined that an earth warming, possibly with human amplification, is happening. Since the case has been proposed, AND substantiated by said scientists, how about you show some evidence that global warming is NOT happening. Show me proof that, CO2, methane emissions etc. CANNOT result in average temperature increases in a certain region (even on local levels). And please, I will not be impressed if you start demeaning me as I have not asked for that, I am trying to have a sensible conversation with you here but you constantly resort to cheap nonsensical flames which is besides the point.
Or do you prefer it that I deride you and run around and frollick around some supposed imperfections ?
You see this is a major part of your problem. You don't understand science or math, so you have to investigate this like a character hunt. The problem with that is, someone's history doesn't have shit to do with whether or not a statement they make is scientifically valid. You don't know how to judge the statement itself, so you revert to an examination of character to try to find precedent. While politically speaking, that might be good - it doesn't qualify you at all to actually judge the content of the statement. I can understand that you're just going on the best information you have to go on, but you have to understand that you're simply not qualified to make a rational assessment of the situation.
Your lingo of choice is rude, demeaning, and unneccesary. You say I don't understand science or math ? As if any one scientist has the authority to claim that without a doubt, that something exists and expect people to believe them based on some sort of long list of credentials? Very unscientific if you ask me, and this particularly reflects badly on yourself. I am sure many readers will agree with that.
Scientists are not neccesarily bright. It appears your feeling towards scientists suggests this.
And then you put words in my mouth, by claiming that I can't actually judge the statement for myself. I think that statement speaks for itself really..
Your response from there seems a bit "bla bla" for me. Hey let's give a dog a bone to chew on..
I'm trying to arm you with the right questions and a more pertinent understanding of the issues, but instead of considering what's said, it's easier for you to thing that anyone holding the position opposite of yours must be part of the conspiracy against the planet. For that you are an asshat. Stop being an asshat. I have children. I hope to have grandchildren. I want them to have somewhere to live and be happy. I'm concerned for the future of the planet. You don't believe that, because if so you might have to reconsider your position, which you're apparently quite fond of.
Well hey, I'm a respectful guy, I have a lot of respect for people in general. Please, don't be so assumptous about people, it's not doing you any good. I believe that sending out good energy to people will fill you up with positive energy. And of course, the converse.
I haven't said anything about conspiracies here, although this topic might indicate one, which is why I proposed that if we want to discuss this
seriously then we should discuss it in the appropriate section. You ignored that, so I assume you wouldn't mind having a pseudoscience (is this really pseudoscience) conversation about the scientific theory of global warmin'.
I certainly do believe, and regardless of global warming mind you, that we should be stimulating efficient, clean, economies. There are many reasons, besides global warming (which to most people living on the planet is not a biggie), why we should be doing so. If you have shares in something that is potentially doing something destructive to the planet, then perhaps it's time that people reconsider and invest in better, less harmful economies for the future and our children.
Not only is that unsubstantiated, but it's hypocritical. You were defending scientists earlier, but now that it suits your cause you deride them. Are you friends with Senator Kerry?
Not so unsubstantiated - the signatures in that list did not come with specific details of all those scientist qualifications. There could be ecologisits living in some obscure national park signing that petition. Honestly , what would such people know or care about something which is not essentially a part of their scientific focus? I would be much more impressed if I saw a long list of verifiable signatures signed by scientists who are actively studying the topic of
global weather patterns in some way than just an average scientist Joe living off the gulf of mexico.
I have no authority to defend or deride any scientists. Just an objective point of view is what counts. If we truly want to diagnose what's going on in this matter, then I would say a pretty authoritative guess to what the current opinion of scientists that are studying weather patterns (including those living in regions that are potentially being affected such as islands in the pacific that are being threatened by heightened sea levels, or somebody studying polar bears in the Arctic) is, would be to ask a few selected scientists on this matter.
We can have this argument until the cows come home, but the fact is none of us have the right qualifications or work experience to say in any manner of authority what we think we know what is going on based on what we read or hear...
One thing though I must just say, please don't get so worked up about me! I am seriously not worth your time doing so. We will most likely be having enough heartache in the future with wars, refugees, droughts, etc. all happening so perhaps it's time for us to start stocking up...
Irrelevant. If you want to discuss the validity of the document, discuss it. You're simply attempting to establish some completely irrelevant consipiracy. I believe you avoid the meat of the issue because
you simply don't understand it as you've demonstrated time and time again.
If that wasn't a conspiracy, then may I enquire whether you feel the Kyoto Protocol was a conspiracy?
I really do feel that this was some sort of wild guess made by some wacko scientist based on groundless ideas.
This is almost as bad as having a debate about whether the earth is flat.
Putting words in my mouth is pretty low, and doesn't support your position at all. It's just a stupid cheap shot from a guy with no substantive argument. I'm unimpressed.
My correction : sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth I thought about what I'd said afterwards and realised that I was taking a cheap shot without being concise... My apologies, I didn't have much time to read over what I'd said at the time of writing and was a bit flippant with wanting to shoot off with how stupid I felt, in that instant, maintstream society is not to see past all the lies and deceipt going on out there.
I just meaned to say that the current flow of thought from government is one which has a lack of consideration for people, too quick to rush in, pompous, primarily self interested and favouring the wealthy....... Too much to say there really, and not worth getting into since our opinions obviously differ so vastly on such matters.
You don't have the tools to argue about it. You don't understand the issues, and your approach to the investigation is consequently fundamentally flawed. Find the answers to the questions I've posed and you'll be on a better track. I'm highly confident you won't find any good answers, which is the root of the issue. People are basing long term conclusions on short term trends. There are two major problems there. That is:
There are no good answers to explain it, however there is always luck of the draw and odds, and that's good enough for me to form a basic set of opinions.
1) There is no definitive model for climate in the short-term at a distance of more than a few days.
2) There is no definitive model for climate in the long-term - it's even worse than the short-term. It's entirely hypothetical at this point.
Short term climate predicting is pretty noisy. And I don't need a PhD to conceptualise this. However scientists , recently, predicted that the volcanoe at at St. Helens would probably blow. They where almost right, and considering how many variables are involved in the process, that is quite remarkable.
If I was to propose to you that the Greys are currently visiting us, there are vast amounts of information out there which you can go study out there, skeptical and scientific opinions alike. Both perspectives are worth the while looking into, not just one which favours some predetermined side in the argument.
Your insinuation that I don't care about future generations is arrogant, despicable and unfounded. I have children whom I love with all my heart. I want the best for them and their children. Accusations are pretty easy eh? I see you're pretty good with accusations. Can you back any of them up with any semblance of validity? That you would draw the conclusion that my attitude reflects "at least we're living a good life" is simply insulting and apparently indicative of a very small, feeble mind. Your entire argument is fallacy, yet you promote it like the bible. Yes, quite telling indeed.
Having a bad day ? : ( I'm sorry it has turned out that way...
I honestly don't have much of an argument, your guess could be as good as mine on this. You are wagering on the "Let's hold with where we are until there is convincing evidence", I am not wagering on anything, I say let's put that wager into doing *something* to lower the odds in our favour while we do work out what is going on!
I don't find you amusing. Angry and pathetic seem more appropriate. Ah, I forgot paranoid and dishonest.
Man, I'm not so bad.. Just some oblivious germ on the other side of the world... Quite harmless, really
Have a nice day !
D
