iceaura,
Schmelzer,
Why are you filling up this thread with repetition? Are you both wayward programs ( bots) or what?
I have to admit that I have that bad habit to answer almost every attack. But I try to restrict myself.
... if you compile them, planet wide, you discover that the likely effects of AGW on agriculture will probably be strongly negative on average. It's called information.
By propagandists. I call this propaganda. In reality, in any such change, there will be good sides and bad sides. So, the job of the alarmists is quite simple - to forget about the positive sides.
And in this case, ignorance about the US Republican Party and its President. Because this isn't really about climate change - this is about denial of the existence of problems that can only be handled by government.
What has to be expected from our "left-libertarian". Climate change is the propaganda tool to justify world government. All the simple local reactions I mentioned do not need government.
I'm going to regret responding to a complete propagandist, but the entire Bering Sea is about to shift to an Atlantic mode of mixing and salinity, altering a large and vital fishing ground for the first time in observable history. You can choose to be as alarmed as you want, but things are changing rapidly, and such ecosystem changes are usually behind the collapse of many historical civilizations, to say nothing of species, which are disappearing at a rate also unprecedented in human history. Why does anyone bother to respond to a guy that's 40 years behind current science?
I have not claimed that such things will not happen. I have not made claims about the timescale of these changes which differ from mainstream IPCC claims. You have not given any evidence for a disagreement between my position and the actual scientific one.
Perhaps not... but it is your responsibility to support your "Global Climate Change" acclimatization theory with current scientific evidence and stats.
I do not claim to have a theory. I simply apply common sense to the climate hysteria. There is no difference between IPCC and what I use, so no new climate model involved. I simply use the basic rules of plausible reasoning, in particular, the zero hypothesis. So, what you see or know about the small scale you will see again in the averages, so, higher temperature, more precipitation, and more CO2 are good for plant growth. There will be no conspiracy of the good soil regions so that if you estimate the average of the shift of climate zones, zones, where the soil is better in the new region, will approximately compensate those where it is worse. The same holds essentially for all other factors which can influence the results. And more plants and animals are good in the average, even if some of them are bad. All this is nothing but everyday plausible reasoning.
To explain it to you as if you were stupid, at some point you should break form and accidentally get something right.
Given that to "get something right" has to be understood as to agree with the majority here, no. I'm quite comfortable if my considerations are in agreement with common sense as well as scientific results. And, given how fast my opponents start to switch from arguments about the content to personal attacks - which is the sure sign that they have lost the debate about the content - I see no problem.
And even if one starts to present me as insane - that's nothing new or horrible for me, I have read underground publications about dissidents in Soviet psychiatry already in Russia during the Brezhnev time. Political dissidents were declared schizophrenic at that time. Here we have some variant:
Relational Interpersonal Psychosis:
Over the years I have observed a number of members that appear to be locked into constant non-productive discussion that goes no where and will never go any where simply because they fail to acknowledge that a relational psychosis is present, as if they are feeling compelled with little to no ability to stop, and continue an inexplicable futility.
Of course, most of the internet communication in forums or social media is highly problematic. In the 90's I was quite optimistic that in uncensored public communication on the net the truth will finally win. Those unable to defend their points with arguments were, at that time, unable to dominate discussions, they wrote a few insults and then disappeared. The longest "discussion" I had with someone who simply wrote insults, while I replied in a civilized way, were 20 or so post, the typical one in the 1-4 range. This has changed. I think the main reason is that at that time all those in the net were essentially programmers sitting in universities. Whatever, today indeed most discussions show a low culture, a low intellectual level, and are otherwise problematic. But I don't think this problem would be accurately described by terms psychosis.
"Does it matter to you what other members on this board believe?"
No. Beliefs don't count in argumentative discussions.
"Are we just as entitled to our beliefs as you are?"
Of course. What you are not entitled to is that I will take your beliefs seriously. Support them with arguments.
"Why are you discussing this subject?"
The subject is sufficiently interesting to me. And I'm in general always interested in arguments which question my own position. But there is also the moral issue - to fight against lies, in particular here against Western propaganda lies.
"What do you hope to achieve here at sciforums?"
Initially, I hoped for scientific discussions, in particular about my theories. But as a forum to discuss physics it is essentially dead. During that initial time, I found some other discussions quite interesting, and initially, some discussions appeared quite interesting. But this also degenerated.
So... when ever there is an over emphasis on "I" you know you have a problem.
I'm an individual anarchist. To make my own decisions, different from those of my environment, is part of my nature. I was, for example, the only boy in my class who did not smoke and drink alcohol. Without any emphasis, I did not even try to promote this, I simply decided that this is better for me, and my friends had to accept such differences (and they did).
Is such individualism a problem? Not for me. I'm comfortable with being a lonely thinker. Then, I have no problems with participating in groups, I love soccer (a team game) and high mountain tourism, where cooperation in the group is essential, and people with a problematic ego would be a large problem. Those with a problematic ego are those who depend on the admiration of others or other support of their ego from others.
But in a discussion, teamwork does not matter at all. What counts are arguments. And I argue only where I disagree, so the other becomes automatically an opponent. This may become problematic if this opposition becomes emotional hatred. And therefore it is very important to argue about the content, not about persons.
