Climate change apathy Ragnarok thread - The Bear and Badger

dynamiteReady

Facewon wrote:

And yes, There is a lot of media spin. As there is with a lot of things. And we all get to do our best to navigate it. That doesn't make highly probable answers impossible to find.

You don't mind if I ignore the rest of your reply?

It appeared to be irrelevant.

That's been the trouble with this thread.
But of course, we all know that this kind of behavior is not just restricted to this thread...

...

Shout outs to Roujin for baiting.

And respect to Vela for the erudite replies. I will definitely follow up those posts, and hope you're not as put out by my questions as some fucking pricks have been.

In my experience, those with the most knowledge, have the most patience...

Yossarian

The best I've managed is a bit of gentle ribbing and the odd exasperated exclamation.

Did you read Swirl's link?

And you didn't answer my question about how the G8 is going to profit from climate change.

monkey

Blue Swirl wrote:

Brooks wrote:

That's as 'into' the discussion as they're going to get.

If you want to depress yourself, look up the phenomenon of "rolling coal".

Fucks sakes.

Skerret

Yossarian wrote:

The best I've managed is a bit of gentle ribbing and the odd exasperated exclamation. Did you read Swirl's link? And you didn't answer my question about how the G8 is going to profit from climate change.

Same. I think we're being misrepresented.

djchump

Had to lol at Dyno's "Aha! It's not actually 97%, it's 40%! Therefore because of this mixup and tiny concession, EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUSPECT AND I AM JUSTIFIED IN MY DISBELIEF".
Straight out the cognitive-bias-clinging-to-an-untenable-position-to-save-face-and-not-back-down-playbook.

lol dowsing.

cockbeard

Much like myself I don't think at any point dyno has said it doesn't exist, just that our proofs are shocking and available readable data to the layman makes no strong case for it

cockbeard

This was one of the reasons I mentioned Pascal's wager, because that appears to be the logic used. Which is shot logic when applied to a deity but fine when applied to stuff we can actually see o_0

monkey

The proofs are not shocking, there's a wealth of layman-readable data out there and you're just using Pascal's Wager as a substitute for 'using common sense' - It's not really applicable here.

But, you know, opinions and that.

dynamiteReady

Yossarian wrote:

The best I've managed is a bit of gentle ribbing and the odd exasperated exclamation. Did you read Swirl's link? And you didn't answer my question about how the G8 is going to profit from climate change.

Nah... Seriously.

I've given up. I've got better things to do.

Vela

dynamiteReady wrote:

Facewon wrote:

And yes, There is a lot of media spin. As there is with a lot of things. And we all get to do our best to navigate it. That doesn't make highly probable answers impossible to find.

You don't mind if I ignore the rest of your reply?

It appeared to be irrelevant.

That's been the trouble with this thread.
But of course, we all know that this kind of behavior is not just restricted to this thread...

...

Shout outs to Roujin for baiting.

And respect to Vela for the erudite replies. I will definitely follow up those posts, and hope you're not as put out by my questions as some fucking pricks have been.

In my experience, those with the most knowledge, have the most patience...

Without being flippant, I dont have the energy to argue. I think you're a nice person, like everyone here. But I have to say your argument or talking points are genuinely nothing new.

I believe you are sincere in posting the questions, but they have been answered time and time again in millions of fora around the world and every time they get answered, somewhere someone asks it again. So I can also see why facewon, for example, is frustrated.

I guess what I see is the questions as asked by denialist types are the same as creationists wanting to see transition fossils. Only they have taken to marking their territory in the realm of "balanced debate".

I hate to make an appeal to authority here as I recognise it is a shallow argument, but when one side of the debate is supported by people such as Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and the other side is supported by Rupert Murdoch, not-actually-a-Lord Monkton, and Andrew Bolt, it becomes starkly clear which side has credibility and intellect and which side has an agenda.

monkey

Bonus points for 'fora'

Vela

I took a gamble on that and didn't check the definition.

Lord_Griff

Game fora laugh.

cockbeard

By framing questions you can ask anything. And with the following questions it's very difficult to say human created agw is actually a thing.

Is this the hottest the planet has been since homo erectus has been around?

Is this the longest period the planet has been hot since homo erectus has been around?

Is this the fastest warming of the planet since homo erectus has been around?

[/devilsadvocate]

Vela

Watch this hot space for more plurals.

Yossarian

cockbeard wrote:

By framing questions you can ask anything. And with the following questions it's very difficult to say human created agw is actually a thing.

Is this the hottest the planet has been since homo erectus has been around?

Is this the longest period the planet has been hot since homo erectus has been around?

Is this the fastest warming of the planet since homo erectus has been around?

[/devilsadvocate]

None of those questions have anything at all to do with the causes of ~~AGW~~ global warming. You may as well be asking if one plus one equals two.

dynamiteReady

Vela wrote:

I have to say your argument or talking points are genuinely nothing new. I believe you are sincere in posting the questions, but they have been answered time and time again in millions of fora around the world and every time they get answered, somewhere someone asks it again. So I can also see why facewon, for example, is frustrated. I guess what I see is the questions as asked by denialist types are the same as creationists wanting to see transition fossils. Only they have taken to marking their territory in the realm of "balanced debate". I hate to make an appeal to authority here as I recognise it is a shallow argument, but when one side of the debate is supported by people such as Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking, Carl Sagan and the other side is supported by Rupert Murdoch, not-actually-a-Lord Monkton, and Andrew Bolt, it becomes starkly clear which side has credibility and intellect and which side has an agenda.

The official line that best expresses my current view?:

The American Institute Of Professional Geographers wrote:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.

Why is that considered stupid, please?

Yossarian

Because a defensible scientific understanding exists.

Facewon

Hang on, you were big on a graph that was apparently showing its not even warming. Now you agree it's warming, but because you've found a quote with a phrase that suits you'll go with it.

Lol.

Facewon

Anyone got some good evidence for evolution, I'd ask 97% of biologists, but they're biased, and I want to hear both sides.

Facewon

Apologies all. I'm still at home crook. Cranky & bored. Will post from laptop tomorrow with some links.

dynamiteReady

Facewon wrote:

Hang on, you were big on a graph that was apparently showing its not even warming. Now you agree it's warming, but because you've found a quote with a phrase that suits you'll go with it. Lol.

I never said that it wasn't warming, you muppet.

I was asking for an explanation for the fall, as it's clearly contrary to the projections.
That was all.

Actually. While you're here with that attitude, would you mind summarising my view of the subject please?

I know you're particularly fond of such thought exercises...

djchump

dynamiteReady wrote:

Nah... Seriously. I've given up. I've got better things to do.

Seems like you didn't have better things to do after all.

Facewon

Lol. With the bazillion questions & links you've ignored? I've got better things to do right now.

I'll go through some of the thread tomorrow, maybe.

dynamiteReady

djchump wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Nah... Seriously. I've given up. I've got better things to do.

Seems like you didn't have better things to do after all.

That's true. I'm presently blocked on something.

It happens. :]

Vela

The geographers aren't stupid. It's just I trust climatologists on the subject.

dynamiteReady

Vela wrote:

The geographers aren't stupid. It's just I trust climatologists on the subject.

Thank you.

Facewon

When I post again later, you better not call me out, chump.

monkey

dynamiteReady wrote:

The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.

Why is that considered stupid, please?

Have you got a link for this? These people appear to not exist.

djchump

dynamiteReady wrote:

djchump wrote:

dynamiteReady wrote:

Nah... Seriously. I've given up. I've got better things to do.

Seems like you didn't have better things to do after all.

That's true. I'm presently blocked on something. It happens. :]

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories