Have you looked at the North Pole lately?

[GMT]

Let's make this a simpler argument, there are large sections of the new membership who were never educated.

If you avoid smoking while your children are in the car, you have no grounds to object to anyone wanting to reduce pollution. If you smoke around your kids, your view doesn't count to anyone.

 

[DocTim420]

Let's make it real simple...if a philosophy/movement/belief can not withstand skepticism, then what value are it's core principals? Let me twist your words a bit and say it this way: "if you disagree, then your view does not count to anyone". That's kinda shitty outlook...imo.

If I disapprove of EPA's bureaucratic overreach--it does not mean I enjoy drinking cloudy water and breathing dirty air. It means I believe in a different way/process to achieve a similar outcome...and most importantly, I believe no particular person/organization/movement has a monopoly on "good ideas". To think so is foolish.

Besides, living in an echo chamber (only discussing ideas where everyone is in agreement) does not broaden one's knowledge and education. Said differently, I learned more from people with different backgrounds/expertise than from my "equals" (those who walk, talk, eat and believe the same as I do).

When I call in a bunch of experts to resolve a problem, I expect to be the dumbest guy in the room and plan on sucking all the knowledge from their brains as I can. On the occasions where I find myself to be the smartest guy in the room...it is time to find new experts. Same in life, if you find yourself surrounded with friends who are mirror images of yourself, imo--then it is time to find some new friends.

I believe "life is episodic"--so what I learn now, can only help me later.

Skepticism and critical thinking kinda go together...and I am afflicted with both those ailments.

 

[Mick]

Just saying--if we are going to spend a billion dollars or so each year to combat "climate change" we better get it right. Especially since a billion a year (100 billion in 100 years) would eliminate hunger world wide.

Hmmm...which is better? Eliminate hunger (a known issue with a known resolve)...or combat "man made climate change" (a potential issue with an unknown resolve).

Mate, it's not an either or. Money goes to the top and the rest of us get what trickle comes our way. According to Oxfam International, eight men now own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity. No way in the current system is it going to be spent tackling world hunger, regardless of how much or little is spent on climate change. But some corporations are starting to wake up to the fact that there's big bucks to be made saving the earth. I'm not optimist in a system that caused the problems somehow being able to fix them. It's so much more vast than just climate change. Check out the deleted hallucinogenic vision quest from Avatar. It's pretty raw but very cool. Unfortunately the end of the dream seems to be the way we're headed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVxcOyteDaQ

 

[GMT]

Doctim, in some respects you are right, but a civilised society does need to come to a census on certain things in order to continue. Let's start with just the beginning point, its wrong to go around killing people. Most would agree. Should we really say that if anyone disagrees, we should allow them to act on their beliefs? That their views are equal to ours? No of course not! There are things, that if you reduce the argument of free will to its basics, we have to say, this view is acceptable and this view isn't. You can follow these ways of thinking and not those. Once we accept that, we have to agree on a common thread of logic. The simplest and purest of those being "if you harm or put others at risk of harm through your actions, then those actions are unacceptable" .
I find it hard to see the counter argument to that, but if you have one, please post it up.

 

[DocTim420]

It is all about certainty. If I kill someone, it is most certain that two things occurred: My action caused a death....and there is a death.

So...for the climate change argument to be "certain", then there must be absolute proof that: A) temperatures are rising, B) mankind is solely the cause of the alleged temperature rise, and C) the human behavior change proposed by the climate change elitist is the best course of action to achieve the stated goal.

If the temperature data is faulty (which it seems it is--or at least the elites in charge are withholding both the data and methodology from the public), and if mankind is not solely the cause (how much contribution comes from animal flatulence? and other non-mankind sources?)...then one wonders if the goals articulated are achievable, and at what cost (there is not an endless vat of cash)?

Said differently, I can not think of any other policy issue where the public is expected to take EVERYTHING on "faith". Faith that those in charge will/can/are doing the "right thing". Many of us that are hitting 60 years young--approach our government and what they say with great skepticism. Fool me once, fool me twice...

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction--then one must accept that when I fart two things will happen...I will certainly feel better with much relief, but those immediately around me will not appreciate the change in air quality. So I guess the answer to improve air quality is...to ban all farting, right?

LOL...I guess you can conclude that banning/outlawing/legislating something does negate the real issue or make the problem disappear.

BTW--the word "consensus" is a concept that seems absent in this climate change argument (I was going to use the word debate--but I don't recall ever watching that TV show, you know--where two opposing panels debate the global cooling/warming/change topic using facts and arguments, guided by an impartial moderator). The only consensus thus far is--one side says they are right and the science is settled with the other side saying "huh?....show me".

 

[GMT]

Well, hmmm, the part I have to disagree with is certainty. If I go into the town centre, should I be allowed to, or prevented from, taking out a bow and firing a volley of arrows into the air? There is no certainty that any will kill anyone as they fall. But there is a risk. You could take the discordian argument that in that case short skirts should be outlawed in case they distract and driver and cause a crash, but it would be pedantic to do so. We really need to accept that when there is a serious risk that what you are doing, is going to cause harm, then your rights do not include infringing upon someone else's.

 

[DocTim420]

... We really need to accept that when there is a serious risk that what you are doing, is going to cause harm, then your rights do not include infringing upon someone else's.

And that is the leap to faith that I am referring to..."serious risk". What is a "serious risk" to one group (those that believe pot is a gateway drug) does not make that belief to be factually true--requiring universal acceptance by all...without "question" or "debate".

After all, a few decades ago, it was universally accepted by all the smart people (scientists, doctors, legislatures, judges, etc) that marijuana was harmful and evil...and it was settled science, right? It was not too long ago that it was nearly impossible to conduct legitimate cannabis research (due to lack of legal access to reseach pot)--and all the "science" published was one sided and all anti pot.

Hmmm, are we are witnessing the very same thing today when it comes to climate change? On one side we have the "settled science" gang (anti pot) restricting the opposition (pro pot) in all public and private forums--by withholding information (access to research pot).

Let's just say...if "booze prohibition" was the "silent movie" version, "pot prohibition" was the "black and white" version, and we witnessed the "sexual revolution" of the 60-70s on "color TVs", then I guess "climate change" would be the "UHD 5K color" version (on a 105" LED screen).

All have similar plots, similar characters, and similar outcomes: real truth/facts prevailed after the passage of time.

 

[trichrider]

!

 

[GMT]

I'd rather look silly in the life boat than wait to see if the boat's really sinking.

 

[BakedBandit]

But there is no life boat...��

 

[igrowone]

But there is no life boat...��

you do have a point, eventually pushed far enough life boats will be on the thin side
more likely, there are life boats, but there aren't enough for everybody

 

[Floridian]

My house was supposed to be under water positively and without doubt in 2015 accord to Algore.Suffice it to say he was mistaken just a tad.The fish aren't biting from my front porch yet

 

[igrowone]

My house was supposed to be under water positively and without doubt in 2015 accord to Algore.Suffice it to say he was mistaken just a tad.The fish aren't biting from my front porch yet

Al Gore isn't a climate expert, he's not the guy to listen to
i'll give him his due in he was early in listening to the climate community about the coming danger
but as a predictor? he shouldn't have been listened to, not as a climate expert anyways

 

[Mick]

It is all about certainty. If I kill someone, it is most certain that two things occurred: My action caused a death....and there is a death.

So...for the climate change argument to be "certain", then there must be absolute proof that: A) temperatures are rising, B) mankind is solely the cause of the alleged temperature rise, and C) the human behavior change proposed by the climate change elitist is the best course of action to achieve the stated goal.

If the temperature data is faulty (which it seems it is--or at least the elites in charge are withholding both the data and methodology from the public), and if mankind is not solely the cause (how much contribution comes from animal flatulence? and other non-mankind sources?)...then one wonders if the goals articulated are achievable, and at what cost (there is not an endless vat of cash)?

Said differently, I can not think of any other policy issue where the public is expected to take EVERYTHING on "faith". Faith that those in charge will/can/are doing the "right thing". Many of us that are hitting 60 years young--approach our government and what they say with great skepticism. Fool me once, fool me twice...

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction--then one must accept that when I fart two things will happen...I will certainly feel better with much relief, but those immediately around me will not appreciate the change in air quality. So I guess the answer to improve air quality is...to ban all farting, right?

LOL...I guess you can conclude that banning/outlawing/legislating something does negate the real issue or make the problem disappear.

BTW--the word "consensus" is a concept that seems absent in this climate change argument (I was going to use the word debate--but I don't recall ever watching that TV show, you know--where two opposing panels debate the global cooling/warming/change topic using facts and arguments, guided by an impartial moderator). The only consensus thus far is--one side says they are right and the science is settled with the other side saying "huh?....show me".

The debate is over. 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is real and man made. It bugs me that here in Australia any debate on climate change gets equal representation with the deniers. Imo, if you do the maths, they should only get 3%. Same thing happened when we found out that the earth wasn't flat. Some accepted the science, some eventually came around, and some still believe the earth is flat and have evolved elaborate theories to disprove the science of a spherical world. One of my favourites is "that Earth is a disc with the Arctic Circle in the center and Antarctica, a 150-foot-tall wall of ice, around the rim. NASA employees, they say, guard this ice wall to prevent people from climbing over and falling off the disc." AT some point the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and in the many I'm including all non human lifeforms that we share the planet with.

 

[DocTim420]

The debate is over. 97% of climate scientists believe climate change is real and man made....

Actually 97% came from a single study that analyzed published articles by scientists--it was NOT a poll of ALL scientists.

That biased study determined 97% of published articles were "pro" climate change.

So...if the debate never really started, then how can you say it is over? LOL

To attract believers to your cause--you need to convince the "deniers" with proof and undeniable evidence--that when tested, will achieve similar results (aka scientific experimentation). Attempting to twist that study to suggest 97% of ALL scientists are "onboard" does not increase one's credibility.

 

[DocTim420]

What was said--

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.


Which means...only scientists that got their work published were included. In my prior life I wrote ten professional articles and only two were published. How many professionals publish their work? I say less than 10% do.

And how was that 97% determined? Via these methods--

Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

So...how many articles and scientists were included? Hmmm, that study indentified 4,014 of 11,944 abstracts that took a position on the cause of global warming...and a survey of THOSE AUTHORS (a population of only 2,014 scientists--hardly a majority of ALL scientists) indicated about 97% took the same position.

So...the debate never got started and it certainly is not over. But do answer this question, why is NOAA withholding information from Congress and the public regarding this particular policy? If the truth is on their side, why distort data and then not disclose the data/methodology? Not very open I say.

 

[DocTim420]

Oh yeah--it also depends on the sample population of your poll/survey. As in politics, if the sample is not 50/50 (dems/reps) but skewed 60/40 (more dems than reps) then I bet the results would not be "identical" if the sample was 40/60 (more reps than dems).

That said, would a reasonable person not expect to see 90%+ of "climate change" scientists believing in "climate change"?

I wonder what the results would be if the sample population was restricted to all the nation's District Attorneys and the question was about legalizing marijuana? Would the results be the same if the sample population was restricted to criminal defense attorneys? Or how about just criminal defense attorneys that specialized in marijuana matters....hmmm.

I accept the idea that 97% of climate change scientists actually believe in their field of specialty. Just as I accept the idea that probably 97%+ of all marijuana growers smoke what they grow. I know a few guys that don't smoke weed but run great/clean grow operations--and if I know a few, then I would say others know a few as well.

But to transfer this 97% tidbit to an argument that it is "settled science" and suggest there is no reason for further debate--hmmm, not a good thing I say. How many times in history have the majority of scientists found themselves on the wrong side of the argument? Technology changes.

Besides, if someone says they are always 100% right--then I naturally discount their opinion a bit...perhaps they are due to be "wrong" and don't want it to be my dime, lol. Seriously, in matters of law/taxation/finance--technology rarely (if ever) changes "settled law", but in the world of science--this is not so. Technology will always fuckup established principles--resulting in change. When I went to school, Pluto was a planet.

 

[Floridian]

Poor pluto,relegated to a solar system nugget poor fella lol.The only thing that I believe has been proven is that the climate is warming recently,like it has before and will again long after we're gone.It'll cool again also I'm sure.I'm going to create a new syndrome and name it POVS.Point of view syndrome.It's when you get all your information from one source or alike sources and can't possibly accept a new point of view no matter how sensible or even proven it becomes.My brother is a sufferer unfortunately.Rachael has killed his mind.

 

[Mick]

Hey DocTim, if the 97% of climate change scientists that believe it's real and man made are not enough to convince you, then I doubt you'd change your mind even if it was an even 100%. So the question I'd be asking myself if I was you is, “why is it so?”. I've been pondering it for years.

 

[Floridian]

Mick if I polled 100 pot smokers I'm sure 97 of them would have nothing but positive things to say about smoking it.I'm a denier,I deny that you read what Tim just said in his posts lol