Are we sure global warming is bad?

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:31 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:40 pm
......... I regularly cite their articles to report what the consensus says.
Why don't you start doing that on this forum as well?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 15, 2019 4:55 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 11:31 pm
landrew wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:40 pm
......... I regularly cite their articles to report what the consensus says.
Why don't you start doing that on this forum as well?
You remind me of someone new to the online forums, who gets caught up in the "battlefield" aspect, and discovers the "weapon" called, "citations please." This is a lame attempt to derail any expressed opinion by placing all the burden of proof on your opponent. A more mature viewpoint is to recognize that claims are backed up by a combination of credible sources and educated opinions. It's not constructive to turn a debate into a "citation war" where each side doubts the credibility of each other's arguments and sources, never conceding a single point.

For such online recreation, I suggest something like Battlefield.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:19 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:34 pm
Please note that I have never denied that human actions prevent disaster. That is one of the most important mechanisms preventing prophecies of doom and gloom ever happening, contributing to the 100% failure rate of doom and gloom prophets.
The problem with trying to figure what the hell you are saying, is you are the sole arbiter of what "doom and gloom" is. You never make more than broad brush strokes, so you can put whatever you want under your "100% wrong" umbrella. It's rare that you do something like actually talk about centimeters of rise in the ocean.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:33 pm

Here's a nice non-doomy article. Nothing about massive deaths or civilization collapsing. It calls the flooding a "nuisance". It also says it will be expensive. I don't see any difference with the numbers shown here most of the so-called doom and gloom predictions. What's different is, it's someone's job to say just how expensive it will be to deal with this nuisance. If someone wasn't doing that, very few people would read an article like this one and get that there is something going on that might need an immediate response.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:37 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:43 am
The suggestion that sea level rise is increasing exponentially is not supported by evidence.
Take my hand Lance, let's walk over to this Wikiepedia site. Oh lookey. Maybe you don't know what "exponential" means.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:44 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:33 pm
Here's a nice non-doomy article. Nothing about massive deaths or civilization collapsing. It calls the flooding a "nuisance". It also says it will be expensive. I don't see any difference with the numbers shown here most of the so-called doom and gloom predictions. What's different is, it's someone's job to say just how expensive it will be to deal with this nuisance. If someone wasn't doing that, very few people would read an article like this one and get that there is something going on that might need an immediate response.
Lots of things are expensive; the end of steam power, the losses of jobs to automation, the cleaning up of our lakes and rivers, the reconstruction of Europe after WWII... But we cope.

Almost any disaster could have been mitigated by an immediate response, but that's not how human nature works. We tend to wait until we are up to our necks before we work seriously to get a handle on the problem. I'm not advocating this approach at all, but alarmism isn't the cure. In fact, I'm sure it desensitizes people to the point where they tend to block out the warning signs. As in the story about the boy who cried "wolf" too many times, no one paid attention to the real dangers when they appeared.

So what should we do instead? Well, for a start, stop doing the thing that isn't working. That's a step ahead.
Last edited by landrew on Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:51 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:37 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Apr 13, 2019 12:43 am
The suggestion that sea level rise is increasing exponentially is not supported by evidence.
Take my hand Lance, let's walk over to this Wikiepedia site. Oh lookey. Maybe you don't know what "exponential" means.
To be clear the article says sea level rise "will be exponential," and also shows that sea level rise "has been linear."
The "exponential" part is entirely theoretical and part of a prediction. Many similar predictions of the past have failed to materialize into a logarithmic rise.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:26 pm

Thank you, landrew. That graph on Laustens reference was definitely linear, not exponential.

On the business of doom and gloom.
I started using that phrase in response to Bobbo's claim that global warming would lead to the extinction of the human species, or at least the collapse of human civilisation. I added at one point, megadeaths, meaning more than a million people killed. So the phrase has been well and truly defined. It does not refer to financial cost or inconvenience. Just megadeaths, extinction or civilization collapse.

We are all aware that global warming is seriously bad, and there is a strong need for action. If this forum is any guide, there is great dispute about what kind of action. When I point out what is already happening, Lausten and Bobbo both claim it is useless. I get the impression they both get their kicks out of catastrophe, and actually want that catastrophe to happen, so they can claim they were right all along.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:46 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:26 pm
Lausten and Bobbo both claim it is useless.
Never ever said anything close to that.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:49 pm

landrew wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 5:44 pm
Almost any disaster could have been mitigated by an immediate response, but that's not how human nature works. We tend to wait until we are up to our necks before we work seriously to get a handle on the problem. I'm not advocating this approach at all, but alarmism isn't the cure. In fact, I'm sure it desensitizes people to the point where they tend to block out the warning signs. As in the story about the boy who cried "wolf" too many times, no one paid attention to the real dangers when they appeared.

So what should we do instead? Well, for a start, stop doing the thing that isn't working. That's a step ahead.
Which thing should we stop doing? Crying wolf or acting exactly like our human nature normally acts? The entire point of any kind of alarm is to get you to act differently than you act on a regular basis. It's not crying wolf if there is an actual wolf. If you say glaciers will melt and they melt, temps will rise and they rise, and fires and storms will increase and they do, then you're doing your job as a Shepard.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:52 pm

Lausten wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:46 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 7:26 pm
Lausten and Bobbo both claim it is useless.
Never ever said anything close to that.
If so, how about some support for reports of action being taken.

There is no need to keep screaming "catastrophe" when people are already aware of the problem and are working on it. Your exaggerations just discredit your argument.

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:26 pm

I said it was useless. It's not the doom and gloom part that makes it useless, but the effect of the changes you've listed, and the scale of the changes that are required. You could try and fix the leak on the Titanic. You need every available person working on it full time, but manpower was instead used to bail out with buckets, because 'every little bit helps'.

I'm not so angry about it, as I agree the doom and gloom crowd are wrong, and have doubts about the models and how much warming is being predicted. But if the models are to be believed, then the things you are celebrating are useless.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:49 pm

MikeN wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:26 pm
I said it was useless. It's not the doom and gloom part that makes it useless, but the effect of the changes you've listed, and the scale of the changes that are required. You could try and fix the leak on the Titanic. You need every available person working on it full time, but manpower was instead used to bail out with buckets, because 'every little bit helps'.
I recognize the Titanic example as one I'd used earlier to illustrate how "every bit helps" can fall far short of actually being enough to save the "ship." In this case, the ship is sinking very slowly, but perceptibly, and that will give us time to eventually organize a solution. If the Titanic sinking had been well-organized, people would have huddled together for warmth and taken turns in and out of the lifeboats to delay hypothermia perhaps long enough to have been saved when rescue ships arrived. The steerage passengers wouldn't have remained locked below decks, there would have been enough lifeboats and the Carpathia wouldn't have been the only ship to respond at first if everyone were minding the wireless sets properly.

But few things are perfectly organized, and fighting AGW is a particularly difficult one, because it requires nearly everyone to agree on a strategy. It's not going to happen very quickly as long as it's being fought like tribal warfare.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:10 pm

Bill McKibben is on Democracy Now right now. He said something I hadn't heard before a la: "Its AGW that has caused a drought in Central America driving those refugees to the USA." Google confirms it is true.

He is pimping his current book "Falter" supporting the IPCC report that we have 10 years to make the changes required to save us from some level of consequence. he sees two benefiicial maybes:

1. Cheap solar panels. ///// This totally misses the boat as they can't come on line fast enough to have an impact, aka the thimbles bailing the Titanic reality of proportions. and

2. Rise of the Issue sparking social media protests and a current swath of political campaigns based on the issue eg: The Green New Deal //// Well this cuts both ways as in: whats opposing the movement requiring protests?

So, I'm in mind of "Whats it gonna Take???????" to wake up society??? And my best guess is "something dramatic" involving sea level rise and/or mass casualties. The boiled frog analogy seems to fit us all too well.................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:20 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:10 pm
Bill McKibben is on Democracy Now right now. He said something I hadn't heard before a la: "Its AGW that has caused a drought in Central America driving those refugees to the USA." Google confirms it is true.

He is pimping his current book "Falter" supporting the IPCC report that we have 10 years to make the changes required to save us from some level of consequence. he sees two benefiicial maybes:

1. Cheap solar panels. ///// This totally misses the boat as they can't come on line fast enough to have an impact, aka the thimbles bailing the Titanic reality of proportions. and

2. Rise of the Issue sparking social media protests and a current swath of political campaigns based on the issue eg: The Green New Deal //// Well this cuts both ways as in: whats opposing the movement requiring protests?

So, I'm in mind of "Whats it gonna Take???????" to wake up society??? And my best guess is "something dramatic" involving sea level rise and/or mass casualties. The boiled frog analogy seems to fit us all too well.................
Knock yourself out.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:27 pm

Bill McKibben said in the past to one reporter that he thinks nuclear is a good idea, but his allies are so against it he can't support it openly.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:01 am

MikeN wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 11:27 pm
Bill McKibben said in the past to one reporter that he thinks nuclear is a good idea, but his allies are so against it he can't support it openly.
Due to Lance's constant repetition, I've come around to Nukes. All my negatives remain operative but "as we face extinction" all remedies must be reevaluated.

Still an open question: how much waste is actually produced? I see numbers from totally manageable, to wholly unmanageable. I see no clear marker to tell which is more likely. Lack of education on my part..........I'm starting to lean toward manageable.....OTHERWISE, they would be a bigger issue right now?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:56 am

We don't care, don't connect, AGW with drought with the turmoil caused by AGW through population MIGRATION even as the events are piling up now. The drought in Syria leading to that mess in the Middle East has been mentioned a few times but not emphasized.

NOT HEARD AT ALL: the drought in Central America. Imagine what attention/concern would be drawn to AGW if this issue was mentioned at least every other time the border crisis is mentioned rather than just, as with Syria, the crisis itself.

So, while I said this just above, here is one of 5 million hits: https://cruxnow.com/church-in-the-ameri ... owl-helps/
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:28 am

Heard another good one on TV re efforts to avoid disaster: 'Hope is the narcotic for urgency."

Yep.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:44 am

Again on Stephen Pinker. His latest book has a chapter on nuclear power, and his views are identical to mine. He has an interesting quote, though, from an academic study. He says that, with the current growth in demand for electricity world wide, by 2050 if we relied entirely on wind and solar power, it would take an area equivalent to the USA including Alaska to hold all those wind turbines and solar cells. That is land that could not be used for anything else.

To avoid that kind of land waste, while not burning fossil fuels, lots of nuclear energy will be needed.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:45 am

The land could always be multi-use. You sure he said exactly that?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:47 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:45 am
The land could always be multi-use. You sure he said exactly that?
Bobbo

Your local library probably has a copy of his book "Enlightenment Now". Read it, and you will be able to battle me quote for quote.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:48 am

Saw a good show on Blue Energy. Constant electricity from a membrane set between salt and fresh water. Its coming out of the lab...........supposedly. Technology is a marvel to discover.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:50 am

Quote me no quotes. Lance: don't the vestiges of your own common sense tell you that land can always be multi-use? eg: with cows and crops currently co-existing with wind turbines........what in the future would prevent this from continuing? eg: put solar panels on the roof of buildings...etc.

common sense: just look.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:01 am

I am telling you, Bobbo, what the study concluded. You do not have cows grazing right up to wind towers. There is normally an exclusion fence. However, I am not a wind tower engineer, so beyond that I go by what I read, as long as what I read is reputable.

I am not opposed to wind and solar power. Just that I realise that every kind of non fossil fuel power will be needed.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 4:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:01 am
I am telling you, Bobbo, what the study concluded.
Thats exactly what I keep telling you. ........................................ Understand?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

MikeN
Regular Poster
Posts: 567
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:41 am

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by MikeN » Tue Apr 16, 2019 6:02 am

>Due to Lance's constant repetition, I've come around to Nukes. All my negatives remain operative but "as we face extinction" all remedies must be reevaluated.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they say, 'Global warming is a threat to civilization as we know it.' then says,"We can't have nuclear power. It's not safe."
Last edited by MikeN on Tue Apr 16, 2019 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:19 am

That is true, Mike.

It has always struck me as weird that some of the worlds biggest and most powerful environmental organisations reject two of the potentially most important tools for helping the environment. That is, nuclear power and genetic modification.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:53 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:19 am
That is true, Mike.

It has always struck me as weird that some of the worlds biggest and most powerful environmental organisations reject two of the potentially most important tools for helping the environment. That is, nuclear power and genetic modification.
Trading poisons is not a solution.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Tue Apr 16, 2019 2:54 pm

cattle-wind-farm_10590_600x450.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Tue Apr 16, 2019 3:13 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 10:53 am
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:19 am
That is true, Mike.

It has always struck me as weird that some of the worlds biggest and most powerful environmental organisations reject two of the potentially most important tools for helping the environment. That is, nuclear power and genetic modification.
Trading poisons is not a solution.
Bobbo is fond of objectifying the subjective. (For Bobbo, the non-babble version is: "He likes to give his opinions the status of fact.")
To metaphorically refer to something as "poison" is stock in trade for alarmists. I could call your house "the frankenhouse" but that would be a disingenuous way of denigrating your house without a basis in fact. Since facts often conflict with the beliefs of alarmists, they resort to aggressive labeling. The mature way is to take stock of all the pros and cons, and construct your own informed opinion from that.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:28 pm

A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:43 pm

Lausten

Further comment is not only called for, but is essential, when the message given is an idiotic slogan.

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:56 pm

The article explains itself quite well.
We are all doomed, it is said. Carbon dioxide is amassing in the atmosphere at levels not seen for millions of years when there were trees at the South Pole and Florida was under water. We have barely a decade to make amends. Protesters are on the streets.

But huge numbers of people have not given up. Not yet. Call them the carbon cutters. They are companies and cities, niche groups and nations. They are commuters and communes, off-gridders and off-setters, investors and institutions – and countless individuals, cutting their meat intake, installing solar panels, eschewing gas guzzlers and long-haul flights.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 13160
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lance Kennedy » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:16 pm

Which is not in dispute, Lausten.

What is in dispute is whether it results in megadeaths, human extinction or the collapse of civilization. I seriously, seriously doubt it. This is something that has happened before, many times, over geological time. Even the last interglacial period, just 120,000 years ago, got to between 2 and 3 Celsius warmer than the present. It did not kill off anything. There have been periods further in the past with even greater warming, and life thrived.

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:23 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Which is not in dispute, Lausten.

What is in dispute is whether it results in megadeaths, human extinction or the collapse of civilization. I seriously, seriously doubt it. This is something that has happened before, many times, over geological time. Even the last interglacial period, just 120,000 years ago, got to between 2 and 3 Celsius warmer than the present. It did not kill off anything. There have been periods further in the past with even greater warming, and life thrived.
What's in dispute is whether these alarming headlines are exaggerated and unsupported claims. When someone says, "The Arctic will be ice-free by 2013," and that date comes to pass, it's revealed that the claim was false, regardless of additional claims that it was "supported by evidence." This then lowers the degree of confidence attributed to the source. This is entirely reasonable discourse within science.

What's not reasonable is for someone to label skepticism of such predictions as "denial," regardless of all the "evidence" used to support it, which has previously been discredited by failed predictions.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19283
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:06 am

tick tock.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:29 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:16 pm
Which is not in dispute, Lausten.

What is in dispute is whether it results in megadeaths, human extinction or the collapse of civilization. I seriously, seriously doubt it. This is something that has happened before, many times, over geological time. Even the last interglacial period, just 120,000 years ago, got to between 2 and 3 Celsius warmer than the present. It did not kill off anything. There have been periods further in the past with even greater warming, and life thrived.
When you say things, like the ice age didn't kill off anything, I realize we are speaking completely different languages. You use words like "collapse" in a way that only you know what it means. That ice age is what allowed us to become a dominant species and that is evidence for the idea that this major change in climate will be the beginning of some new species chance at that.

https://www.livescience.com/40311-pleis ... epoch.html
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
Lausten
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:33 pm
Location: Northern Minnesota

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by Lausten » Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:31 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:23 am
When someone says, "The Arctic will be ice-free by 2013," and that date comes to pass, it's revealed that the claim was false, regardless of additional claims that it was "supported by evidence."
When you put something in quotes, it's traditional to say who said and in what context. There's a picture of two guys who kayaked to the North Pole, which would require a lack of ice, so that has definitely "come to pass". And I have no idea what it means to put "supported by evidence" in quotes.
A sermon helper that doesn't tell you what to believe: http://www.milepost100.com

User avatar
landrew
Has No Life
Posts: 11246
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: Are we sure global warming is bad?

Post by landrew » Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:12 pm

Lausten wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:31 pm
landrew wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:23 am
When someone says, "The Arctic will be ice-free by 2013," and that date comes to pass, it's revealed that the claim was false, regardless of additional claims that it was "supported by evidence."
When you put something in quotes, it's traditional to say who said and in what context. There's a picture of two guys who kayaked to the North Pole, which would require a lack of ice, so that has definitely "come to pass". And I have no idea what it means to put "supported by evidence" in quotes.
The quotes also signify a metaphorical type of quote. Everyone knows that Al Gore said it, but in this case it was used as a "for instance" example.
But aside from the technicality, won't you have to concede that there's a credibility problem with making a series of failed predictions?
Are you still trying to refute that?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.