Fuck me running, you ain’t doing too bad, gigobuster.
Kind of astounded, sure is some vigorous disagreement, pretty goofy
far as I can tell, with the notion and reality of anthropogenic global heating.
Fairly alarmed at the citelessness going on, too.
There is so much emphasis on greenhouse warming, it is easy to lose sight that man’s activities are changing the Earth’s habitat in other ways.
The oceans — once thought too vast for man to affect — suffer from warming, acidification, pollution and overfishing.
I just stumbled upon an article predicting that, because of such changes, Jellyfish will increasingly be a dominant life-form in the oceans.
Wait…
so despite all your vigorous (near-fanatical?) defense of any attack on the importance of AGW as a threat to mankind, you have developed no personal approach to be part of the solution and cannot articulate a single summary opinion of what you think should be done on a large scale?
And yet you are willing to mock anyone who questions this Great Cause by telling them they are at some stage between absolute denial and denying that there is an effective solution?
See, this is the fundamental source of my own skepticism regarding the AGW Great Cause. I’m willing to concede the science because I’m just too lazy and uninterested to research the science myself. But for the life of me, I cannot figure out what the AGW alarmists want to do. Want to do specifically. (And here I admit that my motivation is deciding what to invest in…)
And the thing that amuses me the most (aside from the utter unwillingness to focus on overpopulation as a root cause of the environmental destruction) is the many of the most ardent doomsayers have neither a personal approach that has caused them any personal sacrifice, nor can they articulate what should be done on a mass scale where everyone is going to sacrifice.
That’s why Al and I are so alike. Sure; Mr Gore is deeply concerned, and I am narcissistically disconnected from any concern. But until there is a coherent and workable plan that can at least be articulated, in my view AGW alarmists simply enjoy the thrill of preaching hell without a plan of salvation.
The comet is coming. Every reputable expert agrees. Repent.
(But yeah; it’s still coming.)
But repent, dammit. Repent.
On your knees, boy. Right now.
I do not agree.
AGW alarmism is a Religion, functionally. That is, it is a belief system whose adherents are generally convinced that truth is on their side and that anyone not accepting such truth is simply in denial. It may be a science-based religion and not a faith-based one, but functionally it’s a belief system whose adherents largely rely on their priests and scholars, and who then label non-believers as apostates.
At the mass level, those who have adopted this Great Cause are highly intolerant of “intelligent, honest and rational opposition” to the point of labeling everyone who disagrees with the Religion as a Denialist.
Translation:
The Chief is not willing to deal with the fact that I agree with what the experts say, it is not only personal approaches, it does require investing and deploying green technology with not only personal approaches but also with a combination of the addition to the real cost of using fossil fuels with regulation and taxation.
Oh, and he expects that none will notice that I told him that the citations are there for a reason. What he shows here is just a willingness to poo poo not only the science (showing that in reality he does not care about it) , and not just the experts that deal with the deployment of renewal energy technology.
Translating again:
He assumes the mockery is not self inflicted by the Chief here. That result is coming for the evidence shown here. When comment that baseless tripe after showing all how willfully you avoid a cite with a very good explanation of what is the most recommended approach to the issue.
And that is another “goodwin” in science debates, when the pseudoscience proponents calls the proponents of science religionists they have lost the debate.
And as it is clear for all to see, you only had faith that I was not talking seriously about finding cites on what experts are recommending to invest.
Or in this case also from the Chief, it is an acknowledgment that he does not know how to find good information that supports the dismissal of what the experts in the matter continue to report after more than 100 years of research.
Somebody up the way keeps on wondering how they can monetise this, how can I make bank on it,what solutions do u propose,gb.
May I?
Shore, sez pretend gb.
Kden, sez i.
I ain’t makin no claims, except that I have certain thoughts n beliefs, and I’m fucked if I’m gonna cite the fact that I got these thoughts and beliefs. Statements made here could be wrong, too fuckin bad. The gist will be pretty reflective of reality as I see it.
So.
Lose the fuckin attitude, first thing. Ignorance, shallowity, and dumbfuckery all rolled into one, patently not the way a serious player approaches makin bank, am I right, slick?
Fuckin a, I so often am though…
Lose the preconceptions, grasshoppa. One must be open and let two way flowage happen with the world, ah so?
Does the foolish man approaching with his foolish, shaped preconceptions stand the best chances at realizing his financial dreams, gigobuster?
Thaaats right, u tellim…
No, bud. In fact everything about yer posts say…
Say, buddy, I got this terrific investment opportunity, swear, yeah, right over heeheeheeere…
Open yer mind, quit being such a kid. If money’s all yer thinkin of, plenty opp once u understand its a real thing, and its creating the biggest markets this world will have know to date.
Solutions?
Needs to b taken seriously first. Do that, you start thinking more about it, and that’s part of the solution right there. Dickweed walkin round part of the problem, all ‘so whats yer solution buddy…’
Total dumbfuck, innit?
Fuckin asswipe thinkin, ask me, and indirectly, u did.
happy investing.
Squawk
Back to u, gb.
Squawk
This is “Great Debates,” not “Talkin’ Trash” and hurling insults.
Knock it off. If you need to hurl insults, take it to The BBQ Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
Yer right, yer right.
Apologies to the person I was talkin to.
I think, if you accept the idea enough to ask that question in a belligerent way, yer kind of passive/aggressively talkin trash. It’s not constructive, it is obfuscatory, and totally penisminded, and I went and did the exact same thing to you, posterwhodidthat , only better…kiddin.
But I honestly have a hard time seeing some of these arguments presented as legit evidence. Possibly a person is worked up and not being as comprehensive as they would otherwise be.
What does “at the mass level” mean? Sounds like weasel words to try to insinuate that some uninformed but vocal ideologues are typical of AGW-hypothesis proponents as a whole.
Sure, there are bound to exist some people, who don’t know much about climate science but are concerned about the environment, who ignorantly assume that any objection to any AGW claim whatever must be inspired by “denialism”. But that’s irrelevant to what Rune and I were talking about, which is how scientists and scientific theories operate:
Are you able to show me where I have “poo poo’d” the science?
I’m not sure why you are “translating” my questions.
Here they are again:
Have you made any personal lifestyle changes as a result of your perspective on AGW? If so, what are they?
Do you personally have any preferred large-scale solution(s) based on your research and passion for the topic? If so, what are they?
These do not need further “translation” to make them different questions.
I think they are simple and straightforward as presented.
I am a bit surprised you don’t seem to have answers for them given the zeal with which you preach the Message.
It is my impression that the broad masses who consider AGW an urgent issue (think GIGObuster as an archetypical example) are highly intolerant of anyone and everyone who doesn’t buy into the urgency.
But perhaps GIGObuster (or you?) will come along and give an example of “intelligent, honest and rational opposition” without labeling such an individual opposed to AGW alarmism a Denialist.
It’s my own impression that opposition to the urgency of the Cause, whether it’s grounded in skepticism over the science or the potential for a cure, is *prima facie *evidence of being a Denialist for the masses truly bound to the urgency with which we need to sound the alarm.
Okay, an unsupported personal “impression” concerning the beliefs and behavior of unidentified and unquantified “masses”. You’re certainly entitled to your own impressions, but there’s not much point in trying to debate about them.
Piffle, I have a method in that madness. It is that I am also testing you. In the links provided there is plenty of recommendations from the experts on what to do and invest, I personally do follow a few of those, but as is clear, you are not checking what they are, and as I pointed before, the fact that you are not familiar with what Gore was doing to his house (and I’m doing a lot of the changes he is doing to my home too) demonstrates to all that not only you are poo pooing the science, but also what the more knowledgeable in the subject are doing.
In the end, as you already acknowledged that you have no clue, at least you should check what the experts and the ones making the changes are doing. Or stop pretending that you follow what even Gore is **actually **doing.
Indeed, another clueless point from the Chief is that he does not know at all what is an alarmist, that is another boiler plate maneuver of many denialists out there, in an attempt to pass themselves as the “middle” they even claim that the IPCC are alarmists too, when they are more conservative and based on the most supported state of the science, as it is on the record, I do follow the IPCC as they have the best scientists of the world contributing to the reports and they are most on the money, although the ice loss acceleration has been shown to be too conservative for my taste.
I leave it to your own review to decide whether this impression is unsupported.
For the vast majority of dedicated AGW alarmists, the science is settled. There is no scientific skepticism left which is “intelligent, honest (or) rational.”
Either you accept as a matter of faith that AGW alarmist science is correct, or you are ignorant, disingenuous or irrational, much the same way that someone denying an ancient earth is either ignorant, disingenuous or irrational.
By what mechanism would I be able to discern which of the expert’s recommendations you are personally following, or which of the large-scale solutions you support?
As to Mr Gore’s house(s) and lifestyle: It’s true I consider it farcical to have enormous personal living space, unlimited travel in grade-A accommodations and the general comforts of being extraordinarily rich, and then argue that making energy improvements or buying carbon offsets or clean energy somehow equalizes all that. The only test I consider reasonable is your total carbon footprint before “offsets.” You don’t get to buy your way out of personal sacrifice. If all 7 billion of us flew private jets, owned huge houses and bought offsets, what do you think the immediate AGW cost would be?
As I’ve said many times, Mr Gore and I are alike in this regard. I am not criticizing what his approach is, because that’s what I do as well. I live life well because I have money, and I do not sacrifice my personal comfort one iota. If the rest of the world were to live like me (much less Al Gore), the current AGW predicament would be an order of magnitude worse. There isn’t enough clean energy to go around, and in the meantime I am not going to sacrifice my own comforts.
As I am using the term, an “alarmist” is someone who thinks there is a serious problem with devastating consequences.