That’s not really how debate works. If you make a factual assertion, and I question its basis, and you admit that it’s based on your own personal impression, then you haven’t given me or anybody else any reason to believe your assertion is true.
Your impression is unsupported in that you’re not providing anything to support it other than your own repeated insistence on it. It’s not up to me to “review” it: it’s up to you to back it up with facts and evidence.
[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I heard you the first time you asserted that, and with exactly the same amount of actual supporting evidence that you’re providing now. (Except now you’re doubling down on your earlier vague term “the broad masses” with the slightly less vague but equally unsupported term “vast majority”.)
Not going to work, this only shows what an ignorant you are on what has been shown for years what identifies an alarmist, the proponents of science, the skeptics and the denialists. But if a poster constantly wants to show all others how that poster is an ignorant is not my problem.
Which factual assertion did I make, again? Perhaps you have become confused about what the phrase “it’s my impression” means. The “impression” part specifically means “this is not a factual assertion.” Now you apparently want to pretend I made a factual assertion needing support, and I have backed into “admitting” it’s an impression. Newsflash: I labeled it an impression from the get go. Annoying.
As to how “debate” works. I think you’ve probably gotten sucked up too much into the title “Great Debates.” That’s really just sort of a marketing term used by the SDMB, and actually these are just online conversations; often neither great nor debates. When I want to advance a point that I think needs factual support, I’ll do so. When I advance a point that is an impression, I’ll do that as well.
Where possible, I’ll label an impression as such to help the reader, inviting them to do their own review if they wish.
He said IF, since that was not it, it is clear that then we are dealing indeed with your own personal impression, unfortunately then that part of “then you haven’t given me or anybody else any reason to believe your assertion is true.” still apples, more so.
And that is what then you are avoiding, indeed, since you are not doing factual assertions the problem is that nobody has any reason to believe your assertions are true, or useful at all, in reality so far they are useful only on insisting on denying that humanity has before stopped the use of substances that harmed humanity, one more example is removing lead from fuels and paints.
The assertions so far from the Chief only lead one to think that things like that are impossible, the default assumption is that most of the population will not be willing to do some changes, if that dismal view of progress is the case, then as the population increased, more lead should had been released in the USA and many developed nations. That was not the case.
Of course it was not only local or personal change, most of the change was caused by regulations ordered at high levels. This once again shows that even the impressions of the Chief are not based on what is very possible for humans to do.
No, you didn’t. You responded to my reply to Rune by saying “I do not agree”, and then making various assertions about “AGW alarmism” as a “religion” that you didn’t qualify in any way with disclaimers such as “It is my personal impression that” or “I can’t provide cites but I happen to believe that”, etc.
Now, if you want us to consider that all such statements on your part have such disclaimers implicitly affixed to them, fine. But in that case, there’s no real reason we should pay any more attention to them than to any other idiosyncratic belief of yours that you might be burbling to yourself about.
Here’s what you sound like when your impressions are clearly labeled as your own unsupported personal beliefs, rather than just being bluntly stated with no disclaimers (my supplied disclaimers are in bold):
Being explicit about labeling such statements as merely your own personal opinions without factual backup makes it clear what feeble whiffling they are.
Which, I suspect (note explicit label of factually unsupported personal opinion), is why you chose not to do so in the first place.
If you are down to pretending that what is clearly an editorial opinion in the context of the conversation (and subsequently clarified as such) needs defending as a Fact or else the poster has violated the Kimstu rules of debate, have at it.
I have neither the time nor the patience to quibble after the fashion of a third grader who has just learned the Rules of Debate.
I maintain that the vast majority of AGW alarmists have no room for intelligent, rational or honest debate. I have formed that impression from this board and many other blogs or articles in which the ardent defenders of this Great Cause consider opposition or skepticism to it to be an attack by the ignorant, uninformed and irrational.
But if you want to think otherwise, enjoy your delusion. Or review it for yourself, as you please. It does not seem to me to be a very substantive point either way…whatever nits you want to pick you are certainly entitled to.
I should add I suspect you rather dislike posts not fully in support of the Great Cause. But hey; that’s just another impression.
And so the Chief remains proud on ignoring even what is an alarmist in this context or serious discussions. Indeed that is why the expression “not even wrong” exists.
My two cents is that I can report that the Try2B Green Investment Portfolio has returned ~75% in the 3 short months of its existence, for an annualized return of ~300%!!! My criteria are simple: 1) companies involved with something that will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, and 2) companies that are already profitable or look like they soon will be profitable. Too bad I didn’t exactly have a mountain of risk capital to start out with, but sheesh, so far so good.
Unlike Chief Pedant, I think reallocating capital to these kinds of companies could have some positive effects. And obviously I am not opposed to making a profit. No need to disparage anything as some kind of moon-eyed neo-religious ideological ‘cause’- the numbers are in, carbon levels are rising, and it isn’t a mystery why.
Yes, it could be that the only genuine response to AGW at this point could be ‘grab your ankles and kiss your butt goodbye’. But I don’t think anyone knows at this point if that is the case, so we might as well respond to this threat.
Gosh, this exchange of unsupported fact-free opinions sure is productive and enlightening. It would have been a real pity to sacrifice such an informative discussion to some sort of third-graderish subservience to the rules of debate. :rolleyes:
I don’t know. I have a sort of superstitious fear that as soon as someone follows my investment advice it is the day before it all tanks hard, and I quickly change from a nuisance to a villain. But I did identify my simple criteria. Do the research, it may be glaringly obvious what I’ve done.
But that’s the thing. 3 months is long enough for things to change a little. Do the research- AGW isn’t going to change in 3 months.
It’s not that I don’t think you can make money off the right stock picks…it’s that one of the things that makes a stock successful is getting the word out how good it is. An anonymous board with an anonymous boast not backed up when called out. Hmmmm…here’s an idea: just go make up retrospectively any portfolio that’s done exceptionally well the last 3 months and pretend those were your picks.
I’ve always done extremely well with portfolios I should have bought 3 months ago.
“Superstitious” and productive stock picks are not a combination typically returning 300% per year, unless it’s One Weird Old Trick from a Single Mom…
Well I don’t really blame you. I’m cagey about the specifics, but I don’t really want to give investment advice on the internet because you never know if that is going to blow up in your face. Since you don’t really care about AGW, or the fate of humanity if it interferes with your own comfort, I’m not so sure I should care about you calling bullshit… anyway, if I sell tomorrow there are several thousand dollars that would like to have a word with you
I’d rather put it this way: I am convinced that AGW is not the main problem harming the ecology of the earth. The success of our species is the root problem, and specifically, too many of us. Because of that, the sacrifice of my personal comfort will make so trivial a difference that I can’t get motivated to make a substantive personal sacrifice.
And my observation of my fellow man is that neither can anyone else. Many of us like to make ourselves feel better in some small non-painful way, but none of us are willing to make the draconian sacrifices required to ameliorate AGW until such time as we can collectively figure out how to avoid having our species destroy the planet.
We totally love caring about the problem, and we are easily caught up in the thrill of a Great Cause. When it comes to personally being the change we want to see in the world…not so much.
This is the tragedy of the commons, and it’s why I am (once again) about to board a flight in First Class even though I know more efficient mass transport diminishes humanity’s footprint. But if I don’t take that seat, the next guy will. And if I don’t go visit my son because I think elective flying should be curtailed, I will have lost something dear to me for a vague and trivial benefit for mankind.
A while ago I read an article about some college students who had developed a hybrid airplane engine that was powered partly by batteries. And just yesterday I was reading an article about plans to install solar film onto the wings and fuselage of commercial airplanes. Put them together and perhaps the airplanes of tomorrow won’t be so polluting.
As for the ‘Great Cause’, I can see what you mean but I also think you are projecting. For me personally, I just don’t want to kid myself. A lot of other people seem to get upset with the misinformation that is purposefully put out on the subject, probably by corporate interests that don’t want to make expensive changes or don’t give a hoot what effect they have on the environment.
As an individual, there is only so much that I or anyone else can do. The big changes are more effective at the government level, which is tricky and touchy even if you aren’t marching in demonstrations about communist fascists who want to grab your guns so they can raise your taxes or something… the government can potentially enact the will of the people in aggregate to tackle issues like this, but again things get screwed up when misinformation is promoted.
I’m not sure exactly what to do. I think moving away from fossil fuels is a good step and I have some capital to allocate to that- which is no skin off my nose, it has turned a big profit so far. I sent you a PM about it if you haven’t noticed.
I meant to address this specifically: Is it really ‘too many of us’ though? What if people are eating microlivestock (like grasshoppers) and jellyfish and lots of veggies, and powering their AC and ipads with wind, solar and geothermal power? How much difference does it make if large numbers are added to the global population if they live in a sustainable way? It is entirely possible for large populations to live in what amounts to ‘dignified poverty’- a state low on impact on natural resources, but with access to things like health care, education, WATER, security, recourse to the law and so on. Could one say that people like this are the problem?
If the answer is yes, how do we then proceed without resorting to misanthropy?
I do not know how to answer this hypothetical…
The vast majority of us want to live the best, most comfortable life with the fullest of experiences. Sure; if everyone ate bugs instead of bluefin we’d probably be able to support more with less impact. Not gonna happen.
As I’ve pointed out to the consternation of GIGObuster, Al Gore and I are proof of that. So is everyone I know.
So, nothing new, but we knew that already. As you can see Try2B Comprehensive as I noticed before, the Chief clearly has a position that depends on not looking at what even Gore actually proposes.
