Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Cynicism always has its place, but it seems a bit bizarre that you single out an ex-politician who made a movie on one side, but make no mention of the massive multi-national corporations profiting on climate change denial on the other. Is it that you think Mr Gore is motivated purely by greed, while oil companies have loftier motives? Or is it that you'll only believe people who get no financial renumeration?

Or have I misunderstood? Would you believe a scientist if they received funding from a body interested in climate science?

STOP IT!!!

Just change it to whatever phrase you consider acceptable, and then address whatever you have a problem with. I don't like anti-abortionists using the term "pro-life", but I don't dismiss their arguments entirely if they use the generally accepted term.

I dismissed your questions because I explained on the last two pages that I'm not a climate change denier and thus your comparison is inaccurate relative to my thoughts on climate change.

Get it right. Greek is a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic.

Neoteny wrote:Get it right. Greek is a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic.

Yes, thank you.

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Get it right. Greek is a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic.

Yes, thank you.

FYI, in the literature, you're still considered a denier, but I will now refer to you as CCT/CBAS (cocked seabass [I wish i'd had the foresight to make your acronym more intentionally amusing]).

Neoteny wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Get it right. Greek is a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic.

Yes, thank you.

FYI, in the literature, you're still considered a denier, but I will now refer to you as CCT/CBAS (cocked seabass [I wish i'd had the foresight to make your acronym more intentionally amusing]).

I assumed I was still considered a denier. People need good labels (cocked seabass hopefully will catch on and we can have another climate change category).

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Cynicism always has its place, but it seems a bit bizarre that you single out an ex-politician who made a movie on one side, but make no mention of the massive multi-national corporations profiting on climate change denial on the other. Is it that you think Mr Gore is motivated purely by greed, while oil companies have loftier motives? Or is it that you'll only believe people who get no financial renumeration?

Or have I misunderstood? Would you believe a scientist if they received funding from a body interested in climate science?

STOP IT!!!

Just change it to whatever phrase you consider acceptable, and then address whatever you have a problem with. I don't like anti-abortionists using the term "pro-life", but I don't dismiss their arguments entirely if they use the generally accepted term.

I dismissed your questions because I explained on the last two pages that I'm not a climate change denier and thus your comparison is inaccurate relative to my thoughts on climate change.

My questions didn't accuse you of climate change denial. I just wanted to know which bodies of information you trust, and to what extent you think financial interest influences those results.

Your post above seems to say that Al Gore is only saying things that will make him money. I don't think It's unfair for me to ask you to apply a similar standard of criticism to the groups who might stand to lose money (see how carefully I worded that).

thegreekdog wrote: The United Nations is not a scientific organization, it is a political organization. So you are correct, as far as I'm concerned, that the United Nations expected a particular result of the science. I think it was because the United Nations has a vested interest in changing the societies and economies of the world through their pronouncements that they made the pronouncement in the first place, but I'm a cynic. I also think that Al Gore is so adamant about the imminent (operative word) dangers of climate change because he has a vested financial interest in the subject... again, I'm a cynic.

Unfortunately, the United Nations holds such high importance in the lives of many, including policy leaders in a whole host of countries, that any pronouncement the UN makes are fairly important to the day-to-day lives of citizens. So, a pronouncement that is so egregiously wrong is, well, egregious.

Well, it should be self-evident that the UN ought not to be the foremost leader when it comes to policy analysis of climate change. I'll make free concession of that point. They have politicized the issue far too much, and have paid the price for doing so (and the rest of the climate science community is also paying for their inability to make reasonable decisions).

Symmetry wrote:I don't think It's unfair for me to ask you to apply a similar standard of criticism to the groups who might stand to lose money (see how carefully I worded that).

It's not and I do apply the same standard of criticsm. Again, the difference is that no one else applies the same standard of criticism to both groups. Thus, I aim to get people to apply the same standard of criticism. It may appear that I stand with the oil companies on climate change. I do not. Rather, let's just say I stand against both groups. I stand more adamantly against the groups on one side because the only people who stand against them are climate change deniers (i.e. unreasonable people). Thus, I argue on behalf of the CCT/CBAS group.

Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

Phatscotty wrote:Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

I support global awesomeness. I think the study went wrong in it's predictions. I guess that covers your second question too. I'm glad someone is here to ask these hard-hitting questions.

Phatscotty wrote:Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

The problem wasn't the climate change predictions -- it was that the forecast of 50 million refugees was based on the work of a fringe scientist (Norman Myers) who assumed that people in "danger" areas would leave, when in fact most scientists looking at it now agree that it should have been obvious that people wouldn't have left because of the climate problems. These "danger areas" really are danger areas. People are still piling into them, though, because they don't seem to be concerned about the risks.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

The problem wasn't the climate change predictions -- it was that the forecast of 50 million refugees was based on the work of a fringe scientist (Norman Myers) who assumed that people in "danger" areas would leave, when in fact most scientists looking at it now agree that it should have been obvious that people wouldn't have left because of the climate problems. These "danger areas" really are danger areas. People are still piling into them, though, because they don't seem to be concerned about the risks.

They published a map tho...showing the changes they expected the earth to make, not people. people reactions is just that. a reaction to an initial event.

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

The problem wasn't the climate change predictions -- it was that the forecast of 50 million refugees was based on the work of a fringe scientist (Norman Myers) who assumed that people in "danger" areas would leave, when in fact most scientists looking at it now agree that it should have been obvious that people wouldn't have left because of the climate problems. These "danger areas" really are danger areas. People are still piling into them, though, because they don't seem to be concerned about the risks.

They published a map tho...showing the changes they expected the earth to make, not people. people reactions is just that. a reaction to an initial event.

Right, and those predictions have been generally substantiated (that is, the actual climatic changes). What was incorrect was the response of the people to those climatic changes.

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I don't think It's unfair for me to ask you to apply a similar standard of criticism to the groups who might stand to lose money (see how carefully I worded that).

It's not and I do apply the same standard of criticsm. Again, the difference is that no one else applies the same standard of criticism to both groups. Thus, I aim to get people to apply the same standard of criticism. It may appear that I stand with the oil companies on climate change. I do not. Rather, let's just say I stand against both groups. I stand more adamantly against the groups on one side because the only people who stand against them are climate change deniers (i.e. unreasonable people). Thus, I argue on behalf of the CCT/CBAS group.

CCT is clean coal tech, right? I'm not sure about CBAS, but I guess you're essentially positing that their is a problem and we can get out of it by investing in technology.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

The problem wasn't the climate change predictions -- it was that the forecast of 50 million refugees was based on the work of a fringe scientist (Norman Myers) who assumed that people in "danger" areas would leave, when in fact most scientists looking at it now agree that it should have been obvious that people wouldn't have left because of the climate problems. These "danger areas" really are danger areas. People are still piling into them, though, because they don't seem to be concerned about the risks.

They published a map tho...showing the changes they expected the earth to make, not people. people reactions is just that. a reaction to an initial event.

Right, and those predictions have been generally substantiated (that is, the actual climatic changes). What was incorrect was the response of the people to those climatic changes.

So why would they remove the maps? since the maps are what was "quietly erased"?

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Will anyone who supports global WHATEVER just tell us where they think study went wrong, or why the climate change was not so sudden and severe as the UN and UNEP predicted?

The problem wasn't the climate change predictions -- it was that the forecast of 50 million refugees was based on the work of a fringe scientist (Norman Myers) who assumed that people in "danger" areas would leave, when in fact most scientists looking at it now agree that it should have been obvious that people wouldn't have left because of the climate problems. These "danger areas" really are danger areas. People are still piling into them, though, because they don't seem to be concerned about the risks.

They published a map tho...showing the changes they expected the earth to make, not people. people reactions is just that. a reaction to an initial event.

Right, and those predictions have been generally substantiated (that is, the actual climatic changes). What was incorrect was the response of the people to those climatic changes.

So why would they remove the maps? since the maps are what was "quietly erased"?

I'm guessing it's because they're trying to disassociate themselves from the prediction, which was quite evidently incorrect. It's not the upstanding thing to do, but it should be obvious why they're doing so.

thegreekdog wrote: The article was written to show how ridiculous the UN pronouncement was and how people who listened to it and changed their lives did it for no good reason. And I think the UN should be embarrassed about this, same as the oil companies, except that the oil companies get their comeuppance on a daily basis from everyone and the UN doesn't (except from the climate change deniers). And the climate change deniers are proven wrong because the science shows that climate change exists and are thusly dismissed. I'm trying to show that you can offer the UN it's comeuppance without being a climate change denier.

Except you missed a few steps.

First, the UN did not actually make the kind of mistake you assert. The UN really doesn't have a single vested interest. Oil companies do. The UN? It responds to political pressures and such.

Sure, I know you can get upset with the UN without denying climate change. I know you don't deny climate change. BUT, you do still like the paint things too narrowly. See, that the UN issued this report that happened to be wrong means they made a guess that turned out to be inaccurate. That happens in the real world of science. It is why so many folks, particularly highly linear thinkers, dislike the non-hard sciences.

But, as someone said above, what if the predictions had proved true and the UN said nothing? Someone has to put out the reports of negative consequences so that people can be prepared. If the worst doesn't happen.. GREAT!

Yet, for some reason, while you accept that businesses and such should be prepared for the worst, you get upset because the UN does the same? It doesn't make sense.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: The article was written to show how ridiculous the UN pronouncement was and how people who listened to it and changed their lives did it for no good reason. And I think the UN should be embarrassed about this, same as the oil companies, except that the oil companies get their comeuppance on a daily basis from everyone and the UN doesn't (except from the climate change deniers). And the climate change deniers are proven wrong because the science shows that climate change exists and are thusly dismissed. I'm trying to show that you can offer the UN it's comeuppance without being a climate change denier.

Except you missed a few steps.

First, the UN did not actually make the kind of mistake you assert. The UN really doesn't have a single vested interest. Oil companies do. The UN? It responds to political pressures and such.

so, there is no power or control or "world tax" that qualify as a vested interest?

thegreekdog wrote:Oh for f*ck's sake... just because I don't fit into the stereotypical definition of a conservative's views on climate change...

Metsfanmax got it right at the end. Climate change is real, there is scientific evidence, it's happening.

I have two issues/problems: (1) I question the validity of the recommended response to climate change and (2) I question the validity of the timeline for the recommended response to climate change. In other words, I've seen no evidence that buying an electric car is going to positively affect climate considering where electricity comes from. In other words, I've seen no evidence suggesting that my house will be under water in 2020.

I will purchase an electric car if and when it's cheaper for me to drive an electric car. I will change my lifestyle when it becomes financially viable for me to do so or if someone convinces me that if I don't change my lifestyle, I'm fucked in my lifetime.

I forget the term in economics, but it refers to this phenomenon: People tend to do more of something, if they perceive that they will save more of it in the long-run.

For example, Jill buys an electric car, but uses that electric car more so than her previous non-electric car. She does this because she has the notion that the electric car gets better mileage (and she is correct), but since she knows that it gets better mileage, she will use it more, thus diminishing the original benefit of better mileage.

As the old saying goes, every time a volcano erupts, it wipes out all saved gasoline pollution for the last 50 years....

However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

PLAYER57832 wrote:First, the UN did not actually make the kind of mistake you assert. The UN really doesn't have a single vested interest. Oil companies do. The UN? It responds to political pressures and such.

Phatscotty wrote:However, burning coal and nuclear output will have to rise a bigillion % to supply the electricity for all the electric cars.

For all the complaining player does about unaccounted for costs, for some reason I never hear this one.

Nuclear energy is a perfectly viable alternative to provide all that electricity. People seem to still fail to recognize this, though.

Metsfanmax wrote:Nuclear energy is a perfectly viable alternative to provide all that electricity. People seem to still fail to recognize this, though.

I've always been a huge proponent of nuclear energy. It just goes back to everyone hearing the word "nuclear" and going apeshit over it.

Neoteny wrote:Really? You want me to dig up all your old nonsense posts? I did it once for Gabon (scientific racism thread) so I guess I could do it for you too, but wouldn't it just be easier for you to read that rant Sultan of Surreal posted about you?

please do, i don't really remember what he said. i would enjoy reading it and i think you would too

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I don't think It's unfair for me to ask you to apply a similar standard of criticism to the groups who might stand to lose money (see how carefully I worded that).

It's not and I do apply the same standard of criticsm. Again, the difference is that no one else applies the same standard of criticism to both groups. Thus, I aim to get people to apply the same standard of criticism. It may appear that I stand with the oil companies on climate change. I do not. Rather, let's just say I stand against both groups. I stand more adamantly against the groups on one side because the only people who stand against them are climate change deniers (i.e. unreasonable people). Thus, I argue on behalf of the CCT/CBAS group.

CCT is clean coal tech, right? I'm not sure about CBAS, but I guess you're essentially positing that their is a problem and we can get out of it by investing in technology.

I'm a climate change timeline/cost-benefit analysis skeptic ("CCT/CBAS").

I positing that there is a problem and we can get out of it through our own system of capitalism. As clean technology becomes better and cheaper, other companies will invest in clean technology. I would be willing to bet there are a whole lot of oil companies that run ethanol plans. I would be willing to bet that General Electric invests a whole lot of money in clean technologies. I'm sure there are many companies that do these types of things for tax benefits (better deductions, better credits). And that's fine, although I'm not sure whether I want to be paying for those types of tax benefits (which is what we're doing - we're subsidizing clean energy).

I posit as well that although there is a problem, I do not believe that economies should suffer because of it. I don't believe that a developing African country should have to skip the industrial revolution to save the environment. I don't believe that loggers in Oregon should lose their jobs to save the environment.