Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-07-12, 12:09:01

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man. As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

Based on your anti-CAGW performance on this site, you have no reason to expect any slice of the cake, not even a cookie. Shape up!

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with. Which is why I don't discuss the politics with him. It's much comfier to bash the politics of the science of economics.

OK. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt--- let alone a reasonable one--- that the above statement is in error.

Where's my compensation from the oil and coal companies? Come on--- it's been several years, there's a lot of back-pay involved--- where is it? I've come out against CAGW for years now, so--- if what you say is true, I should be a wealthy man.

As it is, if I tried to get a car loan the bank would point at my credit rating and laugh.

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with.

I also have doubts that reasonable doubt about CAGW is restricted in any way to the US-- but that's another issue.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 12:55:40

Different from Oakdale, who may actually have a point about politics that I may agree with.

You mean climate change being a political (anti American obviously) form of attack to their economics?

He hasn't said anything too specific about it,

The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.

He hasn't said anything too specific about it, so I don't know if his objections to the IPCC (which are, as far as can be determined, indeed purely political) only concern the funding of IPCC or go further into suspicions that IPCC is some devilish plo[t] to attack the interests of American businesses.

The corruption of the scientists (which happens too) is of a whole different nature and degree than the political corruption.Yes it happens together with incompetency and intellectual fraud. The problem is they have to live under a private financing fund model so the pressure for "discovering" what the donors wants them to "discover" it's huge.

My objections to the IPCC are straightforward: Tasked with estimating the best understanding of "climate science", they quickly became an arm of anti-capitalist "environmentalism" evangelism! (That may sound a little harsh — but each new Policy Summary made it plainer… But —Jeez! You know, it might be important…?!)

I'll mention a few things that don't convince me:
Their "evidence" is primarily GCM model predictions,
their predictions have been falsified,
noone seems to think we need better models…

Has it occurred to you that science requires a little bit more… More than politics? More than a consensus?

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?

You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.

I.e. a conspiracy theory. I only accept conspiracy facts. You have to state who is gaining and what, so that it could be reasonably inferred that the conspiracy is real. Until then, dismissed.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 22:37:00

Evidence of what? Predictions of what? Models of what?

That seems to have been the problem between us for a very long time: You think your "primary" education is sufficient…

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 22:37:00

You don't even acknowledge the blindingly obvious environmental issue: When you pee in your well, you will be drinking pee. It doesn't even take a scientist to know this with indisputable certainty.

Then, obviously, we should de-populate the oceans of fish… who both pee and defecate in the oceans! (You have proven yourself to be an idiot.)  Of course, it "doesn't take a scientist"… You wouldn't know one, if he was peeing on you!

Until you respond to reasonable questions, I'll banter...

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing… But it remains to be seen how good it is.
——————————————————————————————

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 23:36:47

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon

I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon — and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

Markets will regulate climate as they do with politics.

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-07-15, 22:39:03

Ask for political asylum at the South while you still are allowed to do it krake.

After the South will manage to bankrupt us I'll seek for economic asylum.

By the way, don't you want to sell more four of your submarine to Greece? more two to us? how many more millions of Mercedes, BMW's and the sort? How many more millions of pharmaceutical industry? Industry machines?
Do you really have something to say?

Only exception would be some pharmaceutical products. I would give them for free (I mean paid with our tax money because the industry has nothing to give away).  Epidemics is the last thing Europe needs.

Up now it would be time to buy your goodies from our US friends.

Either Mankind finish with commerce or commerce will finish with Mankind.

I've heard of this model, and it's more than an "epi-cycles" thing… But it remains to be seen how good it is.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-07-12, 23:36:47

Ah, I see. You take industry to be a natural phenomenon

I take humans to be a "natural" phenomenon — and their activities. You disagree?
You're right in thinking that we have insurmountable problems of a definitional nature. An example to ponder: Is a major volcanic eruption "pollution"?

By the way, where is your story of photons?

When industrial pollution is natural to you, there's nothing unnatural and "natural" has no meaning to you. For me it has a meaning. So we are not talking about the same thing.

You have "heard of" the greenhouse effect, your opinion of it is "it remains to be seen", and you think you have something meaningful to say on this topic?

"Life on Earth has always been dependent on the conditions of the Sun, so scientists spend a lot of time studying its activity. A recent announcement from solar scientists suggests that the Sun may soon enter a period of significant reduced activity, possibly causing a mini ice age by 2030 – just 15 years from now.

These predictions were announced at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales, so it hasn't been possible to evaluate the research yet. However, Professor Valentina Zharkova from the University of Northumbria who made this announcement claims that the findings come from a computer model of sunspots that has made "unprecedentedly accurate predictions," as reported in The Guardian."  Go here for more. 

[…] we are not talking about the same kind of "natural" either. Your "natural" means that since volcanoes exist, industrial pollution is natural.

Whereas my definition of "natural" acquires its meaning in contrast with "unnatural", same as order is defined in contrast with disorder, right in contrast with wrong, etc.