Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Sooner or later someone will bring up that scientific test where a guy dropped two cannonballs from the Tower of Pisa

"appreciable" is a vague term. What's appreciable for you might not be for me and vice/versa. Therefore, adjective is meaningless. For the purposes of clarity, I work with absolutes.

hen please explain to me (and who ever others might be interested…) how climatologists take the temperature of the Earth to a tenth of a degree accuracy?

You think mere correlation to be an acceptable substitute for causation, and you're willing to ignore contrary evidence — for the sake of your pretty charts — and your political aims. I think science will continue, despite your imprecations.

Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet.

We should limit the release of gases and stop burning the forests. That just makes sense.

This discussion […] could be - and should be - about whether the amount of current evidences is enough to establish causation in the correlation. This evaluation seems quite subjective so far.
Is there anything objective in that direction?

Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet. We should limit the release of gases and stop burning the forests. That just makes sense.

However, it will make conditions less ideal for human life.

But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?

Sooner or later the ultimate evidence will need to be realized, there's simply too much people in the world, waisting too much resources at a too much rapid pace. The world is not elastic forever, it breaks.
Fixing it after broken would be the most painful and hardest thing mankind has ever tried and hardly even possible.

"Writing in The New York Times, Felicity Barringer credited American Thinker with initiating a public outcry over a California plan to require programmable thermostats which could be controlled by officials in the event of power supply difficulties." -wiki

[..]
The methods of these organizations are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry.
A RICO investigation (1999 to 2006) played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry
from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking. If corporations in
the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented
in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped[..]
(emphasis is mine, of course)

The only quantitative for predicting future climate are climate models which include as their central components atmospheric and oceanic General Circulation Models. However, these models involve many assumptions and approximations that are not always appreciated when interpreting their results. -  Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO Source 

When you start taking political rhetoric at face value you are part of the problem.

When the so-called science is so politicized, only a fool would ignore the political rhetoric…

I'm not going to explain the difference between damage and destroy to you. (Or planet and ecosystem for that matter.)*

If you wanna be some kind of boulder in the river conversations are just gonna flow around you. If you can't or won't understand what I mean by that - that's the problem. If you do, then good job. Do that more often.

Sorry about calling a spade a bloody shovel, but every time I see the argument that there's too many people, the person suggesting thinning the herd never, ever suggests that the thinning should start with themselves (leading by example).

Who makes the choice in who lives or dies? You? By the standards you're suggesting, Hitler had the right idea. So did Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Pardon me for not having grown up in a monoculture where all concepts have been gleichgeschalten in the minds of people so that everybody automatically understands everything the same way.

Where I grew up, you either define your terms or your talk is just like a buzzing of the flies.

But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?

Would you please explain this to the little Indian man down at the corner market? I'm tired of asking for a pack of cigarettes too and him handing me two packs.

Of course it's easier nowadays. I looked up and translated "gleichgeschalten" in seconds. But then I am willing to try to understand.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-09-15, 23:41:53

But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?

There's so many variables involved that it's best to proceed mindful of what we don't know. This isn't a "if not this then that" scenario.

Using destroy is a political exaggeration. Nothing to get stuck on but I can do better in that regard at least...

There's nothing to suggest that the obvious change we can cause will be a bad thing. Humans were born from climate change.

Sorry about calling a spade a bloody shovel, but every time I see the argument that there's too many people, the person suggesting thinning the herd never, ever suggests that the thinning should start with themselves (leading by example).

When the so-called science is so politicized, only a fool would ignore the political rhetoric…

But so-called environmentalists do, frequently, urge governments to institute a "back to the Stone Age" agenda; and -at the same time- ask for more government funds!

You think he is doing something wrong?

Communication is a two-way traffic.

Try asking for a pack of cigarettes, not for "too".

Salespeople and accountants have a general tendency to think in terms of numbers and item lists, and they have little clue of other aspects of language. This problem is exponentially exacerbated when the salespeople are foreigners.

So you could understand better, I was referring to this. I only know of Russian direct equivalent, not English.

In my experience, there seems to be a curious inverse relation between freedom of speech and capacity of independent thinking. Suppression of free speech tends to motivate people to consider the entire array of possible meanings and associations in what's read or heard. It encourages independent thinking, reading between the lines, and dissent. Of course, "reading between the lines" is immediately next to "reading into the text" and I must apologise for my overinterpretations.

Remember, I was responding to these words, "Overwhelmingly there's nothing to show we are destroying the planet."

You may think me and others are idiots and your culture has somehow produced superior thinking but you're wrong. From where I'm sitting you're just another human.

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2015-09-21, 16:43:13

You may think me and others are idiots and your culture has somehow produced superior thinking but you're wrong. From where I'm sitting you're just another human.

Thanks for making your perspective clear.

From my point of view, everybody else hopefully represents a world view worth investigating. There's no "just another" about it. My hope is often frustrated. My apologies.

But does it make sense if our burning the forests is doing nothing to destroy the planet? Or is it rather that it makes sense to stop burning the forest because it is destroying the planet?