Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-21, 02:33:57

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

You mean liken when GOP politicians take money from ExxonMobile and "skeptical" sites and poor excuses for scientists do the same do the same? (9 out of 10 of them) Now invoking RICO on this issue is going too far and I seriously doubt that Obama will pursue this infringement of First Amendment rights, despite the fact that by 1977 Exxon knew that its products would cause climate change. (remember that by natural cycles, we should actually be in a cooling trend)

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-09-21, 02:33:57

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!

Who?  How many? What percentage does that amount to? You have screwballs in every movement.

It may need to be shut down.

Your frustration is your own fault. Though, I doubt it exists. That was for dramatic purposes.

What you usually try to do is dissect other views and convolute terminology... Presented in a condescending tone that suggests others are fools because you don't understand.

It's very human to not want to admit you're wrong ...

Pretty sure I'm only in this conversation over a point about polarizing opinions. This quote is a short-sided play [on words]* not an attempt at understanding. A further point I'd make is that polarization of any topic leads to opposition bias. You literally can argue the other side of something because you are against someone else not because it's a valid position.

We are back to square one. If you wanna drop the bullshit we can continue back on topic [That's on both our parts]*.

Main problem is I can agree with points from them all; I'd just add a big long "buuuuuuuuut..." to most of it. That's not the conversation that "they" want to have.

So, which way is it? Do I have frustration or not? Is it my own fault or not?

internet persona.

Meh. Long story short, what was I wrong about? Come on, I am eager to admit it!

You overwhelmingly enjoy habitual chit-chat on safe topics for pastime, but always in the back of your mind you are silently irritated by some attitudes. There's a certain limit to what you call condescending tone, and when you perceive that the cup is full, you give expression to your righteous indignation and expose the offender for the hypocrite he is. (If you forgive my humble attempt to return the favour of psychoanalysis    )

Try first. Conclude later.

It's not a matter of opinion whether economy has priority over ecology or the other way round. It's a matter of fact. It's a simple thought exercise:

1. Have ecology and economy side by side.
2. Take economy away, while ecology remains. Is life still possible or not?
3. Take ecology away. Can economy remain?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-09-21, 13:53:25

Meh. Long story short, what was I wrong about? Come on, I am eager to admit it!

In this particular case.. That you were in fact being intentionally obtuse.

Such simplistic thinking is the main reason some societies require a Ministry of Truth… Reification run rampant!

Midnight, I gotta ask: Do you believe that the scientists who disagree with you on this subject only do so because they're taking money from the oil companies?

I say again--- if everybody who dares to disagree with "you" (in quotation marks because now this applies to everybody, myself included) is ignorant

Such simplistic thinking is the main reason some societies require a Ministry of Truth… Reification run rampant!

It doesn't take long before we encounter information that's objectively incorrect. On page 35, there's the claim global stopped in 1998.

The role played by vulcanism and sulphur dioxide in controlling the global [climate] is not much discussed by AR5 although this Assessment does note that volcanic eruptions are "the dominant cause of the externally-forced climate change on the annual to multi-decadal time scales", but discussion is anecdotal and primarily concerned with the consequences of recent and very large events. In the recent literature, too, emphasis has been placed on the cooling effect of volcanic dust veils perhaps because [the are] stratospheric warming events due to three explosive volcanic eruptions are prominent in radio-sonde and satellite data in the decades of the 20th century and because a general stratospheric cooling trend ceased at the same time as the interruption of tropospheric warming after 1998.

But a more! complex! explanation for the observed lack of surface warming
after 1998 is that!of Kaufmannand others, who invoke declining irradiance at the end
of an 11Ayear solar cycle..

Unfortunately many bugs occurred when I was trying to copy/paste it for you […]

[The author's] assertion that there's a lack of of surface warming on the planet is inaccurate.

Even if we simply have short term AGW, followed by a natural cooling trend, it's still time to consider graduating from fossils fuels. Bring down the cost of batteries to make at least hybrid cars the normal and enjoy the economic benefits of a new, greener, industrial revolution (quite the opposite of deindustrializing and reverting to living in caves.)

Quote from: Midnight Raccoon on 2015-09-22, 23:16:31

Unfortunately many bugs occurred when I was trying to copy/paste it for you […]

Not to worry! When I tried to "copy & paste" what I posted, I quickly gave up that tack.

(iii) Consequences of anthropogenic modification of the environment: this effect will be greatest where human populations are most crowded or where deforestation, intensive agriculture, industrial or petrochemical activities and simple occupation of space by buildings will modify regional climates more radically than any effect of anthropogenic CO2. It is not our motor cars that are causing rapid warming in eastern Amazonia and many other regions, but the intensive ploughing of cleared forest regions for – of all things – growing biofuel-­‐ producing plants for the same vehicles. These effects are easier to identify in the global surface air temperature data than any global effect of CO2 to which all warming is habitually attributed.

Why do you think yourself qualified to determine how most of the world's economy should be structured and run?

I can copy&paste easily. Here's a quote I grabbed with Qpdfview, my fav PDF viewer

That there are environmental processes with changeable ecological quality is beyond dispute. That human activity has had major impact on environmental processes and occasionally annihilated ecological quality is also beyond dispute. The solution is to loosen the stranglehold on ecology.

Your conservative nature makes you fear the change.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-09-23, 02:34:44

I can copy&paste easily. Here's a quote I grabbed with Qpdfview, my fav PDF viewer

Yup. I, too, have installed a few "better" viewers. But I'm unwilling to switch to Debian for such…

On a serious note: These statements are worded in such a way as to be, essentially, meaningless.
Even so: Would you agree that most of the world's "environmental" problems are local, and amenable to local remediation?

What's the meaningful difference between local and global?

An effective introduction of the ecological perspective in a single country may put it at an economic disadvantage compared to other countries. Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries. International agreements on these issues are indispensable.

Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries.

If such change is coming, indeed, inevitable: Why is ever more encompassing government coercion required, to facilitate it?

What I oppose, what I'm against, what I mind — is the destruction of working technology (and economy), in the hope that something else will magically appear to replace it.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-09-24, 05:40:45

Then there are, for example, countries who poison rivers that run further into other countries.

Something quite relevant for countries like Belgium and the Netherlands — almost all of the remaining junk in rivers comes from France.

Your rivers flows up north? interesting, all ours but one flows south.

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-09-26, 09:01:38

Your rivers flows up north? interesting, all ours but one flows south.

Do you get any junk from Spain in them?