The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Bargaining with the climate devils > Comments

Bargaining with the climate devils : Comments

By Lyn Bender, published 15/12/2015

Beyond its declared purpose of deal making, the Paris Summit was a massive witnessing and outpouring of grief.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All
ant

Show how you calculated the distribution and abundance of species under the status quo versus your preferred policy alternative. Show your workings.

Show how you identified, calculated, and took into account the evaluations of all affected human beings in either scenario. What discount for futurity, if any, did you apply? Show your workings.

How do you know what everyone else's values should be?

Where did you get the stupid idea that what you admit is a fallacy, is "science"?

Where did you get the stupid idea that a government monopoly is a "free market"?

Just because you're so confused and opinionated, doesn't mean everyone else has to comply with your opinions.

All you need to know about this entire topic, is that other people aren't as stupid or dishonest as you are.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 25 December 2015 11:31:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine

Keep up the good work. You completely misrepresent my posts, it is so patently obvious that you have no science you can offer. Your denier technique is so patently obvious.

Here is a graph provided by Bob Tisdale a supporter of WUWT, funny how it displays warming.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp
Posted by ant, Saturday, 26 December 2015 7:40:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ant

The science disproves you. You are just a denier. All you have is sophistry.

Science without rationality is story-telling, superstitition. That's what you've got.

Either you admit that your method of appeal to authority is a fallacy - which you have done, thus losing the argument. Or you accept it from me as disproving you, thus losing the argument. But if you claim it as a proof for yourself, but deny it for others, that's equivocation - a logical fallacy - not science; thus you lose the argument.

This is not sophistry; it's because you're demonstrably wrong.

Your claims about global warming are scientifically disproved here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/21/bad-news-scientists-say-we-could-be-underestimating-arctic-methane-emissions/

and here:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/common-thread-at-2015-agu-conference--the-big-melt

and here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

and here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/

here:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp

and here:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

and here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

There. How do you like it?

Now answer my questions or admit you are wrong. But if you skulk off, or evade answering, it means you concede the general issue:

1. what does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?
2. admit that assuming all your premises and conclusions in your favour before entering the argument, and then expecting everyone else to agree with your as a precondition of their entering the argument, is not scientific method?
3. where did you get the stupid idea that a statutory monopoly is a "free market"?
4. show how you calculated the distribution and abundance of species under the status quo versus your preferred policy alternative. Show your workings.
5. show how you identified, calculated, and took into account the evaluations of all affected human beings in either scenario. What discount for futurity, if any, did you apply? Show your workings.
6. How do you know what everyone else's values should be?
7. Where did you get the stupid idea that what you reject as a fallacy, is "science"?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 27 December 2015 11:05:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine

Science has nothing to do with political values. It is not possible to pull apart science by political or religious views.

But you ask a reasonable question about why we should care about anthropogenic climate change:

Climate change has proven deadly for multitudes.
Lancet and other medical Journals have published many articles on the impacts of climate change on people.
Already Inuit and Fijian communities have had to be moved due to sea level rise.
Extraordinary weather events have done huge damage to infrastructure, houses and vehicles.
Huge costs are created for families and communities.
The CIA and US military are concerned about the security issues created through food and water resources diminishing through climate change.

Britian has been hit very hard with flooding over the last weeks, the latest news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12068981/UK-weather-severe-flood-warnings-as-rivers-burst-banks-live.html

A bridge that had been built in the 18th Century has become useable in the Cumbria area through a flood earlier in December.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 27 December 2015 12:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The science proves you wrong. You are just a denialist. Sophistry would be a step up from the blatant dishonesty of your current tactic of evasion.

Furthermore, let us assume - very much in your favour - that all you allege about the connection between CO2 and global warming were admitted - which it's not - and the Inuits, the Fijians, the hurricanoes etc., water and food security, huge costs, etc.

Okay, so what?

What are you saying follows from that?

You have just admitted that, even if all your contentions about global warming were conceded, everything you claim about global warming would not justify any policy? You can't use a thermometer to read off what policy should be, can you, fool?

And we have just established that, by evading answering my questions, you have just conceded the general issue, because you know you can't defend your illogical belief system.

But if not, then answer my questions or admit you are wrong.
1. what does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?
2. admit that assuming all your premises and conclusions in your favour before entering the argument, and then expecting everyone else to agree with your as a precondition of their entering the argument, is not scientific method?
3. where did you get the stupid idea that a statutory monopoly is a "free market"?
4. show how you calculated the distribution and abundance of species under the status quo versus your preferred policy alternative. Show your workings.
5. show how you identified, calculated, and took into account the evaluations of all affected human beings in either scenario. What discount for futurity, if any, did you apply? Show your workings.
6. How do you know what everyone else's values should be?
7. Where did you get the stupid idea that what you reject as a fallacy, is "science"?

Btw, your superstitious opinions about global warming are scientically disproved to your own standard here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/21/bad-news-scientists-say-we-could-be-underestimating-arctic-methane-emissions/

and here:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/common-thread-at-2015-agu-conference--the-big-melt

and here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/

here:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp

and here:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

and here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 27 December 2015 2:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine,

You keep posting links and claiming they disprove what ant's saying. But I've looked at a few of them and I can't see how anyone could reasonably come to that conclusion - it looks suspiciously like a fraudulent appeal to authority on your part.

If that's now what it is, can you tell me what ant said that is contradicted by http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/ ?

As for your seven questions:
1. I've already answered that on another thread.
2. Scientific method is a method of research, not a method of debate!
3. What statutory monopoly are you referring to?

4. Rather than doing calculations in detail, I look at how changing input variables affects the outcome. Species already under stress form humans physically changing the landscape now have the additional heat to contend with but very little time to adapt. The warmer it gets above the temperatures they've evolved to be best suited to, the worse their prognosis is.

5.Again this was done qualitatively, by considering what can be done, what can be done cheaply, and the potentially catastrophic cost of doing nothing. I came to the conclusion that delaying action would add to the cost because although technological improvement will cut the cost of taking action, more experience will hasten technological improvement. Also, inaction greatly adds to the future cost, as counteracting the effects of that inaction will require a lot more to be done than would otherwise be needed.

6. Why do you assume anyone to know what everyone else's values should be?
7. Where did you get that stupid idea that you can dismiss science as a fallacy?
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 27 December 2015 4:30:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. Page 9
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy