A Radical Prescription

pitabread · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
their meal ticket is gonna stop......

I've never understood these sorts of claims. There is no logic behind the idea that scientists had to invent a bunch of fake science over the course of decades for the purpose of getting paid when they could, y'know, do real science and achieve the same.

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

Ophiolite said:
No snowflake in an avalanche feels responsible. This is an error on the part of the snowflakes. Accept responsibility.

I thought it was against site rules to call people “snowflakes.”

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

Ophiolite said:
Aggressive ignorance on the part of climate deniers has removed peace from the equation. Their choice.

So the religion is settled?

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

The_Barmecide said:
Indeed. Climate denialists have been able to stall the necessary actions for nearly 30+ years (60 years if you go back to some of the early alarms) and now the fixes will have to be much more draconian. So the only thing left when a large group of people who worship ignorance hold the reins is to force them to understand the gravity of the situation.

Were you around in the 1970s?

The fear rave back then was a new ice age was upon us.

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
Hmmmm, guess they could be sent to somewhere really isolated for, you know, 're-education'.....maybe some place like Siberia? Maybe that would "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."

And people wonder why I won't give up my firearms.....sheesh

Seems this thread might be heading in the direction of an Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn novel.

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
That is to take people and "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."?

Now gravity is settled science. I agree.

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

Chesterton said:
So what level of criminality would you advocate to avoid the "really bad stuff"?

Don’t think you want an answer to that.

redleghunter · Oct 15, 2019

pitabread said:
I've never understood these sorts of claims. There is no logic behind the idea that scientists had to invent a bunch of fake science over the course of decades for the purpose of getting paid when they could, y'know, do real science and achieve the same.

Maybe not the scientists but the pseudo scientists who sell carbon credits.

The_Barmecide · Oct 15, 2019

redleghunter said:
Were you around in the 1970s?

The fear rave back then was a new ice age was upon us.

Yes, yes I was.

I also know that in the 1970's the number of peer reviewed science articles predicting WARMING outnumbered those predicting an ice age.

What you are talking about is related to two "popular articles" in Time and Newsweek I believe. In fact scientists in the 1970's were just learning about the Milankovich Cycles' influence on the Cenozoic ice ages. In addition there was better understanding related to sulfate aerosols which had briefly decrease global temperatures in the norther hemisphere due to pollution. Once pollution was starting to be cleared up in the 1970's the warming kicked in again. Exactly as predicted.

But, again, the number of peer reviewed science articles predicting warming outnumbered those predicting cooling by about SIX TIMES.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

It really does help to learn the technical details in this topic.

The_Barmecide · Oct 15, 2019

pitabread said:
I've never understood these sorts of claims. There is no logic behind the idea that scientists had to invent a bunch of fake science over the course of decades for the purpose of getting paid when they could, y'know, do real science and achieve the same.

It is a claim put out there by people who don't know the first foreign thing about science or scientists.

I always want to ask the person making the claim if they suggest this because THEY are the kind of people who would do that.

civilwarbuff · Oct 15, 2019

The_Barmecide said:
Well, let's say someone who knows a lot about something (far, far, far more than you, for instance) comes and says that something in their field of study says something bad is going to happen unless we ALL take action. If you say "No, I love my ignorance so much that I will stand in your way and we will ALL suffer", is the expert in their right to say "This is unacceptable"?

That's an interesting point. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you don't have any real experience in earth or atmospheric science or even say, chemistry. (Just a guess). So if I present to you 1000 peer reviewed articles that say "anthropogenic global warming is real" and then I present to you 30 peer reviewed articles that say "maybe the data is not quite right in those 1000 articles". Do YOU feel you are in a position to side with the 30 articles?

If so, why?

Do you OFTEN bet against the house when you go to Vegas? If so you are not making much money. You are losing more often.

That's why expertise is what it is. Of course those of us who DO know a thing or two about this particular field know that the 1000 articles are a safer bet to go with. And indeed we all know that the vast majority of earth and atmospheric scientists believe in anthropogenic global climate change.

It kinda does when it affects ALL of us. Let's again assume for the sake of argument that you are ignorant of most of the actual science behind AGW (anthropogenic global warming) and your "say" will keep us from addressing the problem. I personally will suffer (well, my children or grandchildren will suffer) and as such I wish to address the problem. What do we do then?

You don't seem to understand much about scientists or science for that matter. But I'm guessing here as I don't really know you. But I've seen your type of "reasoning" a lot before and it usually isn't coming from a position of knoweldge of the subject at hand.

I noticed you danced around the real question: What gives you the right to" take people and "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."?" which really translates into forcing people to agree with your position. Maybe you can answer that question.
Oh, by the way, after almost 30 years working in and managing interventional cardiology and electrophysiology laboratories I am quite comfortable in dealing with journal articles and pretty good at weeding out junk science and poorly conceived and executed trials....fyi.

civilwarbuff · Oct 15, 2019

pitabread said:
I've never understood these sorts of claims. There is no logic behind the idea that scientists had to invent a bunch of fake science over the course of decades for the purpose of getting paid when they could, y'know, do real science and achieve the same.

Doesn't have to be logic, only has to be money....and there is tons of that.

The_Barmecide · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
I noticed you danced around the real question

-sigh-

What gives you the right to" take people and "force them to understand the gravity of the situation."?"

Funny...I actually answered that question directly. You didn't like the answer or you didn't read the post. One or the other.

which really translates into forcing people to agree with your position. Maybe you can answer that question.

Shall I rephrase it for you? Or will you IGNORE THIS ONE TOO? Ok, I'll bite:

If you and I are facing a disaster and I am knoweldgeable about the disaster and what is causing it but YOU refuse to even understand the technical details and want to sit around and do nothing, and if we do nothing we will BOTH be hurt, then OF COURSE I am in the right to do my level best to force you to help out.

You are free to NOT help out...IF IT ONLY IMPACTS YOU...but it doesn't.

I don't know how much more simply I can phrase it.

Oh, by the way, after almost 30 years working in and managing interventional cardiology and electrophysiology laboratories I am quite comfortable in dealing with journal articles and pretty good at weeding out junk science and poorly conceived and executed trials....fyi.

In earth science, atmospheric science, and chemistry? I have a lot of experience in many of those fields but I could never run an electrophysiology lab or cardiology.

So here's a challenge for you: what is your BEST evidence that the AGW hypothesis is completely wrong?

Just curious where you'll go with this. If you can.

The_Barmecide · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
Doesn't have to be logic, only has to be money....and there is tons of that.

So you really don't know that much about earth and atmospheric science! LOL! Sorry...but most people who go into that field don't make a whole truckload of money. Especially if they go into just regular research. (YOu can make a ton of money if you go into petroleum...but, well, presumably you can get the larger point...)

civilwarbuff · Oct 15, 2019

The_Barmecide said:
Shall I rephrase it for you? Or will you IGNORE THIS ONE TOO? Ok, I'll bite:

If you and I are facing a disaster and I am knoweldgeable about the disaster and what is causing it but YOU refuse to even understand the technical details and want to sit around and do nothing, and if we do nothing we will BOTH be hurt, then OF COURSE I am in the right to do my level best to force you to help out.

You are free to NOT help out...IF IT ONLY IMPACTS YOU...but it doesn't.

I don't know how much more simply I can phrase it.

My bolding....
Wow.....I am at a loss at how to even respond to such a belief. :swoon:

I guess the best I can do is say you are entitled to your beliefs but not entitled to force them upon me or anyone else no matter how right you may believe you are.

The_Barmecide · Oct 15, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
My bolding....
Wow.....I am at a loss at how to even respond to such a belief.

So you don't understand that when someone is an expert on something they probably know more than someone who is not? Or do you not understand that YOUR inaction that DIRECTLY HURTS ME means I have a reason to try to get you to behave in a way that will keep us both from being hurt?

(To be honest I really thought this would be a simple concept. But apparently I was mistaken).

I guess the best I can do is say you are entitled to your beliefs but not entitled to force them upon me or anyone else no matter how right you may believe you are.

But we aren't talking about "beliefs" here...we are talking about scientific facts. AND we are talking about something that will hurt ALL of us if we wait around trying to convince people who DON'T understand even the basics of the technical details and who REFUSE to learn.

But by all means, DO get the vapors and fan yourself. I mean, it's SHOCKING...truly SHOCKING that someone would ask you to NOT stand in the way of helping us all out! We'll break out the smelling salts for your gentle constitution should you faint.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 16, 2019

redleghunter said:
So the religion is settled?

It's also against the forum rules to suggest that science is a religion...

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 16, 2019

The_Barmecide said:
So you don't understand that when someone is an expert on something they probably know more than someone who is not? Or do you not understand that YOUR inaction that DIRECTLY HURTS ME means I have a reason to try to get you to behave in a way that will keep us both from being hurt?

Good luck with that - it looks like a similar situation to the anti-vaxxers who don't see why they should be required to have vaccinations that protect the population as a whole as well as them and their children, and who protect their ignorance with conspiracy theories and pseudoscience.

Ophiolite · Oct 16, 2019

Chesterton said:
You noted skepticism? About what? I just asked a question.

Cute. I was responding to this statement of yours:

Chesterton said:
They didn't really make this announcement as plain old citizens. Article says they intentionally showed up in white lab coats, lol.

That wasn't a question.

If you were referring to the question in your OP, then your questions and statements in this thread - up to the point I have read - clearly indicate you do not believe in the significance of human driven global warming. If that is not your position you need to take remedial courses in written communication. If that is your position then my disgust stands.

redleghunter said:
I thought it was against site rules to call people “snowflakes.”

I am not using the word in the ludicrous way that some have adopted in the recent past. I am using it as a simple metaphor. In literal terms, the sum of many ignorant viewpoints leads to and supports inadequate action on the part of those with the power to address the problem.

redleghunter said:
So the religion is settled?

I don't know what you mean. If you are asking, is the science conclusive on the existence of AGW, then yes - as settled as just about anything can be in science. What is uncertain is just how bad it is going to be, with indications that the consequences lie at towards the extreme end of projections.

pitabread · Oct 16, 2019

civilwarbuff said:
Doesn't have to be logic, only has to be money....and there is tons of that.

There appears to be some confusion. I am saying that your idea of scientists inventing global warming for the purpose of getting paid is illogical.

A Radical Prescription

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Similar threads