4 ms·

>The problem is....archaelogical climage record extrapolation is nowhere as sure fire.... Then pray provide us with some science supporting your point. If you

by logjam 17y ago

>The problem is....archaelogical climage record extrapolation is nowhere as sure fire.... Then pray provide us with some science supporting your point. If you cannot, when you just keep bleating you are "troubled" over and over, you really look like someone just pushing an agenda without any support whatsoever. And oh, what's needed now is a "slam-dunk" on the issue. A "slam-dunk", of course, was never needed when any of the corporate interests (who are the ones really astroturfing and dissembling on this issue) set out to basically rape ecosystems for their stockholders. Do you also call for "slam-dunks" from these corporate interests, or just when it's convenient for your political ideology? This whole discussion is reminiscent of the tobacco industries continual two-faced insistence on "slam-dunks" when it came to any encroachment on their ability to reap profit from suffering. >I have no more emotion invested in whether the planet is cooling or warming than I do variations of the gravitational constant around the time of the big bang. Whichever way the facts lead will not change my underlying concern. So I really don't have a dog in this fight as far as the science goes, at least not to the degree that some others do. Right. And in your disinterestedness you personally posted three anti-warming editorials to Hacker News over the last three weeks. Not three science articles - three editorials espousing a single view.

gloob 17y ago
Paranoia and ad hominem don't do your argument much good.
- aquateen 17y ago
  Where is the ad hominem?
- logjam 17y ago
  Oh. Asking for someone to actually back up their emotional little assertions with facts, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the obvious axe-grinding which accompanies their fervent assertions that they are unbiased is...."paranoia and ad hominem". And your response was to add nothing except labeling "paranoia", right? Was that before or after you mentioned "ad hominem". Or did you, like him, have any actual science to cite here to support his assertions? Your projection doesn't do your argument much good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
  - gloob 17y ago
    emotional little assertions The irony of your use of this phrase eludes you, evidently.
waterlesscloud 17y ago
I stopped reading at the word "bleating". Everything you wrote after that was wasted. Think about that before you post again.
skmurphy 17y ago
Assume that Daniel is rational. If you want to reach him how about focusing on actions that he might agree to? How about: o increasing funding for monitoring temperatures on a worldwide basis so that we can get a better handle on where we are. o increasing funding for monitoring CO2 levels (along with other greenhouse gases) to see if can get more data about the here and now. Certainly we will need better monitoring of both temperature and CO2 gases to understand where we are and to monitor the effectiveness of any interventions that are agreed to. It's often more effective to work from areas where you may agree and to tell if you are having a values conflict or a disagreement over facts and competing hypotheses for explaining them. Another way to look at this would be to ask "what would prove to you the reality of both global warming and C02 as it's cause?" Or to answer "what would prove to me that global warming is not taking place is ________" and "what would prove to me that reducing C02 would not have an impact is _______ "
- hga 17y ago
  One problem here is illustrated by this (in)famous Stalin quote: "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." (Note that inside the party there were real votes.) E.g. we started whole earth satellite monitoring in 1979 as I recall ... but guess what NASA calibrated the raw data against. If you say "real time weather balloons" (if not the first, a later satellite took readings at various altitudes), guess again....

by logjam 17y ago

gloob 17y ago

Paranoia and ad hominem don't do your argument much good.

aquateen 17y ago
Where is the ad hominem?
logjam 17y ago
Oh. Asking for someone to actually back up their emotional little assertions with facts, and pointing out the hypocrisy of the obvious axe-grinding which accompanies their fervent assertions that they are unbiased is...."paranoia and ad hominem". And your response was to add nothing except labeling "paranoia", right? Was that before or after you mentioned "ad hominem". Or did you, like him, have any actual science to cite here to support his assertions? Your projection doesn't do your argument much good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
- gloob 17y ago
  emotional little assertions The irony of your use of this phrase eludes you, evidently.

waterlesscloud 17y ago

I stopped reading at the word "bleating". Everything you wrote after that was wasted. Think about that before you post again.

skmurphy 17y ago

Assume that Daniel is rational. If you want to reach him how about focusing on actions that he might agree to? How about: o increasing funding for monitoring temperatures on a worldwide basis so that we can get a better handle on where we are. o increasing funding for monitoring CO2 levels (along with other greenhouse gases) to see if can get more data about the here and now. Certainly we will need better monitoring of both temperature and CO2 gases to understand where we are and to monitor the effectiveness of any interventions that are agreed to. It's often more effective to work from areas where you may agree and to tell if you are having a values conflict or a disagreement over facts and competing hypotheses for explaining them. Another way to look at this would be to ask "what would prove to you the reality of both global warming and C02 as it's cause?" Or to answer "what would prove to me that global warming is not taking place is ________" and "what would prove to me that reducing C02 would not have an impact is _______ "

hga 17y ago
One problem here is illustrated by this (in)famous Stalin quote: "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how." (Note that inside the party there were real votes.) E.g. we started whole earth satellite monitoring in 1979 as I recall ... but guess what NASA calibrated the raw data against. If you say "real time weather balloons" (if not the first, a later satellite took readings at various altitudes), guess again....