Another Nail in the AGW Coffin - Page 5

Does it shock anyone that a British tabloid writes an incredibly misleading article with several downright lies?  Doesn't shock me at all.

Does it shock anyone that Jazz & SDW immediately jump on said misleading article, one minutes after it's published?  Nope, still doesn't shock me.

Here's the response from the Met Office:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

And here's some other coverage of the tabloid's terrible reporting:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2012/10/british_met_office_refutes_mis.shtml

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/15/climate-data-feeling-the-heat

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/10/15/climate-september-2012-ties-2005-as-warmest-ever/

Since several nitwits on this board will probably not even bother to read these articles, I'm not going to waste my time discussing this in further detail, either.

I was hoping BR would surprise me. Disappointed again.

How about you stop knee-jerking on every poorly written tabloid article?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Does it shock anyone that a British tabloid writes an incredibly misleading article with several downright lies?  Doesn't shock me at all.

 

Does it shock anyone that Jazz & SDW immediately jump on said misleading article, one minutes after it's published?  Nope, still doesn't shock me.

 

Here's the response from the Met Office:

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

 

And here's some other coverage of the tabloid's terrible reporting:

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2012/10/british_met_office_refutes_mis.shtml

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/15/climate-data-feeling-the-heat

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/10/15/climate-september-2012-ties-2005-as-warmest-ever/

 

Since several nitwits on this board will probably not even bother to read these articles, I'm not going to waste my time discussing this in further detail, either.

Actually, if you look at the charts that the minnesota.publicradio.org site has which include cooling periods it looks like we are overdue for a cooling period anyway.  It seems that the cooling periods last about 20 years, so woohoo.

I'm really not sure where the tabloid got anything just dramatically wrong here.  Yeah, I'll give you that it appears they overstated the nature of the released report and made it sound like some kind of coverup conspiracy but that's what tabloids are all about.  They did of course sensationalize and spin the data, but the data does actually support their presented conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

How about you stop knee-jerking on every poorly written tabloid article?

I posted a link. How is that a knee-jerk, BR?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

I posted a link. How is that a knee-jerk, BR?

Your lack of comment with the links you post leads one to believe that you agree with everything in said link.  Since you clearly didn't wait to see if your linked article was accurate in the least before posting it and implicitly agreeing with everything inside, you knee-jerked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Your lack of comment with the links you post leads one to believe that you agree with everything in said link.  Since you clearly didn't wait to see if your linked article was accurate in the least before posting it and implicitly agreeing with everything inside, you knee-jerked.

Maybe you just inferred all that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Your lack of comment with the links you post leads one to believe that you agree with everything in said link.  Since you clearly didn't wait to see if your linked article was accurate in the least before posting it and implicitly agreeing with everything inside, you knee-jerked.

My lack of comment does not imply anything. It does not expressly condone or support anything. I posted a link. You read the information at said link and inferred all this about my motive, intentions, and position? It appears you are the one who knee-jerked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

My lack of comment does not imply anything. It does not expressly condone or support anything. I posted a link. You read the information at said link and inferred all this about my motive, intentions, and position? It appears you are the one who knee-jerked.

Well, posting links without commentary is against posting guidelines.  If you post links alone, I'm going to assume you agree with the contents as you deem no further comment to be necessary.  If you'd prefer, I could just report those posts instead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Well, posting links without commentary is against posting guidelines.  If you post links alone, I'm going to assume you agree with the contents as you deem no further comment to be necessary.  If you'd prefer, I could just report those posts instead.

I always post links relevant to the conversation. You can assume whatever you want about what I believe, of course. Your assumptions, however, can be (and often are) very different from reality.

Those posting guidelines are intended to prevent spamming. But if you want to try to get an infraction against me over a technicality to try to silence me, then report away, BR. It's a rather petty tactic on your part, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

I always post links relevant to the conversation. You can assume whatever you want about what I believe, of course. Your assumptions, however, can be (and often are) very different from reality.

 

Those posting guidelines are intended to prevent spamming. But if you want to try to get an infraction against me over a technicality to try to silence me, then report away, BR. It's a rather petty tactic on your part, though.

Either stand by the links you post or provide commentary about them.  You don't get to have it both ways, jazzy.  I am not trying to silence you.  I'm encouraging you to speak up and stop being so goddamn weaselly about your positions.  If you think a bullshit tabloid story is relevant to the conversation, you have a pretty crazy idea of what relevant means, anyway.

So speak up, or stop spamming.  Pick one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Either stand by the links you post or provide commentary about them.  You don't get to have it both ways, jazzy.  I am not trying to silence you.  I'm encouraging you to speak up and stop being so goddamn weaselly about your positions.  If you think a bullshit tabloid story is relevant to the conversation, you have a pretty crazy idea of what relevant means, anyway.

 

So speak up, or stop spamming.  Pick one.

Ignoratio elenchi

Stop derailing the thread, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Ignoratio elenchi

 

Stop derailing the thread, please.

Stop spamming the thread, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Stop spamming the thread, please.

I posted a link that is relevant to the conversation. That is not spamming. We've been over this. Stay on topic, please.

You violated posting guidelines and spammed a thread with a random link to a bullshit tabloid story.  We've been over this.  How about you comment on that link if you want to get us back on topic?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You violated posting guidelines and spammed a thread with a random link to a bullshit tabloid story.  We've been over this.  How about you comment on that link if you want to get us back on topic?

Report me if I violated the posting guidelines. You do not need to continue to derail the thread with these petty antics.

So, please give us your thoughts about that link.  I'm interested to hear what specific parts of it prompted you to post it here--I want to know what you think it added to this thread.  Of course, if you won't do that, I'll assume you were just spamming us.

Your assumptions are noted. Again.

Why did you post the link?  What part of the misleading tabloid article prompted you to post it?

Why hasn't climate change been a major issue this election cycle? Why are we not hearing about it in the debates? Certainly, if there is a "scientific consensus" that by merely exhaling we are destroying the planet - if the "science is sound" and we really are hastening a worldwide calamity by using incandescent light bulbs instead of CFLs - at least one of our presidential candidates should be talking about it, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Heat Is Gone: Global Warming Game Runs Out Of Steam

 

 

Why hasn't climate change been a major issue this election cycle? Why are we not hearing about it in the debates?

Blame the myopia of the swing-state voter when the unemployment rate is decreasing but not yet returned to acceptable levels.  In tougher economic times, long-term issues, no matter how important, tend to get put on the back-burner.  However, while global climate change has not specifically been named, President Obama has been addressing the issue by pushing for a wider dedication to green energy.

This is a wholly ignorant statement, demonstrating either your complete lack of understanding with regard to the science or an intentional misrepresentation of said science.  Either way, this sort of statement has no place whatsoever in intellectual discourse about this topic.  In other words, this statement was bad and you should feel bad.

If talking about it sours the electorate in tougher economic times, it is better for the candidate who actually wants to do something about it to speak indirectly by talking about the focus on green energy than opening himself up to ridiculous soundbites (you know, like your terrible statement above) that speak to an ignorant segment of the population, increasing the chances of a candidate who really doesn't seem to give two shits about the environment (well, anymore anyway since he has now embraced coal after calling coal plants killers while governor).

So, in short, pragmatism.

Also, Jazz, why did you post the previous link?  What part of the misleading tabloid article prompted you to post it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Also, Jazz, why did you post the previous link?  What part of the misleading tabloid article prompted you to post it?

 

 

I explained why I posted it.

The wording of your second question indicates you are not interested in my opinion, therefore I won't waste my time on you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

This is a wholly ignorant statement, demonstrating either your complete lack of understanding with regard to the science or an intentional misrepresentation of said science.  Either way, this sort of statement has no place whatsoever in intellectual discourse about this topic.  In other words, this statement was bad and you should feel bad.

Your opinion is noted.

You want to use government to forcibly regulate a gas that is naturally emitted by plants and animals under the assumption that it is causing catastrophic global warming. My comment absolutely has a place in the discussion because the policies you support have brought it into the discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Your opinion is noted.

 

You want to use government to forcibly regulate a gas that is naturally emitted by plants and animals under the assumption that it is causing catastrophic global warming. My comment absolutely has a place in the discussion because the policies you support have brought it into the discussion.

Your statement here is again either intentionally deceptive or you completely don't understand the science of global climate change.  It is the excess carbon dioxide that was sequestered in hydrocarbons deep below the Earth's surface that is now being released at a ridiculous pace through the burning of fossil fuels that causes the problem--it's what goes beyond the natural equilibrium.  So, now that you are informed, any further repetitions of these kinds of statements you just made again will be interpreted as willful ignorance or willful deception.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

 

Your statement here is again either intentionally deceptive or you completely don't understand the science of global climate change.  It is the excess carbon dioxide that was sequestered in hydrocarbons deep below the Earth's surface that is now being released at a ridiculous pace through the burning of fossil fuels that causes the problem--it's what goes beyond the natural equilibrium.  So, now that you are informed, any further repetitions of these kinds of statements you just made again will be interpreted as willful ignorance or willful deception.  

My original statement still stands. Alarmists believe "excess" CO2 emissions will result in "catastrophic climate change". Yes, CO2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel production and use. It is also a gas emitted by living organisms, our oceans, and other sources.

Alarmists want governments to control how much CO2 gas is emitted to prevent "catastrophic climate change". They've already gone as far as mandating what kinds of gas mileage cars should be allowed to have, what kinds of lights retailers can sell. There's talk of other initiatives like government-controlled thermostats in homes.

But I digress. Why is it ignorant or deceptive to conclude that alarmists want to use governments to regulate a gas that humans exhale when that is exactly the case?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

My original statement still stands. Alarmists believe "excess" CO2 emissions will result in "catastrophic climate change". Yes, CO2 is a byproduct of fossil fuel production and use. It is also a gas emitted by living organisms, our oceans, and other sources.

 

Alarmists want governments to control how much CO2 gas is emitted to prevent "catastrophic climate change". They've already gone as far as mandating what kinds of gas mileage cars should be allowed to have, what kinds of lights retailers can sell. There's talk of other initiatives like government-controlled thermostats in homes.

 

But I digress. Why is it ignorant or deceptive to conclude that alarmists want to use governments to regulate a gas that humans exhale when that is exactly the case?

No, your original statement doesn't stand.  Tacking on the phrase "that humans exhale" may be done intentionally to deceive others into thinking that the problem of excess CO2 from the burning of ever-increasing amounts of fossil fuels is a trivial one because, hey, humans exhale it.  It also may be done because one literally believes that humans breathing is the cause of global climate change--in that case, it is ignorance of monumental proportions speaking.  

So, deception or stupidity--your choice.  Which is it?

I suppose you wouldn't mind a different gas that humans emit from  filling your home, because hey, humans emit it.  In fact, no need to evacuate a school that is leaking a kind of gas that humans emit.  All you alarmists who think we shouldn't light matches or cause sparks when our homes and schools fill with methane need to CHILL THE **** OUT because it's JUST A GAS THAT HUMANS EMIT.  It's not a problem, because I'm super clever and say humans emit it as if attempting to lessen how significant it sounds will literally lessen the danger.  I'M A MAGICAL THINKING SUPERMAN!  GO ME!  IT'S EXACTLY THE CASE!  BOLD, UNDERLINE, AND ITALICS!

Superman? SUPERMAN?! If you're going to insult me, at least pick a superhero that is less cool. Aquaman, maybe?

I mean, who wouldn't want to be Superman?

A superman of magical thinking.  That person doesn't get all the other abilities.  That person only has superhuman powers to deny reality.

But anyway, now will you explain the real reason you keep tacking on the phrase "that humans exhale" over and over again?  Or did I have it covered?

"That humans exhale" is an irrelevant fact with regard to the topic of global climate change.  He is committing a logical fallacy by including that phrase with his argument, as it serves as a distractor.  Jazz's motives are obvious when he takes bullshit tabloid "news" and posts it minutes after it is released because it supports his preconceived notions.  He doesn't check the veracity of the article first.  He just blindly posts without explanation.  I'm still waiting for an explanation on that one.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

A superman of magical thinking.  That person doesn't get all the other abilities.  That person only has superhuman powers to deny reality.

 

But anyway, now will you explain the real reason you keep tacking on the phrase "that humans exhale" over and over again?  Or did I have it covered?

I guess an Aquaman of magical thinking doesn't sound quite as cool.

Perhaps Batman of magical thinking.

Ooh wait! Can I be an Iron Man of magical thinking? That would be sweet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

"That humans exhale" is an irrelevant fact with regard to the topic of global climate change.  He is committing a logical fallacy by including that phrase with his argument, as it serves as a distractor.  Jazz's motives are obvious when he takes bullshit tabloid "news" and posts it minutes after it is released because it supports his preconceived notions.  He doesn't check the veracity of the article first.  He just blindly posts without explanation.  I'm still waiting for an explanation on that one.  

Humans exhale CO2. That is a fact.

You want governments to regulate CO2. That is a fact.

You want governments to regulate a gas that humans exhale. That is a fact.

Or am I wrong?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

"That humans exhale" is an irrelevant fact with regard to the topic of global climate change.  He is committing a logical fallacy by including that phrase with his argument, as it serves as a distractor.  Jazz's motives are obvious when he takes bullshit tabloid "news" and posts it minutes after it is released because it supports his preconceived notions.  He doesn't check the veracity of the article first.  He just blindly posts without explanation.  I'm still waiting for an explanation on that one.  

 

Humans exhale CO2. That is a fact.

 

You want governments to regulate CO2. That is a fact.

 

You want governments to regulate a gas that humans exhale. That is a fact.

 

Or am I wrong?

All correct as I understand the discussion, but just to clarify, are you arguing that because it is a gas that is naturally exhaled as a byproduct of respiration that it automatically follows that it should be unregulated? Even if an alternative unnatural source of it alters the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to a level that could be harmful?

If so, consider that O2 is inhaled and depleted via normal respiration. Does that mean that if one were to develop an industrial process that used up large quantities of atmospheric O2 and reduced the atmospheric O2 concentration that it would inappropriate to regulate? Just curious how far you want to take that argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

All correct as I understand the discussion, but just to clarify, are you arguing that because it is a gas that is naturally exhaled as a byproduct of respiration that it automatically follows that it should be unregulated? Even if an alternative unnatural source of it alters the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to a level that could be harmful?

To answer both questions: yes. Giving the government the power to control a gas that humans exhale - under the pretext that said gas will destroy the planet - gives them the power to control the humans themselves, and I am ardently against slavery.

It hasn't even been conclusively proven that CO2 is driving climate change. Some scientists posit that changes in CO2 levels follow climate change rather than drive it.

I am all for exploring alternative, renewable, efficient energy sources, but not through the violent force of government. I believe most of the problems individuals face can be resolved through voluntary exchange and interaction, which is inhibited and discouraged in varying degrees by most governments.

I like how you ignored muppetry's other question about O2.  I also like how you spit in logic's face and made a giant leap from limiting commercial and industrial releases of a gas (that humans happen to unrelatedly exhale) to slavery.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I like how you ignored muppetry's other question about O2.  I also like how you spit in logic's face and made a giant leap from limiting commercial and industrial releases of a gas (that humans happen to unrelatedly exhale) to slavery.  

I didn't answer the other questions because I would have been repeating myself.

If you believe governments would stop at absolute commercial and industrial control (which I am also obviously opposed to) you're ignorant of history.