John,
You may think that I'm being intellectually dishonest, but that's fine by me.
You see, the problem and the premise of your challenge to me is fallacious.
First, you assume that AGW is occuring, then you postulate a question on what
to do with that problem. You say AGW is happening, so what is the consequence
if we do something or we don't do anything. I refuse to be drawn into a
discussion discussing an assumption. That is the purpose of my response, with
the "supernova" premise.
My point being is, and the point that I was trying to make which apparently you
missed is that; before you can postulate a "What if" question, you have to
establish that what you are analyzing is occuring to begin with. First
establish the fact that AGW is occuring, then, we can discuss whether we need
to worry about it or to do something about it. You can not assume a problem
and go hog wild trying to force people to adopt a solution to the problem, or
whether it is even wise to try to solve that "problem". Like I said, Global
warming (anthropic or otherwise) may be a problem that does not require a
solution. Let it get warmer. It's better for humanity.
BTW, I don't consider adopting "free energy" solutions like wind and solar to
be a "solution" to AGW. These things need to be adopted because they're free
and make financial sense whether there is AGW or not. I adopt these solutions
because I don't want to be dependent on raghead oil anymore; not because there
is global warming. I want global warming. I want it. I don't know of many
people who want to freeze every winter. The misery, the widespread property
damage, the crop failures, etc. A slight increase in temperature would make
severe winters very mild, allowing for a better life. Haven't we learned this
from history?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
Ok, so your argument is that if you can construct an impossible, ridiculous
'what if'
that is completely out of our control to cause, stop or do anything about.
Then we should not do anything about a very realistic issue that we seem to
be causing and can do something about that is imminent.
I guess you could use this argument in other ways...
I'm not going to eat healthily because I could have a piano fall on me.
The science of what is and is not healthy isn't entirely settled.
Eating healthily seems draconian to me.
Maybe eating healthier will cause an increased probability of a piano falling
on me?
Since I there is no consensus on what is healthy and because there are other
unrealistic threats that I can't do much to avoid I should eat crap just in
case it turns out there is no need to eat healthy food.
BTW, there is a lot of disagreement about what is healthy and the today's
research constantly overturns previously held beliefs.
Now does all of this mean that I think that global warming
prevention/reversal measures should be significantly detrimental to human
society, No.
I might disagree with some or all of the proposed measures.
Being into alternative science I believe there are better ways that need to
be explored.
But you aren't arguing how to go about protecting the environment.
You are arguing against protecting the earth.
And your arguments are screaming intellectual dishonesty.
John
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
John and Randy,
It did seem that my point was missed altogether.
OK, let me see I can be less subtle and spell it out for you.
Sun going Supernova: It may happen and it will happen, when it will
happen, we don't have enough data
AGW: It may happen, we are not sure. We don't have enough data.
Sun going Supernova: Force of nature, we can't do anything about it.
Global Warming (notice I said "Global Warming" not "Anthropic Global
Warming".) Force of nature, we can't do anything about it.
Sun going Supernova: Expensive and draconian to protect against.
Global Warming: Expensive and draconian to protect against. We don't even
know if it is indeed happening.
So, a lot of "may", "if" and "possibility". Why should we implement
draconian measures to correct these "may", "if" and "possibility"?
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global
Warming ....
All you have shown is that you can miss-apply something.
The sun going supernova any time soon is not likely.
And if it were to do so the only realistic thing humanity could do is to
advance science in the direction of energy and propulsion to venture outside of
the solar system.
That is something I very much would like to further.
But surely you can see the difference between something that there is
evidence for that we are likely causing or contributing to, .vs something that
we have no control over (by any normal means) and no protection against (by any
normal means) that is not a very immediate threat (AFAIK).
John
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
John,
This is a fallacious argument based on a fallacious premise.
OK, let me throw that premise back at you.
What is the worst case scenario if we don't do anything about our sun
going supernova?
What is the worst case scenario if we do something to try to prevent it
going supernova?
After all, there is a more solid evidence that our sun will go
supernova than there is of AGW.
I trust you see my point. If not, I'll be more than happy and willing
to spell it out for you.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: John Berry
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 4:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about
Global Warming ....
What is the worst case scenario if there is a problem and we don't do
anything about it?
What is the worst case scenario if there isn't and we do something
about it?
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Randy,
It seems to me that before we institute measures to correct a
"problem", we must first make "sure" there is a problem. Taking steps to
correct a non-existent problem is irresponsible considering that such steps
would cause a whole new set of problems. We should not take DRACONIAN measures
to correct a "possibility". This is pure speculation and wholly irresponsible.
Settle the science first and do not cram it down people's throats.
I'm all for clean energy and I am gradually weaning my farm from
raghead oil by converting more and more of my needs to solar, wind and biogas.
That is also why I'm big into cold fusion and doing my own research into it.
However, such measures should not be forced down people's throats by some
global agenda. They should be adopted as market forces make them viable and
financial tenable. As you will find, when you give people a choice, people
will adopt the more sensible solution. I just despise big, overreaching,
communistic/socialist and fascist world governments telling you what to do to
promote their "Environmental Worshipping" agenda.
That is my stand on it, and it has nothing to do with being
conservative or not, it's just common sense.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy wuller
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about
Global Warming ....
Jojo:
I don't understand your passionate position on this issue. Given
some evidence either way, the only logical position is one of caution. If
there is a possibility mankind can change the climate on this planet, it seems
to me we should take some care to avoid that alternative unless there is no
doubt about what our meddling will change and it is harmless.
It is the conservative thing to do, yet, it seems most
conservatives feel differently. It is a puzzle to me.
Ransom
----- Original Message -----
From: Jojo Jaro
To: Vortex-l
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:22 PM
Subject: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about
Global Warming ....
Here's some new data that is "worrying" 2000 climatologists
about Global Warming ....
Obviously, since 2000 of them were right, this new data must be
wrong.
This first link shows the rate of ice melting leading to the
conclusion that Global Warming must be accelerating....???
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/
Then, to confirm it, this 2nd link "definitely" shows that
Global warming is occuring that is "correlated" to the amount of C02 that man
pumps out into the atmosphere.... ????
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/
But, what do I know. I'm not one of those 2000 climatologists
who where NOT bribed or threatened in any way. And since, there's 2000 of
them; there's only one of me. They must be right and I am wrong and anybody
questioning their conclusions must be nuts. Right Jed?
Hey, if others can violate forum list rules with impunity
regarding AGW propaganda, I should be able to do the opposite propaganda with
impunity... right?
Jojo
PS: BTW, I want nothing more than people laying off AGW (or
Anti-AGW) propaganda from this forum.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2637/5466 - Release
Date: 12/17/12
