Jaro, If you were a reasoned person, I would note that I made 'what if' projections under 2 opposite assumptions, that global warming is an issue. And that global warming isn't an issue.
But you only assume the latter. You of course have not proven that it isn't an issue. Of course, that your reply consists of restating things I never said shows who is unable to sustain a discussion inside of reality. But you are correct, I can't sustain a discussion with you beyond insulting you because your replies show no indication of reasoned intelligence. And I'm just responding to someone trolling for flames. Now if we were to actually look at the issue, Jed is correct. It is not an argument of doing something or not, rather it is an issue of doing it now as an option, a graceful transition from Oil to cleaner greener technology. Or an emergency when oil is finally getting scarce, in the not too distant future. Since one option can possibly save the earth from a catastrophe in the bargain. And yes if done right lead to greater prosperity (for many, but not all). It must be wondered what motivation you could possibly have. IF you are not in the pocket of oil barons. IF you are not just starting arguments for fun. IF you do not just take contrarian positions because it suits you. IF you are not just toeing the "conservative" line. Then what is your motivation for such an apparently illogical stance? John On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > ** > John, > > Why is it that when people can not sustain a discussion, they always > resort to name calling? It never fails to happen. People who don't have > the facts always do this to hide the fact that they are losing the > argument. OK, I'm fine with the insult .... for now. Don't get used to it. > > You are making assumptions again. Like in your statement 1. below. You > make the following assumptions that you want me to accept. > > a. That there is global warming. > b. That humanity is causing and contributing to it. > c. That the consequence of such global warming is the end of all > (notable) life on earth. > d. That the suggested solutions will stop or reverse it. > > > First for a. There is wide disagreement that global warming is indeed > occuring. Why not settle this first? You seem to assume that it is > occuring and want to cram it down people's throats. I am not convinced it > is happening. And the latest data indicates that. > > Second for b. There is wide disagreement if human CO2 emissions is > contributing to global warming, if it is happening. You seem to assume > that it is occuring and want to cram it down people's throats. I am not > convince it is happenning. > > Third for c. The consequence of a little global warming that is feared by > most people is NOT the end of life on earth. Where did you get this > fallacy. The fact is, plant life will be enhanced, and that will > enchance animal life with more food. > > Fourth for d. Suggested solution is to stop using oil will NOT stop any > sort of warming that is happening. Many people have pointed out > non-manmade reasons. You seem to want to ignore all this because you are > convinced that CO2 is the only and primary reason for the warming. You > want to put caps on CO2 emissions to solve something you may not have > control over. First establish that CO2 emissions are causing warming. > Establish it in an open and credible way. Not call people names if they ask > for evidence. Don't say 2000 climatologists are convinced that it is > happening. That's a lame argument and you know it. Appeal to authority > only when these same authorities have not been caught fudging the data. > LOL.... > > > You say that global warming is a "fact". Then explain why we've had > steady global temps since 1998 when all that time, CO2 emissions have > accelerated exponentially? Where is the correlation of global warming to > increased CO2 emissions that you want people to accept. My friend, when > you are losing the argument with data and facts, it does not help calling > people names. What do you expect, that you would call people names and > they would immediately accept your argument. LOL.... > > The basis of my supernova challenge is exactly the same level of > credibility with your Global Warming challenge. Both are non-existent, > made up problems. You assume a problem, then want people to accept that > assumption. Well my friend, you'll probably get away using that fallacious > premise with some people, but not with me. > > Maybe, it's best you do stop discussing with me cause the more you do, the > more fallacious your arguments become and people can see that you are > arguing from emotions rather than facts. > > Jojo > > > > > > > - > > ---- Original Message ----- > *From:* John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com> > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:41 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New Data "Worrying" 2000 climatologists about Global > Warming .... > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Jojo Jaro <jth...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> ** >> 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 creepy troll. Are you ok with that too? > I did not say that. > > "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?" > > There are 2 possibilities. > 1. Is that it is happening and that humanity is causing or contributing to > it and by taking different actions can likely stop or reverse it. > > 2: There is no global warming, at least nothing of consequence. > > If 1 is the case and we do nothing about it, the worst case scenario is > likely the end of most all (notable) life on earth. > > If 2 is the case (what you seem to think) and we do something about a > non-existent problem then what is the worst case scenario? > > The worst case scenario for the latter truly insignificant, compared to > the worst case for the former. > > Since the evidence from Global warming is significant and accepted by many > this makes this 'what if' very appropriate. > > >> You say AGW is happening >> > > No, I didn't actually. > > >> , 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. >> > > So first you try a straw man attack by making up a laughable supanova > threat comparison. > Now you try another mischaracterization to make it seem I am assuming > something I am not. > > >> 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 >> > > That will only be a fact once it is all over. > Before we should call an ambulance because you seem to be having a heart > attack we should make sure by letting you die and rot a little before we > can speculate if we should ring an ambulance. > > After all it could be a panic attack, you could be joking, you may recover > better on your own. > We clearly won't get a room full of scientist to agree that you are in > fact having a heart attack until the autopsy is complete. > > > >> , 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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >> *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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >>> *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 <berry.joh...@gmail.com> >>>> *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 <rwul...@freeark.com> >>>>> *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 <jth...@hotmail.com> >>>>> *To:* Vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>>>> *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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
