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
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
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
