Stevie Wonder thinks YOU are blind and or stupid.

originally posted by: network dude
Im being honest here. Do you ever read and comprehend my posts? If you look at this thread alone, and try to understand what I have said, I'm trying to help. Hell, I'm trying to help you, and you irritate the # out of me.

Lol. Trying to help? Is that why you are making specious arguments about me "winning" things? Is that why you are insulting liberals in this thread?

Ask yourself this, has the message of AGW become clearer to all over the years, or is there more seemingly against it now than before? I don't know the numbers, I'm stupid and don't grasp derivatives, but what I do understand is human nature.

Why should I concern myself with majority opinions when it comes to science? I look at the evidence, and yes the evidence is getting clearer and clearer by the year.

If the AGW, Climate change people abandoned the drive to FORCE everyone to accept their views, and a new effort to help the environment, make the planet a better place, fix the things we can see that we clearly #ed up, I think a much more positive result would be had.

But it seems like that isn't the outcome desired. It seems like the will to be more correct overshadows the need to fix the planet.

See. This is a load of bull#. No one is forcing you to believe anything. This is why I find your claim of "trying to help" to be insincere. You can't help but insult and degrade with hyperbole and lies instead of furthering the conversation with solutions.

a reply to: network dude

I don't think weather events are indicators of any climate change per se, and anyway the story kept changing when there were periods that didn't fit in with the ethos...remember going back a few decades, we should have all been Shish Kebabs by now, and that the polar bears would be going glug glug glub as the last one's cute little nose disappeared beneath the waves....but instead, we are not cookies, and are just as cold and wet at times, as we have always been...and the poor old polar bears? they are now big fat feckers, and are busy bonking their brains out just to spite the Ejits who made up songs about their demise.

No, I take it all with a pinch of salt these days, and my weather eye is more on those who need careful watching, because there is a real need to in my experience.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Is that why you are making specious arguments about me "winning" things? Is that why you are insulting liberals in this thread?

Which is not a good strategy to win us over, I might add.

a reply to: network dude

But he is blind... so it's a bad thing now?

Global climate change is inevitable. We're not a static environment. Perhaps he is unintelligent.

Would account for his music, maybe...

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Yeah because the era of the dinosaurs didn't have 5 times the amount of CO2 as today... that would just be crazy since there were no humans back then to create a carbon footprint.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

My apologies--I was unaware that you consulted with him about his use of the word and know his exact intention and other synonyms that could have been considered.

It seems most logical, does it not? Insert the word "think" and the implications remains the same.

On the same note, I believe that "belief" indicates a faith aspect, and that's what he meant--and it's true, as much of the AGW science must be taken on faith, especially its digital modeling and predictions.

The word is not directly tied to any aspect of faith.

But if that's not what he meant, maybe he should have used a word with less ability to be misinterpreted. Regardless, his opinion on the topic is irrelevant to real life, so it really doesn't matter.

I don't think his words are the problem. I think the issues lies with those that wish to interpret his words to mean something that benefits their agenda/argument.

Climate Change, Global Warming, and Anthropogenic Global Warming are not all the same thing, and lumping them together via slashes does reality a disservice.

I did not say they were. I "lumped" then together in regards to there being data available for each issue.

But regardless, like I noted, there absolutely is a need to "believe" when it comes to AGW, whether you want to accept/admit it or not.

True. There is plenty of data we can look at to show it is real.

a reply to: mobiusmale

The problem with your idea that we should engage in a dialogue with the aim of coming to common solutions (if I have characterized that accurately), is that one side of this debate already insists that they have all of the answers - and they have no interest in hearing from the other side (most particularly they do not want to entertain counter-consensus ideas, data or conclusions).

I don't think anyone has all the answers and we should be willing to listen to all sides or opinions.

This science-by-consensus attitude/approach leads to unqualified people (sorry Stevie), when handed a microphone, who feel empowered to say demeaning things like "Anyone who believes that there’s no such thing as global warming must be blind or unintelligent."

They are welcome to their opinion as much as anyone else. They are not the ones that decide how we approach issues like this.

This whole repression of dissention of opposing ideas, as it relates to climate processes is similar, in some ways, the patriarchal attitude of men before women were given the right to vote. "There there Dear. It is a scientific fact that men are smarter and more capable than women. Just go on back to your domestic duties and leave the thinking and decision making to us. I know you mean well, but we men do not really need your input on any anything of importance - and if you continue to insist on voicing your opinions we are going to have to punish you in some way." Perhaps there should be a minority-opinion-scientist suffrage movement...

I don't think that is a good example.

originally posted by: Voyaging
a reply to: Bhadhidar

Yeah because the era of the dinosaurs didn't have 5 times the amount of CO2 as today... that would just be crazy since there were no humans back then to create a carbon footprint.

... ice cores also revealed that carbon dioxide levels are much higher today than at any time recorded in the past 750,000 years, pinning down the cause-and-effect relationship between carbon dioxide and climate change continues to be a focal point of modern climate research.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

So you just made that up? Oh no, my fault... you wanna go way further back in history to achieve what exactly?

I guess I'd say it a bit differently than Stevie. Anyone that denies that the Earth is warming is rather stupid.

I don't care if it's solar maximum or AGW or a release of Vril from the Inner Earth ... we have got to start planning for what is inevitable.

There seems little doubt that if the Earth is warming our behaviors in the last 200 years are adding to the issue.

It seems like a no-brainer that we should do everything we can to reduce our addition to warming.

And it seems like a no-brainer that we need to start putting our best minds and resources toward dealing with the changes that are coming.

When you believe in things that you don't understand,
then you suffer.

# 878

originally posted by: smurfy
a reply to: network dude

I don't think weather events are indicators of any climate change per se, and anyway the story kept changing when there were periods that didn't fit in with the ethos...remember going back a few decades, we should have all been Shish Kebabs by now, and that the polar bears would be going glug glug glub as the last one's cute little nose disappeared beneath the waves....but instead, we are not cookies, and are just as cold and wet at times, as we have always been...and the poor old polar bears? they are now big fat feckers, and are busy bonking their brains out just to spite the Ejits who made up songs about their demise.

No, I take it all with a pinch of salt these days, and my weather eye is more on those who need careful watching, because there is a real need to in my experience.

Exactly right. I don't know how many times I have read, here on ATS, those on the consensus-side of the argument objecting to contrary "good" anecdotal weather events, by saying, in effect, "Don't confuse the weather with the climate."

And yet, frequently, those in this crowd will trumpet "bad" events as proof of the sanctity of their belief system.

Brad Johnson, executive director of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, says Harvey and Irma are reason to finally jail officials who “reject science.”

Apparently, Mr. Johnson, tweeted that:

Climate disaster response rules
1) save lives
2) global warming is here
3) put officials who reject science in jail

Except that...

Consider this data from a 2012 article in the Journal of Climate, authored by climatologists Roger Pielke Jr. and Jessica Weinkle. Pielke tweeted a graph from the paper that shows no trends in global tropical cyclone landfalls over the past 46 years.

and that...

Statistician and Danish author Bjorn Lomborg also tweeted a graph showing major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. trending downward for well over a century.

Climate Change and Harvey/Irma

Pinches of salt indeed...

a reply to: network dude


Is Wonder Stevie's opinion important?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's a good thing that we have proper corruption and the well oiled PR machinery in place, buzzing with activity in order to prevent this from happening.

All those nice jobs in the fossil sector, ya know... plus we can't start to simply release free energy tech and dismantle the secret space program cuz.... profits and power projection! Not to forget the national security of our beloved brakeaway civilisation full of highly indoctrinated drones.

I want my Meteor for 2016 back! At least something less sinister to actually look forward to.

#AspireToSpace

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: network dude


Is Wonder Stevie's opinion important?

Apparently to some...

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's a good thing that we have proper corruption and the well oiled PR machinery in place, buzzing with activity in order to prevent this from happening.

All those nice jobs in the fossil sector, ya know... plus we can't start to simply release free energy tech and dismantle the secret space program cuz.... profits and power projection! Not to forget the national security of our beloved brakeaway civilisation full of highly indoctrinated drones.

I want my Meteor for 2016 back! At least something less sinister to actually look forward to.

#AspireToSpace

I hear you.

I don't even imagine we can do Star Trek now, but the longer we can avoid Mad Max the better off we all are.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
You seem like a nice guy who wants to debate facts and differentiate issues, that's fine with me. Put something up?

I am a nice guy...thank you (even though I get misunderstood in my tone on here from time to time).

Look, this is not meant to be a jab at you, or for you to think that I disregard you just because you are you, but I have "put something up" so many times on ATS concerning issues with AGW and scientific peer-reviewed studies and data that indicate that the AGW theory isn't on the right track or as bit a part of the changing weather (not climate) as some have shown or believe, that I'm just tired of doing it.

I'm happy to argue, and I'm certainly willing to back my arguments when the thread warrants it, but the OP is about Stevie Wonder running his mouth in an inappropriate way for a fundraiser to help hurricane victims. I'm just not in the mood to go down the links, quotes, and data roads in this thread. Maybe another thread, though.

Don't take it personally, but I'm also in the middle of work, and ATS right now is just a fix for my ADD here and there...I can't devote the time to it at the moment.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It's not inappropriate it's what ever he wants to do. If you don't like it choose another charity.

Complaining about celebrities is very stupid. He is a legend in music.....

So stupid to waste time on celeb opinions.

Sea level rising isn't really debatable. Nor is the warming of the ocean and melting of glaciers. Yet many people try and debate those things.

originally posted by: badw0lf
a reply to: network dude

But he is blind... so it's a bad thing now?

Global climate change is inevitable. We're not a static environment. Perhaps he is unintelligent.

Would account for his music, maybe...

I've never seen an opinion that I could label as wrong until I read this one. You can not like his opinion on politics or science, but his music helped spawn a whole genre of music (funk which later became modern R&B).

originally posted by: introvert
It seems most logical, does it not? Insert the word "think" and the implications remains the same.

I'm sure by now you understand that, having worked in the legal field for over a decade, I am very legally minded. If you tried to insert your own interpretation of a person's implications in what they said, your argument would be cut off immediately as speculation.

You are speculating, as am I, concerning his intended meaning. Let's just leave it at that.

I don't think his words are the problem. I think the issues lies with those that wish to interpret his words to mean something that benefits their agenda/argument.

Correct, and it goes both ways. Again, agree to disagree.

But just for fun:

be·lieve
/bəˈlēv/
verb

1. accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
synonyms: be convinced by, trust, have confidence in, consider honest, consider truthful More

•regard as true, accept, be convinced by, give credence to, credit, trust, put confidence in;
informalswallow, buy, go for

•accept the statement of (someone) as true.

•have faith, especially religious faith.

•feel sure that (someone) is capable of a particular action.

2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.

You should note that nowhere in either definition of the word is "know" a part of the definition. "Believe" is not synonymous with "know" or "understand" or anything else. There is, however, noted that there is an element of "think" or "have faith" in the definitions.

Take that as you will, but it doesn't exactly negate my interpretation of his usage nor my comment on it. Other than that, I'm done with the discussion of the word "believe" or his intended usage.

True. There is plenty of data we can look at to show it is real.

No, you can cite plenty of data under the umbrella of a theory that makes you believe that it is real--there is a difference. But again, I'm done arguing these semantics, even if they do matter.

a reply to: network dude

Do you not like Stevie Wonder or something? Why are you slandering his name with a click bait title? A more appropriate title would have been Stevie Wonder on Global Warming.

Isn't the left known for being ultra PC and the right thinks people shouldn't be so sensitive over words? Aren't you being a hypocrite here?