Stevie Wonder thinks YOU are blind and or stupid.

a reply to: network dude

Have you googled how to start a disposal service?

Have you researched how the closest location does it?

If your asking me how to start a business chances are you aren't capable of it until you read how other people have done it.

Or you start with a van and some flyers....

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey


It is also speculation to assert his words were a product of some "belief system", indicating a religious belief.

Ummm...did you not read the sentence I wrote following what you're responding to? I literally wrote:

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

Did you ignore that on purpose, or because you didn't read my comment thoroughly before responding?

That is true, but again, it is more logical to assume he meant it the way I described than as part of any faith-based belief. Your assertion seems to be one trying to imply that CC/GW is a "belief" and is not rooted in scientific data sets.

Well, to be fair, MY assertion is as I have already stated--that AGW is a belief system, and I didn't reference the less-controversial "global warming" proper. That said, I probably conflated the two terms, when Mr. Wonder didn't reference the "anthropomorphic" part of AGW, somewhere along the way.

Yes, AGW is a belief system. No, the data surrounding a generally warming earth is not.

The data is still there.

And, like Fox Maulder, many simply 'want to believe' rather than 'want to understand.' I'm sure that you think the same of others, though, who differ in opinion from yours.

Best regards.

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

so insulting people when you're running a telethon is good strategy?

Did I say that in my post? Pretty sure I did not.

How about sticking to helping people without the religious fervor and witchhunt.

How about addressing what he said without being dramatic. There was no religious fervor and there is no witch hunt.

Is that the voice of reason speaking or does screaming louder somehow make you more scientific?

Who's screaming?

Having considered the information and the politics and self serving interests of academia I have judged it to be less than convincing.

That, sadly, is all too common. The politics and self interests should not be a factor. Only the data needs to be considered.

The fact I am forced to contribute taxes that will somehow magically create fixes, my money going into dubious projects, all to end up being manipulated and (carbon credits) traded by some Wall St crook tells me all I need to know.

If that is all you need to know, then you are in a place of ignorance.

a reply to: luthier

I have had a computer networking business since 2000. I realize that most small businesses fail in the first year. I have started other businesses over the years and had some fail, so I am familiar with that aspect.

I have never done a non profit, or something government subsided. So I would need some help in that department. Having been in business for a while, I have learned that it's imperative to know what you aren't good at, so you know when and who to ask for help. I also know that it's not easy by any means. If you know of an easy way to make it work, super, I'd love to hear it. If you don't know, you have the choice to say nothing, or admit that you haven't ever done that and really don't have the experience to share.

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Carbon is good for plants. You should be preaching basic science - long established and factual, not some latter day Scientology mumbo jumbo.

How about we slow growth and population and really get to the heart of the matter. Talking about "footprints" when our economic system and government revenue calls for more growth, your attempts amount to a bandaid solution, ignoring the bigger picture.

www.breitbart.com...

“Carbon dioxide fertilises plants, and emissions from fossil fuels have already had a hugely beneficial effect on crops, increasing yields by at least 10-15 per cent,” Dr Golkany argues.

“This has not only been good for humankind but for the natural world too, because an acre of land that is not used for crops is an acre of land that is left for nature.” Increasing crops yields has helped reduce hunger and improved human well being, as well as generating around $140 billion a year. As well as crops, the “wild places of the Earth” have seen an improvement, becoming greener in recent decades.

Dr Golkany attributes this to carbon dioxide, saying it can also increase their water-use efficiency, thus making them more resistant to drought. “Unlike the claims of future global warming disasters,” Dr Golkany says, “These benefits are firmly established and are being felt now.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Put another way, do you think that if you shut your eyes, you cannot hear or feel things either?

So anecdotal observations amount to establishing cause and effect, care to suggest over how much time such observations should be recorded? Or the methodology to be used? Ya know, just to give it some smacking of looking better than some playchool science project.

a reply to: luthier

I never said that I'm more concerned about a celebrity opinion, but I did note that I am concerned about whether or not a supposed charity is going to allow the insertion of political commentary, stereotyping of a group of people, and individual beliefs during what should be an event focused on the victims and those affected.

But, we don't have to agree on this--if you want to give your money to organizations that allow this, so be it. But comparing Stevie Wonder--a celebrity on a fundraiser--to the state governor is a bit disingenuous, as is comparing giving money to victims just because you don't like their governor versus not giving through a particular organization because of what they allow their celebrity mouthpieces to say.

But, again, to each their own. I think this part of the discussion is encroaching upon ridiculousness at this point.

And BTW, anyone living on a coastline, anywhere, expecting that coastline to remain constant is either an idiot or an idiot.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


And BTW, anyone living on a coastline, anywhere, expecting that coastline to remain constant is either an idiot or an idiot.

Or as Stevie says, "unintelligent". (but idiot works too)

"climate change" is all about money...

why do you think all the billionaires are apart of it.... they stand to rake in more billions from the sheep

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sigh, solutions. Yes, Like mentioning that using the same tactics that made the democrats loose the election may not be the best way to solve every problem the democrats wish to solve.

And bringing politics into literally every conversation involving climate science makes me believe you aren't being sincere. How about you work on that little problem of yours?

I'm going to try this one last time, and if you can't get it, I'll do my best to ignore you forever.

I'd like to get my hopes up, but I doubt you'll be able to do so.

If the issue of Climate Change is even 1/10th of a real problem as you and others claim, then it's imperative that it be addressed. Stopping there, do you agree, disagree, or still want to go against me because I'm me?

Agreed.

Next, it seems that Climate Change has been hijacked by politics. Again, forget I said it, do you agree?

Agreed. That's why I make an effort to decouple political discussions from this topic and only discuss science. I can't help it if every idiot who hears the phrase Climate Change has to talk about Al Gore or Climategate.

Now, again, if this is a real issue, and half the public is against it for reasons of (ignorance/political stance) and they aren't going to change their mind anymore than you would change yours, Do you think that A. you should continue along the path you have been on, because you know you are right? Or..B. should you explore new ways to get the message out and perhaps convince those opposed that even without them believing in AGW, Al Gore, Polar Bears, that they still need to help with some serious environmental issues? (and by you, I mean you, and everyone who is on the Man Made Climate change side.)

And what pray tell do you think would change people's minds? Because I've tried tons of different tactics over the days and years I've believed. Including patiently refuting their arguments, explaining the science, insults, ignoring trolls, not ignoring trolls. Please. If you have a sure fire way to get people who SAY they are skeptics but are closed to any proof whatsoever to listen to the science then by all means fire away. Suggesting I should attempt a different course of action though doesn't help anything.

My suggestion is to change the approach, change the delivery, modify the message. Try to be all inclusive, and try to engage the audience without putting half of them down and calling them names.

If you find that post to be offensive, mean spirited, or antagonistic, please, say so.

Been there done that.

a reply to: Voyaging

Bad as in "Never A Straight Answer"?

At least you're avoiding my question with a nasa_ish cop-out they would produce, in case someone asks them what's with all the alien contacts.

That's 2 layers of entertainment for my silly ass in space. Thanks, I guess.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

At least I can say I tried. Good luck with all you do.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Ummm...did you not read the sentence I wrote following what you're responding to? I literally wrote:

Yes, I read it. I reiterated what you had said and put an emphasis on the religious aspect.

Yes, AGW is a belief system. No, the data surrounding a generally warming earth is not.

No it is not a belief system. It's a scientific theory.

a reply to: network dude

Maybe it would help if so called "skeptics" didn't post useless threads about celebrity opinions as detractors against science?

a reply to: network dude

People should listen to him, why not?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Maybe it would help if so called "skeptics" didn't post useless threads about celebrity opinions as detractors against science?

Wow, I don't know that I have ever witnessed someone miss the point by that much. A new record. Congrats. I feel I should order you a trophy.

a reply to: network dude

Sorry, I thought we were discussing ways to improve the dialog so that more people would come around to believing the science. Was that not your point?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This begs the question: What's more useless, initiating the thread, or continually commenting in it when you think that it's useless?

Just something to consider.

Best regards.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Chicken or egg, my friend. Chicken or egg.

a reply to: network dude

There is no doubt at all that the climate is changing. Never has been. Its always changed.

I think its reasonable to assume that our activity is driving at least some of it.

Where it will lead....who knows. But do we really expect a decrease in emissions without creating truly ground breaking technology? Or will we just keep redefining our archaic tech from the industrial revolution? Because that is what it'll take: creating energy without combustion. Until that day, the only other option is to keep people from driving.