Stevie Wonder thinks YOU are blind and or stupid.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Yup. I feel the same way. I'm not sure how much man's influence is, and amazingly enough, 97% of scientists aren't either.
But as you said, unless we find an alternative to combustion engines, the changes we make will be minuscule. (IMHO)

I'm going to say something and many of you won't like it. Much of what goes on in our world is faith. And a big chunk of that faith is tied to our group or denomination or party or country. It takes an enormous amount of energy and time to understand AGW. The best scientists spend decades of their life devoted to understanding it. They, more than anybody else, rely on facts, and a smaller amount on faith. The rest of us, the general voting public, we depend almost exclusively on faith when making decisions. Again, I'm not trolling, just stating an observation. Many of you will assert you have a deep understanding of AGW and your decisions are not faith-based, and it's not far from the truth. My contention is unless you've spent most of your life as a scientist studying climate change, faith is a large part of your understanding.

To give you an example. I think Obama is a real person. However, I've never seen Obama in-person. And I haven't studied his history deeply. So the facts are faith has a role in my understanding.

You might think that's incredulous, but it's only the facts.

a reply to: network dude

Well you can "Downsize" of course.
I'm sure you've seen the commercials of that new movie right?

Us big people can take care of things while everyone else lives in a dollhouse.

The Blind leading the blind.

originally posted by: introvert
Well, he is correct.

One must be blind or stupid to at least not consider the information in regards to global warming/climate change.

As someone else mentioned, why does this even matter? The goal seems to just be for people to believe it, but no one is doing anything about it except to threaten people who aren't go along with the charade.

And it truly is a charade because the people making the biggest fuss about those who don't want to play, are doing absolutely nothing else.

a reply to: jonnywhite

But you also have to consider that some of these scientists are getting paid to produce results and not independently/impartially study the cause. They are being paid to come to a certain conclusion and they then mold their data and theories to the desired conclusion, as we have seen multiple times in the past.

There are a lot of people that will say the exact same thing about the deniers, that they are getting paid by big oil and petroleum companies. There has been exposure after exposure on corrupted science, falsifying data sets and rigging models. These scandals have hit one of the sides a lot more often compared to the other. Care to guess which side has been caught red handed time after time?

Then, as you bring up, there are scientists that have devoted 20+ years of their life to study the links of man made climate change. They are already compromised. Would you, after spending 20+ years of your life dedicated to a certain slant of science, be able to admit you were wrong before you even began? Or you would keep your mouth shut and continue to receive a paycheck.

For those scientists that did speak out, do you think they were rewarded for it or punished by their peer reviewed disciplined masters?

I even heard a little rumor that recycling contributes more to pollution and fuel usage than it prevents.

Life is so much fun.

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I'm going to say something and many of you won't like it. Much of what goes on in our world is faith. And a big chunk of that faith is tied to our group or denomination or party or country. It takes an enormous amount of energy and time to understand AGW. The best scientists spend decades of their life devoted to understanding it. They, more than anybody else, rely on facts, and a smaller amount on faith. The rest of us, the general voting public, we depend almost exclusively on faith when making decisions. Again, I'm not trolling, just stating an observation. Many of you will assert you have a deep understanding of AGW and your decisions are not faith-based, and it's not far from the truth. My contention is unless you've spent most of your life as a scientist studying climate change, faith is a large part of your understanding.

To give you an example. I think Obama is a real person. However, I've never seen Obama in-person. And I haven't studied his history deeply. So the facts are faith has a role in my understanding.

You might think that's incredulous, but it's only the facts.

Page 7, and the voice of reason has finally arrived! Yea!

Me thinks anyone having the wherewithal to view all of the raw data, all of the info about the data, and be able to interpret it all in any significant way: wouldn't be engaging a bunch of know-it-alls in an emotional debate, hurling insults.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

How so, Slap Monkey?

How is this any more vomit inducing than hearing deluded fools claim that all the ills the weather brings are more to do with the existence of homosexuals than they are to do with predictable patterns of thermodynamic interaction?

I can see the argument has struck deeply here, because you have not countered it well at all, something you would have been able to do perfectly well, were your position valid.

a reply to: network dude

Why do people think a celebrity is so special,the guy can sing and play instuments,so can a lot of people,and their opinion is like anyone else,he's a liberal did you expect anything less?

a reply to: Oldtimer2

You really believe it's a partisan issue and not something entirely different? Why, Al Gore?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Well, I'll break it down for you:

1. You're comparing an immediate threat to one that is conjectured to possibly be happening maybe because of human beings maybe within a couple of generations.

2. A manmade room is not a natural climate system that contains its own checks and balances and cycles that occur naturally concerning the appearance of bombs.

3. You pretend that there is a "clearly visible" exit to climate change that would have an immediate effect like walking out of a room.

4. You pretend that those skeptical of the AGW theory and its proponents do so out of ego versus cognitive thinking.

5. You only present two possibilities as being appropriate solutions in a scenario that has nothing to do with properly representing the issue and complexity of climate change (natural or otherwise).

6. You fill your entire argument with hyperbole and logical fallacies, negating any validity to your claim that "this is literally the choice before you"--making us all question whether or not that you know the definition of "literally" after reading that.

7. Your scenario doesn't even propose a solution to the bomb, just a way to run away from it--there's no way to run away from our climate.

8. You don't note whether the douchey guy with the degree is even a bomb technician, or just a douchey guy with a degree who things that this makes him intelligent on the topic.

I could go on, enumerating more things wrong with your scenario, but the overall problem with your comment is that you over-simplify the issue while proposing an incongruent scenario while name-calling those who disagree with your stance on the issue. This is why I referred to it as vomit-inducing hyperbole, and I double down on my claim.

Also, a pertinent point is that the douchey guy waving a degree hasn't even verified if the bomb is real or a hoax, and probably doesn't have enough information to do so--and certainly doesn't seem to have the skills to defuse it if it's real--but is still asking condescending questions as if he fully comprehends everything that is happening concerning the bomb. This absolutely mirrors much of the AGW proponents who act as if the theory is indisputable fact from A to Z.

Hey, you asked...

You see, the argument hasn't struck deeply because of anything that I have or haven't done, it has struck deeply because it is such a bad argument, and sometimes I just have to call them out when I see them. You say that I haven't countered anything--there's nothing to counter in this thread, as it's all just people arguing over stupidity, which is why I walked away from the thread.

I am doing so, now, again. Best regards.

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: network dude

Why do people think a celebrity is so special,the guy can sing and play instuments,so can a lot of people,and their opinion is like anyone else,he's a liberal did you expect anything less?

I'm getting the idea you didn't read my OP. While I do enjoy Stevies music and cannot begin to show my appreciation for his contribution to modern music, I was turned off by his politicizing of Global Warming at a charity event for Hurricane Victims. I just thought it was wrong, and in bad taste. I may not agree with him, but he has the right to his opinion. And he even had the right to say what he said, but I felt that polarizing the audience was a poor idea, given the venue and purpose. That was my opinion, and being that this is a site made for people to offer their opinions, I chose to do just that.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

sometimes I just have to call them out when I see them

Same here. Why don't you just stop with the emotional drivel and start to dive into a detailed debate regarding specific problems you see with the theory?

Your shallow hogwash is fcking annoying. Climate change is an actual threat. If you can't see that, you should look up what exactly happens once the arctic is free of sea ice. We call it science and I'm willing to suggest that you're a PR spindoc up to nothing good at all. You're obviously not dumb, are you?

a reply to: PublicOpinion

what happened the last time the arctic was free of sea ice?

originally posted by: introvert
Well, he is correct.

One must be blind or stupid to at least not consider the information in regards to global warming/climate change.

Climate change. So obvious even a blind man gets it. Too bad so many with functioning eyes continue to deny whats in front of them.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Same here. Why don't you just stop with the emotional drivel and start to dive into a detailed debate regarding specific problems you see with the theory?

I've already explained this to you.

As for your claim of my "emotional drivel," just because you choose to ignore that every enumerated point that I made calls out a problem with his scenario that he claims is "literally" what we're facing with GW, then that's on you.

Your shallow hogwash is fcking annoying. Climate change is an actual threat. If you can't see that, you should look up what exactly happens once the arctic is free of sea ice. We call it science and I'm willing to suggest that you're a PR spindoc up to nothing good at all. You're obviously not dumb, are you?

Speaking of emotional hogwash. Regardless, I don't really care if my comments annoy you, just like TrueBrit could have chosen not to care about my concerns about his comment.

But to get things back on in line with reality, I have never claimed that CC isn't real, I have never said that it isn't a "threat" to the way things are and have been in the past. You can complain all that you want about me being annoying--again, I don't care about how my comments emotionally affect other people, as appealing to emotion isn't a logical fallacy that I choose to employ--but let's not make up things that I didn't say.

Best regards.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: SlapMonkey

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).

THIS right here - I don't know anyone who claims CC doesn't exist. The problem is that if you don't agree with their conclusions and solutions you are labeled a "climate change denier", which is frustrating and false.

a reply to: network dude

You have been fairly nonsensical in your questions and responses.

Your asking me how to start a recycling business. Well the first thing is to gather research, Generaly not in a thread debate format. If you know of people who plan business with thread posts maybe you can enlightenen me.

If your talking about artifacts you could start with the futurists and their beginning in the 20's with people like Bucky Fuller.

You can try and use your money to buy products from people who share your value system.



If you want to recycle start collecting recycling and bring it to the closest place. If not start going to the town selectman to ask about your landfill or transport area having a recycling container.

a reply to: luthier

you are kind of like a dog with a bone. But if this is what creams your twinkie, cool.

I would honestly like to start a recycling business, but have no idea where to start. I haven't started to look into it yet, and if I can find someone with intimate knowledge on how to go about it, I have learned that first hand knowledge is a wonderful gift. So if you have that first hand knowledge, super, I'd love to hear about if you are willing to share. If you don't have any first hand knowledge of how to start a recycling business, (IE, you have never done it either nor worked in a non profit) then not to be rude, but you don't have anything constructive to add to that part of the discussion, yet you seem to continue.

If you really want to keep discussing it, I suppose we can, but at this point, I am having a hard time understanding what it is you would like to talk about.

originally posted by: network dude
If you really want to keep discussing it, I suppose we can, but at this point, I am having a hard time understanding what it is you would like to talk about.

This is the motto of everyone (including me) at this point of the thread.

Bottom line: Caring about what celebrities think may be pointless, but the reality is that when they spout off their mouths and insult people during a charity event that should not be politicized, there can be and usually are negative consequences.

Time to move on, at least for me. I would recommend most do the same...