Global Warming, eh?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Saurian Tail » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:52 pm

Believing in AGW does not necessarily mean you agree with the commodification of all human activity. Neither does being skeptical of AGW necessarily mean that you think BAU is fine and dandy. The trick is not to get caught in the double bind because it is really, really easy to make enemies out of allies.

-ST
"Taking it in its deepest sense, the shadow is the invisible saurian tail that man still drags behind him." -Carl Jung
User avatar
Saurian Tail
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:59 pm

Simulist wrote:It might be nice if alleged "suppressed exotic technology" were ever proven, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated convincingly even to exist.

Human-induced global warming, however, has been. By the majority of climate scientists around the world. Time and time again.


Well , I guess on both points, but particularly the latter , we just need to agree to disagree.

But in an imaginary/ perfect world of yours ( I hope), were this "fake" technology actually for real, I assume you understand what this means to the controllers when applied to this current reality ?
Last edited by slimmouse on Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:07 pm

Only too happy to "agree to disagree" on alleged "exotic technology" — that is, until any convincing reason surfaces to believe it (even) might exist.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby slimmouse » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:13 pm

Simulist wrote:Only too happy to "agree to disagree" on alleged "exotic technology" — that is, until any convincing reason surfaces to believe it (even) might exist.


Sounds to me kinda like aliens landing on the lawn on the whitehouse would prove to most skeptics that UFOs and ETs exist.

But for my personal satisfaction ( if you please ) what kind of evidence does the genuine existence/potential of exotic technology entail to you ?
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Rory » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:22 pm

slimmouse wrote:
Simulist wrote:It might be nice if alleged "suppressed exotic technology" were ever proven, but it certainly hasn't been demonstrated convincingly even to exist.

Human-induced global warming, however, has been. By the majority of climate scientists around the world. Time and time again.


Well , I guess on both points, but particularly the latter , we just need to agree to disagree.

But in an imaginary/ perfect world of yours ( I hope), were this "fake" technology actually for real, I assume you understand what this means to the controllers when applied to this current reality ?

I also hope you understand why I put the fake in brackets ?


You keep posting these rather shrill (squeaky!) posts about this 'technology', that has been 'suppressed'.

Why not focus on rather more mundane but sadly descriptive of the stranglehold Oil-Tech has on the modern world - Standard Oil and General Motors conspiring to kill off streetcars. (the other motor-oil conspiracys to 'suppress' railways, and, promotion of cars/vehicles with poor fuel economy). This has provably contributed much more to carbon emissions than any faith based science. (this is exactly what idea that: 'technology that can save us all is just around the corner if only they would stop suppressing it!!!')

Technology. Will. Not. Save. Us. From. Ourselves.

We need to evolve ideas about how to think (collectively) in such a way as to prevent Corporate waste, Military excess and individual apathy. It is the cowards way out to simply sigh and resign yourself to the concept of a society that might have a clean - tech fix to all the current problems (if only they would release the info!!!). The problems are a manifestation of our failings as a race, but massively exacerbated by a sociopathic predator class who are the acme of this - perhaps they are the suicide/effective limiter gene of the species - programed into us to reign in overpopulation and destructive resource over consumption.

None the less, we can fix things and overhauling the current corporate-political-military structure is the rather large problem we face. If General Electric came out with the miracle energy system tomorrow, and made this available, the planet would collapse due to resource overconsumption, even more quickly than before. It would act as an accelerant - The same MIC-Corporate nexus would be in place and they would want to harvest all that is good and concentrate power for themselves.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 03, 2012 5:31 pm

slimmouse wrote:
Simulist wrote:Only too happy to "agree to disagree" on alleged "exotic technology" — that is, until any convincing reason surfaces to believe it (even) might exist.


Sounds to me kinda like aliens landing on the lawn on the whitehouse would prove to most skeptics that UFOs and ETs exist.

But for my personal satisfaction ( if you please ) what kind of evidence does the genuine existence/potential of exotic technology entail to you ?

"What kind of evidence?" How about starting with some evidence. Any would be nice.

I'm certainly open to alternative views of the world. I even had (for wont of a better term) "close encounter" experiences as a youngster — but I realize that these cannot be "proven," and I understand that, until they are, I can't seriously expect other people to integrate them into their views of the world.

And I certainly wouldn't presume to set policy based upon them.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby wintler2 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:42 pm

Image
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby wintler2 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:45 pm

Simulist wrote:
professorpan wrote:HEY KIDS! Here's how you can point out the fallacy of climate change "skeptics" in a few simple steps!

Step 1. "Skeptic" friend points to article. "Look at this! It's written by (Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist) and it's posted on (Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog) and it clearly shows that burning tons of coal and oil is NOT causing the planet to warm! So there, Mr. Al Gore-smartypants!"

Step 2. Go to SourceWatch.org. Plug name of Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist and Fancy Looking Climate Skeptic Blog into search field.

Step 3. Discover Mr. Esteemed Climate Scientist never published anything related to climate, but has a degree in Sports Medicine, and that Fancy Looking Blog is funded by ExxonMobil, CATO, Heartland Institute, and North American Coal Corporation.

Step 4. Show "Skeptic" friend the information, with clear documentation. Watch as "Skeptic" friend completely ignores the links to industries that burn shit and don't want people to believe it's doing bad things to our home planet and instead rushes off to find further evidence to support his nutty preconceptions.

Step 4.5. Watch as 'skeptic' uses personal insults and high-sounding rhetoric to paint environmentalists as malign fools, and themselves as heroic saints, keepers of secret knowledge, too secret to share.

Step 5. Bash head against wall repeatedly while cursing the American educational system and the power of well-funded propaganda. Go get drunk in attempt to dull the pain.


Step 6. Repeat every few months.

That's gorgeous. And right on.

It is gorgeous, slightly incomplete tho, suggested additions above. And step 5 is entirely optional, when i get to that stage now i laugh at my own foolishness in thinking any evidence or argument might sway the likes of slimmouse & BenD, when the years have taugh me otherwise. I should just treasure the lulz..
..the WSJ opinion piece itself is solid evidence that AGW accelerated global warming is not happening.
:rofl2
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 03, 2012 7:55 pm

wintler2 wrote:Image

Exactly.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Global Warming, eh?

Postby Sounder » Fri Feb 03, 2012 8:11 pm

well not this 'skeptic'

Its clear that we have warmed about .8 deg

It is also clear that the long term temp record varies in a cyclical manner with both warmer and colder temps depending on where we are in the cycle.

The last long term graph I saw was a Heritage product, so I will save myself some scorn by not posting it, and just say it looked to me, back when I looked at it, like we were at the high side of a cyclical peak.

Yes climate changes, we surely even have a part in this, but tossing money around will do nothing but fatten a few more well connected folks bank accounts.



I'm with you Rory on the tech issue. Although a mental model or new framework for understanding might also produce new tech. that is an organic rather than contrived progress.
Last edited by Sounder on Sat Feb 04, 2012 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones?

Postby Ben D » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:04 pm

So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones?

If any of the posters don't know who the Phil Jones is who sent this email, then don't embarrass yourself posting here, for it's emails like this which show unambiguously that the principal scientists behind the global warming scare campaign were not only aware that the data coming in on temperature was not matching their rhetoric, and therefore not only corrupted the scientific peer review process to lock out other scientists whose scientific papers contradicted the AGW theme, but also 'hid the decline' when and as appropriate.

So try to understand that team 'skeptics' include genuine climate cientists who are determined to lift the veil of deceit covering this whole sorry saga of corrupted science.

http://di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/4195.txt

(note..you will have to do a page search to get to this specific email)

[mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]

From: Phil Jones

>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,

> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020.

. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
>
Still a way to go before 2014.

>


Now right through this thread, the true believers go bananas when it has been quoted (with link generally) by a skeptic that there has been a lack of global warming in recent times. So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones ?


And it seems to me that all of you AGW true believers, like Professor Jones, also 'hope' that it doesn't continue until 2020.

For the definition of an AGW true believer, aka a AGW alarmist, here is one which I posted in an earlier thread and post again below.

So please confirm my intuitive astuteness, or prove to me that I am biased, by confirming that you are not like Professor Jones and actually do hope that it is the AGW team that is wrong!

You can easily tell the difference between an Environmentalist and an AGW alarmist.

If someone is a true environmentalist whose vision is for a healthy planet into the future, then he is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the AGW alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong.

The AGW alarmist/denier on the other hand though, usually an eco/political activist, always denies new data that shows the planet may be not as unstable as first believed after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the AGW scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:20 pm

[mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk]

From: Phil Jones

>Sent: 05 January 2009 16:18
>To: Johns, Tim; Folland, Chris
>Cc: Smith, Doug; Johns, Tim
>Subject: Re: FW: Temperatures in 2009
>
>
> Tim, Chris,

> I hope you're not right about the lack of warming lasting
> till about 2020.

. I'd rather hoped to see the earlier Met Office
> press release with Doug's paper that said something like -
> half the years to 2014 would exceed the warmest year currently on
> record, 1998!
>
Still a way to go before 2014.


Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones?

Postby Ben D » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:39 pm

Simulist wrote:
Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.


Yes it would,...you are one of 'them',..but fwiw, the text content implies a common understanding by both Professor Jones and the addressees that global warming was NOT happening. This never made the news until, and never would have, unless Climategate came along to expose the deception and corruption.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones?

Postby Simulist » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:43 pm

Ben D wrote:
Simulist wrote:
Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.


Yes it would,...you are one of 'them',..but fwiw, the text content implies a common understanding by both Professor Jones and the addressees that global warming was NOT happening. This never made the news until, and never would have, unless Climategate came along to expose the deception and corruption.

You're onto me, Ben. Drat! — yes, obviously, I am one of "them." :roll:

And no, "the text content" doesn't "imply" anything of the kind. But of course you know that.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: So here you go, what do you say to Professor Jones?

Postby Ben D » Fri Feb 03, 2012 10:56 pm

Simulist wrote:
Ben D wrote:
Simulist wrote:
Professor Jones' remarks strike me as nothing more than someone who is so convinced of his conclusions — and understands their import so well for planetary life in the long term — that he "hopes" they are born out in the short term in order that "skeptics" have no reason to confuse the matter further with their continual bullshit obfuscations.


Yes it would,...you are one of 'them',..but fwiw, the text content implies a common understanding by both Professor Jones and the addressees that global warming was NOT happening. This never made the news until, and never would have, unless Climategate came along to expose the deception and corruption.

You're onto me, Ben. Drat! — yes, obviously, I am one of "them." :roll:

And no, "the text content" doesn't "imply" anything of the kind. But of course you know that.


Prove my understanding wrong then..

What you are saying then is that Jones understood that his conclusions (that the planet was getting warmer) was important for planetary life in the long term.

Therefore, as a result of the period of no warming they were witnessing, he hoped for a return to continued warming as that was the best for planetary life.

God, do you really beleive that?

Or would it not make more sense if in fact the real reason he hoped that the climate would return to global warming was because if it didn't, his credibility, respect, position, job, remuneration, etc., would be on the line, along with the rest of the scallywags of the AGW team...and of course along with the very computer climate models based on 'settled science' that they were using to predict an AGW tipping point near.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], thrulookingglass and 25 guests