dimreepr Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 hour ago, joigus said: The elk bit was also sarcasm, but as you are incapable of distinguishing climate prediction from weather forecasting, maths from experiments and who knows what more, I'm giving you some visual help. Let me help...
MigL Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 We seem to do this every time... The OP is about climate scientists and the use of the word 'alarmist'. But because a lot of people are extremely passionate ( some may even be 'virtue signaling' ) about the subject, all it takes is one person to question AGW, and all of a sudden, it becomes a thread about whether AGW is factual. It then becomes the same 'It's duck season. No, it's rabbit season" back and forth argument that we've had dozens of times before. Some people's minds cannot be changed, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. And the thread is way off topic. And then Dimreepr posts his vacation photo... .
dimreepr Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, MigL said: And then Dimreepr posts his vacation photo... . Yeah, I was in Canada and yes, I was stalking you... I watched a BBC documentory this morning, in which they described how humans caused the extinction of mastodons'; by only hunting the solitary dominant male's, which slowly, over a few centuries, destroyed there ability to mate successfully. 20 minutes ago, MigL said: Some people's minds cannot be changed, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. And the thread is way off topic Our opinions about the how or why, doesn't change what's going to happen; I really don't care if people want to ignore our probable/possible future or be alarmed (I can't change it, mostly because of my vacation photo), I just like a discussion. And if it's off topic, laugh at the OP.
joigus Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 30 minutes ago, MigL said: [...] But because a lot of people are extremely passionate ( some may even be 'virtue signaling' ) about the subject, all it takes is one person to question AGW, and all of a sudden, it becomes a thread about whether AGW is factual. It then becomes the same 'It's duck season. No, it's rabbit season" back and forth argument that we've had dozens of times before. [...] And the thread is way off topic. You're right. I'm partly responsible for derailing the wagon with the elk talk. Plus I'm a bleeding heart for Nature conservation. In my defense, the OP actually took my sarcasm dead-seriously. 51 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Let me help... LOL. 30 minutes ago, MigL said: And then Dimreepr posts his vacation photo... . (LOL)2 30 minutes ago, MigL said: The OP is about climate scientists and the use of the word 'alarmist'. Although you must admit that in order to assess whether scientists are being "alarmists" it seems inevitable to discuss the alarm signs however briefly. Elks aside... Edited May 30, 2020 by joigus brief addition
MigL Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 I always thought that mastodon were too large to be taken down individually; especially large dominant males. The depictions I've always seen involve scaring the herd, and stampeding them off cliffs, so they can be killed when injured from the fall. And now we're really off topic. ( are you trying to get me in trouble with the Mods ? I was only joking about the vacation photo ... )
dimreepr Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, MigL said: I always thought that mastodon were too large to be taken down individually; especially large dominant males. The depictions I've always seen involve scaring the herd, and stampeding them off cliffs, so they can be killed when injured from the fall. The evidence was quite compelling. 28 minutes ago, MigL said: And now we're really off topic. ( are you trying to get me in trouble with the Mods ? I was only joking about the vacation photo ... ) I know, but that would be funny... 😄 😄 Edited May 30, 2020 by dimreepr
Phi for All Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 hour ago, MigL said: We seem to do this every time... The OP is about climate scientists and the use of the word 'alarmist'. But because a lot of people are extremely passionate ( some may even be 'virtue signaling' ) about the subject, all it takes is one person to question AGW, and all of a sudden, it becomes a thread about whether AGW is factual. ! Moderator Note And this is why we have the rule about good faith arguments. Despite several pages of reasoned arguments, the OP continues to soapbox about AGW's existence and disparage all scientists, and it's clear this was the agenda all along since they've taken NONE of the arguments under consideration. Discussion has to be a two-way street here to have any meaning. Not a blog, a science discussion forum. Thread closed.
Recommended Posts