Getting advice from the polar bear

[Wild Cobra]

Not that any of this will matter given that you're mind is made up and you are impervious to facts in disagreement with your preconceptions...

 

 

 

Well, I went through and listed why every one of those links and graphs were wrong. I decided not to post it, because this is a tangent not needed.

 

Words have meaning and all you provided was useless graphs made by bloggers using reputable data, and renaming graphs. Even the quote you provided by the CBO is altered in your presentation of it from the actual quote.

[Phi for All]

 

Well, I went through and listed why every one of those links and graphs were wrong. I decided not to post it, because this is a tangent not needed.

 

My daughter tries to use this on me when she has a missing assignment. "I did the homework, I just didn't turn it in!"

 

Whether she actually did it is beside the point; the end result is still the same, nothing is learned.

[iNow]

this is a tangent not needed.

I'm glad we agree. Harold commented that wind is more expensive and I've more than adequately supported my point that such broad sweeping assertions miss several important details (such as the aforementioned subsidies and tax policy).

 

Even the quote you provided by the CBO is altered in your presentation of it from the actual quote.

The link provided was the source data backing up the comment and validating its accuracy.

 

 

My daughter tries to use this on me when she has a missing assignment. "I did the homework, I just didn't turn it in!"

 

Whether she actually did it is beside the point; the end result is still the same, nothing is learned.

While it's unclear to me why he didn't choose to post in the open for all to see and challenge and rip to shreds, in fairness to a Wild Cobra he did PM the aforementioned post to me.

 

For those curious, it was a bunch of accusations about activist blogs and lacked any specific challenges to the central points... Basically, several paragraphs of attacking the messenger and trying to poison the well. That said, it wouldn't be fair IMO to accuse him of a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

[overtone]

And my use of quotation marks is meant to emphasize my meaning, not to be deceptive

Bullshit. You directly asserted that I had labeled you "willfully ignorant", and elaborated on my terminology specifically. Your "meaning" rested on the terms I supposedly had used.

 

 

When I say I have infinitely more respect for the power of nuclear than you ever could, I was speaking mainly about nuclear weapons.

No, you weren't. You were speaking about our relative levels of respect for the hazards of nuclear power. And you were speaking in complete ignorance of my respect level, compounded by standard wingnut stereotypifications of "liberals" and similar crapola.

 

 

 

My polar bear analogy was meant to stimulate discussion, not to be taken seriously.

It's a conceptual error, a false and badly misleading analogy. And in that role, it did stimulate discussion - mission accomplished.

 

 

 

I started this thread with serious intent, and proposed a serious question; i.e., which would be more difficult to survive, an Ice Age, or global warming, and what adaptive strategies we could adopt

No, you asked which would be more difficult to survive: a "cooling" or a "warming". You now confuse that with terms such as "Ice Age" and "global warming" set against each other.

This is basic misconception, furthering the standard wingnut meme of natural climate change - you continue to attempt to frame the consequences of the anthro CO2 boosting as natural, comparable to and contrasted with a glaciation or interstade or the like.

 

A global freeze comparable in that manner to the current warming would not be an Ice Age, with glacial advances and such - far too slow: it would be a sudden onset, rapid, severe, logistically self-accelerating, and essentially (on a human lifespan scale) permanent cooling of the planet as a whole, within a couple of hundred years. And as noted in post 7 above and other places by others, it probably would be easier to "survive" than some of the possible warming events we face now.

 

 

 

I started this thread with serious intent, and proposed a serious question; i.e., which would be more difficult to survive, an Ice Age, or global warming, and what adaptive strategies we could adopt. I really didn't want the discussion to degenerate to such a hopelessly political pissing contest.

And that question was addressed by several people, including me in post #7. Your response, in post #8, was to start a political pissing contest. Edited January 27, 2015 by overtone

[Wild Cobra]

For those curious, it was a bunch of accusations about activist blogs and lacked any specific challenges to the central points... Basically, several paragraphs of attacking the messenger and trying to poison the well. That said, it wouldn't be fair IMO to accuse him of a "dog ate my homework" excuse.

 

My point was already made. The definition of words have specific meanings. Those who purposely misuse words to mislead, are not to be trusted.

[mothythewso]

Think my exact quote was "And I have infinitely more respect for the destructive power of nuclear than you could ever have.", and I told you exactly why, specifically referring to my experiences in the military.

And again, I didn't post any "joannova" graph, nor apparently did anyone else on this thread. Severe case of misquoting. FYI, I never heard of the particular graph 'til you bought it up.

I formally retract my statement averring that you referred to me as "willfully ignorant." I checked the whole thread, and you didn't say any such thing. Sorry.

You did say, in post #26, "Wonderful Concepts. Included in them would be of course the political involvement expected of adult persons-in this case a solid and vocal support of the liberal politicians and liberal political agendas that are our only hope of establishing them as financial possibilities and societal norms." You were referring to some basic solutions that are admittedly not mine , just generally accepted partial solutions.

In my home state, blue-as-blue can be Mid-Atlantic coast, most of our air pollution is generated in Ohio. I know, bad example, they have a Republican governor. My former co-workers in the Dept of Environment Administration responsible for air pollution, who actually DID things, still struggled on, and we had a pretty good record. Under Democratic and Republican governors. Just thought I'd throw that in.

Again, I say that you'll never get political agreement, all-Liberal government in the next fifty years unless there's an armed revolution, and your side wins. And since you don't like guns, that ain't gonna happen. Let alone a unified World Government, which will be essential. I don't see China cutting down on their fossil fuel usage any time soon.

I can't decide whether you're an arrogant little prick, or just terminally insane. If you would once come up with a positive statement, propose ANYTHING even moderately hopeful, I'll be happy to listen. Or you can just cry in your beer, presuming you're old enough.

[overtone]

And again, I didn't post any "joannova" graph, nor apparently did anyone else on this thread. Severe case of misquoting.

It wasn't a misquote, but a misattribution - and when I figure out where I saw that graph, I will know how to apologize. It appears to have vanished from the forum altogether.

 

 

Again, I say that you'll never get political agreement, all-Liberal government in the next fifty years unless there's an armed revolution, and your side wins. And since you don't like guns, that ain't gonna happen.

See 'A' above.

 

 

 

Think my exact quote was "And I have infinitely more respect for the destructive power of nuclear than you could ever have.", and I told you exactly why, specifically referring to my experiences in the military.

And I told you exactly why you were full of shit. You going to double down on ignorance based and gratuitous disparagement in the service of irrelevancy? (the topic was nuclear power).

 

Tip: quit trying to make arguments based on my supposed political beliefs, personal experiences, political agenda, etc. It's a nonstarter of an approach. You have no idea what they are, your inferences from my posts are not only wrong but twit-brained Teaparty stereotypifications of "liberals", and you're just going to end up with an ad hominem argument anyway.

 

Fact is, when I posted this: ""Wonderful Concepts. Included in them would be of course the political involvement expected of adult persons-in this case a solid and vocal support of the liberal politicians and liberal political agendas that are our only hope of establishing them as financial possibilities and societal norms." I was just making an accurate observation of political reality in the US. You want to have a set of fundamentally political "solutions" to a global warming problem you have yet to comprehend taken seriously, without any consideration for politics, and without recognizing your own political role in preventing them so far? Not possible.

 

 

 

 

If you would once come up with a positive statement, propose ANYTHING even moderately hopeful, I'll be happy to listen

You've been deaf so far - missed all the jokes, overlooked the optimism of noticing that there is a political faction in the US with both national representation and a clue about AGW, failed to notice how profoundly negative and discouraging the consistently visible association of things like polar bear adaptation and interstades with AGW in the rightwinger's outlook - the outlook of the people who stuck us with Reagan and the Gingrich Congress and eight years of W&C0's environmentalism, and currently control Congress again - is, and so forth.

 

So no, you won't listen. But the forum is public. Other people will.

Edited January 29, 2015 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

mothythewso,

If you feel like being able to use this forum, I suggest that you not insult other members with petty comments. It is not an appropriate or even an effective way to discuss a topic and it is absolutely against the rules. Any more posts like this will be trashed.

!

Moderator Note

overtone, if you could tone it down as well, it would be much appreciated.

[Harold Squared]

OK, I stand corrected.

 

Still nervous about spreading it all over the place, but that might be my general dislike for an industry which keeps telling me it's safe and then having accidents which result in bits of the planet being uninhabitable for thousands of years.

 

Tim, where do you think Uranium comes from? As for "bits of the planet being uninhabitable for thousands of years" can you be more specific? Can't be Three Mile Island, people go to work there every day.

!

Moderator Note

If you are going to make claims, you need to back them up, i.e. post a citation. Otherwise this is just trolling, and will not be tolerated.

Do not respond to this modnote in the thread.

Should I start another thread then? I will modify the "Rare Sighting" thread in the news section, then. Hopefully this will meet with the requirements.