Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: OT: The End is Near........

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: The End is Near........ Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 4:52:25 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 40551
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'd rather a discussion with an openminded, polite comrade who isn't dismissive and contemptuous of those he disagrees with.
warspite1

I've had numerous debates with M_M - and they have on occasion got a little heated - but they've never got to this stage .

Come on guys, you feel strongly, so argue your points back in a forthright manner. If something is worth caring about then challenge and expect to be challenged. There is nothing wrong with a bit of robust back and forth without recourse to name calling.

Dare I say some of you are acting like snowflakes here (although that might be construed as name calling)






< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/2/2019 4:54:15 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 61
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 4:53:55 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd make a comment about who are the snowflakes now, but that might hit too close to home.
...
My mind is open, so please present the evidence for your respective positions


A good example of the evidence proving the assertion isn't true.



Still haven't seen any evidence from you on why climate change isn't thing, CR.

Happy to wait


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

BA in Economics and Finance asshole. And a minor in International politics? You?

I retired at 50 because my economic status is quite good.

I have 4 rescue dogs.

Only one wife.

You really need to up your game. Making assumptions about others without facts will limit your career.

Get the f over yourself. It will help your overall life.

Sanctimonious Ahole.


MSc Clinical & Health Psychology

Please note, before you become even more uncivil, that I made no assumptions.

I asked a question that acted as a proxy to help me understand from what position you were approaching this topic, as your position on the relative merits of education at the university level was not quite clear.

quote:

Oh - and just to add sauce to the mix. You seem to think you are better educated than the rest of us. But unless you went to an Ivy, Oxford, Cambridge or moral equivalent that is not so. At least on paper. But education it is what you put into it, not the heading on the paper.

Enuff said?


I absolutely make zero claims of any such notion.

What I will say is that I've certainly been much better equipped to seek out and present the evidence on the topic, as besides Obvert, nobody else has managed to do so


(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 62
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 4:58:13 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 18087
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Sweet Home Alabama.....

If you want to see her sister go to Fall River, RI. A couple of PTs there as well. Maybe a DD. Not sure if they have a sub.

Thanks! I live in North Alabama (Madison/Huntsville). I've toured the USS Alabama and the USS Drum twice now. The first time was before my son was born. The second time was with my son when he was 3rd grade I believe. He was most impressed by what was stenciled across the 40 mm AA gun shields. That is, "lead - dammit - lead".

I've also toured the old Civil War fort, Fort Morgan, with him probably 5 or 6 times now. The first was when he was 2-years old. I can remember sweating as I carried him up those steep steps leading to the ramparts of the fort. The last we went was just before he started the 11th grade (he's a freshman at Auburn now). It was only this last time that I actually got "time" to read all the plaques around the fort. Over those visits it was a joy to see how he matured (i.e., had grow) and how his interests in the fort and things at the fort changed from wanting to see those big guns and shells to learning about the history of the fort.

P.S. One thing that in all those visits that struck was the men campaigning in that climate wearing wool uniforms. Also, the citadel that was inside the fort was several stories high and, of course, was burned down during the Union siege in 1864.

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 11/2/2019 5:07:37 PM >


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to fcooke)
Post #: 63
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 5:22:23 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I'd make a comment about who are the snowflakes now, but that might hit too close to home.
...
My mind is open, so please present the evidence for your respective positions


A good example of the evidence proving the assertion isn't true.



Still haven't seen any evidence from you on why climate change isn't thing, CR.

Happy to wait


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

BA in Economics and Finance asshole. And a minor in International politics? You?

I retired at 50 because my economic status is quite good.

I have 4 rescue dogs.

Only one wife.

You really need to up your game. Making assumptions about others without facts will limit your career.

Get the f over yourself. It will help your overall life.

Sanctimonious Ahole.


Despite Warspites good advice....you are delusional. You pretty much claimed you baited me:

quote:

Not a clue, but very likely much lower than the percentages today. Not everyone needs a degree and my electrician and tile guy make a tidy income. My parents did not graduate from high school, but they did OK. But they worked from a very young age. But I am not clear to the gist of your question here?


Just curious.

I have found that there's a certain aversion to higher education amongst some groups of American's that I've known.

Just because a degree is not needed does not mean it has no value.

I am a big proponent of education just for the sake of education :)

What group of Americans do I come from? That proxy comment is a fairly arrogant statement in my mind. And I am not the one being uncivil.




MSc Clinical & Health Psychology

Please note, before you become even more uncivil, that I made no assumptions.

I asked a question that acted as a proxy to help me understand from what position you were approaching this topic, as your position on the relative merits of education at the university level was not quite clear.
And instead of using a proxy you could have just asked the question. Just saying.

quote:

Oh - and just to add sauce to the mix. You seem to think you are better educated than the rest of us. But unless you went to an Ivy, Oxford, Cambridge or moral equivalent that is not so. At least on paper. But education it is what you put into it, not the heading on the paper.

Enuff said?


I absolutely make zero claims of any such notion.

It's not your claims, but actions/typing.

What I will say is that I've certainly been much better equipped to seek out and present the evidence on the topic, as besides Obvert, nobody else has managed to do so

You're right, everyone else is wrong. I think we all get it.



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 64
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 5:54:32 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2280
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
In the 70s, I was told {in school} that by 1985 we'd all have to wear gas masks outside because of pollution.
In the 80s, I was told that Reagan was going to start WWIII and we'd all be incinerated in a nuclear blast or freeze to death in nuclear winter.
In the 90s, we all heard about global warming.
In the 2000s we were told we only had a few years to fix global warming or coastal cities were going to all be underwater.
In the 2010s it is no longer global warming, but global climate change. I guess the earlier models are not holding up so well.

That is as far back as my memory really goes. It goes back further, but my thoughts were of Santa, Easter Bunny and Tonka Toys. I imagine that if you go back further, you'll see a pattern of alarmist, dire predictions. Some of them might even have come true.

Me, I have learned to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because someone has a degree or even is a Doctor, does not make them right. I've known too many Doctors and seen too many screw ups. The louder someone is while making their point, the less I listen.

As far as global warming/climate change goes, I am not convinced. Protesters complain about America causing it but I've been to China where an entire generation has never seen stars because the pollution is so thick. If humans are causing global warming, what stopped the last Ice Age where New York was under a mile of ice? If all that ice melted, where did the water go? If all the polar ice melts and will endanger the coastal cities, imagine how much land would be underwater from the melting of nearly 2000 miles {1788 from NY to the artic circle} of one mile thick ice. I'm sure someone can work that out mathematically, but I don't have enough fingers to count that high.

As to the original post about snowflakes, it would depend on your definition of the term. I have nearly 32 years of experience as a paramedic and I have had close contact with people throughout that time that would be classified as snowflakes today. We just had different terms back then. I look at it as job security.

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 65
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 6:17:37 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2055
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Come on guys, you feel strongly, so argue your points back in a forthright manner. If something is worth caring about then challenge and expect to be challenged. There is nothing wrong with a bit of robust back and forth without recourse to name calling.

Dare I say some of you are acting like snowflakes here (although that might be construed as name calling)

Hey, you are a Brit. You have the benefit of your pub culture training ;) Americans did not have the luxury

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 66
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 6:23:37 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

It's not your claims, but actions/typing.

You're right, everyone else is wrong. I think we all get it.


I'd more accurate describe this as being unable to attack the arguments, so you attack the arguer instead.

It's not a new solution, it's been done before, it's boring.

Bring some evidence in on your side of the debate. I'd love to see it


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

In the 70s, I was told {in school} that by 1985 we'd all have to wear gas masks outside because of pollution.
In the 80s, I was told that Reagan was going to start WWIII and we'd all be incinerated in a nuclear blast or freeze to death in nuclear winter.
In the 90s, we all heard about global warming.
In the 2000s we were told we only had a few years to fix global warming or coastal cities were going to all be underwater.
In the 2010s it is no longer global warming, but global climate change. I guess the earlier models are not holding up so well.

That is as far back as my memory really goes. It goes back further, but my thoughts were of Santa, Easter Bunny and Tonka Toys. I imagine that if you go back further, you'll see a pattern of alarmist, dire predictions. Some of them might even have come true.

Me, I have learned to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because someone has a degree or even is a Doctor, does not make them right. I've known too many Doctors and seen too many screw ups. The louder someone is while making their point, the less I listen.

As far as global warming/climate change goes, I am not convinced. Protesters complain about America causing it but I've been to China where an entire generation has never seen stars because the pollution is so thick. If humans are causing global warming, what stopped the last Ice Age where New York was under a mile of ice? If all that ice melted, where did the water go? If all the polar ice melts and will endanger the coastal cities, imagine how much land would be underwater from the melting of nearly 2000 miles {1788 from NY to the artic circle} of one mile thick ice. I'm sure someone can work that out mathematically, but I don't have enough fingers to count that high.

As to the original post about snowflakes, it would depend on your definition of the term. I have nearly 32 years of experience as a paramedic and I have had close contact with people throughout that time that would be classified as snowflakes today. We just had different terms back then. I look at it as job security.



That's true.

What having the knowledge in their respective fields does make them is informed.

That's why we don't let Dave the mechanic do diagnostics on humans, even though he knows what's wrong with every car engine, without fail. Because cars aren't humans and Dave isn't informed on the human body.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 67
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 6:33:44 PM   
Kursk1943


Posts: 316
Joined: 3/15/2014
From: Bavaria in Southern Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

In the 70s, I was told {in school} that by 1985 we'd all have to wear gas masks outside because of pollution.
In the 80s, I was told that Reagan was going to start WWIII and we'd all be incinerated in a nuclear blast or freeze to death in nuclear winter.
In the 90s, we all heard about global warming.
In the 2000s we were told we only had a few years to fix global warming or coastal cities were going to all be underwater.
In the 2010s it is no longer global warming, but global climate change. I guess the earlier models are not holding up so well.

That is as far back as my memory really goes. It goes back further, but my thoughts were of Santa, Easter Bunny and Tonka Toys. I imagine that if you go back further, you'll see a pattern of alarmist, dire predictions. Some of them might even have come true.

Me, I have learned to have a healthy dose of skepticism. Just because someone has a degree or even is a Doctor, does not make them right. I've known too many Doctors and seen too many screw ups. The louder someone is while making their point, the less I listen.

As far as global warming/climate change goes, I am not convinced. Protesters complain about America causing it but I've been to China where an entire generation has never seen stars because the pollution is so thick. If humans are causing global warming, what stopped the last Ice Age where New York was under a mile of ice? If all that ice melted, where did the water go? If all the polar ice melts and will endanger the coastal cities, imagine how much land would be underwater from the melting of nearly 2000 miles {1788 from NY to the artic circle} of one mile thick ice. I'm sure someone can work that out mathematically, but I don't have enough fingers to count that high.

As to the original post about snowflakes, it would depend on your definition of the term. I have nearly 32 years of experience as a paramedic and I have had close contact with people throughout that time that would be classified as snowflakes today. We just had different terms back then. I look at it as job security.



Do you think all you mentioned just did not happen because the danger was only pure imagination? It was a good portion of adequate politics and a number of measures being taken which helped to avoid these menaces. Because a danger is exaggerated does not mean that the danger itself does not exist and can be denied.
Just remembber what Chamberlain told the Brits after meeting Hitler in 1938 about Hitler's seriousity and peacefullness and what happened afterwards.
It's as easy to find examples for predictions turning for the worse than to find examples for things turning for the better than predicted.

< Message edited by Kursk1943 -- 11/2/2019 6:34:16 PM >

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 68
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 6:35:23 PM   
T Rav

 

Posts: 289
Joined: 5/29/2004
Status: offline
MM , I am certain that the world is flat. Otherwise, the maps don't look right.

My view is always correct, I shall not be dissuaded by dissenters.



(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 69
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 6:42:21 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
It's common for events to turn out considerably better than predicted. I can site any number of examples, including the fact that "lethal yellowing" didn't wipe out all the coconut trees in Florida in the 1970s; that dogwood anthracnose didn't wipe out all the dogwood trees in the southeast in the 1980s, etc.

There are also plenty of examples of things turning out as bad or worse than predicted, such as chestnut blight, dutch elm disease, and perhaps the emerald ash borer.

I remain curious about acid rain, because that phenomenon dominated the news in the '80s and '90s. Today it's essentially never mentioned. That's interesting.

Climate change/global warming is in a special category because uncounted predictions have been made that haven't come true. The great majority, in fact. If you judged the accuracy of climate change predictions on climate change predictions that didn't come true, the matter would be settled.

But we understand that people making bad predictions doesn't necessarily mean the underlying theory is wrong. Yet it may give reason to question methodology, assumptions, biases and ideology.

In 2014, while we were on a long camping trip, we heard separate reports over two days that "the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet was now irreversible." I told my children, then late teens and early 20s, to monitor that prediction and see whether it comes true. I don't believe it will, just like I didn't believe that snow would disappear, that hurricanes would become more frequent and devastating, that the polar bear was endangered by CC, and that sea level cities would be inundated.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 11/2/2019 6:46:02 PM >

(in reply to Kursk1943)
Post #: 70
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 6:47:10 PM   
fcooke

 

Posts: 493
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Boston, London, Hoboken, now Warwick, NY
Status: offline
I lived in London for about 7 years so hopefully gathered some of the the pub culture.

Do those Tonka Toys still exist? I have a 5 year old nephew to make happy. And those things were cool.

Am going to back out of this debate now, as I don't think MM is actually listening, And I don't want to be baited into any more one ended conversations.

He can be superior on someone else's watch. And I hope he grows up.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 71
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 7:03:21 PM   
obvert


Posts: 13292
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We all agree that good environmental policy and progress is the objective. The problem is that a significant portion of the funds spent on the Global Warming idea could've been fruitfully spent on the real threats (assuming GW or Climate Change is a fallacy, as I believe). I'd rather have spent $5 billion on cleaning up the ocean or landfill alternatives or recycling than in promoting things that were flawed or wrongheaded. I don't think the climate change folks understand that if CC is wrong, we've had a massive and hurtful misallocation of funds and brainpower. Not everything was a waste, but a certain significant percentage was.



What $5 billion are you talking about and what was it spent on? Some details might help understand if that indeed was a waste or not.

Alternatives to oil and fossil fuels have many benefits beyond lowering carbon emissions, right?

quote:


Not all scientists are jerks or intentionally wrong, of course. Many in good faith accept the teaching of others. But CC has become "fact" rather than "theory" and, as Hans stated, there is an element of religious fervor to it. The CC proponents are willing to go to extremes to silence dissent. They have been calls to decertify skeptical scientists. There have been calls to criminalize skepticism (I'm not making that up). There is serious discrimination in education against those who disbelieve. So the scientific world has veered into a weird state where they perpetuate their own theories, deride and ignore those in opposition, and have no interest in entertaining further consideration of alternatives.



I'm not sure how many scientists you know personally, but both through personal knowledge and professional affiliation (in addition to research) I can say that most scientists are in fact incredible sceptics of all knowledge until they are able to see demonstrable evidence. As a lawyer I'm sure you can appreciate that.

The large majority of scientists are simply scared by what they're finding, how so little is being done to change our practices, and yes, they do become passionate about what they believe will give their own children as well as everyone else a better future.

quote:


NASA, like most agencies and universities, is ostensibly neutral politically. However, over the years it has become populated by the majority who won't tolerate dissent. So they perpetuate their beliefs, true or not. That's the culture in science today because of their certainty they are right and the dissenters are dolts/crazy/misguided/dangerous. Re-read MindMessing's comments and you see the extent of his passion. He believes in what he believes so strongly that he is openly contemptuous of those he disagrees with. He doesn't realize it because of his good faith passion. That's exactly the culture we see in universities and agencies.



Actually, he's simply asking you to back up your arguments, as he he ha done with his. If you're not able to do that and keep asserting your position while saying he's acting contemptuously, it's simply frustrating that neither you nor Hans has actually responded to any objective portion of this argument or questions with anything that can back up your assertions.

You are in fact the one being contemptuous, my friend!

quote:


As for the hockey stick graph, that was pretty much discredited many years ago.



This graph is one of the most steadfastly believed pieces of contemporary climate science for good reason. The past results are corroborated by many sources including ice cores, tree ring data, and many other verifiable climate data points. In fact most who discount climate change actually reference the past data to support natural fluctuation in climate.

The jump since 1950 is also corroborated from many sources, and recognised even by the US govt (and virtually every other government in the world) in spite of it's wavering position on climate change policy.

The part I don't understand, (and this is the central question keeping me writing here), is why the various solutions to help the climate stabilise are sen as negatives and wastes of money? Everything that is actually being done now is positive, like limiting the kind of pollution and the amount that can be released over time in a scaled manner to give governments and businesses time to adjust. Is that bad?

How is lessening our reliance on fossil fuels a negative when technologies exist that provide cheaper and cleaner energy?

< Message edited by obvert -- 11/2/2019 8:23:13 PM >


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 72
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 7:23:43 PM   
obvert


Posts: 13292
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


In 2014, while we were on a long camping trip, we heard separate reports over two days that "the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet was now irreversible." I told my children, then late teens and early 20s, to monitor that prediction and see whether it comes true. I don't believe it will, just like I didn't believe that snow would disappear, that hurricanes would become more frequent and devastating, that the polar bear was endangered by CC, and that sea level cities would be inundated.


So let me understand correctly.

You don't believe the climate is warming outside natural historical fluctuation parameters?

It would take me five minutes to find scientific articles on each of the subjects you list here, but I'll settle for an article on increased mass loss and speed of loss of Antarctic ice sheets from a study over 38 years.

Four decades of Antarctic Ice Sheet mass balance from 1979–2017
Conclusions

Using revised inventories, improved thickness mapping, and time series of velocity and SMB, we present four decades of mass balance in Antarctica that reveal a mass loss during the entire period and a rapid increase over the last two decades in parts of Antarctica closest to known or suspected sources of CDW from observations of high ice-shelf melt rates, ocean temperature, or based on ocean model output products. This evolution of the glaciers and surrounding ice shelves is consistent with a strengthening of the westerlies caused by a rise in greenhouse gas levels and ozone depletion that bring more CDW on the continental shelf. While the mass loss from the Peninsula and West Antarctica have been well documented and reported elsewhere, we note that the Wilkes Land sector of East Antarctica has been a major participant to SLR over the last 40 y, with larger losses in the 1980s. These sectors are all close to CDW and experiencing high ice-shelf melt rates. Enhanced intrusion of CDW being the root cause of the mass loss in the ASE and the West Peninsula, we posit that a similar situation is taking place in Wilkes Land, where novel and sustained oceanographic data are critically needed. Our mass balance assessment, combined with prior surveys, suggests that the sector between Cook/Ninnis and West ice shelves may be exposed to CDW and could contribute multimeter SLR with unabated climate warming.


And some sad news on Polar Bears.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 73
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 8:02:59 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

The part I don't understand, (and this is the central question keeping me writing here), is why the various solutions to help the climate stabilise are sen as negatives and wastes of money? Everything that is actually being done now is positive, like limiting the kind of pollution and the amount that can be released over time in a scaled manner to give governments and businesses time to adjust. Is that bad?

How is lessening our reliance on fossil fuels a negative when technologies exist that provide cheaper and cleaner energy?


Because that would require people to admit that they are wrong. Worse, actually. It would require them to admit that they are wrong after people had told them that they are wrong.

Instead, it's much easier on the mind to just double down. Blame "big science", or say that science has it wrong, or that it's all a hoax. Or that you know better from anecdotal evidence than someone who has dedicated themselves to the topic.

And that's what we see here.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 74
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 8:05:22 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It's common for events to turn out considerably better than predicted. I can site any number of examples, including the fact that "lethal yellowing" didn't wipe out all the coconut trees in Florida in the 1970s; that dogwood anthracnose didn't wipe out all the dogwood trees in the southeast in the 1980s, etc.

There are also plenty of examples of things turning out as bad or worse than predicted, such as chestnut blight, dutch elm disease, and perhaps the emerald ash borer.

I remain curious about acid rain, because that phenomenon dominated the news in the '80s and '90s. Today it's essentially never mentioned. That's interesting.

Climate change/global warming is in a special category because uncounted predictions have been made that haven't come true. The great majority, in fact. If you judged the accuracy of climate change predictions on climate change predictions that didn't come true, the matter would be settled.

But we understand that people making bad predictions doesn't necessarily mean the underlying theory is wrong. Yet it may give reason to question methodology, assumptions, biases and ideology.

In 2014, while we were on a long camping trip, we heard separate reports over two days that "the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet was now irreversible." I told my children, then late teens and early 20s, to monitor that prediction and see whether it comes true. I don't believe it will, just like I didn't believe that snow would disappear, that hurricanes would become more frequent and devastating, that the polar bear was endangered by CC, and that sea level cities would be inundated.


Please do so.

Still waiting on some hard evidence


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

I lived in London for about 7 years so hopefully gathered some of the the pub culture.

Do those Tonka Toys still exist? I have a 5 year old nephew to make happy. And those things were cool.

Am going to back out of this debate now, as I don't think MM is actually listening, And I don't want to be baited into any more one ended conversations.

He can be superior on someone else's watch. And I hope he grows up.


It really would be a shame for you to step out of the debate before you could direct us to some solid, scientific evidence against climate change.

Oh well

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 75
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 8:26:42 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2280
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
Tonka Toys are still around. They are owned by another company. I have no idea if they are still made of metal or if they are now cheap plastic. Used to be able to sit on them without problems other than a sore butt. Our guerneys are the yellow/black of the old Tonka Toys so I call them the Tonka Chariot. The older patients understand the reference.

< Message edited by rockmedic109 -- 11/2/2019 8:54:46 PM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 76
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:06:31 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
There are lots of papers, blogs, whatever, concerning climate change, for and against. We both can post them but why? You'd scoff at the ones I'd post, because they disagree with your viewpoint. I'd disagree with the ones you post, for the reasons I've set forth above. If something new comes out, fine, we could possibly discuss, assuming you'd by then conquered your tendencies towards being dismissive and contemptuous; else, why bother?). The thinking on both sides is pretty settled. If you're really interested - and I don't think you actually are, given your comments and conduct - you can easily find and read the works of skeptics. In fact, I posted some summaries before, in the Tarawa thread of early this year or late last year.


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 77
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:13:54 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
For those of you who are interested in knowing some reputable scientists on both sides, here's a website listing 10 top climate change proponents and five who have found fault with the science, for one reason or another: https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/


I posted this info earlier this year in another thread. I think this website is neutral and did a good job of providing information without editorializing. It'll give you thumbnail information on the thinking of 15 credentialed scientists, 2/3rds pro and 1/3rd con.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 78
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:16:32 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There are lots of papers, blogs, whatever, concerning climate change, for and against.


Not interested in blogs, just scientific papers, thank you.

quote:

We both can post them but why?


Because then it becomes a debate over the merits of the evidence.

quote:

You'd scoff at the ones I'd post, because they disagree with your viewpoint. I'd disagree with the ones you post, for the reasons I've set forth above. If something new comes out, fine, we could possibly discuss, assuming you'd by then conquered your tendencies towards being dismissive and contemptuous; else, why bother?). The thinking on both sides is pretty settled. If you're really interested - and I don't think you actually are, given your comments and conduct - you can easily find and read the works of skeptics. In fact, I posted some summaries before, in the Tarawa thread of early this year or late last year.


Well, I can't scoff at anything, cause you've not posted any.

It would be productive if you did, then we can move the discussion on to the respective strengths of your viewpoint versus mine, in light of the evidence.

Your background is law, right? Right now, there's been naught for you but hearsay. Please present evidence to the court


(did I use the law terms right?)

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 79
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:19:45 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the evidence with you because you're mind is closed and your conduct distasteful. I enjoy conversations with open-minded people. Most of the folks on the forum fall into that category. You don't.

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 80
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:22:19 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
What you've posted is hearsay also, unless you are reporting the observations and deductions you've personally made.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 81
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:40:46 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I'm not interested in discussing the merits of the evidence with you because you're mind is closed and your conduct distasteful. I enjoy conversations with open-minded people. Most of the folks on the forum fall into that category. You don't.


My mind is wide open CR.

I am perfectly willing to re-evaluate my position. Show me the evidence that supports that "there is no global climate emergency" and I will be open-minded enough to discuss.

That's all I want here. I'm sure you can manage. An article, a publication, just something and then we can turn this discussion to the evidence rather than how distasteful you find me

quote:

What you've posted is hearsay also, unless you are reporting the observations and deductions you've personally made.


Interesting. Having looked a little in to this, what would the implications of Frye v. United States be in our current scenario?

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 82
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:42:40 PM   
obvert


Posts: 13292
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

For those of you who are interested in knowing some reputable scientists on both sides, here's a website listing 10 top climate change proponents and five who have found fault with the science, for one reason or another: https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/


I posted this info earlier this year in another thread. I think this website is neutral and did a good job of providing information without editorializing. It'll give you thumbnail information on the thinking of 15 credentialed scientists, 2/3rds pro and 1/3rd con.


There are scientific studies that contest the hockey stick and other climate change claims. These are reliable scientists doing good work (McIntyre 2004). This is what science is all about. The problem is that most people who want to find a certain outcome in their understanding of the issue stop there and use that reliable science from moment in time to then argue that something like climate change is not real, or not a threat, or not caused by human activity.

Good science needs these "sides" to find relative certainty. The papers that have questioned data and representation in the original 1998 research (Mann 1999) of the carbon vs temperature graph (hockey stick) have also been challenged by replication of the original study in 2007 (Wahl-Amman) who used a different set of dat for the 15ht century and got different but statistically similar results that didn't challenge the overall hypothesis.

Since 1999 there have ben many other corroboration of the original data by new studies using new methodology. Also, current temperature measurements are globally reliable due to both numerous checks and balances and highly accurate satellite data since the 80s.

The site you link is great. It shows exactly why these discussions and dissent and different conclusions are part and parcel of scientific debate. Debate is the point, right? Because we want to get it right.

There are ten climate change proponents onto site and five who are considered or are self-proclaimed sceptics. Of course this skews the results here to 66% to 33% which is very different than the actual percentages currently (97% to 3%).

We have no real idea if we're not spending our professional lives doing this work about the nuances that cause certain scientists to become ostracised by their colleagues for their research positions. We forget this is not about beliefs, it's about their research.

Most here seem to offer only caution about outcomes. Saying there is more fluctuation than is generally being posited by climatologists. Like Richard S. Lindzen saying that ...
“[c]onfident predictions of catastrophe are unwarranted.”

That is fine. We don't need confident predictions of catastrophe to realise that the consensus still holds that climate change is happening, and that if we don't do something to try to change our affect on it our future may be somehwhat different in ways that could be negative. It doesn't have to be catastrophic to be something we should still act on.

As I've said before, why not?


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 83
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 9:50:19 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
Thanks, Erik, for a thoughtful post. Its refreshing to read.

There are many contentions that 97% and 3% is not accurate either - that it's a self-serving number not based in fact. That may or may not be true.

You're right - science ought to be a place of vigorous debate. Skepticism should be welcome and embraced unless it is in bad faith.

That's the point. Here, many proponents are doing their best to squelch (stop) vigorous debate and to professionally kill the skeptics. I mentioned above - moves to decertify scientists who are skeptics, calls to criminalize skepticism (again, I am not making this up), calls to censor or ban the publishing of contrary views (the Los Angeles Times being one of many examples), and widespread harassment and mistreatment and marginalizing of credential scientists who hold contrary views.

If you are a proponent of vigorous debate and a right to free exercise of science, you'll be appalled at the conduct of the climate change proponents.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 84
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 10:08:56 PM   
obvert


Posts: 13292
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

If you are a proponent of vigorous debate and a right to free exercise of science, you'll be appalled at the conduct of the climate change proponents.



I'm appalled at a large portion of human behaviour and dialogue!!

I am a teacher, and I do believe education is part of the solution to making a better world, both environmentally and socially, and I believe there is compelling evidence to support that claim.

I do think this statement above changes the debate from one about science to one about human behaviour. Just like other professions, science is competitive, it can be ruthless, and it doesn't always lead to friendly discourse or fair play. That is not surprising to me having watched 2-3 year olds on the playground lately or 15-18 year olds in my classroom for the past 12 years.

What surprises me is that this is part of an argument about how we should not value the work of climate change proponents. How they treat colleagues in a professional forum may be appalling, but it may still have nothing to do with the science each side is championing.

In the internet age it's easy for anyone to post, and for scientists to publish, and for their ideas to be out there in the discussion. In fact all of the scientists on the list who are sceptics have published a LOT. They're part of the debate, but they have not convinced a minority, let alone a majority, that their position is more compelling, better researched or more probable than those whose research leads them to believe climate change is a serious issue caused by human activity.

So, in the end, for me it's about the majority of the science, a large majority, believing that yes, it is a problem. I have to make a decision just like I make a decision on other things that specialists tell me about their field. Objectively I find that climate change is something we should attempt to counteract if possible, as soon as possible, based on the overwhelming scientific evidence to support that belief.


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 85
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 10:34:21 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Okay, this is at least some small progress...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

For those of you who are interested in knowing some reputable scientists on both sides, here's a website listing 10 top climate change proponents and five who have found fault with the science, for one reason or another: https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/


I posted this info earlier this year in another thread. I think this website is neutral and did a good job of providing information without editorializing. It'll give you thumbnail information on the thinking of 15 credentialed scientists, 2/3rds pro and 1/3rd con.


As obvert has correctly pointed out, that article misrepresents the actual distribution of science in the for/against consensus camp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks, Erik, for a thoughtful post. Its refreshing to read.

There are many contentions that 97% and 3% is not accurate either - that it's a self-serving number not based in fact. That may or may not be true.



What contentions are those, specifically? Please provide detail.

Please outline how it is self-serving.

The figure is true, based on the analysis of published climate studies outlined in the first link I posted.

quote:

You're right - science ought to be a place of vigorous debate. Skepticism should be welcome and embraced unless it is in bad faith.


The best debates happen over the evidence. Speaking of which, well done for linking something! Go CR

quote:

That's the point. Here, many proponents are doing their best to squelch (stop) vigorous debate and to professionally kill the skeptics. I mentioned above - moves to decertify scientists who are skeptics, calls to criminalize skepticism (again, I am not making this up), calls to censor or ban the publishing of contrary views (the Los Angeles Times being one of many examples), and widespread harassment and mistreatment and marginalizing of credential scientists who hold contrary views.

If you are a proponent of vigorous debate and a right to free exercise of science, you'll be appalled at the conduct of the climate change proponents.


As outlined previously, the scientific community has came to a overwhelming consensus in favour of climate change based on the available evidence.

As of yet, the climate change denial minority has yet to shift this consensus.

Is the 3% somehow vastly superior in intellectual capability or have some amazing insight that is lacking in the remaining 97%?

I admit it is possible, but astronomically unlikely. As Obvert outlines, far more likely that they are in the minority as their arguments lack sufficient strength to sway even a moderate percentage of the whole.



< Message edited by mind_messing -- 11/2/2019 10:35:59 PM >

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 86
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 10:44:46 PM   
obvert


Posts: 13292
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


As obvert has correctly pointed out, that article misrepresents the actual distribution of science in the for/against consensus camp.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Thanks, Erik, for a thoughtful post. Its refreshing to read.

There are many contentions that 97% and 3% is not accurate either - that it's a self-serving number not based in fact. That may or may not be true.



What contentions are those, specifically? Please provide detail.

Please outline how it is self-serving.

The figure is true, based on the analysis of published climate studies outlined in the first link I posted.


Thought I'd add the paper on the papers!

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 87
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 10:49:59 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 19747
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The article does not misrepresent the consensus. It did not hold itself out as being representative of a consensus. It was just given to show some representative thoughts of both sides.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 88
RE: OT: The End is Near........ - 11/2/2019 11:04:13 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10373
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
This got rather personal there for a bit and I started getting complaints. It's also a bit too close to modern political discussion, so I'm going to have to shut it down.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 89
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: OT: The End is Near........ Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.223