[Thanos]

Might as well starting implementing what this guy believes. If the situation is that dire then basically 90% of the human species needs to be sterilized, ALL industrial and technological activity has to immediately cease. and the birth rate brought down to essentially zero for the next 70 to 80 years. Crazy son of a bitch might be a crazy son of a bitch but at least he's an honest crazy son of a bitch. Beats the fucking song and dance from the likes of Al Gore or David Suzuki about how windmills and solar panels are going to save the planet. Either go full-bore or do nothing because half-assing it with nonsense like household recycling or hybrid cars isn't going to make much of a difference at all.

[Xort]

If DrCaleb is done throwing his tantrum do you think he would comment on the article? The claim Cook misrepresented the papers of scientists to fabricate his 97% claim? That papers he claimed supported global warming have had the authors publicly say he was wrong in his interpretation of the papers' conclusions?

[DrCaleb]

Nope.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Might as well starting implementing what this guy believes. If the situation is that dire then basically 90% of the human species needs to be sterilized, ALL industrial and technological activity has to immediately cease. and the birth rate brought down to essentially zero for the next 70 to 80 years. Crazy son of a bitch might be a crazy son of a bitch but at least he's an honest crazy son of a bitch. Beats the fucking song and dance from the likes of Al Gore or David Suzuki about how windmills and solar panels are going to save the planet. Either go full-bore or do nothing because half-assing it with nonsense like household recycling or hybrid cars isn't going to make much of a difference at all.

And I'm the alarmist?

My prediction is that we will continue to expand as quickly as we can, because that is what all life does, and what it must do. Assuming we don't get our gene pool off the planet, eventually we will hit a wall that will stop our expansion, perhaps even contract it. Maybe it will be global warming, but it could be the fish or an airborne ebola.

No need to be alarmed, this is another common and recurring event for all life forms. There was a flu virus at the height of civilization in my body a couple of weeks ago, now the victim of genocide conducted by remorseless Killer T Cells manufactured in my thymus.

Anyways, the fact that there is really bugger all we can do about it doesn't mean you have to deny global warming. it's pretty obvious relaly.

It's like that old movie: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (aka Dr. Strangelove).

Personally my vote is get the gene pool off the planet.

[Thanos]

My concern now, as my rededication to misanthropy reaches a fever pitch, is less with what happens to humanity than on what we're going to destroy on the path that ends with our own come-uppance. It's not some farcical concern over the concept of rights for those creatures that aren't capable of even conceiving what a right is. It's more just a deep disappointment and shame that they just don't deserve what's being done to them, especially not when the dominant species is more than capable of not doing it to them. That is, we can choose not to do these things anymore to the other lifeforms on this planet, but we won't make that step into a higher ethic and morality. We're brats. We're terrible, terrible children that are not going to do the right thing simply because we just don't want to. That alone is why we collectively deserve what's eventually going to happen to us, and that's especially why we don't deserve to be allowed into the rest of the galaxy to wreak this same kind of havoc on other life-sustaining planets.

I imagine that there's some kind of quasi/pseudo-romantic view that says nature is meaningless without the human mind and eye to appreciate it. Nature's view is probably that nature itself is what it is, and that humanity's wildly over-rated opinions and viewpoints about nature, and practically everything else for that matter, really doesn't mean anything of importance at all. Life will go on in the pattern that the universe meant it to follow, only that it will go on much better for all the other creatures out there when humanity finally gets it's ears pinned back or, quite possibly, ceases to exist altogether.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Nope.

I love the religion of global warming.

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Nope.

I love the religion of global warming.

You are cutest when you make stuff I say up, then get mad at it. Let me be clear:

Xort Xort:

If DrCaleb is done throwing his tantrum do you think he would comment on the article?

Nope.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You are cutest when you make stuff I say up, then get mad at it. Let me be clear:

Xort Xort:

If DrCaleb is done throwing his tantrum do you think he would comment on the article?

Nope.

So you are still throwing your tantrum?

[N_Fiddledog]

97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"

$1:

The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science.

The 97 articles debunking Cook are linked here

Yes most (but not all) are on the opposite side of the global warming battlefield from where Cook's camp sits. So what?

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

You are cutest when you make stuff I say up, then get mad at it. Let me be clear:

Xort Xort:

If DrCaleb is done throwing his tantrum do you think he would comment on the article?

Nope.

So you are still throwing your tantrum?

Nope. Didn't throw one before. This article is opinion. CKA's policy is that opinion is not news, and I'm actually surprised the article has remained.

Science is about fact. I see no reason to debate someone's opinion about someone else's opinion, because it doesn't change the science, and instead distracts from debating the problem of what we are going to do about mitigation of global warming.

[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

My concern now, as my rededication to misanthropy reaches a fever pitch, is less with what happens to humanity than on what we're going to destroy on the path that ends with our own come-uppance. It's not some farcical concern over the concept of rights for those creatures that aren't capable of even conceiving what a right is. It's more just a deep disappointment and shame that they just don't deserve what's being done to them, especially not when the dominant species is more than capable of not doing it to them. That is, we can choose not to do these things anymore to the other lifeforms on this planet, but we won't make that step into a higher ethic and morality.

That's where you and I part. I absolutely believe we do not have a choice. We think we do. We have the illusion of agency. But we don't. I love Star Trek, but the real Prime Directive is Multiply and we are powerless against it.

[Public_Domain]

Thanos Thanos:

I imagine that there's some kind of quasi/pseudo-romantic view that says nature is meaningless without the human mind and eye to appreciate it. Nature's view is probably that nature itself is what it is, and that humanity's wildly over-rated opinions and viewpoints about nature, and practically everything else for that matter, really doesn't mean anything of importance at all. Life will go on in the pattern that the universe meant it to follow, only that it will go on much better for all the other creatures out there when humanity finally gets it's ears pinned back or, quite possibly, ceases to exist altogether.

An independent tree that needs no man to hear it fall...

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Science is about fact. I see no reason to debate someone's opinion about someone else's opinion, because it doesn't change the science, and instead distracts from debating the problem of what we are going to do about mitigation of global warming.

Techncially, science is about observation and there is no such thing as a fact.

$1:

"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."

- Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

I absolutely agree with that.

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Science is about fact. I see no reason to debate someone's opinion about someone else's opinion, because it doesn't change the science, and instead distracts from debating the problem of what we are going to do about mitigation of global warming.

Techncially, science is about observation and there is no such thing as a fact.

True, but I was thinking from the 'actual measured data' side of things. When someone measures the size of an electron to 5 decimal places, that is called a 'fact', and debating whether 97% of scientists believe that measurement or not seems to me a waste of time and effort. Debating how may people believe it is not going to change the measurement. Debating the method to take the measurement, or what the measurement means, that might be worthwhile.

I guess it's my math/physics background haunting me.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Nope. Didn't throw one before. This article is opinion. CKA's policy is that opinion is not news, and I'm actually surprised the article has remained.

Science is about fact. I see no reason to debate someone's opinion about someone else's opinion, because it doesn't change the science, and instead distracts from debating the problem of what we are going to do about mitigation of global warming.

You're right that's not a tantrum, my mistake. More of a hissy fit.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

debating whether 97% of scientists believe that measurement or not seems to me a waste of time and effort. Debating how may people believe it is not going to change the measurement. Debating the method to take the measurement, or what the measurement means, that might be worthwhile.

It's funny that you claim it doesn't matter, because it's sure a popular claim to make when someone offers otherwise seemingly valid criticism of global warming.