Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostFri May 10, 2019 7:26 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
As is claiming that clear statements are 'railing', rather than being mere arguments, explicitly stated.

Sorry MG, the things you're writing seem more appropriate from a pulpit than from a podium. But good luck to you.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11287 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri May 10, 2019 7:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Sorry MG, the things you're writing seem more appropriate from a pulpit than from a podium. But good luck to you.

That's nice. How something 'seems' to a poster who cannot even show my statements to be empirically false..... is of little concern when one wants substance and testability.

Tell us again about pulpit vs podium when you can do better than merely making insinuations via word games. You were asked to show something actually contradictory in my arguments you disagree with, and as is so common in this thread, the response is a non argument and snark. You use sneering implications to impugn what you cannot actually present valid arguments against.

Why don't you wonder why the science you claim to believe, puts you in this situation?

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostFri May 10, 2019 10:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I was not going to get sucked in again, but why not, we're not doing anything else in this forum right now wink.gif

MtnGoat wrote:
You were asked

Sorry, this is inaccurate, there was no asking

MtnGoat wrote:
to show something actually contradictory in my arguments you disagree with

Sorry, wasn't able to unravel this one

MtnGoat wrote:
who cannot even show my statements to be empirically false

This is not my responsibility. I did not spend the last couple of days in this thread trying to reshape your opinions about "natural order" or man's part in the climate patterns, we know that we're not gonna get anywhere with that at this point biggrin.gif Do you think that by simply challenging someone to produce "The Proof" it will magically appear after all of these years of debate? You are only interested in producing these challenges, opportunities to objectively consider the scores of answers and discussions in this thread have long sailed past (both of us I'm sure) over the years.

Let's get back to your budding manifesto, that's far more interesting at this point. Tell us more about what you think the natural state of a human mind should be MG.

I am curious to know what you think man's role and impact in Pando's current state and future is and will be.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 14225 | TRs
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
  Top

Member
PostFri May 10, 2019 10:35 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It is called Sealioning, google it.

--------------
"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11287 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri May 10, 2019 10:51 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Sorry, this is inaccurate, there was no asking

This isn't asking?
MtnGoat wrote:
You are free to attempt to show an actual contradiction in my argument, rather than merely claiming one exists.


Doppelganger wrote:
Sorry, wasn't able to unravel this one

You weren't able to 'unravel' the clear point in the question you didn't think was one?

I'll lay it out for you then. When you claim I am wrong, there should be flawed arguments I have made in order to justify such a claim...if you base your judgment on reason. Present them.

Doppelganger wrote:
This is not my responsibility. .

Of course it is. When you claim an argument is wrong, it is your responsiblity, if you are using reason...to have valid examples which falsify my arguments.

Doppelganger wrote:
I did not spend the last couple of days in this thread trying to reshape your opinions about "natural order" or man's part in the climate patterns, we know that we're not gonna get anywhere with that at this point

Who is that 'we', you and the mouse in your pocket?

It is true that without actually being able to show my statements are false, there is no reason to expect to 'get anywhere' with a claim that they are. Or, any valid reason for you to assert my arguments are wrong, for that matter.

And here you misrepresent my argument with quotes around a phrase I specifically,, and intentionally, did not use. Your methods are sloppy.

Doppelganger wrote:
biggrin.gif Do you think that by simply challenging someone to produce "The Proof" it will magically appear after all of these years of debate?

There is no such thing as proof. Science is not based on positivism, it is based on the lack of contradiction to claims. All that exists is a lack of falsification of falsifiable arguments.

I didn't ask you for 'proof'. I asked you for the evidence you had which shows my claims to be falsified. Evidence you must hold in order to justifiably claim the arguments are incorrect.

But you don't have it, or you'd produce it in a heartbeat.

Doppelganger wrote:
Let's get back to your budding manifesto, that's far more interesting at this point. Tell us more about what you think the natural state of a human mind should be MG.

Ah, the intentional use  of disparaging implications once again. I don't have an opinion on what the natural state of a human mind 'should be'.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11287 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostFri May 10, 2019 10:54 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Malachai Constant wrote:
It is called Sealioning, google it.

LOL, asking for actual evidence of claims is...asking for actual evidence of claims.

When it's repeated, it's because evasion is continuous. And the evasion is continuous because the claims are specious.

Disagreement with lousy arguments isn't trolling...unless you're the holder of the lousy arguments, and you dislike having them in the spotlight.

Me, I'd think very seriously about belief in a set of ideas which leaves you with attacking questions using claims of 'trolling' when you can't answer them, as one of your main tools. Ad hom by another name...Evasion methods are not signs of good process.

If this is the best you can present....

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs

Mongo
  Top

Member
PostFri May 10, 2019 1:17 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
You should have heard him defend the invasion of Iraq, on principle of course.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1590 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostFri May 10, 2019 1:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
You weren't able to 'unravel' the clear point in the question you didn't think was one?

rolleyes.gif If you started with a clear point, it was buried under the double negatives and conditionals.

MtnGoat wrote:
This isn't asking?

I'll lay it out for you then. When you claim I am wrong, there should be flawed arguments I have made in order to justify such a claim...if you base your judgment on reason. Present them.

Of course it is. When you claim an argument is wrong, it is your responsiblity, if you are using reason...to have valid examples which falsify my arguments.

It is true that without actually being able to show my statements are false, there is no reason to expect to 'get anywhere' with a claim that they are. Or, any valid reason for you to assert my arguments are wrong, for that matter

Maybe you could present it as an invitation with a little work. Do you have trouble identifying opinions when they are presented to you, MG? Do you think opinions should require validation and quantification? Do you sometimes find it difficult to discern between opinion and statement (either your own, or those presented to you)?

I'm interested in knowing which examples from my posts fit into the attacks that you describe above.

No thoughts on Pando?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6699 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostSat May 11, 2019 2:07 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015. Pentagon spending that same year was $599 billion

ttps://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/fossil-fuel-subsidies-pentagon-spending-imf-report-833035/
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 498 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue May 14, 2019 5:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Good thing California is shutting down the last of their nuclear plants.

"The process of storing and generating power would begin with three concrete dams, some more than 300 feet tall, that would capture water from Lower Rock Creek. The water in these reservoirs would then be pumped through pipelines thousands of feet uphill to three other reservoirs, built along 11,000-foot Wheeler Ridge in the John Muir Wilderness.

There, water would be held until electricity is needed, at which time the water would be released back downhill to three power-generating stations near the dams. The water could be recycled through the system as warranted, in what Premium Energy describes as a “closed-loop” hydroelectric operation.

As an alternative, the company proposes damming nearby Owens Valley River Gorge and similarly pumping water to reservoirs on Wheeler Ridge.

Either configuration would have an energy capacity of 5,200 megawatts, according to the FERC filing, a staggering amount of power that could meet the needs of a couple of million homes. The project would be California’s largest such operation.

Eight pumped storage sites currently operate in California, with a total capacity of 4,500 megawatts, according to the California Energy Commission. Wolak, at Stanford, said there’s a demand for plenty more facilities, given both the existing storage needs of wind and solar power and the future needs of the growing renewable sector."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/New-dam-proposal-in-Sierra-Nevada-stirs-debate-13839661.php?fbclid=

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 6699 | TRs
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostTue May 14, 2019 7:19 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote

Russell Daggatt wrote:
In 1982 - 37 years ago - internal ExxonMobil scientists produced a summary of the best climate science, which was distributed widely throughout the company, starting with senior executives. This chart from that 1982 study predicted that in 2019 our atmospheric CO2 level would reach about 415 parts per million, raising the global temperature roughly 0.9 degrees C.

The world crossed the 415 ppm threshold this week and broke 0.9 degrees C in 2017.

Science didn’t fail us.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mongo
Member
Member


Joined: 22 May 2002
Posts: 302 | TRs

Mongo
  Top

Member
PostWed May 15, 2019 7:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Warming is only the tip of the iceberg, and the solutions are entirely political, based on collective action.
Just as in the run-up to the Iraq war, the cost in human lives, the instability it would bring, the wasted resources, the fact that it was based on lies, did not enter into the calculations of the proponents. An action that was, upon basic examination ludicrous, was implemented, with results as predicted by the opponents.

We are now looking at a societal inaction, that if it continues, will lead to regional instability, massive infrastructure destruction requiring large resource allocations, regional famine, destruction of current ecosystems of ocean life, and a severe cost in human life and society, and the concept of progress, over a long period of time.

The cost to change course is collective action, taxation, technological disruption, with only a slim hope of changing the course sufficiently in time.   The arguments against are on simple examination just ludicrous nitpicking, dressed up as fatal flaws.   The cost in human lives, the instability it would bring, the wasted resources, the fact that denialism is based on lies and misinformation,  does not enter into the calculations of the deniers.
The same people making the case for the Iraq war are making the case for denialism.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 498 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostWed May 15, 2019 7:44 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mongo wrote:
We are now looking at a societal inaction, that if it continues, will lead to regional instability, massive infrastructure destruction requiring large resource allocations, regional famine, destruction of current ecosystems of ocean life, and a severe cost in human life and society, and the concept of progress, over a long period of time...

The cost to change course is collective action, taxation, technological disruption, with only a slim hope of changing the course sufficiently in time.   The arguments against are on simple examination just ludicrous nitpicking, dressed up as fatal flaws.   The cost in human lives, the instability it would bring, the wasted resources, the fact that denialism is based on lies and misinformation,  does not enter into the calculations of the deniers.

Thanks but I think I'll go with the IPCC on this one.

IPCC AR5 - Economic impact
IPCC AR5 - Economic impact

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5-Chap10_FINAL.pdf

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11287 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed May 15, 2019 8:38 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Mongo wrote:
Warming is only the tip of the iceberg, and the solutions are entirely political, based on collective action.
Just as in the run-up to the Iraq war, the cost in human lives, the instability it would bring, the wasted resources, the fact that it was based on lies, did not enter into the calculations of the proponents. An action that was, upon basic examination ludicrous, was implemented, with results as predicted by the opponents.

We are now looking at a societal inaction, that if it continues, will lead to regional instability, massive infrastructure destruction requiring large resource allocations, regional famine, destruction of current ecosystems of ocean life, and a severe cost in human life and society, and the concept of progress, over a long period of time.

The cost to change course is collective action, taxation, technological disruption, with only a slim hope of changing the course sufficiently in time.   The arguments against are on simple examination just ludicrous nitpicking, dressed up as fatal flaws.   The cost in human lives, the instability it would bring, the wasted resources, the fact that denialism is based on lies and misinformation,  does not enter into the calculations of the deniers.
The same people making the case for the Iraq war are making the case for denialism.

The fact that denialism is based in lies and misinformation? God that's good stuff.

*Show* us the *factually* false arguments I have made.

Arguments you don't like but cannot show are false, don't count.

It's not a nit to point out the incredibly lousy data handling and vetting, the machinations and backfill behind the modeling game, the fact that numbers reported as outputs which are not actual measurements ever seen anywhere are not actual temperatures, that models are not empirical evidence. .

Fundamental issues with your 'science' are far more than nits. These are major flaws. Once again I note that it is irrelevant how important you believe your fears are. Science is a process whose sole value is in sticking to that process, no matter how important you believe your fears are. The process does not change in order to suit issues whose nature does not fit the process.

The choice to choose a topic with inherent and serious process issues at the outset with respect to scientific method, is no more doubter's fault than it's their fault when ghost hunters complain that scientific method doesn't fit their concerns.

But you're right, I don't enter flawed arguments and scientism pretending to be science, into my calculations. Because they are zeroes in calculations involving reason, where *every single entry* must be a 1 for true, because a single zero means the entire calculation is false. These arguments are "and" chains where every term is a risk to the entire equation because the result is their product, not sum.

Live your prescriptions yourself, prove you believe them. No one else was placed here to serve your goals to make your service of them easier. Not one person.

I look forward to demonstrating your total inability to show that my assertions are actually lies or misinformation. Not liking arguments, is not evidence of either. Bring it, throw everything you have at me. I don't need to evade either reason, or by the book, point by point, standard method. That's your huckleberry.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11287 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostWed May 15, 2019 8:42 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
rolleyes.gif If you started with a clear point, it was buried under the double negatives and conditionals.

Doppelganger wrote:
Maybe you could present it as an invitation with a little work. Do you have trouble identifying opinions when they are presented to you, MG? Do you think opinions should require validation and quantification? Do you sometimes find it difficult to discern between opinion and statement (either your own, or those presented to you)?

I'm interested in knowing which examples from my posts fit into the attacks that you describe above.

No thoughts on Pando?

All of your posts which claim I am wrong contain such examples, by definition. This is not complicated. IF you claim I am wrong, then you must have the data showing I am wrong.  For "He is wrong" to be a valid logical argument, it inherently includes the possession of the knowledge which is correct.

Present it. Pick an argument I've made, and show it is factually wrong.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday marzsit, NacMacFeegle!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy