Even more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

Very interesting take on Global Warming / Climate Change spurred by a question.

Of course, it's a video so many of you won't be willing to listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY

He suggests the radical idea of bringing people out of poverty as a possibly better intervention.

Why not deal with root causes of global warming && raise people out of poverty. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Did you review his comments? Or are you just interested in me again?

If me, I didn't say not to deal with the root causes (though poverty is surely one of them...if you were wealthier, you would be able to choose to pollute less)

I didn't mean my comment to offend or upset you, and if it did or I have please accept my apology. I was addressing the claim that raising people out of poverty was 'possibly [a] better intervention'. Indeed, I think it's a good intervention, as well as an economically beneficial one, and a better intervention that not doing it as well as one worthy of concerted international effort - as it is with addressing the root causes of global warming.

Peterson's claim that the future impact of greenhouse gases on the global climate are impossible to predict, due to the magnification over time of the error-bars in current projections, is untenable because it ignores the intervening, subsequent accumulation of data. Scientific 'truths' of this kind are always provisional, not absolute - projections are just that, and predictions in this area are propositions or hypotheses which will, or will not, be verified in due course. Carbon science and atmospheric chemistry are pretty robust sciences, and although the exact meteorological impact of increasing levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are a matter of ongoing scientific discussion and dispute, that increasing levels of these compounds will lead to temperature rises, melt offs, lowland inundations, and more chaotic and extreme weather patterns has broad and common agreement among scientific specialists. The scientific dispute is merely about localised scope or extent rather than about that broader picture - how long until the Greenland ice-shelf melts away(?), at what point will the tundra begin a phase of permanent thaw(/), what will be the rate of increase in Northern hemisphere precipitation over the next 20 years(?), etc.

However, I do agree with Peterson on one point, unlike atmospheric chemistry the social, economic and political effects of unchecked global warming are impossible to predict - but they don't look great from where we are at the moment, not least when so many of our elected leaders either lack a long-term vision for addressing matters that will not resolve until after they are dead or who are downright science deniers and fossil fuel apologists.

It doesn't help when our systems of political and economic checks-and-balances seem out of kilter with our modern, globalised, globally-connected lives. No nation can pull up the drawbridge on global warming, and to think otherwise is not only an irrational folly, but a derogation of the first duty of government.

[Cunt]

No nation can pull up the drawbridge. 99% of them can't either.

That's why I'm not too thrilled with Europes 'success' in that area, and how some government officials insist that more tax will fix things.

Petersons idea of raising the floor makes more sense than any other intervention I've heard suggested.

For example, if you are civilized, science-minded and as progressive as a person can be, you are still likely to eat another human, when you get hungry enough.

Extreme maybe, but it isn't nearly so extreme to imagine a poor people ignoring climate change to heat their home, or feed their family.

Giving people the choice, then trusting them to shift motivation from finding the next meal, into providing for their great-great-great-great grandchildren.

This doesn't mean stopping coal, it means stopping the need of it.

Oh, and it probably means getting people to stop being stupid and reactive about nuclear energy.

[Cunt]

Oh, and as to the predictions, lets go over Al Gore's predictions. He had access to the best information available, and I think made some.

If his predictions are spot on, great. If not, then the best information wasn't as good as most people thought.

[Cunt]

I checked. Looks like he is not only full of shit with his predictions, but he got pretty wealthy pitching this story. Is that suspicious? Is his 'carbon footprint' reflective of his self-claimed 'moral high-ground'?

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-gor ... tions.html

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

Of course, the source will be attacked, but lets look at his predictions, and how good they were.

[pErvinalia]

Oh, and as to the predictions, lets go over Al Gore's predictions. He had access to the best information available, and I think made some.

If his predictions are spot on, great. If not, then the best information wasn't as good as most people thought.

Al Gore isn't a scientist.

As to the video, I will watch it later, but I can't see how lifting people out of poverty is seen as a good thing for global warming. The lowest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases are the poor, while the highest emitters are those in rich nations like Australia, Canada and the US. Making more middle class consumerists will be a disaster for global warming.

[JimC]

Didn't you all lose the right to defend yourselves in Australia recently?

What the fuck are you on about? There has been zero recent changes...

Of course we have the common law right to self-defence. Gun laws introduced many years ago have helped to ensure we don't have the constant slaughter in the USA...

[pErvinalia]

I checked. Looks like he is not only full of shit with his predictions, but he got pretty wealthy pitching this story. Is that suspicious? Is his 'carbon footprint' reflective of his self-claimed 'moral high-ground'?

http://humansarefree.com/2018/01/al-gor ... tions.html

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered
purchasing a beachfront mansion!

2. Increased Tornadoes – declining for decades.

3. New Ice Age in Europe – they’ve been spared; it never happened.

4. South Sahara Drying Up – completely untrue.

5. Massive Flooding in China and India – again didn’t happen.

6. Melting Arctic – false – 2015 represents the largest refreezing in years.

7. Polar Bear Extinction – actually they are increasing!

8. Temperature Increases Due to CO2 – no significant rising for over 18 years.

9. Katrina a Foreshadow of the Future – false – past 10 years, no F3 hurricanes; “longest drought ever!”

10. The Earth Would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” Within a Decade Unless Drastic Action Taken to Reduce Greenhouse Gasses – never happened.

Of course, the source will be attacked, but lets look at his predictions, and how good they were.

Number 8 is a blatant lie that even someone as ignorant as you should know. And that's without checking any of the other claims.

[Animavore]

Humans Are Free is a website that promotes pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and other miscellaneous bullshit. Whenever these guys say "scientifically proven", you can bet that it's wrong. They have many insane editors, including (surprise) Mike Adams.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Humans_Are_Free

Yet another person sacrifices his intellect on the altar of Trumpism. This is exactly equal to creationists linking to Answers on Genesis.

No further comment needed.

Staunch germ theory denialists,[10] saying that having a "positive worldview" is all you need to stay healthy.[11]
Drinking a mixture of fruit juices will cure you of cancer.[12]

Guffaw!

[Cunt]

Didn't you all lose the right to defend yourselves in Australia recently?

What the fuck are you on about? There has been zero recent changes...

So you must have lost them years ago.

Of course we have the common law right to self-defence. Gun laws introduced many years ago have helped to ensure we don't have the constant slaughter in the USA...

Right...at least according to you, living a presumably wealthy and peaceful life.

How about a different opinion, from an Aussie?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5ltfJFkiiA

Number 8 is a blatant lie that even someone as ignorant as you should know. And that's without checking any of the other claims.

I don't know any such thing.

Of course, it is suspicious that someone (Gore) so convinced that we need to do something, did the opposite himself.

Buying big houses, burning oil like it's never running out...sounds like he thinks everyone ELSE should make changes. Not surprising, since he is a 'slurp up government money' pro.

Guffaw!

Right on cue, discredit the source, rather than addressing the facts presented.

Oh wait - this is Animavore, a demonstrated 'loose with the truth' guy (said he ignored me, but jumps in occasionally to prove he lied)

I guess it's fair to dismiss him as a source, by his own standard.

[pErvinalia]

Guffaw!

Right on cue, discredit the source, rather than addressing the facts presented.

What facts? There were only a bunch of claims. You prove they are facts by showing exactly what Gore said.

[Cunt]

Guffaw!

Right on cue, discredit the source, rather than addressing the facts presented.

What facts? There were only a bunch of claims. You prove they are facts by showing exactly what Gore said.

I'm sure you could find the predictions he made which have come true. Should be pretty easy.

Then, we can laugh at your source and ignore whatever claims you brought. Sound fun?

[pErvinalia]

Failure to back up your claim noted.

[trdsf]

Right on cue, discredit the source, rather than addressing the facts presented.

Right on cue, miscast the argument.

If the source is not credible, it by definition casts doubt on the veracity of their claims. It doesn't mean that their claims are necessarily non-factual, but it does mean that a more credible source is needed to make those assertions.

Calling them facts doesn't make them facts. Otherwise you're obliged to accept as fact my assertion that Donald Trump has the emotional maturity of a three year old and even less impulse control simply because I state it.

Would you accept the preacher Franklin Graham as an unbiased source on American atheism? Or Answers in Genesis as a credible source on evo-devo? Or me, a self-described social democrat, as authoritative on the modern neoconservative movement?

I think not. Assertions are not made in a vacuum, independent of the asserter.

[trdsf]

Tucker Carlson Is Tired of People Yelling "Fuck You" At Him in Restaurants
https://splinternews.com/tucker-carlson ... 1829769468

“I can’t really go to a lot of restaurants anymore because I get yelled at,” he said on a National Review podcast released Monday. “I don’t feel threatened, but having someone scream, ‘Fuck you!’ at a restaurant, it just wrecks your meal.”

Carlson said he only goes to one restaurant these days. “I go there because I love it and nobody hassles me,” he said. “I can’t wait for this revolution to end, so I can go back out to dinner.” (He’s known to be a regular at The Palm, a steak house.)

Of course, he has a First Amendment right to espouse his opinions.

And the rest of us have a First Amendment right to call him on them. If he doesn't want people to publicly call him out on backing a wanna-be fascist dictator, maybe he should stop backing a wanna-be fascist dictator.

Sure, and the rest of us have a First Amendment right to call them, the asshats who yell "Fuck You!" at people eating dinner, out on their asshattish behavior. If they don't want people to publicly call them out on their clownish, doltish, profane, and vulgar tirades, then maybe they should stop acting like total asshats.

Therein lies the nature of free speech -- you have the right to tell someone shouting 'fuck you' to 'fuck off', and unquestionably the target and the authorities at the venue has the right to contact the local authorities and swear out a disturbing the peace complaint. I never said that speech doesn't have consequences.

No one has to like it, but as long as it's not inciting violence, it's legitimate. And if speech isn't protected at the fringes, then it's not safe anywhere.

[Cunt]

I think not. Assertions are not made in a vacuum, independent of the asserter.

Yeah, when we (including me) strawman, as we tend to do, we should immediately make a sincere attempt at 'steelmanning'.

Trouble is, I don't think anyone can, where there is such a rabid effort to take things out of context.

I think with the advent of video 'deep fakes', we will finally fully distrust media, and get back to good old fashioned methods.