Sören Mogalle's page

You cut of the important first sentence of that argument:

However, neither of those would be an issue if there wasn't a false narrative to begin with... so the underlying issue continues to be that there is a great deal of money to be made by denying the reality of AGW as long as possible.

The point of the argument is not whether or not CC is real, but that some people will deny it because they are losing money because of it, regardless of what the science says. And those people will stop denying CC when it will become clear to them that they will be losing money BY denying CC. Regardless of the actual truth. And when those people start pulling the money out of the denial-industry, a lot of the anti-CC-propaganda will stop.

Quote:

This is, of course, nonsense. Nothing about wind or solar power inherently require fossil fuel power. Rather, we currently have a fossil fuel based economy and thus nearly everything we do involves fossil fuels in some way... except that, the more solar and wind power are installed the less fossil fuel based the economy becomes.

The nonsense is in your logic. Build a modern wind turbine without using plastic or steel, since both require fossil fuels to exist. I will wait.

That is how a technology comes to be heavily tied to the fossil fuel industry. When it requires fossil fuels to even exist, there is no logical basis for arguing it lacks a heavy tie to the fossil fuel industry.

I repeat my point: you don't know what these words mean. Look, no one ever said that cars are a "food-based technology". Or that icecream is an "atom-based product". Yes, you need plastic for these things,but 1) everything is made out of plastic 2) plastic can and already is made without oil, and most importently 3) Oil used to make plastic is not burned. For global warming to stop, we need to stop burning coal and gas. After we accomplish that, we can try to improve the planet even more by not using plastic and whatnot, but that debate has nothing to do with climate change.

Quote:

Even more absurd. The only real solution to AGW is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn. We can do, and indeed in many places already have done, that by switching to 'clean' power like wind and solar.

Which is irrelevant to both the amount of profit within an industry and the acceptance of the science. There is massive amounts of profit, and yet few nations are making any concentrated effort to switch over. And some that have since have stopped. Until they start really making an effort, you are merely making a baseless prediction.

People have stopped because of political reasons. Many nations are trying to improve their solar industry. Germany, China, etc.

I do not get your argument here. What are the "essential problems" of solar and wind? Yes, some things are questionable, some things must improve (using rare earths for example). But so far I can only see a giant nirvana fallacy:" Renewable energy does not solve all our problems, therefore these technologys are useless."

We are in agreement. I just see it likely people will twist the fact fossil fuels are involved to create another argument against doing something to help.

Then you should point out to these people that traditional technologies use even MORE fossil fuels: in production AND use.

Sören Mogalle wrote:

Terrinam wrote:

The money in wind and solar is pretty heavily tied to the fossil fuel industry, since both technologies are fossil fuel products. They are also limited in geological regions they can be placed for effectiveness that outweighs the pollution.

If anything, I would suggest solar and wind may be good arguments against supporting "believing" in AGW as well, as they show the lack of ability to divorce humanity from the essential problem that plagues much of the science behind AGW "solutions."

It's a Morton's Fork; no matter which direction we go, we're dependent on fossil fuels to get there.

I will try to say this the least condecending way possible: I think you should read up on what those words mean. Words like "fossil fuel based" and "global warming" have very specific meanings, and I am genuinely not sure you know them.

I will try to say this in the least condescending way possible: Most people don't care and those specific definitions are irrelevant to the conversation.

They have specific usages, and common usages. Most of the conspiracy theories and denial rely on the common usages. In order to discuss them, we are going to have to accept the specific usages are not the usages that actually matter.

How is solar power "fossil fuel based"? I genuinly don't get what that means.

The money in wind and solar is pretty heavily tied to the fossil fuel industry, since both technologies are fossil fuel products. They are also limited in geological regions they can be placed for effectiveness that outweighs the pollution.

If anything, I would suggest solar and wind may be good arguments against supporting "believing" in AGW as well, as they show the lack of ability to divorce humanity from the essential problem that plagues much of the science behind AGW "solutions."

It's a Morton's Fork; no matter which direction we go, we're dependent on fossil fuels to get there.

I will try to say this the least condecending way possible: I think you should read up on what those words mean. Words like "fossil fuel based" and "global warming" have very specific meanings, and I am genuinely not sure you know them.

Sören Mogalle wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target.

More fiction.

<plonk>

From your previous post complaining about my summary of the data.

CBDunkerson wrote:

I 'ignore' this because it is false.

The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.

So, CB, if you disagree with the citation why did you quote from it approvingly?

Actually, he does not need to agree with the citation. His claim is that your sources do not try to say what you try to say. If the sources are right or wrong is, for this matter, entirely uninteresting.

If you state that the sun explodes in 10 days and your source says that the sun explodes in 10 years, you can't use this source as a proof for your position, regardless of when, or even if, the sun will actually explode.

So, that only lowers the annoyance factor of him not getting the point.

My point was that the 5% did not consider the +0.5°C increase we will get when all the pollution is "washed" out of the air.

But that is the entire point. You say that the study supports your position, only to immediatly tell uns that they don't consider this and that. It seems that the study actually does not support your position.

CBDunkerson wrote:

Quark Blast wrote:

For point 1) you claim that there is a 5% chance of hitting that target.

More fiction.

<plonk>

From your previous post complaining about my summary of the data.

CBDunkerson wrote:

I 'ignore' this because it is false.

The study you are supposedly basing your position on states, "There is a 5% chance of less than 2°C warming". As usual, your 'source' and the conclusion you draw from it are literal opposites.

So, CB, if you disagree with the citation why did you quote from it approvingly?

Actually, he does not need to agree with the citation. His claim is that your sources do not try to say what you try to say. If the sources are right or wrong is, for this matter, entirely uninteresting.

If you state that the sun explodes in 10 days and your source says that the sun explodes in 10 years, you can't use this source as a proof for your position, regardless of when, or even if, the sun will actually explode.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Orfamay Quest wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Armed vigilantes are great.. when they agree with you.

Armed government that can enforce laws is great... when the law agrees with you.

Which is why the law brings in armed thugs only as a last resort, to minimize the possibility of armed conflict.

So the main difference between the two is... the RSVP? :)

The difference between the two is that police act in the name of and by powers invested by the community. They also presumably have training to use their power in restraint.

The same can't be said for a group of racist gun nuts who don't even acknowledge groups of fellow Americans as people and call our head of state a Muslim lizard.

And who protect the people from bullying by the government, but do nothing when clerk davis, a GOVERNMENT position, does not issue marriage licenses to the PEOPLE. Because that's totally different. For reasons.

Allow me to tweak your analogy to more closely reflect reality.

Jewish chef gets a job in the White House as executive chef at such a time that a Jewish president was in office.

The next president comes in and wants some pulled pork sammiches.

She took office in November 2014. At that time the Winsor-Case was already one year old, and Obergefell worked it's way up to the supreme court. It was obvious that some ruling would be implemented, she had to know that this could happen. Still she took office, and talked to no one about it.

Court says, "You will feed the president, and it will damn well be a sammich or you're going to jail."

Jewish chef, "NEVER AAAAAAAAAAAAHH!!!"

You're missing a dozent steps here. She appealed to several courts, and all said the same thing. So it's not exactly as if the case was decided by one judge. Plus, the "compromise" her lawyer gave was essentially garbadge, because her own lawyer now claims that a marriage licence without her name on it is illegal. So she never wanted a proper agreement in the first place.

The question that arises then, is whether she desired this, would have taken this, and if this was actually taken up in regards to the situation.

First, given her behavior so far, I think the answer is "no". She has not made any attempt at solving the issue that would involve her changing her opinion or workplace or anything at all.

Second, that will not solve any problem. In fact, that will make everything worse. The thing about conscientious objectors is that the military wants them to stay, and that they have a point, at least morally. Sending her somewhere else will outrage the LGBT-community, and rightly so. It sends the message that you can blatantly disrespect standing LGBT-rights and get a slap on the wrist. And the religious fundamentalists have made it very clear that they see her as innocent, capital "I". So in short, one side will be angry that she is punished, and the other will be angry that she is not punished enough.