I believe the recent extreme weather conditions in the Northwest are being caused by manmade global warming. Agree or disagree?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I blame that damn butterfly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I blame that damn butterfly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Freehold did it. He was playing around with Mjolnir after stealing it from me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I blame that damn butterfly.Iron Butterfly?
Aw, crap. Now I gotta go listen to it. ALL of it. With headphones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Wendigo. What, you thought the consensual imagination of thousands of players wouldn't give life to something? Now for some Vekkers stand-ins... (Don't eat each other, Paizo-nioans!)
Then the shut down of Paizo's website and business was just a natural occurance and mankind's actions had nothing to do with it?
While it may or may not be aggravated by artificially created climate change, the "Pineapple Express" is a naturally occurring phenomenon.
Then the shut down of Paizo's website and business was just a natural occurance and mankind's actions had nothing to do with it?
Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment.
Humanity also isn't responsible for all of the planet's climatic changes; one of the most major ones, the desertification of Africa, actually has origins that predate the human discovery of writing (and was in fact the major reason why Egypt rose as a civilization).
End of the day? Climate change was going to happen anyway. Humanity just affected how it will come about and when it will happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its either Yellow Dingo and his sentient wind turbines in Texas or Cosmo's fault.
Did Yellow Dingo pass gas again?
Then the shut down of Paizo's website and business was just a natural occurance and mankind's actions had nothing to do with it?
Affirmative, carbon unit. Move along. Nothing to see here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the recent extreme weather conditions in the Northwest are being caused by manmade global warming. Agree or disagree?
I believe that's caused by Cthugha's influence, with Fomalhaut being more visible in the northern emisphere during autumn.
Or maybe it's just Fthaggua and those pesky Fire Vampires. Blasted critters.
Having lived in Northern California for all of my (nearly) 50 years, this storm was nothing particularly unusual. The media played it up quite a bit, but to be blunt, I've seen FAR worse, especially in the late 1990s when we got hit by a Pineapple Express so bad you couldn't see the other side of the freeway (something like 4"/hour).
This storm capped out at barely over an inch an hour, and the winds weren't bad at all.
It's yet another example of the media needing something to scream about and presenting a perfectly average storm as "something special".
Yeah, it was the worst storm in a few years. That's because we've been in a drought for a few years.
Was it exacerbated by global warming? As others have said, absolutely no way to tell one way or the other, but I've seen far, far worse storms and no one made a big deal about them.
This one was honestly a bit of a disappointment after all the hype.
Honestly, every time I saw references to "Pineapple Express," I thought it was a designer pot strain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was the ghost of Osama Bin Laden.
Isn't denying manmade global warming just like denying the theory of evolution?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, more like the tooth fairy.
Then the shut down of Paizo's website and business was just a natural occurance and mankind's actions had nothing to do with it?It's not that simple.
I haven't looked into this particular event, but in general while it's not possible to finger human-caused climate change as the reason for any single event, since such events were possible anyway, climate change tends to make them more likely and/or more severe.
As an analogy, people living in areas where carcinogens were dumped tend to have higher levels of certain cancers, but people can get those cancers without living there, so it's not possible to trace any particular case to the pollutant - but that's not saying the pollutants didn't have any effect.
This. Saying, as MJ does, that "climate change was going to happen anyway" is, in some way, like a tobacco company saying "anyone who smoked would have died anyway." In a sense, trying to say "this particular event was caused by this particular single cause" is a fool's errand, since every event is effected by lots and lots of causes....
... but at the same time, the link between cigarettes and deaths is pretty clear to anyone who isn't either a fool or an apologist for Big Tobacco.
Similarly, anyone who denies anthropogenic global warning is a fool or a liar.
|
|
Isn't denying manmade global warming just like denying the theory of evolution?
Global warming is heavily influenced by man's activity, but not made or directly caused by it.
Humanity is a (relatively speaking) big nasty variable in the equation, but the equation itself existed way before humanity made an appearance.
Obviously, the equation is Cthugha and the Great Old Ones. Iä! Iä!
Similarly, anyone who denies anthropogenic global warning is a fool or a liar.
I don't deny it, but I don't think it's so conceptually obvious that hold outs deserve to be called fools and liars.
The requirement of evidence is the basis of scientific progress. That there are some people out there who still require more evidence on a personal level (even if said evidence exists, as I feel it does) should not serve to denigrate those individuals.
I'd rather have skeptical holdouts than live in a world where all people can be browbeaten into holding the "correct" opinion, even if it is truly the correct opinion! It's better to be skeptical and wrong than mindless and right, I think. The former will at least be self-correcting over time.
Now, I am against the systemic manipulation of information in certain demographics that leads to the prevalence of a certain strain of skepticism which doesn't rely on very sound logic. That drives me nuts. But it is also a separate, however related, issue.
Freehold did it. He was playing around with Mjolnir after stealing it from me.
Aw, we were playing around with Mjolnir, but all we got was Thor.
I'm all for skepticism among scientific experts on a particular topic. Skepticism of those opinions by people without such expertise, often driven as you suggest by "systemic manipulation of information in certain demographics", is an entirely different matter.
I'm not normally one to resort to this kind of statement, but that smacks of elitism.
Communicating scientific truth to the public at large is almost as important as the discoveries themselves.
Scientists don't occupy some elite position of judgement where their opinion counts for more than the lay person. Instead, they have discovered something reproducible, which means all opinions are equal on the matter.
The climate change anthropogenesis denier can be someone who simply hasn't seen convincing evidence, due to a different perspective from those who have. It's not a personal failing on the same level as those who might know better, but propagate the lie because it suits them politically or financially.
Intellectually lazy, perhaps, but liar and fool are names that should be reserved for the willful misleading of the people. If individuals without expertise are meant to take everything on faith, that's bad for science, too. It pretty much has to go the way it's going -- let people argue about it, and let the facts speak for themselves. (I think we're agreed on the villainy inherent in manipulating the argument)
I'm all for skepticism among scientific experts on a particular topic. Skepticism of those opinions by people without such expertise, often driven as you suggest by "systemic manipulation of information in certain demographics", is an entirely different matter.I'm not normally one to resort to this kind of statement, but that smacks of elitism.
Communicating scientific truth to the public at large is almost as important as the discoveries themselves.
Scientists don't occupy some elite position of judgement where their opinion counts for more than the lay person. Instead, they have discovered something reproducible, which means all opinions are equal on the matter.
The climate change anthropogenesis denier can be someone who simply hasn't seen convincing evidence, due to a different perspective from those who have. It's not a personal failing on the same level as those who might know better, but propagate the lie because it suits them politically or financially.
Intellectually lazy, perhaps, but liar and fool are names that should be reserved for the willful misleading of the people. If individuals without expertise are meant to take everything on faith, that's bad for science, too. It pretty much has to go the way it's going -- let people argue about it, and let the facts speak for themselves. (I think we're agreed on the villainy inherent in manipulating the argument)
8 times out of 10 the climate change deniers in my experience are someone who doesn't bother to educate themselves on the subject and instead parrots opinions by people with an economic interest in preventing carbon sources. The other 2 out of 10, they are themselves someone with a large economic interest in preventing changes.
The problem is people don't listen to facts. They listen to pocket books.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Fools" may be slightly too harsh. "Fooled" might be better.
Compromise accepted.
I guess the reason I force the point is because I want to believe that these folks can be reached. Just demonizing individuals for their beliefs, however erroneous, will not bring about the desired result.
That, and I am still leery of believing things without introspection. I need to let actual evidence convince me, not merely the pathos of the arguments I hear, however convincing. Otherwise I am no better than the fooled.
This. Saying, as MJ does, that "climate change was going to happen anyway" is, in some way, like a tobacco company saying "anyone who smoked would have died anyway." In a sense, trying to say "this particular event was caused by this particular single cause" is a fool's errand, since every event is effected by lots and lots of causes....
... but at the same time, the link between cigarettes and deaths is pretty clear to anyone who isn't either a fool or an apologist for Big Tobacco.
Except that if you read my entire post instead of stopping at one sentence, you'll notice I directly state that humanity has altered it with this statement:
"Humanity just affected how it will come about and when it will happen."
In essence, I stated that despite the fact the climate was going to change anyway, we changed how the climate is going to change and when it is going to change; the intended implication being that we not only made things worse but sped up the schedule.
So, overall, I stated nothing that denies it actually happened; I just pointed out that there's more going on with climate than what humanity has done before acknowledging that humanity has screwed everything up.
Making it a point to alter someone's words to say what they don't is also the sign of a fool or a liar. It's part of why one can't trust either side of the climate debate... there's too many dishonest people on both sides. Please be careful you do not fall into that trap.
You did in fact say exactly what you say you did, but you did so in such a fashion as to draw exactly this kind of response, which lets you attack the climate change side of the debate.
He did not alter your words, he misread a poorly phrased post. Intentionally or not, this kind of thing is a habit with your posts.
I know my posts tend to be poorly worded, so I am trying to avoid long-form stating of what I have to say and allowing for even poorer wording to get involved.
It was poorly worded, but I do not accept that the meaning of it wasn't clear.
I had stated earlier in my post "Humanity also isn't responsible for all of the planet's climatic changes." That does absolve humanity of 100% responsibility in wording... but at the same time, makes it clear that humanity is responsible for climatic change. My last sentence was both to make it clear I wasn't challenging that humanity has an undeniably major effect.
And despite being given an opening to attack climate change, I did not single it out any more than I did the deniers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
COBRA'S WEATHER DOMINATOR.
I bought that thing at Zartan's yard sale a few years back, and MAN, the thing has already paid for itself.
Sorry. I've been leveling up as toe nail cutter magus and the clippings were crit embedding in the web servers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You did in fact say exactly what you say you did, but you did so in such a fashion as to draw exactly this kind of response, which lets you attack the climate change side of the debate.
He did not alter your words, he misread a poorly phrased post. Intentionally or not, this kind of thing is a habit with your posts.It might have been poorly worded, but I do not accept that the meaning of it wasn't clear. I know my posts tend to be poorly worded, so I am trying to avoid long-form stating of what I have to say and allowing for even poorer wording to get involved.
I had stated earlier in my post "Humanity also isn't responsible for all of the planet's climatic changes." That does absolve humanity of 100% responsibility in wording... but at the same time, makes it clear that humanity is responsible for climatic change. My last sentence was both to make it clear I wasn't challenging that humanity has an undeniably major effect.
And despite being given an opening to attack climate change, I did not single it out any more than I did the deniers.
I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.
You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.
That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.
To be fair, we can tell a couple. Volcanoes FTW :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we may be causing earthquakes, so who knows.
TRUE :)
Hard to say.
It might be roll 10d6 and i you get anything over a 50 you get something like this. Man made effects might be an extra 1d6.
I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.
You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.
That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.
I would say the ones caused by solar activity would have happened no matter what humanity did. After all, humanity cannot affect the temperature variance of the Sun yet. This potentially includes the warming experienced in the first three decades of the 20th Century for the Northern Hemisphere, as the Little Ice Age has at least one theory stating it was caused by solar activity. Depends a lot on which timeline of the Little Ice Age you accept as well.
I'll also include the Sahara Desert on the list, since it formed before humanity discovered writing. The El Nino event, to which a Pineapple Express appears to be tied, is also on the list (evidence suggests a 10,000 year history for it and it's got 300 years of evidence of it happening).
There's probably a few others, but overall I'm willing to bet they form a minority of the climatic events that would have happened. And that most of those events are either tied into the natural climatic patterns of a region or connected to solar activity.
Are scientists who deny the manmade global warming exists being paid to say that by oil companies, or are some of them actually that removed from reality?
I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.
You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.
That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.
I would say the ones caused by solar activity would have happened no matter what humanity did. After all, humanity cannot affect the temperature variance of the Sun yet. This potentially includes the warming experienced in the first three decades of the 20th Century for the Northern Hemisphere, as the Little Ice Age has at least one theory stating it was caused by solar activity. Depends a lot on which timeline of the Little Ice Age you accept as well.
I'll also include the Sahara Desert on the list, since it formed before humanity discovered writing. The El Nino event, to which a Pineapple Express appears to be tied, is also on the list (evidence suggests a 10,000 year history for it and it's got 300 years of evidence of it happening).
There's probably a few others, but overall I'm willing to bet they form a minority of the climatic events that would have happened. And that most of those events are either tied into the natural climatic patterns of a region or connected to solar activity.
Sahara Desert was tiny until the Romans destroyed the landscape. They killed off a lot of the apex predators, which changed how many other animals were around, which changed erosion patterns. The desert saw a massive spike in size during Ancient Rome.
How Wolves Change Rivers - about the reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone.
Are scientists who deny the manmade global warming exists being paid to say that by oil companies, or are some of them actually that removed from reality?
** spoiler omitted **
Some of the people on that Wikipedia list support that manmade global warming exists, but question the accuracy of the climate models. They're not paid by oil companies or removed from reality so much as pointing out they think there's an accuracy issue within the modelling area of climate science.
In fact, one of the scientists on that Wikipedia list is a climatologist.
Sahara Desert was tiny until the Romans destroyed the landscape. They killed off a lot of the...I figured it out because I've debated with you before and I know to double read everything and look for the out clauses. I did read it and think "Someone will misread this as denial". And then he did.
You also said in that post "Beyond humanity creating the technology that was affected? Nope. It's one of several climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment." Which is far more emphatic than we have any right to be. There is no such thing as "climatic events that would have happened no matter what humanity did with the environment" since we started messing with the environment. Or at least no way to tell the which ones are which. Climate is too chaotic for that.
That line, and the following bit about changes we weren't responsible for also set up an expectation for the following one to be read as a denialist viewpoint.
I would say the ones caused by solar activity would have happened no matter what humanity did. After all, humanity cannot affect the temperature variance of the Sun yet. This potentially includes the warming experienced in the first three decades of the 20th Century for the Northern Hemisphere, as the Little Ice Age has at least one theory stating it was caused by solar activity. Depends a lot on which timeline of the Little Ice Age you accept as well.
I'll also include the Sahara Desert on the list, since it formed before humanity discovered writing. The El Nino event, to which a Pineapple Express appears to be tied, is also on the list (evidence suggests a 10,000 year history for it and it's got 300 years of evidence of it happening).
There's probably a few others, but overall I'm willing to bet they form a minority of the climatic events that would have happened. And that most of those events are either tied into the natural climatic patterns of a region or connected to solar activity.
Do you have a scientific paper to back that? Everything I've found says the desert hampered Rome from ever expanding, and thus they couldn't have had a climatic impact on the desert because they were never capable of getting to areas where they could.