CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Mr Bumble · 30-01-2020 1:41pm

posidonia wrote: »

Sorry but a problem does not go away because the person talking about that problem is a hypocrite.

But, it does give people an easy out. 'Oh, he's a hypocrite' they can cry - and then they feel they can ignore the problem.

Me? You would find it hard to portray me as a hypocrite. Yes, I'm part of a fossil fueled society, no, in your terms, I'm not a hypocrite.

If "people" see hypocrisy, what should they do. Ignore it?
Eamonn tells us that this is the greatest crisis facing humanity, an imminent and existential threat to us all. But not in his personal life. He carries on as if nothing is wrong. If you cannot see the madness of that position, there's no point in trying to discuss this at all.

I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm debating the issue with you, trying to educate myself. I'm not taking an "easy out". You don't have much faith in "people".

I take it from your response that you don't do anything practical.
Another hypocrite.

Thragor, Retrogamer? Same story as Eamonn, Akrasia and Posidonia?

Interesting. I have doubts about the narrative all of you are describing, that climate change is caused by "people" but it would appear that I'm doing more to help than any of you. I cycle as much as I can, where I used to drive. I have solar panels. I'm looking at the possibility of a small wind turbine. As much as possible I shop local and buy local produce. I bought diesel (1.6ltr) when the advice was to buy diesel. Can't afford an EV so that will have to wait.
Should I just scrap all of this and do what Eamonn has been doing?

Akrasia · 30-01-2020 2:11pm

Mr Bumble wrote: »

If "people" see hypocrisy, what should they do. Ignore it?
Eamonn tells us that this is the greatest crisis facing humanity, an imminent and existential threat to us all. But not in his personal life. He carries on as if nothing is wrong. If you cannot see the madness of that position, there's no point in trying to discuss this at all.

I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm debating the issue with you, trying to educate myself. I'm not taking an "easy out". You don't have much faith in "people".

I take it from your response that you don't do anything practical.
Another hypocrite.

Thragor, Retrogamer? Same story as Eamonn, Akrasia and Posidonia?

Interesting. I have doubts about the narrative all of you are describing, that climate change is caused by "people" but it would appear that I'm doing more to help than any of you. I cycle as much as I can, where I used to drive. I have solar panels. I'm looking at the possibility of a small wind turbine. As much as possible I shop local and buy local produce. I bought diesel (1.6ltr) when the advice was to buy diesel. Can't afford an EV so that will have to wait.
Should I just scrap all of this and do what Eamonn has been doing?

If a smoker supports increased restrictions on tobacco (including for themselves) does that make them a hypocrite?

If a motorist supports increasing the carbon tax on fuel that will increase their own costs, does that make them a hypocrite?

Oneiric 3 · 30-01-2020 2:41pm

Poor analogies all around that are nothing more than the attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

posidonia · 30-01-2020 3:01pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

And rightly so. Those preaching the loudest should practice what they preach if the want to have their doctrine taken seriously by the public.

The why aren't you investing in lampposts and rope?

Gaoth Laidir · 30-01-2020 3:03pm

Everybody, on the count of 3 let's all put oriel on Ignore. I can't take any more of his bull****.

1...2...3

Oneiric 3 · 30-01-2020 4:23pm

posidonia wrote: »

The why aren't you investing in lampposts and rope?

I'm waiting on some funding from the Clinton foundation.

oriel36 · 30-01-2020 4:52pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Everybody, on the count of 3 let's all put oriel on Ignore. I can't take any more of his bull****.

1...2...3

There are none so blind as those who will not see as the most damaged people are those who choose to ignore anything beyond which they have received through the education system as 'facts' but are really historical lies. They know themselves but the temptation to make themselves bigger than the topic cuts them off from genuine research.

Royal Society empiricism has a parasitic relationship with astronomy and Earth sciences while most of the Irish have a regrettable master/servant relationship with the Brits of the late 17th century. Not all but most people so difficult to discuss terrestrial sciences with people who have unsurmountable difficulties with the day/night cycle in response to one rotation as they insist rotations to the stars (night) is different to rotation to the Sun (day).

Thanks to the moderators and it can't have been easy as it has become obvious that both proponents and opponents of 'climate change' are really two sides of the same 'scientific method' coin. Anything that has inspiration or joy attached to it is unbearable for these unfortunates and I bear them no ill-will but as dictators, they should be recognised for what they are - silly, out of touch, unimaginative, unproductive and all those faculties which are lacking for researching astronomy and Earth sciences.

Let them go back to their graphs and academic and social politics, they will do so greatly diminished as is proper given their dull and murky world designed for them by Sir Isaac.

posidonia · 30-01-2020 5:08pm

Mr Bumble wrote: »

If "people" see hypocrisy, what should they do. Ignore it?
Eamonn tells us that this is the greatest crisis facing humanity, an imminent and existential threat to us all. But not in his personal life. He carries on as if nothing is wrong. If you cannot see the madness of that position, there's no point in trying to discuss this at all.

I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm debating the issue with you, trying to educate myself. I'm not taking an "easy out". You don't have much faith in "people".

I take it from your response that you don't do anything practical.
Another hypocrite.

Thragor, Retrogamer? Same story as Eamonn, Akrasia and Posidonia?

Interesting. I have doubts about the narrative all of you are describing, that climate change is caused by "people" but it would appear that I'm doing more to help than any of you. I cycle as much as I can, where I used to drive. I have solar panels. I'm looking at the possibility of a small wind turbine. As much as possible I shop local and buy local produce. I bought diesel (1.6ltr) when the advice was to buy diesel. Can't afford an EV so that will have to wait.
Should I just scrap all of this and do what Eamonn has been doing?

Fwiw, I haven't set foot in a plane since the early 1990s - but I've only ever flown twice. I use a tiny car I intend to run into the ground - the best use of its embedded CO2 I can make. The house is heated by, well dried, wood. I too shop locally - I have a farmers market to go to on Saturday.

But, whether or not a politician is a hypocrite does not alter the right or wrong of what they say, words can't alter facts.

I know smoking is bad for health. That reality wouldn't be changed if a health minister was a chain smoker - how could that change reality?

Akrasia · 30-01-2020 6:23pm

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

Poor analogies all around that are nothing more than the attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

why don't you answer the question instead of declaring the analogy to be poor?

The answer is No, they are not hypocritical because It is someone who will be impacted by a new policy calling for that policy to be implemented.

The fact that the smoker is addicted to smoking is the analogy to people being addicted to fossil fuels.

People are prepared to accept some restrictions on their own freedom if they know that it is in their own self interest

With climate change, we need global concerted action to change from fossil fuels to a carbon neutral economy and energy system. The pious Pharisee who makes a big deal about 'virtue signaling' but does nothing to further political action on climate change is doing much less to help than the 'hypocrite' who drives a car, flies in planes but still fights to impose regulations on pollution and apply resources to invest in infrastructure to prevent the worst aspects of climate change

Akrasia · 30-01-2020 6:30pm

I think it's a good time to step back from the name calling and communist/marxist accusing to point out that out of every single scientific body with any reputation anywhere in the world that has stated an opinion on climate change, not one of them takes the position that Climate change either isn't real, Isn't Anthropogenic, and isn't a serious problem that requires urgent action

Nabber · 30-01-2020 7:37pm

It’s also worth noting:

That AGW climate skepticism is growing,

That alarmist predictions and prophecies have not been realised.

That the hypothesis is only demonstrated in models that use data extrapolated from ‘bad data’, using a single constant energy input from the sun, also discounting fluid dynamics.

That AGW supporters do very little to fix the problem and hide behind gestures like EVs and double glazed windows. Changing little or nothing in their lifestyles.

posidonia · 30-01-2020 7:54pm

Nabber wrote: »

It’s also worth noting:

That AGW climate skepticism is growing,

That alarmist predictions and prophecies have not been realised.

The climate is behaving right in line with projections.

That the hypothesis is only demonstrated in models that use data extrapolated from ‘bad data’, using a single constant energy input from the sun, also discounting fluid dynamics.

Look, if you can convince yourself that all the data is wrong then you can convince yourself of the above.

And, yes, its been a freezing winter with blizzards across all of Europe...Likewise the N America has endured a record breakingly cold winter...And the summer in Australia has been one of the coldest on record...And its been amazingly anomalously cold in the Arctic...

Not.

That AGW supporters do very little to fix the problem and hide behind gestures like EVs and double glazed windows. Changing little or nothing in their lifestyles.

See my post above. How many 'AGW supporters' do you know? All the ones I know (and it's more than a handful) do live the life.

oriel36 · 30-01-2020 8:09pm

Akrasia wrote: »

I think it's a good time to step back ...to point out that out of every single scientific body with any reputation anywhere in the world that has stated .....

Not being able to affirm that the planet turns once each day with an Equatorial rotational velocity of 1037.5 mph with all the organisations looking on like dummies and unable to adjust to the correct value doesn't bode well for mob mentalities -

Sidereal rotation period - 23h 56m 4 sec
Equatorial rotation velocity - 1040.4 mph

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth

You have these meteorologists declaring about engineering achievements yet the 24 hour watch to determine location on the planet really started precision engineering within the Lat/Long framework so that 1037.5 miles at the Equator is 15 degrees of separation and 1 hour time difference -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7yoXhbOQ3Y&t=73s

The real story is one not yet developed in wider society for the variations in the natural noon cycle rely on dual surface rotations acting in combination with the Polar day/night cycle front and centre for the ignored surface rotation.

Not all people are academic rednecks but then again whether it is astronomy, the Earth's geometry, geography, engineering achievements of timekeeping and the underlying astronomical principles, most here are from the same community that despised Harrison and his clock

" But indeed, had I continued under the hands of the rude
commissioners, this completion, or great accomplishment, neither
would, nor could, ever have been obtained; but however, providence
otherwise ordered the matter, and I can now boldly say, that if the
provision for the heat and cold could properly be in the balance
itself, as it is in the pendulum, the watch [or my longitude time-
keeper] would then perform to a few seconds in a year, yea, to such
perfection now are imaginary impossibilities conquered; so the
priests at Cambridge and Oxford, &c. may cease their pursuit in the
longitude affair, and as otherwise then to occupy their time."
John Harrison

The same dull and gloomy academics are at it again with the Earth science of climate while still pushing an Ra/Dec system that discredits humanity. They are not intelligent enough to know how silly they are.

Oneiric 3 · 30-01-2020 9:02pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPiVzpdB0yY

"Bright eyed young inherit all
treading down upon the fallen
They was drawn towards the Hum
Plenty more where they come from".

-- Killing Joke

oriel36 · 30-01-2020 9:23pm

My goodness, what happened to the courageous men of Ireland who never had to fight in any meaningful way ?. Not all battles are in the fields, in the sea or in the air but they are just as vital for a creative and productive society as their physical equivalents are. The enemy in this case are not the frantic proponents/opponents of the 'scientific method' but rather indifference to out terrestrial and celestial surroundings.

People who do not make the effort to recover culture and traditions from unjust societies which attempt to control human behavior through the idea that humans can control nature do not do their society any justice. People are never meant to go through life in a constant state of pessimism and what is worse than being subject to people who squirm and turn when inspirational things are placed in front of them as though an affront.

Mr Bumble · 30-01-2020 9:49pm

Akrasia wrote: »

why don't you answer the question instead of declaring the analogy to be poor?

The answer is No, they are not hypocritical because It is someone who will be impacted by a new policy calling for that policy to be implemented.

The fact that the smoker is addicted to smoking is the analogy to people being addicted to fossil fuels.

People are prepared to accept some restrictions on their own freedom if they know that it is in their own self interest

With climate change, we need global concerted action to change from fossil fuels to a carbon neutral economy and energy system. The pious Pharisee who makes a big deal about 'virtue signaling' but does nothing to further political action on climate change is doing much less to help than the 'hypocrite' who drives a car, flies in planes but still fights to impose regulations on pollution and apply resources to invest in infrastructure to prevent the worst aspects of climate change

Absolute hypocrisy. Remarkable. Do as I say, not as I do.

Mr Bumble · 30-01-2020 9:51pm

posidonia wrote: »

Fwiw, I haven't set foot in a plane since the early 1990s - but I've only ever flown twice. I use a tiny car I intend to run into the ground - the best use of its embedded CO2 I can make. The house is heated by, well dried, wood. I too shop locally - I have a farmers market to go to on Saturday.

Good man. At least one who practices what he preaches. Maybe you should a word with Akrasia and Eamonn. I'd say Retorgamer and Thargor could do with some direction too.

Mr Bumble · 30-01-2020 9:58pm

That AGW supporters do very little to fix the problem and hide behind gestures like EVs and double glazed windows. Changing little or nothing in their lifestyles.[/QUOTE]

The one's here don't even do that - posidonia apart.

I'm doing much of what Ryan and his warriors want me to do but I'm a hopeless case for Akrasia because I'm not convinced by his arguements.

Just as a smoker can tell people smoking is bad, someone like me who is following some of the advice given by the climate change movement, can be skeptical when I listen to Eamonn and Akrasia. Same deal lads.

M.T. Cranium · 30-01-2020 10:03pm

Oneiric3 ... what you said is no doubt true, but I can fully understand your point of view and all I'm saying is that the left now owns globalism and climate change as their own pet projects, whoever may have started globalism for whatever motivations, and that does not rule out that they still lurk in the shadows hoping to reclaim full ownership. I agree with your apparent belief that globalism in its early stages was a neo-con project. Some prominent globalists are still neo-cons too.

You have the leftist academic version and you have the centre-right Bilderberg cartel version. They are acting as though they are in agreement but are they really? At some later stage of any globalist total success (something they have not yet reached) they would probably turn on each other, don't you agree?

I wouldn't abandon the discussion out of any fear of disagreements, when people argue in a logical framework and remain "gentlemen" then there's no danger or harm done, in my view, it would be a dull world indeed if everyone agreed on all things. And I am always a flexible thinker, my goal is to get at the truth of matters, not to prove I am right or assert my power over anyone. I've certainly changed some of my political views and climate opinions in the light of "later data."

With reference to the neo-cons, do you still think the globalist project is under their full control now? The neo-cons may have drifted from the political right into the centre over a generation but they are not real progressives or leftists, albeit they may have taken on some socially liberal positions.

A good example of the dual approach can be seen in the political positions taken around mass immigration, much of it illegal, into the southern U.S. ... the political left supports it for reasons of social justice and expediency, those people can very often be relied upon to morph into Democrat voters. But the big business portion of the right also support it as it provides them with a large pool of cheap and exploitable labour. Those opposed to it are also on both left and right. Unionized workers especially "blue collar Democrats" are opposed because the practice drives down wages and benefits. And the alt right are opposed on cultural and sovereignty grounds. So I think for every example of right or left being the real globalists, you can find a balancing counter-example. It probably points to a need to look at politics in two dimensions, left-right, and big-small. Unlimited immigration tends to be the ultimate "big government" policy since it requires that governments meddle in the sovereignty of other countries.

The current U.S. political dynamic on the right is basically old-style consensus conservatives vs alt-right supporters of the populist agenda that they think the president favours. What he actually favours, I would argue, is not entirely clear. Some things about him suggest that he has not moved far from his big government Democrat roots. Big business and big government often make comfortable partners.

But in any case, I tend to be skeptical of populist politicians, they have clearly decided to cater to a market that they identified, but as with anything, that does not always mean a deep sympathy with that marketplace. Boris Johnson comes to mind in this regard. In Canada some of us have had reservations about the actual motivation or sincerity of leaders posing as populists. We had one case where somebody gained a lot of support for that stance and then sold out the supporters for his own personal gain. It happens a lot in politics. Very few people go into it, especially with any success, for altruistic reasons. I sometimes wonder if we elected a government of the sort of cranks who get fifty votes as independents if we might not be pleasantly surprised with the results.

posidonia · 30-01-2020 10:20pm

Mr Bumble wrote: »

Absolute hypocrisy. Remarkable. Do as I say, not as I do.

Again (and I don't think Akrasia is the hypocrite you make him out to be) you could say the same to a chain smoker who told you smoking was dangerous to health but also wouldn't give up smoking.

And, would that hypocrisy make smoking good for health? You tell me...

M.T. Cranium · 30-01-2020 10:25pm

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Everybody, on the count of 3 let's all put oriel on Ignore. I can't take any more of his bull****.

1...2...3

There is a benefit that you may have overlooked. On the one hand, we have this evidently isolated cranky type with a bee in his bonnet about something that is almost certainly a direct reversal of logic (about as far as I could get into an analysis of his posts), and then the AGW apologists, and in both cases, they say exactly the same things about you and me.

I find that rather illuminating. Perhaps it's a sphere of illumination.

But I sympathize with your plan anyway. Time to move on.

posidonia · 30-01-2020 10:34pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is a benefit that you may have overlooked. On the one hand, we have this evidently isolated cranky type with a bee in his bonnet about something that is almost certainly a direct reversal of logic (about as far as I could get into an analysis of his posts), and then the AGW apologists, and in both cases, they say exactly the same things about you and me.

It's true, in the sense you all see a massive conspiracy around you, and you all wont accept data you don't like.

I find that rather illuminating. Perhaps it's a sphere of illumination.

But I sympathize with your plan anyway. Time to move on.

It's not possible to debate with him because he wont accept the data and observations of the solar system. Simply change 'solar system' for 'atmosphere'...

Nabber · 30-01-2020 10:53pm

posidonia wrote: »

The climate is behaving right in line with projections.

Thanks for the link

Considering large part of the warming occurred in the the first half of the 20th century when anthropogenic CO2 was a quarter of today’s. Is it strange strange that the rates of warming are the same with different CO2 concentrations?

With the tuning of the models to reflect observations, In your opinion are the models subjective or objective?

oriel36 · 30-01-2020 11:00pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is a benefit that you may have overlooked. On the one hand, we have this evidently isolated cranky type with a bee in his bonnet about something that is almost certainly a direct reversal of logic (about as far as I could get into an analysis of his posts), and then the AGW apologists, and in both cases, they say exactly the same things about you and me.

I find that rather illuminating. Perhaps it's a sphere of illumination.

But I sympathize with your plan anyway. Time to move on.

Did you hear the one about the meteorologist who give forecasts from Monday to Sunday yet couldn't affirm each day was one rotation ?

You are a typical zombie empirical follower for who else would find Sir Isaac right when 21st century time lapse easily demonstrates how a moving Earth and a central/stationary Sun was inferred by our planet's faster orbital motion overtaking the slower moving planets -

https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

What dunce could find inspiration in a mathematician's view of the same observation ? -

"For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct,..." Newton

Kill the 'scientific method' of which the above vandalism is a part and you and the other empirical drones vanish along with your self-importance. As long as that idiosyncratic view survives then the works of the first great heliocentric astronomers remain diminished as if somebody decided to blow up the Newgrange astronomical heritage.

Thargor · 30-01-2020 11:01pm

M.T. Cranium wrote: »

There is a benefit that you may have overlooked. On the one hand, we have this evidently isolated cranky type with a bee in his bonnet about something that is almost certainly a direct reversal of logic (about as far as I could get into an analysis of his posts), and then the AGW apologists, and in both cases, they say exactly the same things about you and me.

I find that rather illuminating. Perhaps it's a sphere of illumination.

But I sympathize with your plan anyway. Time to move on.

Your commie libtard snowflake rantings are giving Oriels posts a run for their money lately.

oriel36 · 30-01-2020 11:18pm

Thargor wrote: »

Your commie libtard snowflake rantings are giving Oriels posts a run for their money lately.

You are like those intellectuals who sit and ponder the rights and wrongs of war but when asked to stand your ground, you run away chanting insults on your way to oblivion.

At least the late 17th century guys had balls despite the pure vandalism they visited on astronomy so they could go on an experimental rampage but even when they now can easily be dismissed using 21st century imaging and the availability of the original reasoning of the great astronomers, people are afraid of that noisy bunch. The college educated naivete is the problem as most cult deprogrammers are aware of so after 200+ years of Royal Society pulp, most here are too far gone in their 'Newton is right' mantra.

After 30 years experience, I know that people stuck in a murky subculture find inspirational things unbearable for they have been instructed that their terrestrial and celestial surroundings do not admit the background of inspiration but are prosecuted in quasi-legal language of 'laws of nature' with a jury of peers. It is a contrived and self-aggrandising joke but nobody is laughing unfortunately.

A dull and dour people the world has never seen before but unfortunately in a position of dominance.

M.T. Cranium · 31-01-2020 12:41am

I'm not denying any data and if you would read my original post, I am not denying any warming. I am only questioning the source of the warming and the most likely outcome down the road a few decades.

M.T. Cranium · 31-01-2020 12:44am

As for Oriel36, I already told you that just because I know what a frame of reference is and just because I can identify the concept of sidereal day does not somehow logically imply that I ignore solar day in any aspect of my forecasting work. Of course I don't do that. When I call a day a week from now by its name, I do not imply that it starts 28 minutes before midnight. Nor does any reader of my forecast imagine that I mean that. What the heck are you smoking, man?

Oneiric 3 · 31-01-2020 12:49am

Again, agree with a lot of what you say there M.T, and I can appreciate your viewpoints come from your Libertarian stance.

Regarding Hilary, Trump etc, while one is classed as 'far left', and the other as 'far right' by various media corps and commentators etc, they are, as I mentioned previously, neither of those things. Hillary is not a good faith actor; it is well documented fact that the views she holds today were not those she held in the past. She is, as you rightly point out, one of those career politicians who exploits the current ideological market in order to glow up her image. Trump, on the other hand, despite the near constant negative press coverage, is not one to play the 'identity politics' game, and is probably more of a 'liberal' in the real sense than Hillary could ever pretend to be. My point is here that what is being sold as 'left' and 'right' by (primarily American) media corps etc, is not what is left and right really is. And that is not me defending Trump or belittling Hillary, as on a personal level, I would class Hillary as being the classier person, but both se and Hills are essential the same side of the political coin, it is just that one is more honest about it. The Americanised left and right are constricted within the neoliberal/neoconservative paradigm, of which both sit quite comfortably on the right of the spectrum, and this is becoming all the more apparent with the latest smear campaigns launched against Bernie Sanders by the Democratic machine and their media sycophants.

There is lots to discuss here M.T with regards other points in your post, but I'm knackered and am not one who enjoys writing long posts (mostly due to my appalling grammar skills!) but we can talk about your other points, and how they relate to the issue and politics of 'climate change', by degrees over the coming days. I think we are, despite coming from different ideological positions, on the same wavelength on regarding these.

Gaoth Laidir · 31-01-2020 1:00am

So anyway, about the climate...

CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change

Comments