I don't think we need to actually drill down into finding smoking-gun style evidence to agree that the main point I am trying to make is supported by that quote.
The openly-stated desire to suppress the dissent alone would still make the assessment valid.
Funny you should mention it, but Creationists actually get a lot more respect from Evolutionary Biologists. Assuming the latter are not all atheists, that is. In that debate it doesn't necessarily make you a lesser form of human being to disagree. Can you genuinely say the same of this debate? If so, thinly at best.
Keep telling yourself there's no dissent allowed. That this contradicts reality must make it appealingly self-consistent within your worldview.
Let's try and not go completely off the rails by claiming that I am every denier you have ever faced on the internet, that I am incapable of facing reality, or what-have-you.
The attitude underlying the comment is real. The concern is real. The point is valid, and I'll reiterate it in the context I meant it, because you seem to have lost track of where it started:
In a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
If you want to expand that to 'no dissent allowed', that's all well and good, but you really have to acknowledge that the consensus is at a minimum drastically diminished. Either level of severity supports my main thesis here - One cannot put much value in the consensus in and of itself.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
Had that handy, having just used it against a different ad hominem attack.
No, I am saying you are engaging in straw man arguments by generating a conspiracy against the truth where there is no conspiracy.
I never said any such thing, and you're using loaded, weasel-words to impart a connotation that I never myself asserted. Why?
Your argument is: "OH, why should I believe people who eject non-believers!!"
You're simply a liar. My argument was stated above, and I'll repeat it in hopes you'll catch it this time:
In a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
I never once stated a disability of belief in anything other than the consensus, and you damn well know it. Stop putting words in my mouth and make points that can stand without such trickery.
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
So you genuinely do not see a pattern in the graph? Because this would be the point that you seem to be stepping around. If the trend had continued with uniformity, we would already have reached the temperatures predicted by the 'hockey stick' long ago.
Zooming in or out doesn't do much about this big picture position. Kind of like your point, but the opposite.
Granted. Explain how increasing atmospheric CO2 is not problematic.
The value of increasing atmospheric CO2 is modern civilization and it simply outweighs the problems it presents. So while in a vacuum a problem does indeed exist, it is rather like every other trade off we weigh on a regular basis. For example, every time you eat, you release excrement. While the excrement is not desirable, it hardly makes a case worthy of considering starvation. Until such time as a superior, non-CO2 energy source emerges, the entire issue is mostly moot. We cannot subsist without the technology, and due to certain physical limitations, there is a near-zero chance of discovering a more efficient form of energy.
Human caused CO2 emissions are at an all time historical high. Explain how this is a good thing.
Because that the energy released by emitting that CO2 is providing us a quality of life never experienced by any human being at any point in history. Electricity, locomotion, plastics - the list is endless. Without emitting that CO2, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no civilization as we know it.
Okay, but put it another way - if it did, would you be around to worry about it? That possibility seems entirely too extreme to develop policy around to me.
At some point I'd like to actually hear a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere from the deniers, so far all I've heard is rote-repetition of nonsense arguments.
Okay, I'll bite. Clarify your statement a bit, and you just may get your wish. Even though, I am already a bit wary due to your 'knuckle dragger' opinion of me, whom by the way you've likely never even met. You might find that this drives away intelligent discussion.
At any rate, please clarify. You'd like me to take the position of what, exactly? That I want to modify the atmosphere?
We want people to stop denying the scientific evidence and start collaborating on a solution, rather than being obstructive.
Are we going to be allowed to 'collaborate' on it, though? As in, we're going to get everyone to agree and pitch in, and there will be no taxation nor force-of-law behind any special interests of any kind?
Because my contribution is more short sleeve shirts. We all need more short sleeve shirts and other adaptive measures to enjoy the more human-friendly years ahead. None of the traditional suggestions, like 'green' technologies are a step in a direction that actually helps anyone but their patent owners. We're not going to buy oil from the brown people, true, but that has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with climate. If we wanted a truly Earth-beneficial position, we'd advocate MORE fossil fuels, because they're simply the best way to get people the energy they want with the least impact on the planet. Everything else is LESS EFFICIENT, which is a BAD THING, despite being green.
Adapt or die! Every other animal or plant on this planet has to do this so why do we think we are special?
Animals and plants adapt via evolution. Most people are opposed to this strategy for adaptation, since it will mean, literally, billions of people dying of causes other than old age, and likely the downfall of our current civilization.
Spoken like a typical Roman.
Civilizations fall. No need to hasten it or anything, but it will certainly happen.
If the broader community of climate scientists says anthropogenic global warming is happening, I am inclined to believe them. Even the scandals that have come out (Climategate, etc.) have done very little to poke holes in the underlying science.
I'll start to question the whole thing if and when it looks like climate science has fractured and the community is disintegrating. Instead, the consensus is only building and skeptics are coming into the fold, convinced by the evidence.
The funny thing about this community, though, is that the 'heretics' are ejected from it. You do just as well waiting to find Muslims amongst the Catholics. In other words, in a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and fearful.
Look at what the parent said...
If you don't want people to know you are visiting certain sites, then don't visit them.
"I will allow others to dictate my surfing habits, even while in private."
If you don't want people to know your opinion about something, don't write it on Facebook.
"I will suppress my opinions, even amongst my friends."
Parent, be yourself and take what comes as it may. Don't live in fear. Could you imagine what a crappy place America would have been if the Founding Fathers had followed your advice?
You can have your name removed from the organ donor's list....
A minor can do this?
I'm not objecting to the parent's duty over the child. What I am concerned about it is the apparent disregard for them having a will of their own. We're trampling on these kid's rights for what, a potential donation? Personally I see the free expression of one's own individual freedom as greater than this possibility. Taking that away from anyone else, especially a child, is abhorrent.
Consider for a moment, what kind of racist jumps to this accusation as a retort? Absolutely none of the words used in parent's post are racially motivated.
I wouldn't normally waste time on an AC like this, but these kinds of idiotic assessments need to end if we're ever going to get out of the cultural dark ages.
The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician.
Without electing in the people 'who seek to remove laws and return control to the people', how do you suppose your sweeping changes would be enacted? Referendum? Rebellion? Seems like you want to skip straight to the end of a very long process, and I'm curious as to why...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think we need to actually drill down into finding smoking-gun style evidence to agree that the main point I am trying to make is supported by that quote.
The openly-stated desire to suppress the dissent alone would still make the assessment valid.
Funny you should mention it, but Creationists actually get a lot more respect from Evolutionary Biologists. Assuming the latter are not all atheists, that is. In that debate it doesn't necessarily make you a lesser form of human being to disagree. Can you genuinely say the same of this debate? If so, thinly at best.
Keep telling yourself there's no dissent allowed. That this contradicts reality must make it appealingly self-consistent within your worldview.
Let's try and not go completely off the rails by claiming that I am every denier you have ever faced on the internet, that I am incapable of facing reality, or what-have-you.
The attitude underlying the comment is real. The concern is real. The point is valid, and I'll reiterate it in the context I meant it, because you seem to have lost track of where it started:
In a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
If you want to expand that to 'no dissent allowed', that's all well and good, but you really have to acknowledge that the consensus is at a minimum drastically diminished. Either level of severity supports my main thesis here - One cannot put much value in the consensus in and of itself.
Too late, sir. Have a nice day!
From here:
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
Had that handy, having just used it against a different ad hominem attack.
Have a nice day!
No, I am saying you are engaging in straw man arguments by generating a conspiracy against the truth where there is no conspiracy.
I never said any such thing, and you're using loaded, weasel-words to impart a connotation that I never myself asserted. Why?
Your argument is: "OH, why should I believe people who eject non-believers!!"
You're simply a liar. My argument was stated above, and I'll repeat it in hopes you'll catch it this time:
In a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
I never once stated a disability of belief in anything other than the consensus, and you damn well know it. Stop putting words in my mouth and make points that can stand without such trickery.
From here:
In another, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome: We "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Neither man could be reached for comment Sunday.
Have a nice day!
Ah, yes, insults. The pinnacle of intelligent discussion. Thank you so much for your piercing insight!
So am I looking at a pedantic argument tactic, or someone genuinely unaware? Hmm...
Oh wait, a link to merriam-webster.com, never mind.
So you genuinely do not see a pattern in the graph? Because this would be the point that you seem to be stepping around. If the trend had continued with uniformity, we would already have reached the temperatures predicted by the 'hockey stick' long ago.
Zooming in or out doesn't do much about this big picture position. Kind of like your point, but the opposite.
Granted. Explain how increasing atmospheric CO2 is not problematic.
The value of increasing atmospheric CO2 is modern civilization and it simply outweighs the problems it presents. So while in a vacuum a problem does indeed exist, it is rather like every other trade off we weigh on a regular basis. For example, every time you eat, you release excrement. While the excrement is not desirable, it hardly makes a case worthy of considering starvation. Until such time as a superior, non-CO2 energy source emerges, the entire issue is mostly moot. We cannot subsist without the technology, and due to certain physical limitations, there is a near-zero chance of discovering a more efficient form of energy.
Human caused CO2 emissions are at an all time historical high. Explain how this is a good thing.
Because that the energy released by emitting that CO2 is providing us a quality of life never experienced by any human being at any point in history. Electricity, locomotion, plastics - the list is endless. Without emitting that CO2, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no civilization as we know it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikoli_Tesla#Edison
Experts are people, too.
Okay, but put it another way - if it did, would you be around to worry about it? That possibility seems entirely too extreme to develop policy around to me.
At some point I'd like to actually hear a coherent argument about why it could possibly be good to actively modify our atmosphere from the deniers, so far all I've heard is rote-repetition of nonsense arguments.
Okay, I'll bite. Clarify your statement a bit, and you just may get your wish. Even though, I am already a bit wary due to your 'knuckle dragger' opinion of me, whom by the way you've likely never even met. You might find that this drives away intelligent discussion.
At any rate, please clarify. You'd like me to take the position of what, exactly? That I want to modify the atmosphere?
We want people to stop denying the scientific evidence and start collaborating on a solution, rather than being obstructive.
Are we going to be allowed to 'collaborate' on it, though? As in, we're going to get everyone to agree and pitch in, and there will be no taxation nor force-of-law behind any special interests of any kind?
Because my contribution is more short sleeve shirts. We all need more short sleeve shirts and other adaptive measures to enjoy the more human-friendly years ahead. None of the traditional suggestions, like 'green' technologies are a step in a direction that actually helps anyone but their patent owners. We're not going to buy oil from the brown people, true, but that has everything to do with culture and nothing to do with climate. If we wanted a truly Earth-beneficial position, we'd advocate MORE fossil fuels, because they're simply the best way to get people the energy they want with the least impact on the planet. Everything else is LESS EFFICIENT, which is a BAD THING, despite being green.
Do you doubt that one could go to the parent's graph and find a similar line?
Adapt or die! Every other animal or plant on this planet has to do this so why do we think we are special?
Animals and plants adapt via evolution. Most people are opposed to this strategy for adaptation, since it will mean, literally, billions of people dying of causes other than old age, and likely the downfall of our current civilization.
Spoken like a typical Roman.
Civilizations fall. No need to hasten it or anything, but it will certainly happen.
If the broader community of climate scientists says anthropogenic global warming is happening, I am inclined to believe them. Even the scandals that have come out (Climategate, etc.) have done very little to poke holes in the underlying science.
I'll start to question the whole thing if and when it looks like climate science has fractured and the community is disintegrating. Instead, the consensus is only building and skeptics are coming into the fold, convinced by the evidence.
The funny thing about this community, though, is that the 'heretics' are ejected from it. You do just as well waiting to find Muslims amongst the Catholics. In other words, in a community that rejects dissent, consensus is a non-fact.
This sounds like sound advice for the intelligent and fearful.
Look at what the parent said...
If you don't want people to know you are visiting certain sites, then don't visit them.
"I will allow others to dictate my surfing habits, even while in private."
If you don't want people to know your opinion about something, don't write it on Facebook.
"I will suppress my opinions, even amongst my friends."
Parent, be yourself and take what comes as it may. Don't live in fear. Could you imagine what a crappy place America would have been if the Founding Fathers had followed your advice?
If you don't want people to know you are visiting certain sites, then don't visit them.
This is why you are a sheep. Your advice is to never do anything you don't want others to know about.
This. You've allowed fear to dominate your life. You'll forever follow and will never lead. Ergo, sheep.
You can have your name removed from the organ donor's list....
A minor can do this?
I'm not objecting to the parent's duty over the child. What I am concerned about it is the apparent disregard for them having a will of their own. We're trampling on these kid's rights for what, a potential donation? Personally I see the free expression of one's own individual freedom as greater than this possibility. Taking that away from anyone else, especially a child, is abhorrent.
Racist.
Consider for a moment, what kind of racist jumps to this accusation as a retort? Absolutely none of the words used in parent's post are racially motivated.
I wouldn't normally waste time on an AC like this, but these kinds of idiotic assessments need to end if we're ever going to get out of the cultural dark ages.
We of the U.S. are creating more "Taliban" (disgruntled Afghans who resent foreign occupier and who are thus taking up arms).
You might add that, thanks to Wikileaks, we now know that Pakistan is giving our tax dollars directly to terrorists as well.
We're certainly making things a lot worse, and we find out new and interesting dynamics of that every single week.
The only way to accomplish your goals is with term limits, public funding, and no money allowed by any public interest to be funneled to a politician.
Without electing in the people 'who seek to remove laws and return control to the people', how do you suppose your sweeping changes would be enacted? Referendum? Rebellion? Seems like you want to skip straight to the end of a very long process, and I'm curious as to why...
In my view, the biggest flaw here is that the kids probably can't take it back.