Precisely. A dozen different subjects and doubts are attributed to "climate change deniers."
I wonder if that is because the same group of people provide multiple different/conflicting reasons why the established science is wrong.
Riddle me this: if the science is wrong, why isn't there just a single explanation as to why it is wrong? Why don't you guys stick to the one line: e.g. It's the sun causing the warming?
Seems you might make some (much needed) credibility gains by pruning out the people from you own ranks who aren't telling the truth.
Is there a name for idiots that copy paste some links in the hope to win an argument and the links show nothing of relevance or even contradict the argument?
I've heard the term 'liar' used in such situations.
The satellite record [woodfortrees.org] pretty much agrees with Cruz, hasn't been any statistically significant warming (as in temperature) for over 18 years in the satellite data
You've (deliberately?) selected a subset of data that only reports on the anomaly in the tropical/subtropical regions. A different set of data covering the regions where the anomaly is the most evident (at the poles) yields a different result.
The point isn't "Is the Climate Changing" because the climate is always changing, the points are
1. is the change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, (probably a little bit)
2. if the change is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, will the rate of change accelerate, decelerate or stay linear as CO2 increases,
3. if we reduce CO2 levels, will the Earth actually cool
Let me stop you there. That's not a list of points. That is a list of things you don't personally know. If you are ignorant of the science, that is YOUR fault. Nobody has been given the job of ensuring that you are up to date with the facts. If you want to dispute the factual basis of AGW, you need to know what it is before you can credibly dispute it. Ignorance of facts is not a dispute of facts.
So which country do you wish to murder? India? China? Because to get to the numbers they are claiming we need to reach you will have to kill a couple billion because they will have to live in conditions similar to what cave people lived in, with all the disease, starvation, and mass culling that implies.
That's your claim. It's YOUR claim that mortality rate will be 20% if we cease to generate power from coal. Have the guts to own your own predictions.
Taking you figure as read, and the fact that economists predict the cost of adapting to be approximately 5-10 times the cost of mitigating the risk so we don't face significant change, under you alternative plan (of doing nothing) 10 billion people will die. Congratulations, you just advocated killing off the human race.
I don't think I would be exaggerating if I called you a moron. Would you agree with my assessment?
If the theory that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (or sometimes, the theory that secondary forcings behave differently to record observations) is based on science, where is this science? Can we review it? Where is it published?
Well, it looks to me like the propaganda has been nearly 100% effective. Notice that it has not been as effective on people who are older than millennials. Wonder why?
Well, the basic science behind climate change can be trivially demonstrated via experiment. Probably these millennials were in school and saw that experiment or the teacher said one day "basic science behind climate change can be trivially demonstrated via experiment" in which case, they probably recognise (as most people do) that denying climate change is the same as claiming that some form of magic occurs when the radiative properties of CO2 or methane are measured. i.e. A perhaps an invisible time traveller travels to each school and interferes with the experiment to makes us think that climate change is real, for some nefarious purpose. And went back in time to change this observation every time the experiment was performed, prior to us realising its full significance. Or perhaps a deity, for some reason, wants us to think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, when it isn't: and somehow, the earth is warmed by other means, which are for some reason not detectable.
This is a hard narrative for people to believe. It is entirely unscientific. It doesn't really explain anything. Mostly, there is no reason for millennials, or anyone with a basic understanding of logic, to imagine that this particular piece of science is the work of an army of invisible time travelling antagonists, whereas other science is just what it seems to be.
What Bill Nye doesn't like is that most "deniers" aren't denying actual change - they're "denying" that it's going to end in a huge catastrophe like Bill Nye, Al Gore and company like to say.
Which 'catastrophe' in particular do they have doubts about? When did Bill Nye reference it?
Remember how the polar ice caps are supposed to be gone by now, snow is done, etc. etc.? People take notice of these things.
Nope, don't remember that. But I'm sure you can quote a paper which predicts there will be no snow and no antarctic or arctic ice cap by April 2016.
I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
Technically, the summary is about that. Maybe this implies that this "doubt" is actually just an inability to read and understand the subject matter properly.
Note that the plan also includes giving nuclear weapons to Saudi Arabia to protect them from ISIS. Of course Saudi Arabia IS ISIS, in that, ideologically, Saudi Arabia is the centre of Wahhabism which is the cancerous sect responsible for ISIS and Al Qaeda, and politically, the Sauds have been funding them to curb the increasing influence of Iran in the region. Since the Sauds won't be able to build their own nukes Trump will need to give them some of his (not clear on whether it was his intent to also give US nukes to South Korea and Japan, reports vary).
Of course, placing US made nuclear weapons into the hands of Saddam's old mates, the sworn enemies of the US and Israel, and also potentially ISIS might be considered a stupid thing in some circles, given the tensions in that region, but hey! what do I know?
There are many reasons why things seem to be heading in a less Liberty oriented direction but I'm reasonably sure the ownership of guns isn't one of them. I can't say I've ever heard a single person say anything even remotely like "Well, that latest violation of the principals of Liberty is totally okay because I have my AR-15!"
I hear it on the TV all the time. That is, people siding with one tyrannical lizard based on the belief that the other tyrannical lizard, if voted in, will send jack booted thugs to take away their pop guns. The rub is, both lizards are equally tyrannical, indeed, arguably, it's the same lizard. So Americans find themselves thinking: if I vote for lizard 2, he will take my right to privacy or education. But lizard 1 wants to take my gun! Vote lizard 2!
The rub is, of course, neither lizard wants to take your guns, tyranny is easier if you keep them.
The closest anyone has come to such a statement is that the Second Amendment provides an ultimate last resort option in the event that government went too far. Each person's limit of too far is likely different, but that doesn't even remotely justify the idea that present conditions can rightfully be traced to a "delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy"
Of course, you already know that the Second Amendment doesn't actually let you shoot people - armed rebellion means shooting people and shooting people is just as illegal in the US as it is anywhere else, thus the Second Amendment affords you no such last resort. But you already knew that right?
You don't have a right to rebel, if you rebel you will be shot, just the same as I would or a guy in Budapest in the 1980s. The idea is frankly bizarre. Why do you think you need the government to grant or respect your rights in the event that you need to overthrow the government?
The truth is, Americans cling to that idea like a warm scarf against the growing cold because it's easier to fantasize then to act- standing up to tyranny is hard. And so you sit there doing nothing.
To be frank, I know exactly what you're talking about and the reasoning behind it and I still agree with him.
He/She has drifted off down some ideological binary dreamworld where the only thing that there is to say about guns is whether or not they should be banned (banned by who exactly btw)? The world doesn't divide into left and right, with 2 teams screaming across a boundary at each other.
I'm not interested in screaming, I'm not interested in being corralled into a team as defined by Americans. I'm interested in the rule of law as a mechanism that the citizenry uses to control the machinery of power (be it government power or some other), how it developed, where it is going. And in this case, how the delusional mythology of gun ownership in the US has impacted the ability of it's citizens to enforce the rule of law and control the machines of power.
He said it more directly than I did, but what you're saying makes absolutely no logical sense and the proposed solution the an agreed problem and issue does nothing at all to address the issue at hand.
Maybe you should try basing your arguments on observation and deduction, rather than judging based on whether or not a given assertion challenges your beliefs.
If guns solved tyranny, you wouldn't be living under tyranny. At best then, owning a gun is ineffective as a bulwark against tyranny. It only remains to be seen whether the default reaction to tyranny in the US ( "oh well, if it gets too bad, we can just start shooting the bad Americans" ) is a negative influence on democracy and liberty or just neutral.
I've explained the nature of the delusion above in detail. I'm not going to go over it again because you are incapable of comprehension. Also: it's not "more freedom".
Giving up a freedom given to us in the constitution is the opposite of freedom and liberty. I can understand but disagree with people against gun control using statistics and arguments about murderers, but you are arguing that it makes us more free to completely ban them, which is complete nonsense. And not only is it nonsense, but your entire post is pseudo intellectual idealistic crap.
What the hell are you blathering on about? What does "banning guns" have to do with the delusions in question?
That is maybe the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
That's one perspective. Another perspective is, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, your opinion on the perspicacity of my argument doesn't carry a lot of weight.
"for the sake of liberty give up your rights" That's some strange doublethink.
Particularly given that that quote "for the sake of liberty give up your rights" can't be found in any of the things I said. Unless you think that the DELUSION that guns enhance your liberty is what you have a right to - that you think you have a right to be deluded and not have anybody tell you.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?
I think you are both right and wrong.
Right in the sense that in most places around the world, people long for the rule of law (proper rule of law, not crude, mocking replicas) and the presence of armed militias, warlords and strongmen are a key factor in the prevention of this foundational democratic principle. The reality of guns replacing the rule of law is made concrete in the Congo, or the Sudan, or Syria. We can't get our way, so we'll shoot people who disagree with us, without reference the rule of law, the congress of the people, negotiation and compromise, let alone being elected based on your ideologies and theories.
Wrong in the sense that in America, regardless of what I imagine is an earnest desire for democracy, it is the american idea of the gun that has led to the present tyranny. Not the guns themselves (neither here nor there), and not really the individuals that carry them, who are often quite ordinary. But the idea that having guns will prevent the degradation of democracy, the idea of american exceptionalism, the mythology of the american revolution, these have led to blind complacency and even denial of the seriousness of these depredations, these erosions, these desecrations of the sacred principles of democracy. Why do americans meekly accept the slaver's yolk? Because of their delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy that they are simultaneously failing. Failing to protect and uphold by means which (unlike guns) are actually effective!
For the sake of freedom, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of the dignity of man, throw away your guns.
On the other hand, there's legitimate issues. There's a very vocal component of climate change that are constant Apocalypse callers. You would be a good example. "Cries of the billions who will suffer."
If the number of people who will suffer (or are suffering) is not in the billions, how many is it? How did you reach that conclusion - by studying the evidence, or just on a feeling?
Folks have a hard time taking serious action based on this especially when we've been hearing "end of humanity within five years" for over a decade.
I've never heard statements of that kind coming from the scientific community. Plenty coming from the other side though: like this: Humans will simply not voluntarily remove 90% of earth's population or go back to living in yurts.
The other hand is that there's no good supplied solutions. I mean, concrete realistic options that have a full roadmap, reasonably accurate cost projections and acceptably accurate levels of risk and mitigation.
Is there any particular reason why you aren't doing this yourself? Who were you expecting to do this one your behalf?
I dunno, hey. He said "Stop trying to make me miserable" when he just as easily could have said "Stop making me miserable". The meaning is pretty clear and unambiguous to me.
That would imply he is miserable about climate change, and perceives that someone is trying to make him miserable about climate change, but he thinks those 2 things are happening independently. IE he is miserable about climate change, but when someone speaks about climate change, referencing the facts that make him feel miserable, hearing those facts repeated doesn't make him feel miserable for some obscure reason. How does that work? Do you think he thinks "I'm already miserable, so hearing the things that make me miserable being repeated by a scientist can't make me more miserable, so THEY FAIL"?
I think your interpretation is a bit of a stretch. I'll admit it's possible he is miserable and doesn't realise it. Self reflection may not be a strong point. It is more likely though (on balance) that hearing/reading facts about climate change makes him feel miserable, and he is blaming the messenger.
I dunno how to explain it to you in simpler terms.
Denialists are miserable, that's clear from their doom and gloom predictions about the inevitable end of the age of coal. They might claim to not be miserable, but their claims are generally wrong anyway - so what weight would we give to that self-assessment?
DId he say he was miserable? He said:
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
You interpret that trying to to mean he is not miserable. Under normal circumstances it could go either way. Except we already know he is miserable owing to his predictions of doom and despair arising from the end of the age of coal and his misery arising from the apparent ascendancy of the communist scientists. So a better interpretation of: can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable? Is
1. He is miserable
2. He is blaming that misery on someone else - as is the habit of people who lack the emotional strength to examine their own flaws.
In his mind, his misery is also someone else's fault, just like everything else.
So he is miserable, and mayhaps the best approach to ending that misery is for us to provide free chemicals and someone gentle to administer them, and thus give him escape into the next world, where, hopefully, an enterprising industry baron can give him a pick and an eternally long coal face for him to swing it against, thus he might live on forever in bliss in a world more suited to his temperament and view of the place of normal men in society.
Scientists: Hey! There's a problem here with the amount of CO2 emissions we are pumping into the atmosphere. Looks like we can solve it with technology and some simple changes though.
Denialist: If my power doesn't come from burnt coal that means the end of civilisation. Science is a Marxist plot! These guys suggesting that there be an agreed restriction on the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere are a secret cadre of communists trying to take over the wooooorld! Dooooooooom.
Seems kinda obvious now doesn't it.
It's a bit like you're in a driving test:
Instructor: Well, if you don't press the brake at some point, you'll plow into that line up of traffic up ahead and the damage will be extensive.
Denialist: Your models are false! You're a predictor of doom and gloom! Any attempt to instruct me on how to drive is an affront to my freeeedommms!
Seems like they made themselves miserable and the idea that the smart people made them miserable is as idiotic as their science and their predictions about the impacts of CO2 mitigation on the economy, and their interpretations of the way that science functions and it's motivations.
I'm old enough (by your id I think you are too) to remember the early days of this discussion when Climate Change was treated on Slashdot as a bit of a joke. That has completely changed.
The denialists here save up their mod points and use them liberally to promote the early denialist posters and thus give the appearance that their view is predominant here.
But it's just the same guys making the same arguments, refuted every time. e.g. Mr "climate model predictions don't correlate to actual temperatures, so climate science is false" or mr "climate science doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis" or the numerous "I'm a TRUE skeptic, neither side is believable" guys - same guys every time.
Regularly, you'll participate in a discussion in which some argument gets cut down by facts and evidence, only to have the same person make the same argument the next time a climate related topic pops up. There's no way that they can be taking their own argument seriously, nor can they be arguing from ignorance of the facts - it's just an exercise in bullying. If they were listening to the evidence, the argument would change from discussion to discussion to take account of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Precisely. A dozen different subjects and doubts are attributed to "climate change deniers."
I wonder if that is because the same group of people provide multiple different/conflicting reasons why the established science is wrong.
Riddle me this: if the science is wrong, why isn't there just a single explanation as to why it is wrong? Why don't you guys stick to the one line: e.g. It's the sun causing the warming?
Seems you might make some (much needed) credibility gains by pruning out the people from you own ranks who aren't telling the truth.
Is there a name for idiots that copy paste some links in the hope to win an argument and the links show nothing of relevance or even contradict the argument?
I've heard the term 'liar' used in such situations.
The satellite record [woodfortrees.org] pretty much agrees with Cruz, hasn't been any statistically significant warming (as in temperature) for over 18 years in the satellite data
You've (deliberately?) selected a subset of data that only reports on the anomaly in the tropical/subtropical regions. A different set of data covering the regions where the anomaly is the most evident (at the poles) yields a different result.
But I suspect you already knew that.
The point isn't "Is the Climate Changing" because the climate is always changing, the points are
1. is the change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, (probably a little bit)
2. if the change is due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions, will the rate of change accelerate, decelerate or stay linear as CO2 increases,
3. if we reduce CO2 levels, will the Earth actually cool
Let me stop you there. That's not a list of points. That is a list of things you don't personally know. If you are ignorant of the science, that is YOUR fault. Nobody has been given the job of ensuring that you are up to date with the facts. If you want to dispute the factual basis of AGW, you need to know what it is before you can credibly dispute it. Ignorance of facts is not a dispute of facts.
AGW is a semi-religious article of faith by those who truly deny science.
What science is being denied?
So which country do you wish to murder? India? China? Because to get to the numbers they are claiming we need to reach you will have to kill a couple billion because they will have to live in conditions similar to what cave people lived in, with all the disease, starvation, and mass culling that implies.
That's your claim. It's YOUR claim that mortality rate will be 20% if we cease to generate power from coal. Have the guts to own your own predictions.
Taking you figure as read, and the fact that economists predict the cost of adapting to be approximately 5-10 times the cost of mitigating the risk so we don't face significant change, under you alternative plan (of doing nothing) 10 billion people will die. Congratulations, you just advocated killing off the human race.
I don't think I would be exaggerating if I called you a moron. Would you agree with my assessment?
Can you tell me where to find the conditions the original experiments were performed to determine CO2 raises the temperature?
You don't know?
I know it was measured in a greenhouse but how was the CO2 generated?
1. Was it?
2. You don't know?
What was the delivery mechanism? What were the controls?
You don't know?
I find it hard to believe you've disproved an experiment which apparently you know nothing about.
If the theory that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (or sometimes, the theory that secondary forcings behave differently to record observations) is based on science, where is this science? Can we review it? Where is it published?
Well, it looks to me like the propaganda has been nearly 100% effective. Notice that it has not been as effective on people who are older than millennials. Wonder why?
Well, the basic science behind climate change can be trivially demonstrated via experiment. Probably these millennials were in school and saw that experiment or the teacher said one day "basic science behind climate change can be trivially demonstrated via experiment" in which case, they probably recognise (as most people do) that denying climate change is the same as claiming that some form of magic occurs when the radiative properties of CO2 or methane are measured. i.e. A perhaps an invisible time traveller travels to each school and interferes with the experiment to makes us think that climate change is real, for some nefarious purpose. And went back in time to change this observation every time the experiment was performed, prior to us realising its full significance. Or perhaps a deity, for some reason, wants us to think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, when it isn't: and somehow, the earth is warmed by other means, which are for some reason not detectable.
This is a hard narrative for people to believe. It is entirely unscientific. It doesn't really explain anything. Mostly, there is no reason for millennials, or anyone with a basic understanding of logic, to imagine that this particular piece of science is the work of an army of invisible time travelling antagonists, whereas other science is just what it seems to be.
What Bill Nye doesn't like is that most "deniers" aren't denying actual change - they're "denying" that it's going to end in a huge catastrophe like Bill Nye, Al Gore and company like to say.
Which 'catastrophe' in particular do they have doubts about? When did Bill Nye reference it?
Remember how the polar ice caps are supposed to be gone by now, snow is done, etc. etc.? People take notice of these things.
Nope, don't remember that. But I'm sure you can quote a paper which predicts there will be no snow and no antarctic or arctic ice cap by April 2016.
And why is this a reason to do nothing again?
I know just being picky, but no one doubts that climate change is behind changes in climate. I don't think anyone doubts climate change. Now perhaps some doubt anthropogenic climate change, technically this summary doesn't mention that.
Technically, the summary is about that. Maybe this implies that this "doubt" is actually just an inability to read and understand the subject matter properly.
citation?
You wouldn't defy the law if you felt it your duty to do so?
Of course, placing US made nuclear weapons into the hands of Saddam's old mates, the sworn enemies of the US and Israel, and also potentially ISIS might be considered a stupid thing in some circles, given the tensions in that region, but hey! what do I know?
There are many reasons why things seem to be heading in a less Liberty oriented direction but I'm reasonably sure the ownership of guns isn't one of them. I can't say I've ever heard a single person say anything even remotely like "Well, that latest violation of the principals of Liberty is totally okay because I have my AR-15!"
I hear it on the TV all the time. That is, people siding with one tyrannical lizard based on the belief that the other tyrannical lizard, if voted in, will send jack booted thugs to take away their pop guns. The rub is, both lizards are equally tyrannical, indeed, arguably, it's the same lizard. So Americans find themselves thinking: if I vote for lizard 2, he will take my right to privacy or education. But lizard 1 wants to take my gun! Vote lizard 2!
The rub is, of course, neither lizard wants to take your guns, tyranny is easier if you keep them.
The closest anyone has come to such a statement is that the Second Amendment provides an ultimate last resort option in the event that government went too far. Each person's limit of too far is likely different, but that doesn't even remotely justify the idea that present conditions can rightfully be traced to a "delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy"
Of course, you already know that the Second Amendment doesn't actually let you shoot people - armed rebellion means shooting people and shooting people is just as illegal in the US as it is anywhere else, thus the Second Amendment affords you no such last resort. But you already knew that right?
You don't have a right to rebel, if you rebel you will be shot, just the same as I would or a guy in Budapest in the 1980s. The idea is frankly bizarre. Why do you think you need the government to grant or respect your rights in the event that you need to overthrow the government?
The truth is, Americans cling to that idea like a warm scarf against the growing cold because it's easier to fantasize then to act- standing up to tyranny is hard. And so you sit there doing nothing.
To be frank, I know exactly what you're talking about and the reasoning behind it and I still agree with him.
He/She has drifted off down some ideological binary dreamworld where the only thing that there is to say about guns is whether or not they should be banned (banned by who exactly btw)? The world doesn't divide into left and right, with 2 teams screaming across a boundary at each other.
I'm not interested in screaming, I'm not interested in being corralled into a team as defined by Americans. I'm interested in the rule of law as a mechanism that the citizenry uses to control the machinery of power (be it government power or some other), how it developed, where it is going. And in this case, how the delusional mythology of gun ownership in the US has impacted the ability of it's citizens to enforce the rule of law and control the machines of power.
He said it more directly than I did, but what you're saying makes absolutely no logical sense and the proposed solution the an agreed problem and issue does nothing at all to address the issue at hand.
Maybe you should try basing your arguments on observation and deduction, rather than judging based on whether or not a given assertion challenges your beliefs.
If guns solved tyranny, you wouldn't be living under tyranny. At best then, owning a gun is ineffective as a bulwark against tyranny. It only remains to be seen whether the default reaction to tyranny in the US ( "oh well, if it gets too bad, we can just start shooting the bad Americans" ) is a negative influence on democracy and liberty or just neutral.
How is more freedom a delusion
I've explained the nature of the delusion above in detail. I'm not going to go over it again because you are incapable of comprehension. Also: it's not "more freedom".
Giving up a freedom given to us in the constitution is the opposite of freedom and liberty. I can understand but disagree with people against gun control using statistics and arguments about murderers, but you are arguing that it makes us more free to completely ban them, which is complete nonsense. And not only is it nonsense, but your entire post is pseudo intellectual idealistic crap.
What the hell are you blathering on about? What does "banning guns" have to do with the delusions in question?
That is maybe the dumbest thing I have read in a while.
That's one perspective. Another perspective is, since you clearly have no idea what I'm talking about, your opinion on the perspicacity of my argument doesn't carry a lot of weight.
"for the sake of liberty give up your rights" That's some strange doublethink.
Particularly given that that quote "for the sake of liberty give up your rights" can't be found in any of the things I said. Unless you think that the DELUSION that guns enhance your liberty is what you have a right to - that you think you have a right to be deluded and not have anybody tell you.
I've always found it odd that the people who are most afraid of non-state actors carrying are usually the ones who also want more and more State and centralized power and authority. Thoughts?
I think you are both right and wrong.
Right in the sense that in most places around the world, people long for the rule of law (proper rule of law, not crude, mocking replicas) and the presence of armed militias, warlords and strongmen are a key factor in the prevention of this foundational democratic principle. The reality of guns replacing the rule of law is made concrete in the Congo, or the Sudan, or Syria. We can't get our way, so we'll shoot people who disagree with us, without reference the rule of law, the congress of the people, negotiation and compromise, let alone being elected based on your ideologies and theories.
Wrong in the sense that in America, regardless of what I imagine is an earnest desire for democracy, it is the american idea of the gun that has led to the present tyranny. Not the guns themselves (neither here nor there), and not really the individuals that carry them, who are often quite ordinary. But the idea that having guns will prevent the degradation of democracy, the idea of american exceptionalism, the mythology of the american revolution, these have led to blind complacency and even denial of the seriousness of these depredations, these erosions, these desecrations of the sacred principles of democracy. Why do americans meekly accept the slaver's yolk? Because of their delusional attachment to guns as a mainstay of protecting a democracy that they are simultaneously failing. Failing to protect and uphold by means which (unlike guns) are actually effective!
For the sake of freedom, for the sake of liberty, for the sake of the dignity of man, throw away your guns.
On the other hand, there's legitimate issues. There's a very vocal component of climate change that are constant Apocalypse callers. You would be a good example. "Cries of the billions who will suffer."
If the number of people who will suffer (or are suffering) is not in the billions, how many is it? How did you reach that conclusion - by studying the evidence, or just on a feeling?
Folks have a hard time taking serious action based on this especially when we've been hearing "end of humanity within five years" for over a decade.
I've never heard statements of that kind coming from the scientific community. Plenty coming from the other side though: like this: Humans will simply not voluntarily remove 90% of earth's population or go back to living in yurts.
The other hand is that there's no good supplied solutions. I mean, concrete realistic options that have a full roadmap, reasonably accurate cost projections and acceptably accurate levels of risk and mitigation.
Is there any particular reason why you aren't doing this yourself? Who were you expecting to do this one your behalf?
I dunno, hey. He said "Stop trying to make me miserable" when he just as easily could have said "Stop making me miserable". The meaning is pretty clear and unambiguous to me.
That would imply he is miserable about climate change, and perceives that someone is trying to make him miserable about climate change, but he thinks those 2 things are happening independently. IE he is miserable about climate change, but when someone speaks about climate change, referencing the facts that make him feel miserable, hearing those facts repeated doesn't make him feel miserable for some obscure reason. How does that work? Do you think he thinks "I'm already miserable, so hearing the things that make me miserable being repeated by a scientist can't make me more miserable, so THEY FAIL"?
I think your interpretation is a bit of a stretch. I'll admit it's possible he is miserable and doesn't realise it. Self reflection may not be a strong point. It is more likely though (on balance) that hearing/reading facts about climate change makes him feel miserable, and he is blaming the messenger.
I dunno how to explain it to you in simpler terms.
Denialists are miserable, that's clear from their doom and gloom predictions about the inevitable end of the age of coal. They might claim to not be miserable, but their claims are generally wrong anyway - so what weight would we give to that self-assessment?
DId he say he was miserable? He said:
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
You interpret that trying to to mean he is not miserable. Under normal circumstances it could go either way. Except we already know he is miserable owing to his predictions of doom and despair arising from the end of the age of coal and his misery arising from the apparent ascendancy of the communist scientists. So a better interpretation of: can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable? Is
1. He is miserable
2. He is blaming that misery on someone else - as is the habit of people who lack the emotional strength to examine their own flaws.
In his mind, his misery is also someone else's fault, just like everything else.
So he is miserable, and mayhaps the best approach to ending that misery is for us to provide free chemicals and someone gentle to administer them, and thus give him escape into the next world, where, hopefully, an enterprising industry baron can give him a pick and an eternally long coal face for him to swing it against, thus he might live on forever in bliss in a world more suited to his temperament and view of the place of normal men in society.
Hope that helps.
Scientists: Hey! There's a problem here with the amount of CO2 emissions we are pumping into the atmosphere. Looks like we can solve it with technology and some simple changes though.
Denialist: If my power doesn't come from burnt coal that means the end of civilisation. Science is a Marxist plot! These guys suggesting that there be an agreed restriction on the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere are a secret cadre of communists trying to take over the wooooorld! Dooooooooom.
Seems kinda obvious now doesn't it.
It's a bit like you're in a driving test:
Instructor: Well, if you don't press the brake at some point, you'll plow into that line up of traffic up ahead and the damage will be extensive.
Denialist: Your models are false! You're a predictor of doom and gloom! Any attempt to instruct me on how to drive is an affront to my freeeedommms!
Seems like they made themselves miserable and the idea that the smart people made them miserable is as idiotic as their science and their predictions about the impacts of CO2 mitigation on the economy, and their interpretations of the way that science functions and it's motivations.
But it's just the same guys making the same arguments, refuted every time. e.g. Mr "climate model predictions don't correlate to actual temperatures, so climate science is false" or mr "climate science doesn't have a falsifiable hypothesis" or the numerous "I'm a TRUE skeptic, neither side is believable" guys - same guys every time.
Regularly, you'll participate in a discussion in which some argument gets cut down by facts and evidence, only to have the same person make the same argument the next time a climate related topic pops up. There's no way that they can be taking their own argument seriously, nor can they be arguing from ignorance of the facts - it's just an exercise in bullying. If they were listening to the evidence, the argument would change from discussion to discussion to take account of that.