Global warming/antiglobal warming=warring religions?

[BrianG]

I can claim with equal validity there are vast areas of the earth where human impact is minimal.

 

Not zero, nature is subject to tourists cameras even in the remote corners of our planet. There is no unspoiled nature left.

[Moontanman]

Not zero, nature is subject to tourists cameras even in the remote corners of our planet. There is no unspoiled nature left.

 

I didn't claim zero impact any more than you can claim zero nature in the middle of a large city, this is off topic anyway.

[BrianG]

Hey Michael,

 

Ever try playing ping pong solitaire?

[Moontanman]

Hey Michael,

 

Ever try playing ping pong solitaire?

 

It would seem that is what I am doing in this thread.

[Eclipse Now]

The whole global warming thing has gotten out of hand here at hypo (in my opinion) to the point it seems like more of a battle of, if not religions then egos at least.

 

I'm just wondering why you'd start another thread on the debate if you feel the board is already swamped with global warming discussions?

 

Ego's & belief systems are very much a part of ANY discussion with us human beings, and the more serious the implied changes and consequences to a discussion, the more varied and opinionated and threatening the discussion becomes. We are creatures of habit and tend not to like change being forced on us, so I'm hardly surprised at the levels of denialism that occur, OR the fact that a large part of the climate movement has also catered to the extremist hippie end of things as well.

 

So I'm wondering if this thread is redundant, as we've already got a very similar discussion occurring in the Does it matter if Global Warming is a fraud thread, let alone Climategate.

 

It's easier to keep track of who is arguing what if we try to reduce the number of threads, and as this goes to the heart of whether or not global warming is true in a very general sense, would it be better if moderators limited merged any new generic questions about "I don't know if global warming is true" into a few categories of thread?

 

(Of course with exceptions to new threads that ask much more specific questions about a very particular concern, such as "What about water vapour being the prime driver?" or something that at least defines the conversation.)

 

I know that as a moderator I'd be driven crazy by 20 threads along the generic lines of "Is global warming true?" with conversation parameters that could go anywhere.

[Moontanman]

I'm just wondering why you'd start another thread on the debate if you feel the board is already swamped with global warming discussions?

 

When did I say that?

 

Ego's & belief systems are very much a part of ANY discussion with us human beings, and the more serious the implied changes and consequences to a discussion, the more varied and opinionated and threatening the discussion becomes. We are creatures of habit and tend not to like change being forced on us, so I'm hardly surprised at the levels of denialism that occur, OR the fact that a large part of the climate movement has also catered to the extremist hippie end of things as well.

 

If this is true then why bother with the truth?

 

So I'm wondering if this thread is redundant, as we've already got a very similar discussion occurring in the Does it matter if Global Warming is a fraud thread, let alone Climategate.

 

Unless you want to participate wonder away.

 

It's easier to keep track of who is arguing what if we try to reduce the number of threads, and as this goes to the heart of whether or not global warming is true in a very general sense, would it be better if moderators limited merged any new generic questions about "I don't know if global warming is true" into a few categories of thread?

 

This is not what this thread is about.

 

(Of course with exceptions to new threads that ask much more specific questions about a very particular concern, such as "What about water vapour being the prime driver?" or something that at least defines the conversation.)

 

How about this one?

Humans may have prevented super ice age - environment - 12 November 2008 - New Scientist

 

I know that as a moderator I'd be driven crazy by 20 threads along the generic lines of "Is global warming true?" with conversation parameters that could go anywhere.

 

Again this has nothing to do with is global warming true or not, it's about seeing an argument form the opposite point of view. Seeing the argument through the other sides eyes to possibly understand his views and see if yours are less than truth orientated.

[Eclipse Now]

But I do that automatically to know how to counter a false argument with the truth, or otherwise I would not be able to address the denialist's claims at all. I have to be able to (at least superficially, in layman's terms... I'm not very technical) penetrate what their problem is to address it. Being able to perceive their worldview does not mean I have to momentarily 'adopt' it.

[Moontanman]

You don't have to do anything E Now, participation in this thread is totally voluntary. I only started it to show how much ego and emotion is clouding the issue. If either side were to come up with evidence that was absolute it wouldn't matter because egos have come to dominate the issue. The whole thing has become an "I'm right your wrong no matter what" type thing. This subject is far too important to be used as a platform to just argue for the sake of arguing.

[BrianG]

Oh, I forgot this argument, atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce] has a warming effect on climate. And, of course, man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] emissions are growing. This brings up the subject of, what I like to call, AGW erotica, it's sooo big! Gigatons of carbon, getting bigger and bigger...

[Moontanman]

Oh, I forgot this argument, atmospheric [ce]CO_2[/ce] has a warming effect on climate. And, of course, man made [ce]CO_2[/ce] emissions are growing. This brings up the subject of, what I like to call, AGW erotica, it's sooo big! Gigatons of carbon, getting bigger and bigger...

 

So far you've done a pretty good job of supporting global warming BrianG, you almost have me convinced.

[BrianG]

It's still solitaire ping pong. I did my best.:naughty:

[Eclipse Now]

This statement...

Oh, I forgot this argument, atmospheric CO_2 has a warming effect on climate. And, of course, man made CO_2 emissions are growing. This brings up the subject of, what I like to call, AGW erotica, it's sooo big! Gigatons of carbon, getting bigger and bigger...

 

Is a prime example of this quote...

 

Never wrestle a troll. You both get dirty and the troll likes it :naughty:

[BrianG]

Why do warmists always use the label, "troll"? Is it because when you run out of logic, insult is all that's left?

[Eclipse Now]

Why do warmists always use the label, "troll"? Is it because when you run out of logic, insult is all that's left?

 

No, it's because you never had any arguments to begin with and now are calling the science of global warming porn. Or have you already forgotten that you just wrote...

 

This brings up the subject of, what I like to call, AGW erotica, it's sooo big!

 

:naughty::naughty::hihi:

 

Forum guidelines mate, forum guidelines.

[BrianG]

Erotica and pornography aren't the same things.

[Eclipse Now]

Quibbling semantic games that avoid the point which was that you were being insulting and rude, without contributing any actual on-topic argument, are also the marks of a troll.

 

So quibble away. :naughty:

 

As Princess Leia said, "The more you tighten your grip on these quibbles, the more these forums will slip through your fingers..."

 

Or something to that effect. :hihi:

[modest]

Unscientific and ad hominem discussion. Thread closed.

~modest

 

---> EDIT ---> Thread Opened. <--- EDIT <---