Re: Postcard from Atikokan

I felt you needed a reminder.

Probably did. I have a terrible memory.

I feel that my reply included a demonstration that I understood
what you wrote. Otoh, you do not seem to have understood what
I wrote.

Yours was too esoteric for me - trying to tie appearance with illusions.
You implied that any appearance is just an illusion. Come on.

Spoken like a true evangelist. The reality is (and I'm
speaking from at least a decade of experience) that
no-one *ever* changes their beliefs as a result of
Usenet debate. It is uttely futile. I will *never* persuade
you of anything, and you will *never* persuade me of
anything. That is the basis of my asking you to desist.

I wonder why you debate people on usenet then? Anyway, I don't believe
what you believe. I hate absolutes like you have just stated. They are
deadly. 'never' and 'always' are two of my favourite examples of mistakes
people make. Everything is on a spectrum. Not necessarily perfectly
distributed but a spectrum nevertheless.

Facts, otoh, are undeniable but surprisingly hard to find.

They woould be for you as you don't ever go look them up.

When you say that I am "incredibly wrong" then it is incumbent
upon you to demonstrate it. You have the burden of proof, and
you cannot shirk it with selective editing. If you cannot *show that
I was "incredibly wrong", then you cannot *know that I was wrong.
If you say something that you do not know to be true, then you
are...what?

I have given you the references which prove my point. You can't be
bothered to read. And besides, facts exist even if Sleepy doesn't know
them.

Indeed. Think about that.

I'll stand by it.

So long as you stick to advocacy, I'll be fine. If you ever came up
with some good, solid facts, I *might* struggle.

Books and movies and conferences are all presenting the facts. I will
repeat I cannot figure out how you can continue to deny what's going on
other than to conclude you're just not bothering to inform yourself.

We are discussing climate change, not issues of human health,
poverty, loss of biodiversity, etc. If you want to tackle *all* of the
worlds' problems in one fell swoop, the only solution I can see
is genocide - which I do not condone - so you'd better hope
that you're *not* right about all these things!

These issues are the consequences of climate change. "Moreover, decline
of ecosystems is also increasing the risk of "non-linear change" -
abrupt, disruptive and potentially irreversible changes such as regional
climate shifts, the collapse of fishery resources, the emergence of new
diseases, and the formation of "dead zones" in coastal waters. The
weakening of these systems is also exacerbating poverty among some groups
of people - a trend that could change dramatically if abrupt changes are
unleashed." From the MA I asked you to look up.

Does not say how long that record is, so it impossible to evalute how
important that statement is. A warm year is exactly that - a warm
year : no more, no less. For global climate you need to look at
30 years, at least!

Record keeping began in 1880.

It does not say when record-keeping began. Icbw, but I think
it was the ancient Babylonians who invented cuniform writing
to record exchanges of grain, etc.. NASA is probably referring
to _thermometric_ data, for which English records begin in the
C17th.

1880.

Of course, you cannot establish global temperatures from English
thermometric records alone, so I cannot see how that claim can be
justified.

You'll have to ask NASA how they worked that out then.

Five years is not enough to establish global climate change.

I agree. But that's not the case.

We don't have complete global thermometric data for the last century.
(Pantomime season begins here...)

Your premise is wrong.

Much of that statement is based on the previous statement - which
is fundamentally flawed.

No it isn't.

(Those Babylonians were busy people, weren't they?)
Clearly that statement is not true. It only serves to
damage the credibilty of those who present it.

You're in denial.

Unsupported, and overly vague assertion, leading to a circular
argument.

Unsupported!?!? It's all over the media! The Gobi desert has expanded by
26,000 sq km forcing tens of millions of Chinese farmers to move. Inuit
natives in communities from Canada, Greenland Alaska and Northern Russia
have been forced to move.

The use of "such as" shows that that statement is intented to
deceive. CO2 plays a very small role in the greenhouse effect,
90% of which is attributeable to water vapour.
That last phrase is a blatant lie. Anthropogenic CO2 emmissions
constitute around 6% of global emmissions - it is not a primary
source.

You are so wrong. Hey! Deja vu all over again!

Argumentum ad baculum, followed by appeal to emotion.
"Won't somebody *please* think of the children!!!"

You just don't want to believe it.

It's largely advocacy - as usual.

But advocacy of what? Saving humanity. Seems like a good cause to me.

Hyperbole from an author! Gosh, I _am_ impressed!

Something of a banner day for you then.

That authors' a journalist? Well that's _even more_ impressive!
We all know how conservative, and sensible, and scientifically
literate journalists are.

You see here's where my 'Everything is a spectrum' comes into play. There
can be a few informed journalists. They are not all one way or another.

The thing I find most difficult to "get" is why you think any
rational being should accept such nonsense. I'm begining
to find it a bit insulting that you do not think me capable
of seeing through such stuff.

I think it's rather incredible you can continue to deny what is
happening. Especially when, *if* you are wrong, the consequences are so
dire. What's wrong with erring on the side of caution? If I'm wrong, and
all the scientists studying the problem are wrong too, then the
consequences are survivable. But the data says we're not wrong. That
debate ended a couple of years ago.

Johnny-Magna-est-veritas-et-prævalebit
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Guess the reasons
    ... from those times as indicative of a much different climate. ... example Dr. Donald Patten in "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch". ... made some excellent points and brought together some interesting facts, ... you have to keep in mind that just because someone has a POV ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Poll: Who won the Vice Presidential debate?
    ... Which, of course, is the entire goal of a political debate. ... No, presenting facts is. ... would be if the impartial judges were to disagree. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: A sense of perspective on Global warming, hopefully!
    ... should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW. ... The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic ... But another programme showed that in spite of what is said in the media, the UK has done nothing, or worse than nothing, since it began claiming it is leading the world in tackling climate change. ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: A guide for students of physics in the art of spin Part 2
    ... I think too that there is a great deal of cleaning work ... Right now there are a lot more of facts known then a hundred years ago ... debate and the stranglehold of orthodoxy means that there is only one. ... I have taught physics for over 20 years. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A sense of perspective on Global warming, hopefully!
    ... should be more room to debate natural cycles of GW. ... Greenhouse gases heat the atmosphere and preserve life on earth. ... The climate has been warmer than this many times in the geologic ... hazard from flooding, to hurricanes, to heavy snowfall, to heatwaves, ...
    (uk.sci.weather)