The Imminent Climate Disaster and the Impending Expiration Date of Humanity

[chrisalt]

I hope the world ends. Things need to change in this world and if ending humanity as a whole is the only way to do it so be it.

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

How so? In your opinion, is it arrogant for a retail store manager to refer to the venue he operates as 'his' store in conversation? I don't think so, but then, I'm the arrogant one, so what do I know?

Its not a store its a different entity all together. The proprietor would own the store anyway, not the staff and then actually the staff would serve the customers no patronise them or call them names :D

If, as a moderator, this subforum isn't 'mine,' then to whom else does it or could it possibly 'belong' in any practically meaningful way, other than my fellow mods?

Bluelighters? People who contribute to 'your' boards.

If you're really not pepared to see that you were in error there then theres precious little point in continuing with this derailment. Its a good read so sorry everyone if I led it off at a tangent.

 

[P A]

Its not a store its a different entity all together. The proprietor would own the store anyway, not the staff and then actually the staff would serve the customers no patronise them or call them names :D

You've clearly never heard of a franchise store. Try again.

Bluelighters? People who contribute to 'your' boards.

If I live in a particular apartment building, it is not arrogant nor presumptuous of me to refer to that apartment building as "my building." If I go to a certain school, it is not unusual to refer to that school as "my school" in casual conversation. These analogies work because each of them contains a common syllogistic structure: In vaguely 'belonging' to one place or another (the franchise store, the apartment building, the school, the board of which I'm moderator), I am understood as expressing that relationship of 'belonging' when I refer to those locations/things as 'mine.' What about this is unclear to you? Are you trying to make it out that I was being possessive or domineering? If so, I implore you to reread, and to do so carefully, lest you not embarrass yourself any further.

If you're really not pepared to see that you were in error there then theres precious little point in continuing with this derailment.

What error?

 

[YellowPolkaDotHalo]

As for who said "What if you were put there at this time to be a part of it for some reason?" Well, what if you know you were but have failed, like many of us, and had to live with that? Some of us have come here with more reponsibility because of what we're capable of and what we've been able to accomplish before. I know I had planned to play a more significant role of make more of a contribution and fucked it up for different reasons. Some things that went wrong outside my control and then I just didn't have the strength or couldn't be bothered. Luckily there were so many extras who came along to ensure we'd succeed and there are so many who have done great for themselves and much better than what would be expected. Spiritual missions don't always turn out as planned with everything that's here to distract you and can go wrong. At least I can comfort myself I don't tend to botch my spiritual missions and have done many things to help this planet before. And if nothing else I've been able contribute by holding a higher consciousness throughout my like ( I still consider myself among the highest 10%, maybe that sounds arrogant to some but I was supposed to do a bit better than that, and could have done much better if I'd done my best).

That was an interesting read Ninae.

I wanted to let you know that this verse repeatedly came to my mind as I was reading your conclusion ' God brings all things together for the best for those that love Him ' ( romans 8.28 ) If we deal with disappointment or disillusionment with grace then its a victory rather than a failure.

 

[P A]

There is nothing humans can do, because humans have no effect on it. The system we are speaking about is larger than any of us can reasonably imagine. There are factors involved that even the most brilliant physicists do not quite understand. What makes anyone think a bunch of higher level weathermen and politicians can know the factors and predict the outcome? I'd say the AGW people are a cult, they just don't know it yet.

Well, that all sounded very impressive, but, really now, what makes you think that you know better than almost every meteorologist who's studied the subject?

 

[Joeof1]

Well, that all sounded very impressive, but, really now, what makes you think that you know better than almost every meteorologist who's studied the subject?

Show me a Meteorologist that can actually predict past one week with regularity. I do not need to qualify myself to anyone if my logic is sound enough to make my point clearly. There is no such thing as a monopoly of knowledge on this planet that excludes a Physicist or Economist from knowing something that a Meteorologist knows.

To add this self-defense mechanism of resorting to rely on "EXPERTS" is rather annoying and childish. Anyone that is decent with the math behind the subject should be able to interpret and understand the material. I covered this in the CE&P forum on why the AGW cult is pushing fallacies and that relying on the "Experts" for everything is ridiculous if their math is simply bad or idealizing the model.

Those weather and climate "experts" learned the same math that everyone else learns. All of it should be understandable as that is why everyone started pushing to use Math to represent even things that math can not accurately represent in the first place. To think Climate Change cultists being undone by their own movement, because they simply did not understand what math represents or how it actually applies to the real world. So sad is the state of education that it took nearly a decade for people to start understanding that this in itself was the problem with their argument. I guess the Progressives have royally screwed everyone with their educational initiatives.

While Joe, on the other hand, would never dream of making multiple passive-aggressive jabs at the OP of a thread whose topic he doesn't care about, in a subforum he rarely visits, given his incredibly busy schedule. Bitch please. 8)8)8)8)8)8)8)8)

You interpret things how you will. How many posts do I have in here or anywhere else compared to the rest of you? That's right, figure it out on your own. My posting lately has more to do with not having to work lately because I'm migrating to another country and have essentially stopped working.

It's nice that you can get offended and take this all personally though. Perhaps you should take a step back and let that paranoia slide for a bit. No one here is out to get you.

 

[P A]

Show me a Meteorologist that can actually predict past one week with regularity.

That has nothing to do with anything.

I do not need to qualify myself to anyone if my logic is sound enough to make my point clearly. There is no such thing as a monopoly of knowledge on this planet that excludes a Physicist or Economist from knowing something that a Meteorologist knows.

No, you're right, there isn't. But if 99% of all meteorologists disagree with what some economist on the internet touts as true (irrespective of the logic employed), then those who do not know as much about the subject as either A) The meteorologists; or B) The lone economist will be forced to decide whose conclusions are correct based upon criteria other than technical accuracy. An analogy: Most people do not know, really, how their car works. It either works or it does not, for one (unknown) reason or another. Generally, the average citizen will consult an automotive mechanic when something goes seriously wrong with their car, as opposed to some random dude with no formal training as a mechanic who claims to know much better than the mechanic how to go about fixing the car. To whom would you, as an average citizen, be likely to entrust your malfunctioning car? It doesn't matter whether the random dude is truly more proficient or insightful than the professional - since you, the average citizen, have no immediate way of determining who is correct and who is incorrect, you will simply defer to the mechanic.

To add this self-defense mechanism of resorting to rely on "EXPERTS" is rather annoying and childish. Anyone that is decent with the math behind the subject should be able to interpret and understand the material. I covered this in the CE&P forum on why the AGW cult is pushing fallacies and that relying on the "Experts" for everything is ridiculous if their math is simply bad or idealizing the model.

Joe, I'm not making a political nor even a scientific argument. Similarly, my allusion to the 'experts' was not an argument from authority - it was merely meant to convey my ignorance re. the subject of global climate change.

Regarding so-called 'experts' in the natural sciences: When in doubt and when out of my league, I've found it prudent to defer to those who probably know better than I do about the topic of interest and thereby attempt to derive some kind of rough consensus from their collective 'expert' opinion(s). If I have a question about genetics that is far beyond my own level of biological training, I consult a geneticist(s) (or something written by a geneticist, or something adapted from the work of a geneticist). If I have an obscure question about the Roman Empire, I consult a historian(s) (or something written by a historian, or something adapted from the work of a historian). It easily follows that, if I have a question about the weather that goes beyond my level of expertise, I should consult a meteorologist.

You interpret things how you will. How many posts do I have in here or anywhere else compared to the rest of you? That's right, figure it out on your own. My posting lately has more to do with not having to work lately because I'm migrating to another country and have essentially stopped working.

Uh-uh. You see, I'm the moderator of P&S. My continued presence is expected here. Yours is merely optional. That you had taken the time out of your busy, busy day to making passive-aggressive jabs at the 'OP' (me), made you an object of my ridicule. What about this was unclear? Here is the snippet to which I originally responded:

I think the OP has lost interest and has turned to harassing natives of other forums.

It's nice that you can get offended and take this all personally though. Perhaps you should take a step back and let that paranoia slide for a bit. No one here is out to get you.

Dude, what are you talking about? You've devoted so much time here and elsewhere (need I really provide links?) to mocking, deriding, and otherwise heaping scorn upon me and my posts, speaking directly to me in the process. Your tone alternates between pedantic, snotty, and perfectly civil. Then you start talking about paranoia. I don't know what to make of this. I suggest that you take some time to refresh your myopically selective memory, sort out your own convolved thought processes, and then get back to me.

 

[Joeof1]

That has nothing to do with anything.

Prove to me why it doesn't then.

No, you're right, there isn't. But if 99% of all meteorologists disagree with what some economist on the internet touts as true (irrespective of the logic employed), then those who do not know as much about the subject as either A) The meteorologists; or B) The lone economist will be forced to decide whose conclusions are correct based upon criteria other than technical accuracy. An analogy: Most people do not know, really, how their car works. It either works or it does not, for one (unknown) reason or another. Generally, the average citizen will consult an automotive mechanic when something goes seriously wrong with their car, as opposed to some random dude with no formal training as a mechanic who claims to know much better than the mechanic how to go about fixing the car. To whom would you, as an average citizen, be likely to entrust your malfunctioning car? It doesn't matter whether the random dude is truly more proficient or insightful than the professional - since you, the average citizen, have no immediate way of determining who is correct and who is incorrect, you will simply defer to the mechanic.

So you conclude that I must be the average person that doesn't know how my car works. Well, I do know how my car works, and I likely do know more about this topic than you, of that I am certainly positive of. You will take this as cocky, but I assure you it is not. It's confidence for sure, and I was hired by the AZ government to do an impact study on carbon taxes a year ago. I've followed the srufy for over a decade now, and can do the math behind it already.

Lo-and-behold it's not many people that understand the job of an economist is to analyze and understand how various things effect the world of man, and how law's and their reasoning may be folly due to some irrationality. It was the Economists that defended the US against the Carbon Tax. It was the Economists that told everyone that Al Gore was a BS artist. It was merely the loud mouthed politicians that took credit for the work the Cato institute did for them.

At least if you are going to critique a lonely Economist, have the decency to at least understand what it is that an Economist does.

Joe, I'm not making a political nor even a scientific argument. Similarly, my allusion to the 'experts' was not an argument from authority - it was merely meant to convey my ignorance re. the subject of global climate change.

Then honestly, the best thing to do when one is ignorant of such things is to read more, and learn more about it. Flapping your trap about what you think doesn't make the situation any better for the people that do actually understand what is being said. As for the actual work they do, I understand most of it. What I do not understand is how they set their control variables, and why they are relying so heavily on Computer Models.

Regarding so-called 'experts' in the natural sciences: When in doubt and when out of my league, I've found it prudent to defer to those who probably know better than I do about the topic of interest and thereby attempt to derive some kind of rough consensus from their collective 'expert' opinion(s). If I have a question about genetics that is far beyond my own level of biological training, I consult a geneticist(s) (or something written by a geneticist, or something adapted from the work of a geneticist). If I have an obscure question about the Roman Empire, I consult a historian(s) (or something written by a historian, or something adapted from the work of a historian). It easily follows that, if I have a question about the weather that goes beyond my level of expertise, I should consult a meteorologist.

Consulting one person is not the way to get an accurate picture of anything. Consulting a variety of sources and finding many different stances gives a better perspective.

Uh-uh. You see, I'm the moderator of P&S. My continued presence is expected here. Yours is merely optional. That you had taken the time out of your busy, busy day to making passive-aggressive jabs at the 'OP' (me), made you an object of my ridicule. What about this was unclear? Here is the snippet to which I originally responded:

Returning the favor to let you know that your position is not something that concerns me. You can abuse it all you wish, but I will not tolerate it when it's directed at me. You stay out of jabbing me in my threads, and I will leave yours alone. Sure you can do whatever you wish with your Mod status, but that just shows what your nature truly is. I have posted in very visible forums with Admins and Mods. They will see whatever you chose to do, and if you are thinking of further threatening me, don't, just do it.

Dude, what are you talking about? You've devoted so much time here and elsewhere (need I really provide links?) to mocking, deriding, and otherwise heaping scorn upon me and my posts, speaking directly to me in the process. Your tone alternates between pedantic, snotty, and perfectly civil. Then you start talking about paranoia. I don't know what to make of this. I suggest that you take some time to refresh your myopically selective memory, sort out your own convolved thought processes, and then get back to me.

Cute, you can't even admit to your own shortcomings here, but your status removes you from ridicule, right? I have nothing to hide here, and I will not hide myself behind an image of passivity and complacency when that is not who I am.

 

[Cartesia]

I have one question for people

What independantly verified evidence (truely independant) was it that made you believe in anthropogenic global warming?

 

[jpgrdnr]

Surf's up for shit city.