The Climate Scare: Ever More Shrill, Ever Less Serious

[Terraceth]

I posted the OP without comment, dear sweet Starfart. You know, for discussion. Looks like all you have is jackassery.

Posting something without any comment whatsoever is generally regarded as an implicit declaration of support.

[Starlight]

I posted the OP without comment

And in the wrong forum too. If you really wanted discussion you'd have posted in the Nat Sci forum and asked some questions about it. Your attempt to 'troll the libs' is pretty obvious.

[Roy]

I posted the OP without comment, dear sweet Starfart. You know, for discussion. Looks like all you have is jackassery.

Your post is an implicit comment that you think it's worth reading.

[firstfloor]

I posted the OP without comment, dear sweet Starfart. You know, for discussion. Looks like all you have is jackassery.

Gentlemen! Please don’t let Trump drag us down to Mountain Man’s level!

[Cow Poke]

Your post is an implicit comment that you think it's worth reading.

Yes.

[Cow Poke]

It's crassly provocative, intentionally misleading 'click-bait', nothing more and typical of you.

And here you are, as is typical of you!

[Cow Poke]

Posting something without any comment whatsoever is generally regarded as an implicit declaration of support.

Meh --- I'm a skeptic -- that in itself is enough to elicit hate and jackassery from the TrueBelievers.

[oxmixmudd]

Meh --- I'm a skeptic -- that in itself is enough to elicit hate and jackassery from the TrueBelievers.

The link you posted had no scientific value or validity. If you are basing your skepticism on sources like that, then your skepticism has no rational basis.

So, on what do you actually base your skepticism?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

The link you posted had no scientific value or validity. If yiu are basing you skepticism on sources like that, then your skepticism has no rational basis.

So, on what do you actually base your skepticism?

Jim

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

I think it's not so much that I'm a skeptic that "something's happening", but maybe more that man is primarily the cause. But even more than that, I see no real "solution" being offered, and no real cost/benefit analysis.

I just am amused at how these guys are like cultists with this --- if you have any questions whatsoever, you're either the stupidest person on the planet, or you're lying, or you're....

They just amuse me.

[oxmixmudd]

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

I think it's not so much that I'm a skeptic that "something's happening", but maybe more that man is primarily the cause. But even more than that, I see no real "solution" being offered, and no real cost/benefit analysis.

I just am amused at how these guys are like cultists with this --- if you have any questions whatsoever, you're either the stupidest person on the planet, or you're lying, or you're....

They just amuse me.

That last part you mention is a reaction to the aggressive efforts by a variety of sources to create confusion, or portray the legitimate science as political propaganda.

I am not justifying it, just explaining it

Jim

[Cow Poke]

That last part you mention is a reaction to the aggressive efforts by a variety of sources to create confusion, or portray the legitimate science as political propaganda.

I am not justifying it, just explaining it

Jim

Understood.

Thanks

[Tassman]

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

I think it's not so much that I'm a skeptic that "something's happening", but maybe more that man is primarily the cause.

Such as?

But even more than that, I see no real "solution" being offered,

The Paris Climate Agreement is a serious attempt at a “real solution”. It is certainly no solution to opt out of it without an alternate plan.

and no real cost/benefit analysis.

The greatest “cost benefit” is the avoidance of the destruction of life on the planet. Is that not enough benefit?

[Cow Poke]

The greatest “cost benefit” is the avoidance of the destruction of life on the planet. Is that not enough benefit?

You kinda sorta left out half of the equation, along with any reasonable assurance that such cost would result in "the avoidance of the destruction of life on the planet".

[Tassman]

You kinda sorta left out half of the equation, along with any reasonable assurance that such cost would result in "the avoidance of the destruction of life on the planet".

I see. So if the attempt to maintain the survival of life on the planet is too expensive then it’s best forgone. Well, that’s a reasonable business model.

[Cow Poke]

I see.

When you say that, it usually indicates you're about to say something really stupid, or make some ignorant assumption.

So if the attempt to maintain the survival of life on the planet is too expensive then it’s best forgone. Well, that’s a reasonable business model.

Yup, I was right.

And, again, you kinda sorta left out the qualifier that it have "any reasonable assurance that such cost would result in 'the avoidance of the destruction of life on the planet'".

We've been here before, and you have never been able to come up with

"this is what needs to be done,
this is what it will cost,
and this is what the result will be".

That's all I've ever asked for.