Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Oaks on Global Warming and Trump

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Elder Oaks was encouraging a return to civil discourse. 

I don't think this comment qualifies. After a controversial speaker was shouted down at Middlebury College and a professor was injured in the melee, some professors wrote a Statement of Principles concerning free speech on campus. You can read it here. https://freeinquiryblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/free-inquiry-on-campus-a-statement-of-principles-by-a-number-of-middlebury-college-professors/

I think this statement applies to this debate. "A good education produces modesty with respect to our own intellectual powers and opinions as well as openness to considering contrary views."

I did consider a contrary view. With my amateur level of knowledge I decided it was wrong. Experts largely agree with me, confirming my conclusions.

1 hour ago, longview said:

Your use of the term 'denier' is proof positive that you admit to supporting the 'Cult of Global Warming Hysteria' and would demonize anyone who would argue against it.  That word is unscientific and emotionally charged.  You attempt to shame and mortify anyone who would ask deeper questions.  Please explain this event at NOAA:

I apologize for using an unscientific and emotionally charged term. Obviously it is accurate but could be seen as unfair and using such terms dilutes the civil discussion we were having based on reason and...wait, what did you say?

"Cult of Global Warming Hysteria"?

Changed my mind, I rescind my apology and have instead decided to laugh at your blatant hypocrisy and to chuckle further at you not having the basic self-awareness to check for emotionally charged terms in your own language in the same paragraph in which you attempt to call me out on it.

Do you also throw out racial epithets while calling for an end to racial slurs without realizing it? Demand that your religious freedom to worship as you choose be respected while at the same time calling for Muslims to be put on government watch lists without realizing the irony?

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Darren10 said:

EXACTLY..."anti-science". Those darn big businesses are funding false science unlike the IPCC, NASA, NOAA where their science is sound and not at all faked.

"We're at the point where harnessing that solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel power." - I REEEEAAAAALLLLLLYYYYY don't want to call a CFR on this as it would drag me into a climate change debate.

Like Exxon-Mobile.

SEE https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

Solar power cheaper than fossil fuels.

SEE https://qz.com/871907/2016-was-the-year-solar-panels-finally-became-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-just-wait-for-2017/

 

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I guess my question would be the cost of buying and installing solar panels versus the cost of a traditional coal or nuclear power plant in light of how much energy each respective power source can produce. My understanding is that acres of solar panels produce far less energy than would a coal plant of the same size.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I guess my question would be the cost of buying and installing solar panels versus the cost of a traditional coal or nuclear power plant in light of how much energy each respective power source can produce. My understanding is that acres of solar panels produce far less energy than would a coal plant of the same size.

Yes, the real debate is what to do about it, not the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I guess my question would be the cost of buying and installing solar panels versus the cost of a traditional coal or nuclear power plant in light of how much energy each respective power source can produce. My understanding is that acres of solar panels produce far less energy than would a coal plant of the same size.

There is no question that fossil fuels are energy dense. I don't have to space available for a large solar array to power a city. However my small collection of panels fits on my roof rather easily. They do power my entire house electrical equipment, and the electric company pays me for the electricity I feed back into the system. Last month was a rainy month and my total electrical bill was $1.50.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I apologize for using an unscientific and emotionally charged term. Obviously it is accurate but could be seen as unfair and using such terms dilutes the civil discussion we were having based on reason and...wait, what did you say?

"Cult of Global Warming Hysteria"?

Changed my mind, I rescind my apology and have instead decided to laugh at your blatant hypocrisy and to chuckle further at you not having the basic self-awareness to check for emotionally charged terms in your own language in the same paragraph in which you attempt to call me out on it

I love your humorous take on topics.  Kudos to you.  However, using the term 'denier' is an attack on the person.  Whereas, using terms 'cult' and 'hysteria' is arguing against the concept (or the substance of the claim).  You are familiar with this definition:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

But I agree that my terms can also be considered to be emotionally charged to some degree.  In my defense I have pointed out numerous problems with AGW assertions, questioning advocacy for carbon credits and onerous taxation for energy use (degrading the quality of life for the people while at the same time increasing the oppressiveness of gargantuan government) and the corrupting effects of massive grants given to pseudo scientists.   Now I don't feel quite as hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is no question that fossil fuels are energy dense. I don't have to space available for a large solar array to power a city. However my small collection of panels fits on my roof rather easily. They do power my entire house electrical equipment, and the electric company pays me for the electricity I feed back into the system. Last month was a rainy month and my total electrical bill was $1.50.

Oh, I'm perfectly fine with people getting solar panels for extra energy production. I oppose subsidizing it but If they are getting cheaper to purchase and install, more power to we the people. I was thinking large scale like producing energy for an entire city where I think it is still greatly cost prohibited.

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, longview said:

I love your humorous take on topics.  Kudos to you.  However, using the term 'denier' is an attack on the person.  Whereas, using terms 'cult' and 'hysteria' is arguing against the concept (or the substance of the claim).  You are familiar with this definition:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

But I agree that my terms can also be considered to be emotionally charged to some degree.  In my defense I have pointed out numerous problems with AGW assertions, questioning advocacy for carbon credits and onerous taxation for energy use (degrading the quality of life for the people while at the same time increasing the oppressiveness of gargantuan government) and the corrupting effects of massive grants given to pseudo scientists.   Now I don't feel quite as hypocritical.

I'm a denier. I reiterate that I like CO2 production. If CO2 were not produced, we'd all be dead. So, not only do It like CO2 production I am a "yuge" (borrowing a word from President Trump) fan of it. I deny that its production increases global warming. Those who purport man-made global warming do tend to get cultish and hysterical about it, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

I'm a denier. I reiterate that I like CO2 production. If CO2 were not produced, we'd all be dead. So, not only do It like CO2 production I am a "yuge" (borrowing a word from President Trump) fan of it. I deny that its production increases global warming. Those who purport man-made global warming do tend to get cultish and hysterical about it, no doubt.

I appreciate your sentiments.  However, I consider myself to be a 'disputer' or 'questioner'.  'Denier' has connotations of not being informed or not doing your homework or refusing to engage in debate.  You are way above that.  I enjoy your many witty riposte.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, longview said:

I love your humorous take on topics.  Kudos to you.  However, using the term 'denier' is an attack on the person.  Whereas, using terms 'cult' and 'hysteria' is arguing against the concept (or the substance of the claim).  You are familiar with this definition:

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

But I agree that my terms can also be considered to be emotionally charged to some degree.  In my defense I have pointed out numerous problems with AGW assertions, questioning advocacy for carbon credits and onerous taxation for energy use (degrading the quality of life for the people while at the same time increasing the oppressiveness of gargantuan government) and the corrupting effects of massive grants given to pseudo scientists.   Now I don't feel quite as hypocritical.

That is an incredibly dumb defense. Calling the LDS faith a cult is fine with you but calling you a cultist because you belong to it is beyond the pale. With that level of nonsensical rhetorical hair splitting have you considered a career as a really bad politician?

3 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I'm a denier. I reiterate that I like CO2 production. If CO2 were not produced, we'd all be dead. So, not only do It like CO2 production I am a "yuge" (borrowing a word from President Trump) fan of it. I deny that its production increases global warming. Those who purport man-made global warming do tend to get cultish and hysterical about it, no doubt.

Yes, climate change is about how CO2 is inherently evil and we would all be better off without it.

If I shoved someone's head under water until they drowned and used the defense that they needed H2O to live and you were on the jury would you find me 'not guilty'?

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Naples, no. Amalfi coast, yes!

I meant Naples, Florida......I also have a small sanctuary in Park City I like Utah better.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is an incredibly dumb defense.

Seems like I have touched a sensitive nerve.  Hopefully this will be a first step for you to understand what the big picture really is.  This is what the USSR, Red China, Cuba and North Korea were like with mass indoctrination of the 'serfs' and forced attendance at discussion groups.  Our schools have been transformed in the last several decades into hotbeds of politically correct re-education.  This is not the first time junk science has been used.  Carl Sagan did with his 'scare talk' on the threat of a 'Nuclear Winter' and the greens misleading the public about renewables, claiming 16.7% of energy production when it only generates 1% (distinction between capacity as opposed to actual generation) and etc.  Just as the communist countries were cult-like, the same is true of the establishment elites dictating politically correct doctrines.  I refuse to give up the fight against this kind of mass delusion.  Nehor, come into the light.

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, longview said:

Seems like I have touched a sensitive nerve.  Hopefully this will be a first step for you to understand what the big picture really is.  This is what the USSR, Red China, Cuba and North Korea were like with mass indoctrination of the 'serfs' and forced attendance at discussion groups.  Our schools have been transformed in the last several decades into hotbeds of politically correct re-education.  This is not the first time junk science has been used.  Carl Sagan did with his 'scare talk' on the threat of a 'Nuclear Winter' and the greens misleading the public about renewables, claiming 16.7% of energy production when it only generates 1% (distinction between capacity as opposed to actual generation) and etc.  Just as the communist countries were cult-like, the same is true of the establishment elites dictating politically correct doctrines.  I refuse to give up the fight against this kind of mass delusion.  Nehor, come into the light.

How delightfully condescending of you.

Even if you are absolutely right about climate change it was still a dumb defense.

And you are almost certainly wrong.

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, longview said:

I appreciate your sentiments.  However, I consider myself to be a 'disputer' or 'questioner'.  'Denier' has connotations of not being informed or not doing your homework or refusing to engage in debate.  You are way above that.  I enjoy your many witty riposte.

Oh, I know the connotations and I fully accept the label of being a denier. I outright deny that global warming is man-made on any significant level if at all and I outright deny that the earth cannot process all the CO2s and cow farts emitted and at much much higher levels of it of it in the future. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is an incredibly dumb defense. Calling the LDS faith a cult is fine with you but calling you a cultist because you belong to it is beyond the pale. With that level of nonsensical rhetorical hair splitting have you considered a career as a really bad politician?

Yes, climate change is about how CO2 is inherently evil and we would all be better off without it.

If I shoved someone's head under water until they drowned and used the defense that they needed H2O to live and you were on the jury would you find me 'not guilty'?

That's a bit of a hysteric and cultish scenario there Nehor. But, carry on, The Nehor, you're being true to the global warming alarmist form. 

CO2 emissions rule! 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

How delightfully condescending of you.

Even if you are absolutely right about climate change it was still a dumb defense.

And you are almost certainly wrong.

"How delightfully condescending of you." - Does longview need H2O? Does he? Does he? Does he? :P

Share this post


Link to post

Rather depressing a thread on Oaks' talk ends up like this given he said:

"Another way to push back against the world is to stand clear from the current atmosphere of hate and to refrain from participating in the contentious communications that are so common today. Partly such contentious communications result from modern technology, which fosters conflicts by expanding the audience and the speed of dissemination. Careless charges, false representations, and ugly innuendos are instantly flashed around the world, widening and intensifying the distance between different parties and different positions. I am not referring to differences in policies, which need to be debated publicly, but to the current ugliness and personal meanness of the communications.

Don’t be part of such communications. As followers of Christ, we know that all of the inhabitants of this earth are children of God. Use that knowledge to push back against the worldly prejudices that preach hate or hostility toward other nations, ethnic groups, or even political parties."

I normally don't feel the need to be so condescending, but given the topic it seemed appropriate in this case to mention it.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

We have heavily subsidized fossil fuels for over 100 year. A few decades of subsidizes for solar is hardly a great expense. Not for a large array on a cost per kilowatt basis. Land use is an issue for another time.

16 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Oh, I know the connotations and I fully acceot the label of being a denier. I outright deny that global warming is man-made on any significant level if at all and I outright deny that the earth cannot process all the CoO2s emitted and much much more of it in the future. 

The science is absolutely against you on this one.

SEE

 

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We have heavily subsidized fossil fuels for over 100 year. A few decades of subsidizes for solar is hardly a great expense. Not for a large array on a cost per kilowatt basis. Land use is an issue for another time.

The science is absolutely against you on this one.

SEE

 

My post was that man does not contribute to "global warming" in any significant way if at all. I do not care man emits more CO2s than do volcanoes. In fact, if we do I take pride in ut. Let's burn more. More industrialized develpment means a better life overall according to Denier Darren. :)

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather depressing a thread on Oaks' talk ends up like this given he said:

"Another way to push back against the world is to stand clear from the current atmosphere of hate and to refrain from participating in the contentious communications that are so common today. Partly such contentious communications result from modern technology, which fosters conflicts by expanding the audience and the speed of dissemination. Careless charges, false representations, and ugly innuendos are instantly flashed around the world, widening and intensifying the distance between different parties and different positions. I am not referring to differences in policies, which need to be debated publicly, but to the current ugliness and personal meanness of the communications.

Don’t be part of such communications. As followers of Christ, we know that all of the inhabitants of this earth are children of God. Use that knowledge to push back against the worldly prejudices that preach hate or hostility toward other nations, ethnic groups, or even political parties."

Do you need H2O? Nehor will be kind in offering you some. From the way it sounds, though, you better dress for deep sea diving when he arrives. 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Rather depressing a thread on Oaks' talk ends up like this given he said:

"Another way to push back against the world is to stand clear from the current atmosphere of hate and to refrain from participating in the contentious communications that are so common today. Partly such contentious communications result from modern technology, which fosters conflicts by expanding the audience and the speed of dissemination. Careless charges, false representations, and ugly innuendos are instantly flashed around the world, widening and intensifying the distance between different parties and different positions. I am not referring to differences in policies, which need to be debated publicly, but to the current ugliness and personal meanness of the communications.

Don’t be part of such communications. As followers of Christ, we know that all of the inhabitants of this earth are children of God. Use that knowledge to push back against the worldly prejudices that preach hate or hostility toward other nations, ethnic groups, or even political parties."

duty_calls.png

If I didn't correct them then they will keep being wrong!

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

That's a bit of a hysteric and cultish scenario there Nehor. But, carry on, The Nehor, you're being true to the global warming alarmist form. 

CO2 emissions rule! 

Excuse me, I need to offer a short prayer:

God, couldn't you have a separate world for those actively seeking to destroy their own planet and have put them all there?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

duty_calls.png

If I didn't correct them then they will keep being wrong!

I know, it drives me insane too.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Excuse me, I need to offer a short prayer:

God, couldn't you have a separate world for those actively seeking to destroy their own planet and have put them all there?

Thanks. Now I need some H2O and then go to bed...not a forever sleep, just thevtypcsl nightly sleep. H2O does that for me. 

Good night Nehor. 

CO2 Rules! 

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Calm said:

I know, it drives me insane too.

With that, good night calm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...