there are plenty of evidence, if you are willing to consider, for one to question the basic notion / logic of "global warming".

1. if you look at atmospheric co2 going back hundreds of millions of years, they were in the thousands of ppm, vs. hundreds of ppm today, with out corresponding rise in atmospherical temperature.

2. overwhelimg majority of "greenhouse effect" on this planet comes not from any of the "greenhouse gases". instead, it comes from water vapor -> few of those climate models utilize that until the last year or so.

3. over the long scale, current temperature is below average so it is bound to rise.

4. no climate models so far can answer why the earth goes in and out of ice ages by itself.

5. no climate models so far can answer how the earth reacts to a warmer climates. CO2 is a fertilizer. As CO2 level rises, plantation starts to spread, and carbon sinks form. ie. there is a negative feedback loop here.

6. most important of all, the global warming advocates could never answer why we want to stop climate changes. The climate has been changing for a long time and it will continue to change. Why would we deploy precious resources in stopping or even slowing down climate changes? For every dollar we spend on climate changes, we don't have a dollar spending in saving a hungry infant in Africa, or immunizing a kid in South America, or educating a kid in America..... Why is stopping climate changes more important than any of that?

The harder the advocates try to stop a honest discussion on global warming, the more people will be suspicious of their motives, and the less likely concrete steps will be taken to address "global warming".

BTW, I'm a die-hard believer of "climate changes", and "global warming". I am just yet to be convinced that we should address it at the scales and cost proposed.

 

On scientific consensus: every scientific consensus we have had has been proven wrong.

Newtonian physics was a scientific consensus; Einstein proved him wrong;

Einstein physics is / was a scientific consensus; Quantum physics proved him wrong;

Sooner or later someone will quantum physics wrong...

That's just how science works: we build on prior knowledge by expanding them, and extending them to areas of previously knowns.

To think science as absolute (by dismissing dissenting views against "consensus") is as much anti-science as one can get.

BTW, look into that "97%" figure and you will find why so many people find this whole "climate change" thing is a fraud.

 

Frankly, I'd prefer not to know; I'd much rather have an environment that allows us to enjoy discussing electronics in an atmosphere that isn't polluted by death-match debates over politically-charged topics like global warming.

There are plenty of places on the 'net to debate that stuff. This isn't one of them.

+1,000

Best regards
HP

 

I think in the end global warming (or global cooling or climate change) will turn out to be a hoax, an expensive one as well.

I concur. Follow the money. The political topic du jour rules supreme with global epidemics.

 

Global warming is going to bring on a new Ice Age. I read it in this article, written by a noted climate science authority.

Very interesting prediction... from 58 years ago ... I find the history of science a fascinating subject. Thanks for sharing.

 

The staff received some reports about the political nature of this thread. The consensus is that while those reports expressed some valid concerns, the contributors have for the most part been able to conduct the discussion in a constructive manner. We appreciate the fact that our membership can conduct discussions on hot-button issues in a competent and mutually respectful manner. As long as that continues, we don't see a reason to close it down and we always appreciate hearing from members who think things may be going off the rails.
Thanks, all.

 

The staff received some reports about the political nature of this thread. The consensus is that while those reports expressed some valid concerns, the contributors have for the most part been able to conduct the discussion in a constructive manner. We appreciate the fact that our membership can conduct discussions on hot-button issues in a competent and mutually respectful manner. As long as that continues, we don't see a reason to close it down and we always appreciate hearing from members who think things may be going off the rails.
Thanks, all.

Sincere thanks for your considered review of the situation! -- While I too recognize the merits of a 'case by case approach', I am, nonetheless, concerned that when and if a 'problem' becomes manifest, the damage (i.e. 'hard feelings') will have already been done...

Again, many thanks for your consideration and for taking the input in the spirit intended!

Best regards
HP

 

Sincere thanks for your considered review of the situation! -- While I too recognize the merits of a 'case by case approach', I am, nonetheless, concerned that when and if a 'problem' becomes manifest, the damage (i.e. 'hard feelings') will have already been done...

Again, many thanks for your consideration and for taking the input in the spirit intended!

Best regards
HP

 

I concur. Follow the money. The political topic du jour rules supreme with global epidemics.

That's one of the parts I find the most odd about the environmentalists stand.

They go nuts about how important their cause is yet continually show that they either have zero knowledge of the levels of dishonesty greed and outright corruption that are tied to their cause or simply do not care or like any form of data that contradicts what they believe simply ignore it.

The thing is, I don't know of any one who does not feel that being more conscientious and working more efficiently with our resources regardless of their origins a bad idea.

The problem is for so many of use we have too many reasons to both doubt the claims being made and who is supporting it to want to support the concept ourselves. Too often the data does not add up the predictions fall nearly opposite of what they say and the little guy (but not the environmentalists themselves of course) who is supposed to be doing all the work behind the movement gets screwed and left to pay the bill anyways.

 

the damage (i.e. 'hard feelings') will have already been done...

I could never understand how one could use "hard feelings" as a way to suppress others' expression of their opinions.

If you take the same principle, couldn't you also argue that all the efforts of avoiding your having "hard feelings" are highly offensive to others whose views may be suppressed, or who may have to forgo the opportunity to listen to dissenting views?

to me, this "hard feelings" argument is more of a way to control expressions that you don't approve.

Last time that happened, Hitler got into power, Stalin got into power, Mao got into power, and little Kim got into power.

So when you ask that others forgo their freedom of expression so as not to offend you, maybe, just maybe, you will consider forgo your ask so as not to offend others?

 

So when you ask that others forgo their freedom of expression so as not to offend you, maybe, just maybe, you will consider forgo your ask so as not to offend others?

Exactly... freedom of expression, and freedom to feel offended by anything, works both ways. What bothers me is that the historical rule has been that extremely aggressive minorities tend to impose their will and their world view on extremely tame majorities.

 

I could never understand how one could use "hard feelings" as a way to suppress others' expression of their opinions.

Suppression of speech is not the point! -- Eschewal of contentious off topic discussion, however, is! -- There are plenty of venues for political discussion - this site (as per its TOS/UA -- to say nothing of common sense/courtesy) is not one of them! -- For my part, I could never understand the all too common misconception that 'freedom of speech' applies to private venues or in every situation? -- This is an educational site -- why risk polarizing individuals who might otherwise be allies in said cause?

to me, this "hard feelings" argument is more of a way to control expressions that you don't approve.

But then it might be argued that 'freedom of speech' is an oft used rationalization for missplaced, intrusive or all around ill-mannered proselyting...

more of a way to control expressions that you don't approve.

Kindly have a glance at my distribution of 'likes' on this thread... IOW I, for the most part, share your views as regards this thread's topic...

Best regards
HP

 

I could never understand how one could use "hard feelings" as a way to suppress others' expression of their opinions.

I'm entirely in agreement with dannyf on this. One of the things I hate most is people imagining what emotion I might have in the future and then trying to control it.
In one example, I walked into the laundry room and found 3 empty bottles that used to contain bleach. Why would anybody save 3 empty bottles? To trick me into thinking we had plenty in stock?
No. To control me from having an emotion about laundry supplies being used in the normal course of life.
What kind of logic is that???
It's the logic of a person so dedicated to controlling other people that they think they can accomplish it by hiding the fact that they wash their clothes.

In a more general sense, when I find myself unhappy about something, I usually have to adjust my beliefs.
The way I say it is, "The primary cause of emotional distress is the difference between beliefs and reality."
Emotional distress on my part usually indicates that my beliefs are faulty.
A person trying to guess which of my beliefs are faulty, then trying to stop me from discovering them, is not working in my best interest.
It's even more ridiculous when they guess wrongly.

In specific, I have said that tcmtech tends to rattle my grates. I have no objection to that. The primary result is that I get my beliefs properly adjusted. Getting your feathers ruffled is a healthy part of growing up.

 

In specific, I have said that tcmtech tends to rattle my grates. I have no objection to that. The primary result is that I get my beliefs properly adjusted.

I think it's pretty cool that you like being pulled out of your comfort zone every once in a while... only people with a true desire for improvement (in any area) like to do that.

 

Eschewal of contentious off topic discussion, however, is! --

That's a valid argument that has nothing to do with your original argument based on "hard feelings".

For my part, I could never understand the all too common misconception that 'freedom of speech' applies to private venues or in every situation?

You didn't understand the freedom of speech argument. It is not about a private venue's right to control speeches. It is about your perceived right to control others speeches.

 

You didn't understand the freedom of speech argument. It is not about a private venue's right to control speeches. It is about your perceived right to control others speeches.

I have no right to control anyone's expression on these fora! -- Site administration, however, does -- I (and every participant here) have both the responsibility to adhere to site policy and the 'right' to expect said courtesy from others...

By 'hard feelings' I was referring to 'polarization' which, once established, is well neigh immutable in it's 'chilling effect' upon friendly exchange of information - which being the 'mission' of this site...

Best regards
HP

 

By 'hard feelings' I was referring to 'polarization' which, once established, is well neigh immutable in it's 'chilling effect' upon friendly exchange of information - which being the 'mission' of this site...

And yet, we just got a congratulations for acting properly in this Thread (post #66). Then you immediately step in and suggest pre-emptive censorship in order to prevent other people from having emotions. I say, leave it to the moderators. They have proven both their intellect and their wisdom, over the course of several years.

 

I say, leave it to the moderators.

I fail to see where expecting the moderators to enforce the TOS/UA (nor the member's to honor their agreement to abide by same) is unreasonable? --- But then I've always been a bit 'touched' in my 'passion' for synchronization of actions and words

With genuine respect all around!
HP

 

I fail to see where expecting the moderators to enforce the TOS/UA is unreasonable? --- But then I've always been a bit 'touched' in my 'passion' for synchronization of actions and words

Off Topic is much more lightly moderated than the rest of the forum to allow the free exchange of thoughts and opinions even though that sometimes ruffles feathers. Not everyone will be happy with every thread but that is the price of allowing this sort of discussion. AAC enjoys a plethora of intelligent, engaged and mature members and for the most part discussions in Off Topic tend to self moderate. As long as that happens, a looser, case by case interpretation of TOS/UA is warranted in my view. The resulting conversations won't be everyone's cup of tea and when that happens, they can and should decline to participate. That's what I do. Obviously, there are times when things go way south and we appreciate reports when that happens.

 

AAC enjoys a plethora of intelligent, engaged and mature members

am I missing something? I only know two or three members with those attributes ...