Personal attacks? I'm directly adressing what you say.
General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
Personal attacks? I'm directly adressing what you say.
I do not see any personal attacks on you, by the CMDR "Gregg Rulz ok" in his posts.
Extra points for actually spelling it right.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn't be so quick to hurl stones, my friend.
Typically being called a hypocrite is considered a personal attack. I don't really care, I just thought it worth mentioning in case the mods were paying attention. As far as the veracity of the claim...I provided an article showing a point about mankind harming the environment the same as many others have done and continue to do so, but your jasonbarron derangement syndrome is so severe that you can't even lay off when I'm literally agreeing with you. You just have to keep attacking. Interesting in that it shows that you don't want to have a discussion but just trade snipes.
Here's an interesting article I found about the changing eco system in the Gulf of Mexico:
https://www.foxnews.com/science/the...ionfish-is-taking-over-the-atlantic-heres-why
Last edited:
Good evening all. My, the thread has been busy... Apologies in advance for what will be a large post.
Ok, so much to parse out here:
You wrote "then we simply will have a world changing too fast for life to adapt too, extinctions and the eventual total collapse of what we know as human civilization". You also, in the same segment, wrote "not changing how we do business (ie carrying on as before) will actually be an 'end game' scenrio for modern human civilization over the next few centuries".
Sorry, but that's utter hyperbole. Perhaps in the first segement rather than "life" you meant "many species/ecosystems", but that's not what you wrote. And the second segment I've re-quoted is worse. Please link to the projection of the "end game" for human civilisation within, say, 500 years. I promise you, it doesn't exist outside of scary op-eds. It certainly doesn't exist in this thread.
You also don't appreciate the difference between opinions, projections and evidence. Someone doing some statistical analysis on a dataset, or running something through an model does not constitute evidence. Evidence relies on empirical fact. You can even stretch a model to say "the model has projected x which has come true, therefore a later projection of that specific model is possibly true". But I posit that there is no empirical fact that justifies these claims as written. Feel free to prove me wrong.
(And I'm using the words "specific model" very deliberately. CMIPX ensemble don't count - that collection of models project such a wide variety of outcomes that literally anything is possible across the collection. Pick one of them if you want to go down that route.)
How can someone offer evidence to support a negative? That's impossible. And needless, when there are so many holes in the projections of a catastrophic future if we don't amend our evil ways. Far easier to poke at them.
However, I'll throw you a bone and refer you to Scafetta et al 2017 which comprehensively demonstrates that the GCMs used to project wholly unfeasible RCP8.5 scenarios in the scare stories (and I quote from the conclusion of this peer reviewed paper, which actually uses observations to make the point) "predict an excessive warming relative to the four available long global surface temperature records" and "deviates from the simulations with a statistical confidence larger than 95%". "Models are not able to reproduce the natural variability observed in the climate system and should not be trusted".
Edit: Just to emphasise this point; the scenarios which rely on an extremely unlikely set of outcomes in our society and physical responses to increased CO2 are - as a matter of course and even when run against real world forcings - exhibiting too much warming.
Something tells me that you won't read about that in the Guardian.
I trust your "evidence" question is satisfactorally answered. And the annoying thing is that if you took even a a vague interest in the topic beyond the media articles, you'd know about the reality vs. projected temperature issue as it's been in the science literature for literally over a decade. And it's I'm pretty sure that its been pointed out in this thread by me before.
There are plenty of reasons to argue against a catastrophic narrative and (more importantly - as it's the real question) what is proposed to do about it. Suggestions of bad faith by people who challenge the science as you see it are not justified.
I get where you're coming from, but not sure I agree without more details. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the proposed feedbacks - but to the best of my knowledge all of the major feedback mechanisms seem to be driven by underlying temperature (in this context, the feedback mechanism is triggered by temperature increased induced by elevated CO2 concentrations).
Could you suggest a specific feedback that might be contigent on something more than temperature alone?
I think the GCA is overstating the benefits somewhat (as they're measuring benefits against what I consider to be overstated avoided losses). Full report is here if you're so inclined.
Ok, so much to parse out here:
You wrote "then we simply will have a world changing too fast for life to adapt too, extinctions and the eventual total collapse of what we know as human civilization". You also, in the same segment, wrote "not changing how we do business (ie carrying on as before) will actually be an 'end game' scenrio for modern human civilization over the next few centuries".
Sorry, but that's utter hyperbole. Perhaps in the first segement rather than "life" you meant "many species/ecosystems", but that's not what you wrote. And the second segment I've re-quoted is worse. Please link to the projection of the "end game" for human civilisation within, say, 500 years. I promise you, it doesn't exist outside of scary op-eds. It certainly doesn't exist in this thread.
You also don't appreciate the difference between opinions, projections and evidence. Someone doing some statistical analysis on a dataset, or running something through an model does not constitute evidence. Evidence relies on empirical fact. You can even stretch a model to say "the model has projected x which has come true, therefore a later projection of that specific model is possibly true". But I posit that there is no empirical fact that justifies these claims as written. Feel free to prove me wrong.
(And I'm using the words "specific model" very deliberately. CMIPX ensemble don't count - that collection of models project such a wide variety of outcomes that literally anything is possible across the collection. Pick one of them if you want to go down that route.)
Yes, to be absolutely clear - life-in-general was mentioned and responded to. I'm explicitly not saying "AGW will have no impacts on the biosphere" and I'm not saying that there are no risks associated with climate change, whether natural or manmade. I'm objecting to and calling out needlessly excessive rhetoric - ironically following on from a post in which I call for more nuance in the discussion.
How can someone offer evidence to support a negative? That's impossible. And needless, when there are so many holes in the projections of a catastrophic future if we don't amend our evil ways. Far easier to poke at them.
However, I'll throw you a bone and refer you to Scafetta et al 2017 which comprehensively demonstrates that the GCMs used to project wholly unfeasible RCP8.5 scenarios in the scare stories (and I quote from the conclusion of this peer reviewed paper, which actually uses observations to make the point) "predict an excessive warming relative to the four available long global surface temperature records" and "deviates from the simulations with a statistical confidence larger than 95%". "Models are not able to reproduce the natural variability observed in the climate system and should not be trusted".
Edit: Just to emphasise this point; the scenarios which rely on an extremely unlikely set of outcomes in our society and physical responses to increased CO2 are - as a matter of course and even when run against real world forcings - exhibiting too much warming.
Something tells me that you won't read about that in the Guardian.
I trust your "evidence" question is satisfactorally answered. And the annoying thing is that if you took even a a vague interest in the topic beyond the media articles, you'd know about the reality vs. projected temperature issue as it's been in the science literature for literally over a decade. And it's I'm pretty sure that its been pointed out in this thread by me before.
There are plenty of reasons to argue against a catastrophic narrative and (more importantly - as it's the real question) what is proposed to do about it. Suggestions of bad faith by people who challenge the science as you see it are not justified.
I get where you're coming from, but not sure I agree without more details. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying the proposed feedbacks - but to the best of my knowledge all of the major feedback mechanisms seem to be driven by underlying temperature (in this context, the feedback mechanism is triggered by temperature increased induced by elevated CO2 concentrations).
Could you suggest a specific feedback that might be contigent on something more than temperature alone?
No, this is exactly the route to go down if you want to affect meaningful change. I call the principal of these "no regrets" projects; in that there is upside no matter what actually happens in a climatic context. There are many, many mitigation projects which fall into this category which I wholeheartedly support.
I think the GCA is overstating the benefits somewhat (as they're measuring benefits against what I consider to be overstated avoided losses). Full report is here if you're so inclined.
Last edited:
An example might be greenhouse gas contributions from permafrost melt. Permafrost in areas where boreal forests have been degraded, where loss of historical animal populations have changed ground cover, or where human infrastructure has disturbed it, will melt faster.
I can't think of any feedback mechanisms that are solely dependent on temperature. The underlying context is always important. If a certain temperature is reached, certain things are near certain to happen, because the stage has already been, or is currently being, set for them. For many tipping points of current interest, this would not have been case many thousand years ago, or even much more recently.
I'm not sure what I said that would appear to be in disagreement with this.
No, it is a description, a personal attack is when I use your persona as a sandbang and not adress what the person said. The rest is just a complain about calling you out for incorrect or contradictory things you've said but you can always put me on ignore if you so wish.
No, your responses to me are almost entirely based on personal attacks. I can't think of one where you entered into a debate without drawing personal comments. And no, I never put people on ignore, especially people who disagree to the point of obsession with me. It's more likely going to be the other way around. Personally I think it's funny, I just want it on record how you and a few others live and post by a double standard.
On topic: I wonder if this has anything to do with toxins being leached into the ocean from mainland agriculture?
https://www.foxnews.com/science/maine-rare-two-toned-lobster
I'm rough on my responses but they are certainly not based almost on insults (pretty sure this isn't the first time you wrongly claim I don't adress what is said) and I'm interested in seeing that double standard you talk about.
Let me know when you want to discuss the environment, Gregg.
Anytime, just be sure to adress what I say.
You still have not understood that this is a global problem with no realistic fix outside of Internet finger pointing and virtue signalling; adaptability is going to be key no matter which side of the aisle you're on.
Correct, isn't it good to anticipate then instead of adapting till the damage is done?
See, I don't so much fail to address your points as much as shake my head that you fail to grasp mine. I mean, it's like you read a completely different post and responded to that. This damage is happening, no matter what you think. All you and Patrick and a few others are doing is virtue signalling; while you condemn America, plenty of other environmentally impacting countries that could give a fig about your concept of climate crisis and will continue doing what they do. Even if you could convince America to go full Socialist and obliterate their economy, which is unlikely, the problem is still going to be out there and it's still going to be severe and there's still almost certainly going to be radical changes coming.
Look at France, Patrick's homeland which one would presume is free from environmental sin if you can extrapolate from the monumental soapbox he adores climbing up on; that's why I shared the story about his country's toxic sludge. No country is free from pollution and some are just ramping up. Change is coming and adaptability is going to be the bottom line.
1. We already talked about the inevitability of climate change and how we affect it, hint, we can still do something.
2. I don't recall condemning the US in particular though it is the second highest CO2 emitter and a country with a very large population, only China and India have a larger population. Because of this and their influece, it holds a big responsability. I also remind you that the US is not on the Paris Agreement.
3. You assume you need to become a socialist (which in of itself isn't bad but for the sake of argument lets say it is) country to reduce CO2 emissions and pollution. Then again, it's not like socialist countries were and/or are much cleaner than others.
4. You also assume that the economy will necessarily suffer from restrictions in pollution including CO2.
5. I'm sure Patrick hasn't said France is free of guilt, feel free to prove me wrong.
6. Adaptability can come prior to change, ever heard from prophylaxis?
3 & 4 are wrong assumptions BTW.
Yes, France is a developed country, so as guilty as the others.
'Plastic alternatives may worsen marine pollution, MPs warn':
www.theguardian.com
That last part i have to agree with, reduce the amount of plastic packaging, and in many cases it is an easy choice, for example the organic bananas i buy always seem to come in a clear plastic bag(!). A banana (or group of them) come in one of natures best packages already, you don't need plastic on-top of that imho. There are lots of examples like that where we can simply reduce all the plastic we use unnecessarily etc.
Plastic alternatives may worsen marine pollution, MPs warn
Committee says UK should reduce use of plastics rather than replace it with other materials
www.theguardian.com
That last part i have to agree with, reduce the amount of plastic packaging, and in many cases it is an easy choice, for example the organic bananas i buy always seem to come in a clear plastic bag(!). A banana (or group of them) come in one of natures best packages already, you don't need plastic on-top of that imho. There are lots of examples like that where we can simply reduce all the plastic we use unnecessarily etc.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
indeed..... we have a lot of totally unnecessary waste. (my pet hate when you go to a restaurant or hotel and all the sauces and jams etc are in tiny little individually packaged pots.... not only does that waste a lot of the actual contents it produces a lot of packaging. Just give me a bottle of HP and a jar of jam.. if need be these can even be refilled when needed from large catering packs.'Plastic alternatives may worsen marine pollution, MPs warn':
Plastic alternatives may worsen marine pollution, MPs warn
Committee says UK should reduce use of plastics rather than replace it with other materials
That last part i have to agree with, reduce the amount of plastic packaging, and in many cases it is an easy choice, for example the organic bananas i buy always seem to come in a clear plastic bag(!). A banana (or group of them) come in one of natures best packages already, you don't need plastic on-top of that imho. There are lots of examples like that where we can simply reduce all the plastic we use unnecessarily etc.
I am not sure it would work now adays but back in the day when i was a lad (so about 30-35 years ago) i remember when my mum went shopping in the bakery section there were giant bins with scoops. you would grab a bag or a pot (which was reusable) and just scoop out the flour / sugar / rice / semolina / nuts / raisins what ever the goods were and weigh them..... hardly any waste packaging and much cheaper too.
this was back in the 80s when no one was even savvy about the environment but was all about saving money (the 2 can go together).
of course this relies on people to have basic hygene standards as well as parents to actually do their job and parent and make sure little johnny keeps his stinky snotty mits out of it, which having seen what some parents let their kids do at the pick and mix at the supermarket (and lets be honest some parents are not much better but i am going off on an angry tangent here
) may be totally unrealistic.... (which is a very sad thing to say)edit i just googled and found this. dunno if it took off but it seems it was tried again a few years back
Innovative shop Unpackaged is at the forefront of a consumer
It sells everything you could ever need for a great meal. There's only one catch – it won't give you anything to take it all home in.
www.independent.co.uk
edit 2 its still going
GoUnpackaged | Imagining & Delivering the Future of Reuse
We work with clients to transition from single-use to to reusable packaging. We also undertake research and develop reuse policy to enable change.
www.beunpackaged.com
Last edited:
When my wife and I do our family shopping, we try to get as much "bulk" unpackaged items as possible. Those plastic dispensers you shared the pic of are pretty common over here now, which eliminates the worry of non-hygienic shoppers contaminating products.indeed..... we have a lot of totally unnecessary waste. (my pet hate when you go to a restaurant or hotel and all the sauces and jams etc are in tiny little individually packaged pots.... not only does that waste a lot of the actual contents it produces a lot of packaging. Just give me a bottle of HP and a jar of jam.. if need be these can even be refilled when needed from large catering packs.
I am not sure it would work now adays but back in the day when i was a lad (so about 30-35 years ago) i remember when my mum went shopping in the bakery section there were giant bins with scoops. you would grab a bag or a pot (which was reusable) and just scoop out the flour / sugar / rice / semolina / nuts / raisins what ever the goods were and weigh them..... hardly any waste packaging and much cheaper too.
this was back in the 80s when no one was even savvy about the environment but was all about saving money (the 2 can go together).
of course this relies on people to have basic hygene standards as well as parents to actually do their job and parent and make sure little johnny keeps his stinky snotty mits out of it, which having seen what some parents let their kids do at the pick and mix at the supermarket (and lets be honest some parents are not much better but i am going off on an angry tangent here
edit i just googled and found this. dunno if it took off but it seems it was tried again a few years back
Innovative shop Unpackaged is at the forefront of a consumer
It sells everything you could ever need for a great meal. There's only one catch – it won't give you anything to take it all home in.
edit 2 its still going
GoUnpackaged | Imagining & Delivering the Future of Reuse
We work with clients to transition from single-use to to reusable packaging. We also undertake research and develop reuse policy to enable change.
- Status