deGrasse Tyson & Nye on Climate Change

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by T@T

I didn't post Calgary's warming trend to pimp global warming, it was posted to show climate change and clearly Calgary has progressively gotten warmer over the last 40 years.

The brutal winter in the east has been blamed on a shift of the Jetstream but overall the planet was warmer this year than last and ...so on.

I got no problem with your post. I mean Calgary did have a warmer winter in 2015. It's a fact which is why I didn't quote it or respond to it. I'm not a religious person which is probably why I can't get overly invested in this stuff as anything involving high stakes politics is something that I'm simply going to take with a grain of salt from both the supporters and detractors.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah sorry but anyone that believe my post deserved being attacked has got their heads way too deep into the climate change cult. You are essentially saying my factual post was attack worthy which shows how deep your commitment is to your cause as you are willing to attack anything that doesn't support it.

No, I was saying your attempt to connect the facts in your post to an overall trend in climate change was incredibly simple-minded.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No, I was saying your attempt to connect the facts in your post to an overall trend in climate change was incredibly simple-minded.

And I think you overreacted but I think we will just have to agree to disagree here. However if you can pinpoint any part of my post that points to me implying an overall trend then I will sincerely apologize.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

And I think you overreacted but I think we will just have to agree to disagree here.

Maybe I just made assumptions based on your previous posts on the topic. I believe you're a climate change skeptic, correct? Or am I confusing you with another poster?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Maybe I just made assumptions based on your previous posts on the topic. I believe you're a climate change skeptic, correct? Or am I confusing you with another poster?

No, you've pretty much nailed it.

This is from this same thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...13#post4762013

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Maybe I just made assumptions based on your previous posts on the topic. I believe you're a climate change skeptic, correct? Or am I confusing you with another poster?

I don't think it really matters. I'm a skeptic of all high stakes politics which means I'm naturally skeptical of all information we have for and against climate change. I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both of the extremes.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

No, you've pretty much nailed it.

This is from this same thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...13#post4762013

Thanks Flash. You just proved how consistent I am with my opinion here. As I just said I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't think it really matters. I'm a skeptic of all high stakes politics which means I'm naturally skeptical of all information we have for and against climate change. I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both of the extremes.

Nah, you're a close-minded climate denying troll trying to pass himself as someone impartial or 'balanced'.

See ludicrous post from you from this same thread above for proof.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Thanks Flash. You just proved how consistent I am with my opinion here. As I just said I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Actually, repeating the same information a year later in the face of resounding evidence to the contrary makes you look like a doofus, especially in light of admitting to Calgary's unseasonably warm winter.

You are what you are, EE. You've been it for some time.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Nah, you're a close-minded climate denying troll trying to pass himself as someone impartial or 'balanced'.

See ludicrous post from you from this same thread above for proof.

You got me Flash. I'm "misinformed", "troll", "ignorant" and all the other nice words you climate change activists have for anyone that doesn't share your beliefs.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, look, at this point if you're still not convinced as to what the truth is here, you're deliberately pulling the wool over your own eyes, as people will do on this and innumerable other topics.

It's frustrating that as human animals evolution is a slow process and we have outpaced it; tribalistic behaviour ("I'm on the anti-climate change team") and inherent biases ("I don't want to believe something so I'm ten times as likely to accept evidence against it rather than for it") are ingrained. Frankly, tribalism is the biggest threat to the species right now and ironically it likely exists because it was at some point useful from an evolutionary standpoint.

If you showed EE ten of the studies that demonstrated full stop that there is no debate here, out of the thousands of such studies that exist from qualified experts, it would do no good. Evidence simply doesn't work in this circumstance owing to flaws that are simply human nature.

TL;DR: We're screwed. Bring on the philosopher kings.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You got me Flash. I'm "misinformed", "troll", "ignorant" and all the other nice words you climate change activists have for anyone that doesn't share your beliefs.

Admitting you are a problem is the first step.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

I don't think it really matters. I'm a skeptic of all high stakes politics which means I'm naturally skeptical of all information we have for and against climate change. I believe the truth is probably somewhere in the middle of both of the extremes.

The good old false compromise fallacy.

[Erick Estrada]

You know in a lot of ways the pro-climate change cult is less tolerant than the Taliban.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, look, at this point if you're still not convinced as to what the truth is here, you're deliberately pulling the wool over your own eyes, as people will do on this and innumerable other topics.

It's frustrating that as human animals evolution is a slow process and we have outpaced it; tribalistic behaviour ("I'm on the anti-climate change team") and inherent biases ("I don't want to believe something so I'm ten times as likely to accept evidence against it rather than for it") are ingrained. Frankly, tribalism is the biggest threat to the species right now and ironically it likely exists because it was at some point useful from an evolutionary standpoint.

If you showed EE ten of the studies that demonstrated full stop that there is no debate here, out of the thousands of such studies that exist from qualified experts, it would do no good. Evidence simply doesn't work in this circumstance owing to flaws that are simply human nature.

TL;DR: We're screwed. Bring on the philosopher kings.

How ironic.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

You know in a lot of ways the pro-climate change cult is less tolerant than the Taliban.

Come on, I expect much more subtle trolling out of you than that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

See, that kind of obstinacy and lack of introspection is in itself the problem here.

If compelling evidence could be provided to me that disproves my view, I would be happy to change it. I don't want to be wrong about something for even a moment longer than I need to be. That's all that's needed: good, reliable evidence. And that's how everyone should approach any issue of this sort (or, frankly, any other).

They don't. Because we are imperfect creatures.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The recent movie "Merchants of Doubt" is well worth a watch on this. Essentially, the playbook here is lifted directly out of the tobacco industry's from 40+ years ago. Everyone knows the information will come out in full eventually, and everyone will eventually understand the full magnitude of it. So the game is to muddy the waters and delay that broad acceptance for as long as possible. Even some of the spokespeople are re-used.

Simply put, this cannot be a political issue. Politics immediately descends into tribalism. People are collectively too stupid to make these decisions. But there's just no way around it because of how decisions are made in modern democracies.

Can Big Oil be sued like Big Tobacco was?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1722953/mu...ands-of-judge/

Can the Koch Brothers be charged with crimes against humanity?

http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate...e-contrarians/

There are two definitions of crimes against humanity in international law that could apply to the campaign of the climate change contrarians. The first is “grave offences that are part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population,” and the second is “inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical harm.” (Brown, 2013)

It is not possible for a variety of reasons to charge the Koch brothers and the other contrarians in their vast network with crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court at The Hague. But we could at least begin to call them by a name that is more appropriate for those who have committed crimes against humanity.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can Big Oil be sued like Big Tobacco was?

http://globalnews.ca/news/1722953/mu...ands-of-judge/

Can the Koch Brothers be charged with crimes against humanity?

http://blogs.law.widener.edu/climate...e-contrarians/

There are two definitions of crimes against humanity in international law that could apply to the campaign of the climate change contrarians. The first is “grave offences that are part of a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population,” and the second is “inhumane acts intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical harm.” (Brown, 2013)

It is not possible for a variety of reasons to charge the Koch brothers and the other contrarians in their vast network with crimes against humanity in the International Criminal Court at The Hague. But we could at least begin to call them by a name that is more appropriate for those who have committed crimes against humanity.

It is an interesting question in the abstract. I suspect that they have also learned from the cautionary tales there and have taken steps to prevent it, but given the way we communicate electronically now and the sheer volume of stored e-mails, I'd say yeah there's probably some info in a database somewhere that could have people picking up the torches and pitchforks when it ultimately does come out.

But we're talking about two different impacts: tobacco's fostering of nonsense and deliberate dishonesty, not to put too fine a point on it, makes them directly complicit in millions of negligent homicides. That's a classic class action scenario. The propagandists in this case are contributing to the gradual degradation of the planet - it's not clear who exactly has legal standing. It's not like the arctic ice caps can sue Exxon.

The other point is that Tobacco did the studies demonstrating nicotine addictiveness and links to cancer and heart disease and other such things themselves - and then withheld the results. Very different scenario here. The information is out there for all to see. All they're doing in this case is obfuscating, and there is no law against that. In fact, the law protects their right to talk gibberish. It turns out that it doesn't matter if you withhold the information or not.

[GGG]

I think the other thing is that society benefits from the low cost energy carbon sources provide. It's only the future that is affected. There is no addiction either all individuals could choose to live a lifestyle with a significantly reduced carbon foot print but we choose not to.

And we will continue to make that choice. It's only the staunchest supporters that have actually reduced their footprints to a sustainable level. Most families have more than two cars regardless of their beliefs in global warming. We don't care, we can't even vote in governments that won't borrow against 10 to 20 years in the future let alone 50.

I don't have any faith in the worlds ability to meaningfully cut green house gas emissions. Even if the west weans itself off oil Africa will burn it cheaply to bring themselves out of poverty and no one can really blame them.