It's all over but for the sweating?

[Alteredstory]

My definition of good, in this case, is what I see as contributing the most happiness to the most people over the longest period of time, taking into account what we know of how the world works and what is happening to it.

Assuming that because some people have a boneheaded definition of good and bad, ALL definitions are equally boneheaded is a fallacy, and an idiotic one at that.

My comments are based off of what you say, and how you respond to my other comments. You're not being exactly clear on what YOU think, so all I have to work with is your words. If you think I'm getting it wrong, then maybe try to do a better job of explaining yourself.

I think that EVERYBODY makes some level of moral judgement about most things, even if their approach is pretending to somehow be above it all.

I try to have MINE informed by science, which is not the same as "it is the role of science to assert morality". False assumption is false.

You seem to be trying to read things into my comments beyond what is actually there. You asked about the dangers I think are presented by climate change, and I answered. There's no "moral judgement" there, just our best understanding of how the world works. You seemed to find those dangers to be in some way unworthy of consideration, despite the fact that they are currently coming to pass, and then you went into a non-sequitor about breeding.

As I have said, overpopulation IS a problem, but it's not one that can be easily or quickly solved without genocide, which is something (*gasp*, a moral judgement!) of which I disapprove. The source of our energy, on the other hand, is comparatively easy to solve, as shown by the considerable progress already being made around the world.

The problem, with climate change, is WHAT we consume, and how we consume it, neither of which HAVE to be the way they are right now, any more than they are now the way they were 50 years ago.

YOU seem to be searching for a way to dismiss and ignore the whole issue based on some form of moral relativism, but again - you haven't really bothered to actually explain yourself, you just drop the occasional one-liner and fixate one small parts of my comments that have little relevance to my overall point.

[Alteredstory]

Regardless, I think we're a bit off topic at this point.

[P-hack]

You are mincing morals and emotions and science and advocacy and obstinately disregarding dissenting opinion about the nature and scope of the problem or its causes. You cannot shame people into changing, nor should you judge them, based on your lack of perspective. You don't know much about all these humans you are desperate to save at any cost, I suspect you don't really know much about yourself either.

[P-hack]

I never saw "Inconvenient", but I did the AV setup a lot. I saw a lot of traumatized people leaving. The righteous judgmental hypochondriac traumatic spoiled fetus approach hasn't helped ANYONES quality of life. It isn't win win if you look at it empirically and unbiasedly.

Working in a field, heavens no, we can't have that. LOL! I really wish you could hear yourself. Like it would be a tragedy for humans to grow their own food or something, like we haven't survived all but the past 150ish years without everyone having a fake ass desk job, that is "developed", no it is just different, and might not be viable.

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

You are mincing morals and emotions and science and advocacy and obstinately disregarding dissenting opinion about the nature and scope of the problem or its causes. You cannot shame people into changing, nor should you judge them, based on your lack of perspective. You don't know much about all these humans you are desperate to save at any cost, I suspect you don't really know much about yourself either.

You've given no reasons or evidence for your dissenting opinions, you've just disagreed. Arragonis disagreed with a source, gave me his reasons, and I went and looked at them. I can't say I find them convincing, but they've given me something to watch out for. YOU have given me nothing to check or look at.

I've not tried to guilt trip anybody in my entire time here, nor have I told anybody what to do. I made some clarifying comments on a blog post that was linked, and when asked questions I've answered them. In turn, you've accused me of terrorism, guilt-tripping, being "emotional", being judgmental, and so on.

I'm also not sure where you got "at any cost" from. I've given a number of pretty clear answers about actions that could be taken fairly easily. You seem to have ignored them all.

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

I never saw "Inconvenient", but I did the AV setup a lot. I saw a lot of traumatized people leaving. The righteous judgmental hypochondriac traumatic spoiled fetus approach hasn't helped ANYONES quality of life. It isn't win win if you look at it empirically and unbiasedly.

Working in a field, heavens no, we can't have that. LOL! I really wish you could hear yourself. Like it would be a tragedy for humans to grow their own food or something, like we haven't survived all but the past 150ish years without everyone having a fake ass desk job, that is "developed", no it is just different, and might not be viable.

I agree that guilt-tripping is a bad motivator which is why, again, I haven't tried to do so. You seem to be mistaking "pointing out what's going on and what can be done about it" for "guilt-tripping".

Yes - finding out something scary that you hadn't known before can be scary. That's not the fault of the people who discovered something scary. For a number of years now, I've been approaching it from the "things could get really bad, but hey, there's no reason they HAVE to, we can use this to come out on top" angle. You may be FEELING guilt-tripped, and if so, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I've not told you you SHOULD be feeling guilty, or that YOU should be doing more than you are, or anything like that.

I have noticed, however, that no matter HOW the topic comes up, and no matter how it's discussed, some people assume they are being guilt-tripped. In this case, you seem to be trying to guilt-trip ME for presenting my case for why I think global warming is a bad thing.

I also don't know where you got your whole rant about working in a field vs desk jobs. As soon as I can afford to, I'm going to buy a crappy piece of land well above sea level, and spend a good chunk of my time (a)growing my own food and (b)trying to come up with creative solutions to doing so in an unstable climate. Come to that, I tried to set up a group-supported project so that a LOT of people could work on that if they wanted to. It's a shame that it fell through, but I'm still looking to do it.

That's been one of my goals for several years now.

At this point, you seem to be talking to a version of myself that only exists in your mind. I don't see that as a way for either of us to have a useful conversation.

[P-hack]

Flood, famine, extinction, these are guilt trip words. Consider that you are also peeing in the gene pool

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Flood, famine, extinction, these are guilt trip words. Consider that you are also peeing in the gene pool

No. They are words. They are literal events. I was asked WHY I think action is important, and what I think the stakes are. YOU asked me:

Originally Posted by P-hack

What exactly do you see as the danger, and have you considered the side effects of the solution?

I answered. Given what I see as the danger, how would YOU have answered so as to avoid "guilt trip words"?

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

It is here

Climate Consensus and

but two problems.

1. You have to pay to get it
2. It includes Moncton as an author, which sets my alarm bells going.

It's worth reading McIntyre's post on the post-dating at STW.

Another alarm-bell-worthy co-author of that article is Willie Soon, who has a record of producing less-than-reliable work while being funded by a succession of fossil fuel interests.

[P-hack]

The boy who cried wolf. All he ever wanted was attention.