It's all over but for the sweating?

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

S'ok, I was making a different point than the one you went on about.

Back to the subject of emotional manipulation, well more like terrorism, I liken the "thermal runaway" argument to threatening people with eternal damnation if they don't agree with you or the importance of what you are saying. It needs to stop. Economic arguments are best for implementing change, and renewable make the most sense long term, so that is our common ground I guess. People have heard the warnings about sea rise in plenty of time (no I don't have much sympathy for you if you still live in new Orleans).

If you prefer wildlife, then you have to understand that humans compete with wildlife. Look at a satellite picture of the states sometime, almost completely covered in unsustainable farms for an ever unsustainable population, creating lots of heat in the process.

First of all "terrorism" has a definition: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Warning somebody about a danger you see is not terrorism, and pretending it is, is both dishonest and insulting. Stop that.

We warn about dangers because the dangers are real. The presence of feedback loops is not under dispute, it's basic physics. If you warm the planet, certain things WILL happen, and some of them will cause more warming. For that to NOT happen would be counter to everything we know about how the physical world works.

Saying "there's a tiger behind you" isn't alarmism any more than saying "if you're living in New Orleans right now, you're probably going to get flooded again".

You seem to be under the impression that nobody TRIED the dispassionate approach. It's been over fifty years since the first warnings about climate change, and EVERY approach has been tried.

You know what the result has been? No action, millions of dollars spent misleading the public, and now people are saying "you didn't do a good enough job convincing us", while simultaneously accusing people talking about of TERRORISM?

I call bull.

[Alteredstory]

From what I can tell, you have no basis in research or data for your objections, you just don't like being told scary things. I don't see how that's my fault for pointing out that scary things exist.

[P-hack]

Lol, I like palm trees and don't plan on buying a house under water. What's the problem? You expect me to stand by quietly with my experience and take on the situation? Because you are all emotional about climate change?

[Alteredstory]

I expect you to not accuse people of terrorism for talking about science.

As to emotion - yes. I'm emotional about climate change. Things have been set in motion by people before I was born that will affect my life and the lives of my peers in ways that no other generation in the history of our species has had to deal with. I don't know what your experience is, but if your "take" on the situation involves dismissing realities you don't like and accusing people of terrorism, then yes. I have a bit of a problem with that.

It's a cop-out, and an attempt to shut down discussion.

[freebeard]

We should be planning for all of this, but instead we have a bunch of businessmen and lawyers insisting that they know better than every major scientific body in the world, and (and even the Pentagon), and telling us that nothing is happening, REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE. There is no justification for this.

Quoted For Truth

Any respect for the Daily Mail?
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online

I contradict myself? So be it.

[P-hack]

Do you know WHY you are all emotional about climate change? Because you were terrorized.

[Alteredstory]

Here's a link to a deconstruction of the graph by John Christy that you posted (along with some analysis of his testimony to Congress):
Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress

The author of the Daily Mail article also has a less than stellar record: David Rose destroys his credibility and the Daily Mail's with error-riddled climate science reporting | ThinkProgress

In other words, no - not much respect for the Daily Mail. I don't tend to rely on ANY news outlet for science information, for the simple reason that the people reporting on science for them tend not to have any scientific background themselves, and they often get it wrong. This goes for news outlets of all kinds, and even reporters with whom I agree. Often they'll even get more or less the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.

[P-hack]

ter·ror·ize
ˈterəˌrīz/
verb
past tense: terrorised; past participle: terrorised

1.
create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone); fill with terror.

What, o learned one, do you know about thermal runaway?

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Do you know WHY you are all emotional about climate change? Because you were terrorized.

Hardly. I follow the research, and I keep track of what's going on around me.

Terrorism is "if you don't agree with me, I'll kill you and your family".

Science is verifiable, you just seem to have decided that anything that SOUNDS dramatic must be wrong, because reasons.

I keep thinking of a conversation I had with someone who insisted that the planet wasn't warming at all, and ice melt had nothing to do with the shrinking ice cap on Kilimanjaro, because it never got warm enough up there for ice to melt. They kept insisting I'd been lied to, rather like you are doing now.

The difference was that I'd seen for myself. I reached the summit around 4pm, and the snow was warm enough to have a damp patch around the piles on the volcanic ash (aided by the dark color of the substrate) and wet enough to make snowballs easily.

Emotion is not a sound reason to dismiss something, any more than it's a sound reason to accept it.

[P-hack]

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