I do a bit of trail crawling every now and again but I'm not massively into it. I've got the Element Enduro Trailrunner and the FTX Outback 3 Paso. 
Sorry, I got buried in stuff and completely forgot to come back. I didn't mean to abandon the topic.
I predict that I will always be in search of my position, and I will never find it. And if ever I think I have found it, something will come along again to challenge it.
Some equations cannot be simplified down to a binary true/false, right:wrong. Science is not even as simple as true vs false, because it is we, humans, who perform it. Science is just as much about certainty vs uncertainty. This is the inescapable reality; that nothing can truly be fully resolved.
Heck, we even base distinct new theoretical science on the "laws of gravity", even while scientists are *absolutely* divided on whether to derive their work on fundamentally differing (modified) Newtonian or Einsteinian theories and principles of gravity.
As do I.
For me absolutism, as a counter to nuance, is eminently deficient. But nowhere in this debate is this absolutism more exposed for the absurdity that it is, than the pro-abortion "abort every baby, twice if you can!" advocacy that is popular in some strains of societies today. As you both imply, this is the embodiment of anti-humanism. It's cult-like and it is indicative of a sickness.
I predict that I will always be in search of my position, and I will never find it. And if ever I think I have found it, something will come along again to challenge it.
Some equations cannot be simplified down to a binary true/false, right:wrong. Science is not even as simple as true vs false, because it is we, humans, who perform it. Science is just as much about certainty vs uncertainty. This is the inescapable reality; that nothing can truly be fully resolved.
Heck, we even base distinct new theoretical science on the "laws of gravity", even while scientists are *absolutely* divided on whether to derive their work on fundamentally differing (modified) Newtonian or Einsteinian theories and principles of gravity.
As do I.
For me absolutism, as a counter to nuance, is eminently deficient. But nowhere in this debate is this absolutism more exposed for the absurdity that it is, than the pro-abortion "abort every baby, twice if you can!" advocacy that is popular in some strains of societies today. As you both imply, this is the embodiment of anti-humanism. It's cult-like and it is indicative of a sickness.
Sorry, I misunderstood. That was me misreading, not you miscommunicating, on the subject of the death penalty.
I had imagined some form of social credit score, where a human has intrinsic value but where that intrinsic value can be offset by extrinsic or instrumental actions or behaviours - a murderer being extrinsically detrimental to their society, to the extent that the net worth of the culprit justified them being handed down the death penalty. This is not an argument you've made, or that I would make, but I have seen it be made.
Indeed the idea collapses where political or ideological differences between communities, nations or cultures become insurmountable. War is sometimes inevitable. Nevertheless, whether or not it is easy, I believe the best solution is always a diplomatic one fundamentally because of the intrinsic value of a human life. My starting position is always to value not just a life but also its liberty. A life in servitude or serfdom is not much of a life at all, and is by definition valued least in a society where the notion is allowed to permeate.
I genuinely appreciate this discourse and I feel I'm getting a lot out of it. I think that on the very few points where we diverge in opinion at all, these points can be understood and appreciated by each of us.
We are living in a time when attempts are being made (too successfully) to normalise post-normalism. The notion of reality itself is being undermined with the ludicrous idea that more than one reality can exist, with each individual experiencing their own unique reality, and in those realities that truth exists on a spectrum or that truth can be what you want it to be.
By this route, truth becomes devalued and unimportant or insignificant, because the objective truth is usurped by the subjective belief-as-truth. Into this world, the insignificant "reality" that "Jeffrey Epstein killed Priogozhin" is born. It's rather Orwellian. If you can self-select your reality, and you can be convinced to embrace authoritarianism, ultimately you will accept a reality of authority's choosing without questioning it. Or if you do question it, with whom can you argue? Since everyone else's reality is their own, there is no mechanism to coalesce and rise up together against an authoritatively asserted "truth". Political narrative becomes "truth", and everything that deviates from it becomes "misinformation".
Or.. I could be wrong
Here in the UK also, death means brain death, as determined by doctors. In Alfie's case, there was little to no brain left to claim to be alive. The nature of the disease which attacked him left his skull progressively filled only with a mixture of water and spinal fluid. The name of the disease itself remained undiagnosed until after his death (and still today as far as I know), which meant that there was no possibility of a cure and no way to prevent or slow its ongoing degenerative effects.
I understand your position, I think, but perhaps need clarity on one thing. If a human is to be judged by its extrinsic value, what extrinsic value has a zygote? Or a fetus? Or even a newborn baby? What have they contributed to the world, that imbues them with a value that they deserve any concern, consideration or protection?
Perhaps predictably, I favour diplomacy over war. Every war starts with a failure in diplomacy and ends with an act of diplomacy. A civilian death is a war crime by default, IMO. I accept war as a reality of the world in which we live, but I don't endorse its commission.
I accept that a paid soldier is gambling with his/her own life, but that it must be their own choice. I believe that individuals have a right to defend (or not) their home and nation, but I don't support conscription. I believe fundamentally in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle":-
As I've seen it said by others:- my right to swing my fist ENDS at the point of someone else's nose.
We are living in a time when attempts are being made (too successfully) to normalise post-normalism. The notion of reality itself is being undermined with the ludicrous idea that more than one reality can exist, with each individual experiencing their own unique reality, and in those realities that truth exists on a spectrum or that truth can be what you want it to be.
By this route, truth becomes devalued and unimportant or insignificant, because the objective truth is usurped by the subjective belief-as-truth. Into this world, the insignificant "reality" that "Jeffrey Epstein killed Priogozhin" is born. It's rather Orwellian. If you can self-select your reality, and you can be convinced to embrace authoritarianism, ultimately you will accept a reality of authority's choosing without questioning it. Or if you do question it, with whom can you argue? Since everyone else's reality is their own, there is no mechanism to coalesce and rise up together against an authoritatively asserted "truth". Political narrative becomes "truth", and everything that deviates from it becomes "misinformation".
Or.. I could be wrong
Here in the UK also, death means brain death, as determined by doctors. In Alfie's case, there was little to no brain left to claim to be alive. The nature of the disease which attacked him left his skull progressively filled only with a mixture of water and spinal fluid. The name of the disease itself remained undiagnosed until after his death (and still today as far as I know), which meant that there was no possibility of a cure and no way to prevent or slow its ongoing degenerative effects.
I understand your position, I think, but perhaps need clarity on one thing. If a human is to be judged by its extrinsic value, what extrinsic value has a zygote? Or a fetus? Or even a newborn baby? What have they contributed to the world, that imbues them with a value that they deserve any concern, consideration or protection?
Perhaps predictably, I favour diplomacy over war. Every war starts with a failure in diplomacy and ends with an act of diplomacy. A civilian death is a war crime by default, IMO. I accept war as a reality of the world in which we live, but I don't endorse its commission.
I accept that a paid soldier is gambling with his/her own life, but that it must be their own choice. I believe that individuals have a right to defend (or not) their home and nation, but I don't support conscription. I believe fundamentally in John Stuart Mill's "harm principle":-
As I've seen it said by others:- my right to swing my fist ENDS at the point of someone else's nose.
This is a feature of an advanced society. The more prosperous it becomes, the less children it has. We have fallen below replacement rates in the UK for decades now. Our population is still increasing, however, but not just because all of our elderly are brain dead and on life support
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255510/
I think you can determine alive or dead scientifically (quantitative). I think murder falls to a societal determination (qualitative) though, and might be determined manslaughter in some circumstances, or righteous self defence in others etc - these having a criminal implication and a crime being statutory - i.e. established in or constrained by law - the circumstances completely separated from yet informed by science, for example via an autopsy.
Yes, the consequences of prohibition have a gruesome history, just as the consequences of unfettered access to abortions. There is no one-size-fits-all.
Your English is phenomenal. Some of the best English I've ever read has been from non-native English speakers on this very forum over the years, and some of the worst here has been from native speakers.
It's been my experience that, whether I hold a strong opinion on a topic or not, someone will always turn up to correct me and prove me wrong eventually, in whole or in part. On quantitative subjects this has the effect of sharpening and expanding my knowledge and understanding, while on qualitative subjects it's added to my knowledge and understanding but also made me more open to differing viewpoints. True vs false is so much easier to refine and simplify than right vs wrong.
This is politics, unfortunately. On the left there is a movement to permit abortion up to the moment of birth. On the right there is devotion to the unborn baby, but as soon as it's born they suddenly don't seem to give a sh*t about it. Pro-death penalty is of the right while anti-death penalty is of the left. They're bimodal, not binary, but political persuasion is a pretty good predictor.
I'm opposed to the death penalty and always have been. Either there is intrinsic value to life, from which a society's statutes of individual liberty are derived, or life is not intrinsically valuable. I feel that the notion of a death penalty undermines the credibility of a society that otherwise claims to care about its members.
On the face of it, this might appear to run contrary to my acceptance of Alfie Evans' fate, but I've reasoned it out internally over time. Alfie was brain-dead.
Today, in probably the vast majority of instances we have the ability to sustain "life" medically when the brain dies. I accept that, when the brain is dead, the person has died. There is no medical or ethical justification for mechanically sustaining an individual's constituent organs after this point, except for the purpose of harvesting them when needed to save the life of another (non-brain-dead) person. The process of grieving is necessary for the well-being of those left behind.
If someone had ever presented me with what I found to be a compelling argument in favour of the death penalty, I'd be open to changing my mind. So far in 50 years nobody has. Yet. Honestly, I don't think it'd be possible to convince me but, as I say, even my strongest views are open to being challenged.
I fully accept in principle the rational artgument in favour of the protection of life. It's logically sound.
I can accept this, except to note that the winner gains some validation. There is value in the knowledge that you have a winning argument.
So am I.
It's a journey, not a destination. My line in the sand is drawn on a beach. Sometimes the tide of new knowledge washes it clean and I have to start over.I'm not religious either but I am not ignorant of the importance that this subject carries in most religions. Most peoples' views on this subject are baked in beliefs from cultural norms which are evolved, and often ultimately devolved, from religious values. Moral and ethical considerations are not informed by scientific metrics. Science can ultimately tell you what is true or false (quantitative), but it is not the purpose, nor even within the capacity, of science to determine what is right or wrong, acceptable or intolerable (qualitative).
Therefore, since the question is not scientifically derived, neither can be the answer. Abortion is a right/wrong, not a true/false question. Science can inform some aspects, but no more than that.
Obviously I am not.
I'm saying that the point at which "murder" is determined with regard to a "human being" is not universally established, on either the matter of murder or on the matter of a human being, but that the sentience of a zygote/fetus/infant is no better as an alternative either.
Meanwhile, veganism and vegetarianism are often gauged by individuals on the sentience of the prey. I know many vegetarians who will eat fish because they don't regard fish as sentient. I know many hunters who do not perceive deer as sentient. Whether they are or not I don't know, but I believe they are.
Because the question is not what is a human, the question is what is an acceptable period of time to allow an abortion, if we arbitrarily choose the zygote as that determining instant then there is no feasible possibility of a legal abortion and suddenly every miscarriage requires a death certificate and possibly a funeral. This has to be binary all/nothing because the arbitrary determination regarding the existence of an individual human being is made.
If it seems ridiculous to require a death certificate for a miscarriage at any stage in development - even if it appears to be just a monthly cycle - then perhaps this determination isn't the best option.
If you are pro-life, what difference would it have made if the diagnosis had been made at any other time, whether sooner or later? Murder is murder, right? Even frivolous murder.
The case of Alfie was very interesting from a sociological POV, more than from a medical standpoint. Alfie was born in the UK, where the NHS (i.e. the British taxpayer) is responsible for the care and associated costs, not only of Alfie but also with responsibilities towards Alfie's parents - including a duty of care for their mental health and well-being, appropriate grief counselling etc.
There was great outrage in the US, where Americans asserted how cruel the NHS was for making the decision to end life support. In the US, of course, the tens of $thousands in monthly hospital care costs would be born by the Evans family - even the best US health insurance is finite in these circumstances - and I firmly believe Alfie would not have survived as long as he did if he'd been born in the US. Money seems to have an uncanny ability to focus the mind, even on life/death matters. As heartbroken as a parent might be, that life support on/off switch looms large when faced with potential economic ruin, even when it's your very own infant brain-dead child.
[edit] Sorry, I forgot to answer your question: Yes, ultimately I felt that the decision to remove life support was the correct decision. I fully accept the Evans family's desire to keep the lights on but there was absolutely no possibility of Alfie ever being more than brain dead, and there was no way the Evans family could afford the care that would have been required. As hard as it is to let someone go, it's necessary. I've lost both my parents at this point and it's been a very hard journey. It's not fair but it's life, and everybody has to live/suffer through it eventually.
Last edited by SamH, .
As I say, I find these discussions interesting. I try to respect and take account of the arguments and viewpoints of others. I've been described as a "merchant of doubt", but I prefer to see myself as a proponent of nuance.
tbh I don't have a strong material argument, nor really any argument aside from a premise of humanitarianism. Owing to my devotion to the deliberative "but then again.." I'm forced to recognise that there is also a humanitarian argument for the last-option, ending of misery.
Perhaps it's worth noting that I'm less interested in an adversarial debate and more interested in constructive discussions. Rather than a win/lose conclusion, I lean more towards common understanding - not necessarily with agreement, but hopefully with increased knowledge of both the subject and others' perspectives. So it might be fair to say that I'm the wrong person to enter the debate in opposition
I could formulate an argument that, if it can't sustain itself, it isn't a human. But that argument is no more compelling, no more rational than your argument. Ultimately, I believe it comes down to a matter of opinion on where in the sand you choose to draw your line. That's determined subjectively, and is impossible to resolve objectively. My presumption is that the aim of a discussion is to find agreement/concession based on objective standards, and I don't think this is possible on this subject.
There are a plethora of different medical considerations. Is the zygote so distinct from any other cell in the human body? Why is any other cell in the human body not regarded individually as human? The zygote begins its existence as part of, and not independent of, the body that surrounds it, just as any other cell in the body. Attaining that independence is the zygote's journey, through growth and development, but it clearly - in medical terms - is not an individual at the moment of its first existence. Some religious groups regard sperm and egg to be sacrosanct (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzVHjg3AqIQ), even though the overwhelming majority of them will never combine to become a zygote that proceeds to individualism.
I think you're making my point about the deficiency of sentience, as an alternative criterion, for me!
Just for the record, as a UK citizen I can't have an abortion at any point. Although legally I can be a woman here, this basic human right to choose to give birth to a child or not is denied me on medical grounds
My position is that abortion is a crumple zone, and that it would be better to not crash.
Just to be clear, I'm talking post-birth, <3 month-old infants, not <3 month-old fetus. I'm not sure if you remember the case of "Alfie", a child who suffered brain damage at birth. To all intents and purposes, Alfie appeared as a typical newborn despite suffering GABA-transaminase deficiency - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_Evans_case. Objectively this was a desperately sad circumstance, but through learning about this case I came to realise that a baby is not sentient even by the time of its birth.
I think that, again, it depends on where in the sand you draw your line. The reason I'm pro-life (to the extent that I am) is the same reason I'm against the death penalty. Certainly the death penalty is not a punishment to someone who is dead, because they're dead, and it's not a warning to others either. Statistically, in the US where capital punishment exists in some states but not others, the death penalty is not evident as a deterrent. Interestingly, however, gun open/concealed carry laws do appear to be.
I recognise the exceptions and accept them.
Last edited by SamH, .
I'm not going to weigh in too deeply. If I'd spotted the discussion sooner, perhaps I would have weighed in more fully. I think it's an interesting topic and, like most of the subjects you raise, I find the discussion to be enthralling.
I personally hold an ethics-driven pro-life principled stance, pragmatically tempered by pro-choice considerations. That is to say that, in an ideal world, everybody lives happily and nobody dies. But this is far from being an ideal world.
Obviously, the true/false premise is that a embryo/fetus is a human being. There are medical, moral and religious justifications both for and against this premise. If instead you argue for the preservation of sentient (over human) life, this argument must contend strong medical arguments that an infant does not truly achieve sentience for several months after birth. Nobody (as far as I know) makes the argument that infants <3 months old/sentience could be terminated. So it's a complex question. And so it should be.
I find the extremes in the binary arguments to be the most entertaining. I find that the argument that it's simple and/or that there's no room for discussion to be manifestly bigoted (a bigot being one who is intolerant of others' views), but ironically is present in those who *believe* themselves to be the most tolerant. I also find it ironic that the most strongly pro-life also tend to be the most supportive of capital punishment - a logical inconsistency that seems to pass largely unnoticed.
But I also accept that, as humans, we are often less than pure engines of logic. I myself am an active animal rights campaigner, but I do love a decent cheeseburger.
I personally hold an ethics-driven pro-life principled stance, pragmatically tempered by pro-choice considerations. That is to say that, in an ideal world, everybody lives happily and nobody dies. But this is far from being an ideal world.
Obviously, the true/false premise is that a embryo/fetus is a human being. There are medical, moral and religious justifications both for and against this premise. If instead you argue for the preservation of sentient (over human) life, this argument must contend strong medical arguments that an infant does not truly achieve sentience for several months after birth. Nobody (as far as I know) makes the argument that infants <3 months old/sentience could be terminated. So it's a complex question. And so it should be.
I find the extremes in the binary arguments to be the most entertaining. I find that the argument that it's simple and/or that there's no room for discussion to be manifestly bigoted (a bigot being one who is intolerant of others' views), but ironically is present in those who *believe* themselves to be the most tolerant. I also find it ironic that the most strongly pro-life also tend to be the most supportive of capital punishment - a logical inconsistency that seems to pass largely unnoticed.
But I also accept that, as humans, we are often less than pure engines of logic. I myself am an active animal rights campaigner, but I do love a decent cheeseburger.
Not just you and me but anyone and anything that challenges his world view - including the dissenting scientists who ARE knowledgeable, authoritative and perfectly well qualified to espouse on the topic, despite his lie that they are not. I don't engage with him any more because he is religiously dogmatic and unmoving, wholly disingenuous and logically inconsistent. I have far better things to waste my time on.
I agree it doesn't have to be that way, I'm simply making the point that it is and always will be that way. Large companies accumulate power and influence, and use it to protect their profits and monopolies. I think we in the west like to delude ourselves that our system is not as corrupt as, say, Russia or China. But we are. We just hide it better.
Of course. But you agree in principle, I presume, that if you ARE going to spend money to achieve a goal, it's important that you spend that money in a way that ensures that your goal is achieved. Spend money to DO good rather than spend money to LOOK good.
I completely agree with you here. But it's important to understand that our western countries' "net zero" targets are just trickery. Profitable trickery.
We aren't reducing manufacturing emissions at all, we're just moving them to (for example) China, in exactly the same way our electric cars are not at all clean if they are truthfully fuelled by coal-fired and CCGT power stations - which they have to be, for grid stability and reliability, since all "renewable" sources must be matched 1:1 because the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.
Carbon offsetting to countries that don't care about cleaner fossil fuel emissions is worse than manufacturing more responsibly at home. But this cannot be accidental, since it's so obviously the case. It's an illusion that depends on mid-wittery (western population masses who are ignorant or stupid) and virtuousness, and keen to "do the right thing" to succeed. But it's profitable, and that's why we do it.
This is asserted but it isn't established. The attempts to assert this (eg "97% of climate scientists agree...") have been broadly debunked. It simply isn't true that the current collective opinion of climate scientists is either that the majority of the warming is anthropogenic, NOR is there any agreement or popular acceptance that the rate of warming is catastrophic.
This is only true now that the predictions have been significantly revised downwards.
This is absolutely NOT the case. Climate models have a long established history of consistently running hot. But worse than that, while the range of estimates from models has been extremely wide, only the WORST case scenarios have been used by the IPCC in their SPMs to inform WG3 policy recommendations while at the same time pointing to BEST case scenario model runs to show that model error bars were within the range of observations. This is unacceptable data abuse, and statistical torture.
Remember, 10 years ago we only had 14 months to prevent the earth experiencing 4.5 degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. Today, the same people are arguing that we must prevent the earth seeing just 1.5 degrees of warming over pre-industrial levels.
Not a single prediction from climate scientist activists since the 70s has come to pass, be it temperature increase or sea level rise, or anything between. You might just as well lean in on Nostradamus or Mother Shipton predictions as believe these doomsday climate predictions.
Biologists are quite clear that the earth today is CO2-starved compared with the paleobiological record. Your premise that the earth is fat on CO2 is diametrically opposed to the truth.
A recent post in this thread declared 2023 to be the hottest on record, based on a MSM report, based on a claim made by a media-hungry group of climatologists. The truth is that we will not have collected, collated, corrected and disseminated 2023 weather station data until mid next year at the earliest. NASA GISS scientists/activists Jim Hansen, and now Gavin Schmidt, are notorious for making claims about [current year] record temperatures, only to quietly revise down the numbers through the process of collation and correction, and subsequently declare subsequent new [current year] record temperatures. This pattern of "pre-publication" riding the preliminary data crest of the wave is good for grabbing Daily Express headlines but it's not good for the integrity of science.
We've spent $21 trillion in taxes so far on slowing the increase in atmospheric CO2, and so far we've delayed its release to the tune of about 2 weeks behind what it would have been by 2100. That's an abject and inordinate waste of money. I can think of a lot of good that we could have done with that money.
95% of all warming is caused by atmospheric water vapour. CO2 is the strawman argument.
This is mostly comprised of MSM headline claims, which are clickbaity creative interpretations of press releases from media hungry political advocates. There's not much really to address rationally.
If you're interested in the subject, it's interesting
@Alexandr,
1-2:-I'm assuming that we're talking about a functioning (ha!) economy, so the cost is ultimately born by the citizenry. It doesn't matter if it's paid for through taxation or passed on to us through corporate regulation resulting in rising prices, the cost is always born by the consumer.
3:- Sorry, probably an Englishism. Return on investment (ROI) is a question of cost:benefit. Is the expense of an action justifiable because the benefit is measureable/tangible/positive. Eg: Paying £10 to feed a rescue animal has a greater ROI than paying £10 for a sign to put in my window, saying "I support rescuing animals". So the question is, will the money spent be effective in achieving the result you're paying to achieve?
4- I see constant conflation of measures to fight climate change and measures to reduce pollution. Given that CO2 is *not* a pollutant and is instead plant food which is crucial to the survival of all life on earth, this is a very important distinction. Measures to remove pollutants but not necessarily to impede the release of CO2 are, IMO, preferred.
Especially measures intended to recycle byproducts into non-contaminating and inert products. Since these byproducts can be recycled profitably, they are normally captured rather than released anyway. My point is really that fossil fuels are only polluting if they are not properly processed, and that investment should be focused on R&D into that process of recycling rather than the elimination of the fossil fuel itself.
[EDIT] I kinda missed my point, juxtaposing renewable energy sectors which ARE major polluters.
The main source of pollution at the moment comes from the mismanagement of waste, resulting in micro-plastics in waterways and oceans. This is urgent - IMO the most urgent issue - but requires substantially better management.
1-2:-I'm assuming that we're talking about a functioning (ha!) economy, so the cost is ultimately born by the citizenry. It doesn't matter if it's paid for through taxation or passed on to us through corporate regulation resulting in rising prices, the cost is always born by the consumer.
3:- Sorry, probably an Englishism. Return on investment (ROI) is a question of cost:benefit. Is the expense of an action justifiable because the benefit is measureable/tangible/positive. Eg: Paying £10 to feed a rescue animal has a greater ROI than paying £10 for a sign to put in my window, saying "I support rescuing animals". So the question is, will the money spent be effective in achieving the result you're paying to achieve?
4- I see constant conflation of measures to fight climate change and measures to reduce pollution. Given that CO2 is *not* a pollutant and is instead plant food which is crucial to the survival of all life on earth, this is a very important distinction. Measures to remove pollutants but not necessarily to impede the release of CO2 are, IMO, preferred.
Especially measures intended to recycle byproducts into non-contaminating and inert products. Since these byproducts can be recycled profitably, they are normally captured rather than released anyway. My point is really that fossil fuels are only polluting if they are not properly processed, and that investment should be focused on R&D into that process of recycling rather than the elimination of the fossil fuel itself.
[EDIT] I kinda missed my point, juxtaposing renewable energy sectors which ARE major polluters.
The main source of pollution at the moment comes from the mismanagement of waste, resulting in micro-plastics in waterways and oceans. This is urgent - IMO the most urgent issue - but requires substantially better management.
Last edited by SamH, .
Bro.. almost literally my first 2 or 3 posts in this thread!
I would ask, where you say you are in favour of fighting climate change-
I would ask, where you say you are in favour of fighting climate change-
1) Does it matter if these things are expensive?
2) And if they are expensive, does it matter on whom those costs fall?
3) And does it matter if these efforts are effective and will have a return on investment? (i.e. not just virtue signalling)
4) And are you sure you want to prioritise fighting climate change, or pollution? Proposed solutions to each are not the same.
Ha! Well, I decided to take on a photography project, but then it started raining
No, you don't. That's about as direct and as obvious a lie as you could possibly tell. It's absolutely inconceivable that you could be anything more than trolling. What an unbelievable waste of time you've been.
This is insane levels of projection.
If there's one thing I think we've all learned from your participation in this thread, it's that you don't follow logic in any argument. You give a good example of how you don't understand and have no capacity for this discussion. If you knew anything you'd know that the "Big Oil" studies assumed a simple system and a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature. The climate is not a simple system, it's a complex coupled system, and the effect of CO2 on temperature is not linear, it's logarithmic. The 50 year old studies made the "all other things being equal" assumption that we obviously know is incorrect.
As for the IPCC, you seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that this is a scientific body rather than a political one. The scientists involved in the IPCC are invited by politicians, not scientists, to participate. The SPM at the conclusion of the IPCC Assessment Report is put together by political government representatives and their invited NGOs, who together negotiate the document to the exclusion of scientists. This is how the system is designed to work, per the doctrine of the UNFCCC.
But if you knew anything about this subject, you'd already know these things and wouldn't need me to correct you or explain things to you.
I'm not saying anything that isn't either common knowledge in the scientific community or isn't absolutely mainstream climate science. What I'm NOT doing is parroting the politically motivated activists' talking points, narratives and spin.
The vast majority of the field of climate science is interested only in advancing their knowledge and making discoveries. They are NOT trying to promote themselves for glory by becoming lead authors on the IPCC working groups, or promoting or advocating their world view, or saying the right things in order to get grant approvals from a politicised and corrupted funding authority or to make front page "only 6 months to save the world" headlines.
On the other hand, there is an element that DOES all those things, and because you know so little on the subject you only know how to find that stuff to repeat here. And you have no idea HOW MUCH you DON'T know.
The vast majority of the field of climate science is interested only in advancing their knowledge and making discoveries. They are NOT trying to promote themselves for glory by becoming lead authors on the IPCC working groups, or promoting or advocating their world view, or saying the right things in order to get grant approvals from a politicised and corrupted funding authority or to make front page "only 6 months to save the world" headlines.
On the other hand, there is an element that DOES all those things, and because you know so little on the subject you only know how to find that stuff to repeat here. And you have no idea HOW MUCH you DON'T know.
I even put it at the very beginning, to improve the chance of you paying attention.
This is not me engaging in discussion with you, Avraham, but merely ensuring a common and mutual understanding.
You are objectively wrong in what you say about Alexandr, and you have demonstrated this repeatedly in this thread, and in another thread I read. I very strongly believe that you know you're wrong, though, and that makes you a bad faith actor.
As for your understanding of climate science, it seems quite clear to me that you don't have any. Every argument you present is at its heart either a misrepresentation of current understanding or a complete misunderstanding of current knowledge. You are what we call "unconsciously incompetent". That is to say that you know or understand so little about the subject that you genuinely don't know how foolish the representations you make about it, in fact, actually are.
I consider myself to be in part "consciously competent" WRT climate science, but in many respects about the intricacies of the statistics, "consciously incompetent". As a pragmatic fallibilist, I'm able to say this. Meanwhile, what YOU say is irrelevent to me and also irrelevent to any wider debate on the topic, either because it's fundamentally or it's trivially lacking in substance.
In that respect, yes, for you it's the end of debate because you're far beyond the limit of your understanding, and because you've demonstrated an inability to mature or further your knowledge in the discussion - something MOST other participants HAVE been able to do.
Right up there with The Science Is Settled®
I find that implausible. I'm going to go back to ignoring you.
Avraham, I posted a link to an article and a precis of what the article discusses. You make yet more leaps of logic and profess to know what I understand or don't understand. I'm not interested in feeding your logical fallacies with attention. Stop trolling.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG