+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 46
Latest: Tony Ryan
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 12398
Total Topics: 258
Most Online Today: 3
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: You will have to pick a side. There is no longer Room for Procrastination  (Read 3641 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24095
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Agelbert NOTE: Az is short of Azozeo, a good man who has some beliefs that I do not agree with. I post this here because the pseudo Christian lawyer Ashvin is engaging in ridicule and dripping sarcasm that is totally unwarranted and highly unethical. The name "Ashvin" is not an internet handle, it's his real first name.  8)

Lawyers also know when someone is trying to avoid the substantive issues and distract from them because they have no arguments. Read the title of this thread, and then tell me how AZ has posted anything related to it, except his first statement that "there is only one set of rules - physics".

Also, how about showing a little intellectual honesty and backbone and telling your pal AZ that you completely disagree with his naturalist worldview. That is if you haven't already given up core Christian theology for ET conspiracy theories and Planet X annihilation any-day-now predictions.

LOL... was that this thread?  I don't read threads, as a rule I read messages in the "Most Recent 100" view, so I only respond to the parts of the thread that are quoted in a particular message.  Heck, I don't even know if this comment is directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I don't completely disagree with AZ's naturalistic worldview, I only fundamentally disagree with it.  Kind of like with how when once you understand and accept General Relativity, you realize that Newtonian Mechanics isn't exactly true anyplace in the universe -- but it's close enough most of the time.  Like with evolution: I believe in the fact of macroevolution, but from my perspective it is the tool God uses to create new species.  My worldview is big enough to encompass both Jesus and little green men.

I recommend you take a step back and analyze the nature of the post by learned counsel more closely. Since I am a "paranoid whacko" (and that post came RIGHT AFTER MY post), I suspect that it was directed at me in a clever goal post moving, attack the messenger type of fallacious debating technique, RATHER than addressing the issue of empathy deficit disordered sophistry.

To those who will claim, no doubt, that sophistry is not germane to the debate here, I beg to differ.

The POINT Az was trying to make was that he was rewarded with BILE. I explained, in my post, that attacking the validity of an opponent's allegations is what lawyers DO. But when they see that their methodology is being exposed, they then attack anyone trying to expose it by attempting to sidestep the attack the messenger bullshit they are engaging in with claims of the new poster's hypocrisy.

This is most clever. It steers the thread away from the Machiavellian dismissal of Az's discussion of Hopi prophesies (etc.) to an attempt to silence anyone, like me, who disagrees with some of Az's beliefs, but agrees with the importance of taking seriously the validity of the scholarship on Hopi prophesies and anything else Az says.

Any charge of using unethical debating sophistry can also be countered with sophistry. That is the "beauty" of being an accomplished goal post mover. The previous paragraph can be parsed into sections with witty remarks like "Projection here", "Paranoia over here", "hypersensitivity there", "I never said that" AND, "where do you get this stuff?". All those remarks are MORE attack the messenger type verbal guided missiles that continue to serve the main purpose of the sophist; that is, to avoid treating the opponent as a credible person, that whether they are right or wrong, must be given respect.

The sophist will vociferously deny the above charge and claim they consistently provide all debating opponents with respect, as is their Christian duty. They will ask for a record of examples of their alleged "lack of respect". They claim these charges are ridiculous. When a detailed and irrefutable list is not quickly produced, they accuse the accusers of being out to lunch.

If that doesn't work, a clever sophist, when faced with a group of people pointing out his sophistry, will claim he is being unfairly victimized and refuse to continue the discussion. He will pick up his marbles and go home because level verbal playing fields are not something sophists are fond of.

The legal "profession" was founded on sophistry (lawyers will vociferously deny this and claim it's all about providing the wonderful legal system we "enjoy today" that evolved from "humble beginnings"  ). The Sophists claimed that any side of an argument could be won, if argued "effectively" (regardless of whether it is true or not). Lawyers are about wining arguments.

Ashvin is a lawyer.

Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.  ;D
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24095
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Survey Shows Strength of Climate Science

One of the first peer-reviewed surveys of scientists used to determine the level of consensus on human-made climate change was undertaken by Dennis Bran and Hans von Storch in 1996. They used a standard survey response format known as the “Likert Scale,” where respondents answer questions based on a scale of 1 to 7 to determine, for example, how confident they are that warming is happening or that it’s human-caused.

They’ve repeated the survey a few times since 1996, and have recently released the 5th International Survey of Climate Scientists, for 2015/2016. Bart Verheggen helpfully goes over the key consensus findings as well as a couple of issues with the survey.

Because of the Likert Scale response format, though, describing the findings in numbers isn’t as effective as just looking at the graphs of responses. In many cases, the responses are so lopsided that some very clear statements can be made.

We can see that, as science has progressed, the level of risk associated with climate change has increased as has what’s at stake. In contrast to folks like Judith Curry who play up uncertainty as an excuse for inaction, the majority of scientists think that since 1996, climate science uncertainty has dropped.

Meanwhile, if society were to listen to voices highlighting uncertainty, and fail to act because of them, the potential for catastrophe for some parts of the world is fairly great.

To the point of the GOP AGs suggesting that Gore and others could be held responsible for exaggerating climate risks, scientists clearly think sea level rise will be just as bad as we thought five years ago, if not worse. The same can be said for other negative impacts. Over the last five years, the urgency to act on climate change has grown.

As for the public, scientists clearly think they should be told to be worried as we are already starting to experience the impacts of climate change. For example, they agree that the frequency of extreme events is increasing, as well as the intensity of those events, and the probability that those extreme events occur. Scientists expect these extreme events to become more powerful, tropical storms to get more intense, and certainly not any less frequent. Heat waves over the last 20 years are growing more intense as well as more frequent.

Most importantly, an overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced that climate change poses a serious and dangerous threat to humanity, with only 2% responding that they’re not at all convinced. Again, with the Likert scale it’s a bit difficult to put simply. Assuming a 4 out of 7 is the midway point between “not at all” concerned and "very much" concerned, 8% of respondents fell between 1 and 3, 5.667% right in the middle at 4, and 85.74% between 5 and 7.

So, deniers claiming the science is still too uncertain to take action or that the public shouldn’t be worried need to take heed of this survey (like they have in the past, if even just to spin it) and accept that they’re a fringe minority at odds with an overwhelming consensus. That’s the facts, whether they Likert or not.


Agelbert NOTE: SAMPLE of DIRECT QUOTES from a fellow named Alan that Ashvin found "reasonable":

I don't know enough about the climate issue. But I've been reading about it sporadically for 25+ years, and from everything I can gather, the scientists doing the analyses and projections are quite fallible, do not necessarily understand with such certainty the things they claim to understand, and cannot, in the end, be taken quite AS seriously as you seem to be taking them.

The environmental harm of something must be weighed against benefits or desirable effects.

the Doom overreactions and the propaganda spewing are two sides of a counterfeit coin. Neither one reflect reality and are counter-productive to real progress.

All the above represent denier methods of temporizing, creating false equivalences and ignoring the FACT that dirty energy ENVIRONMENTAL HARM is greater that the alleged benefits.

Alan brought up a lot of the other denier happy talk about "greening the planet with more CO2" (which I countered and he ignored) while he refused to even consider the danger the sixth mass extinction represents to humanity and the biosphere as a cause for rejection of incremental reforms in favor of the drastic government funded action climate scientists advocate.

In short, both Alan and Ashvin are world class foot draggers that ridicule, disdain and disparage the action recommended by 97% of climate scientists as "extremist".

IOW, from Alan or Ashvin, do not expect intellectual honesty. What you can expect is  verbal goal post moving and a barrage of ridicule, derision and defamatory 'attack the messenger' type invective, along with continuous mendacity filled attempts to undermine the seriousness of the validity of the climate change threat. 
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24095
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Switzerland From The Air

Published on Jul 25, 2014

Video brought to you by the Travel and Tourism Foundation (http://TravelFoundation.org) and Travelindex (http://Travelindex.com).
This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.. -- Psalm 34:6


+-Recent Topics

Flight by AGelbert
June 25, 2019, 06:31:09 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
June 25, 2019, 03:49:23 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
June 25, 2019, 02:55:12 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
June 25, 2019, 02:18:09 pm

Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable by AGelbert
June 25, 2019, 01:24:48 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 06:54:51 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 02:48:16 pm

The lowest elevation fresh water lake in the world, the Sea of Galilee, is DRYING UP by AGelbert
June 24, 2019, 02:20:05 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 06:28:48 pm

U.S. History & Politics, Climate Change, Trump Impeachment & Standing Rock: CONTEXT by AGelbert
June 23, 2019, 05:11:37 pm