[LINK] Weekend Magazine - Remote Siberian Lake Holds Clues to Arctic--and Antarctic--Climate Change

[Craig Sanders]

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:51:27PM +1000, TKoltai wrote:

> There ya go with an attempt to close down the debate by attacking the
> integrity of the poster rather than the facts;

actually, i was attacking the idiocy of thinking that there could
be a vast global conspiracy of thousands of scientists.

i'd attack that idiocy no matter who said it because it's both stupid
and annoying, and not something that can be let pass unchallenged.


for your edification (and, it must be admitted, my amusement) i've
included some actual ad-hominem responses below.


> A common strategy when one is light on with real opposing facts.
>
> Your strategy of making the poster look silly and thereby causing the
> people to ignore his message is failing.

given that you've completely misunderstood my "strategy", i really don't
think your assesment has any value.

> Here's a news flash. I am silly. Everyone knows it,

the word you're looking for is "kook", or perhaps "nutcase". not
"silly".

> however history has a weird way of occasionally corroborating my
> silliness.

fantasist, too, by the look of it.

> Therefore let us call it Stupidly publicly iconoclastic.

if you really insist that we name it, i'll vote for "crazy".


> Really Craig, to make me shut up and stop me publishing additional
> factual counter GW data you really should learn to ignore my posts...

oh, isn't that cute. it tries to be condescending, like a real non-crazy
person.


> To return to topic, let us examine the Global Warming message:

lets not. i actually have no interest in your opinions about global
warming. or anything else, for that matter.

i responded solely to one phrase that caught my eye which hinted at the
Great Scientific Conspiracy because that's one of the stupidest reasons
that climate change denialists have ever come up with. sufficiently
stupid to annoy me enough to respond with the contempt it deserves.

it's so stupid an argument that i'm actually flabbergasted that anyone
can take it seriously. it's so *obviously* bogus that the most apt
comparison is to a conman selling a bridge to unsophisticated yokels.


> The sky is falling the sky is falling - let's tax everyone quickly…
> before it's too late.

a) who exactly is being taxed?

what's happening is that the cost of production (of all sorts of goods,
including energy) is moving closer to the actual cost because one of the
many ways that producers use to externalise costs (in this case, dumping
shit into the environment) is being very slightly limited.

if that means the end-user, the consumer, the purchaser ends up paying
slightly more then SO BE IT, one of the hidden subsidies is being
reduced a little. boo-fucking-hoo. there's only so long you can get
away with paying X for something that actually costs X+Y to produce and
expect everyone else in the world to subsidise the Y portion of the
price.

quit your bleating, you parasite. stop expecting the rest of the world
to subsidise for your lifestyle choices.

i'd rather see a real, actual tax on CO2 and other pollutants instead of
the pathetic carbon offset marketplace (which is just slightly better
than doing nothing at all).


b) the political response to the fact of global warming is an entirely
separate thing from the fact itself. that the political responses are
corrupted and compromised and watered down to the point of being nearly
worthless doesn't disprove or even undermine the fact that AGW is
happening.

and, really, it is a fact. there is still significant debate over what
the effects of that will be, which models more accurately predict the
disaster we're heading for - whether the results will be merely horrible
and awful or whether they'll be globally catastrophic - but the basic
facts that it is real and it is happening and that it's going to be bad
are accepted by all scientists who aren't in the pay of oil companies
(and even they probably accept them too, but prefer money to ethics).

personally, while i'd really like to think otherwise, i suspect that the
results will be utterly catastrophic, and will probably wipe out most if
not all of the human species (and most other species as well). mostly
because the people who own the world (the "1%" in current terminology)
don't give a shit about anything except short term profit....and even
worse, most of the 1% aren't actually real people but are inimical
artificial life-forms called "corporations".

(science-fiction got it wrong. AI isn't the threat.  Alien invaders
aren't the threat.  Artificial Entities "living" in and manipulating the
legal systems is the threat. and they've already taken over)



don't bother replying. i'm not interested. i'm not interested enough to
even read the rest of your post - it just isn't worth the time it takes
to try to make sense of your nonsenscal ravings.

and yes, the question above is *entirely* rhetorical. in simple terms,
that means i don't expect or want an answer.

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

BOFH excuse #229:

wrong polarity of neutron flow