Monday, June 8, 2015

CAGW. Ask a simple question, get a revealing answer. Dodging the issue.

{edited 11:15 pm}
citizenschallenge asks, "Just what does it take to qualify as a 'catastrophe'?"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems to me that an intelligent, rational, constructive dialogue requires understanding what each other mean; and that each side takes the time to explain what they mean when using certain terms.  

For instance, CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) has become a term of derision among the climate science denying crowd, yet it's never defined.  

Their attitude baffles me.  These people profess that they don't deny the science behind how greenhouse gases make our planet habitable, implying they recognize that increasing our planet's greenhouse gas insulation will warm the planet.  Yet in the next sentence, you'll hear them ridicule the notion that a warming world will inflict increasing levels of catastrophe upon our society.

Makes me wonder just what do they mean with "catastrophe" anyways  -  what level of destruction are we talking about?

I mean, haven't these free marketeers learned the fundamentals of compounding interest?  Or do they conveniently suspend those mathematical realities when it comes to thinking about the geophysics of our planet... you know, that stuff that provides our life support system?

That's why I ask that opening question now and then, usually to silence, but this afternoon I got a bite.  

It turned out to be such a good example of a typical Republican/libertarian PR machine response that it deserves to be added to this collection.

Though I still can't enunciate exactly how this ties into "Seepage" there is a connection that I'm sure sharper minds can puzzle out once they decide to think about it.  What I can do is offer some observations on how these denialista's weave their intimidation while destroying constructive dialogue.
joseph p. 1:32 PM - 6/8/15 
Short version of an Answer: When the alleged cure to a still only alleged disease, is already known to be much worse than the alleged disease, and applying the "cure" just keeps on creating more of its own very real disease catastrophes. And then you yourself +citizenschallengeYT can even vie to become the "King of Catastrophes"!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
To begin with - he total side steps the question.
Replacing it with a straw man fabricated by his own creativity.

In place of supporting evidence, he's reduced to demonizing me.

This is typical Republican/libertarian political theater - and reflects not the slightest interest in learning.

Lawyer's Debate* vs Constructive Debate**
*{Ignore your opponent's information, demolish the bastard first, then you win the crowd, er, argument !  Excuse the harsh language but that is their tactical attitude.} 
**{Were getting to the true facts of a matter is more important than defending one's ego or party.}
JP: Thus one "catastrophe" is when your own CO2=CAGW hypotheses produce no correct predictions, including no increases in "severe weather" events to date, as the ipcc has also admitted, so that your "CO2 drives climate" hypotheses are falsified = no proven disease [CAGW] and no etiologic agent [CO2]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This is utter grade-school silliness.
In a serious rational dialogue, both sides would now go to our respective 'sources' - find and share information upon which we've based our convictions. Then one, or both sides, would learn from what they didn't know before.

I can point to information in thousands of varied articles and studies spanning the globe and decades, but Joseph and pals refuse to look at it.  And they produce none to examine, sufficing with name calling and superficial gish gallops.

Constructively discussing this would require Joseph to respect me as a fellow rational human.  But he can't do that.  He's got to demonize me into a reviled enemy.

What's curious, and I know this for real life experiences, were we to meet on a job site (separate from AGW dialogue) and tossed into a task together, if Joseph was a serious professional worker, we would fall into the rhythm it took to accomplish the job at hand.  Sure, we'd recognize that we're cut from different cloth, but having to actually work together changes everything and we'd recognize the humanity in each other and get along quite well.  

But, here we are in the world of political theater
JP: Yet you nevertheless keep on pitifully bleating about and beating on your dead horse [CO2=CAGW] so as to force destructive and counterproductive energy and food starvation "cures" [fossil fuel prohibitions, while pushing ineffective Bio-fuel, Wind and Solar systems] upon live people, starting with and especially involving the most poor, again when no "disease" or disease agent [CO2=CAGW] actually exists - at least until you impose the opposite, your CO2-Starvation "cure", upon them.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Angry flaying, but not saying one thing of substance.  
We're supposed to be engaged in a learning process not a screaming match!
JP: Real catastrophes, of the kind you want more of, 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Here again, rather than reason, we see that need to demonize makes it so much easier to dismiss the questions I ask or information I share.
JP: already exist in underdeveloped Nations; however these same places, such as India and China, are trying to relieve their own underdevelopment catastrophes by essentially producing as much CO2 as possible, through constructing 1-2 Coal-Fired Electricity Plants/week! 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Please think about it - what does 'some nations burning more fossil fuels' have to do with understanding the reality of how increasing our planet's atmospheric insulation energizes the global heat and moisture distribution engine and how increasingly energized weather systems will lead to increasingly destructive cascading consequences for our complex complacent society?
JP: Meanwhile, completely oblivious to real science and the real world, your own phobia to CO2 tries to dictate the opposite course, and even has you lusting for it."Hail to the King!"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
How does one begin to engage with people who chose anger and hostility over listening and learning?

Yet, that is the level of folly our Republican/libertarian PR machine has reduced this public discussion to - 
while reason, learning, constructive debate, confronting real threats, are all dismissed with hubristic impunity.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Possessed by the idea of catastrophic climate change?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
Saturday, May 3, 2014
Judith Curry's cynical game: "CAGW Memeplex"

No comments: