Comments on: George Monbiot unimpressed by climate report http://futurismic.com/2008/12/02/george-monbiot-unimpressed-by-climate-report/ Presenting the fact and fiction of tomorrow since 2001 Sat, 19 May 2012 23:03:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Paul Raven http://futurismic.com/2008/12/02/george-monbiot-unimpressed-by-climate-report/comment-page-1/#comment-17164 Paul Raven Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:23:15 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=5036#comment-17164 Robert - thanks for the links, I'll read through them when I get a spare moment. Jasper - no, no set-up; I'm almost flattered you think me capable of it. I just wanted a straight answer as to what you think is causing the problem. Now I have one, I can read up on the research in question and then we can debate the actual science as opposed to the semantics and politics surrounding such. And to both of you (and anyone else), the offer still stands - if you want to present your scientific stance on global warming as a formal essay with links to supporting evidence and research, I'd be happy to run it here on <i>Futurismic</i>. The only condition is that it has to be done under a verifiable real name; no aliases. Robert – thanks for the links, I’ll read through them when I get a spare moment.

Jasper – no, no set-up; I’m almost flattered you think me capable of it. I just wanted a straight answer as to what you think is causing the problem. Now I have one, I can read up on the research in question and then we can debate the actual science as opposed to the semantics and politics surrounding such.

And to both of you (and anyone else), the offer still stands – if you want to present your scientific stance on global warming as a formal essay with links to supporting evidence and research, I’d be happy to run it here on Futurismic. The only condition is that it has to be done under a verifiable real name; no aliases.

]]> By: m1k3y http://futurismic.com/2008/12/02/george-monbiot-unimpressed-by-climate-report/comment-page-1/#comment-17160 m1k3y Thu, 04 Dec 2008 04:01:08 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=5036#comment-17160 Wow.. a guy comes by, makes a comment based on the post he's read and returns to find himself under attack. Robert Koslover, JasperPants - your responses suggest you identify strongly with the zealots who irk me so. You've made that association all by yourselves. *I* didn't resort to attacks by name, and Robert Koslover, my ill-mannered eyes still can't take in your many, many words in #8, so I really can't know if/what/how I've provoked such a strong response from you. But no motherfucker tells me how to speak, I'll do as I please. Best of luck with your patent. JasperPants - why would I be coming after you? Let's skip the strawman-argument argument, 'least I repeat myself. Viridianism is about designing for a better world in general. Enjoy your hair shirt, if that's how you want to roll. Oh, and whichever of you implied I'm hiding behind my 'net id, 'least I linked to my blog. I also write over on http://grinding.be, where we talk about watching the world die and upgrading ourselves to go into space - stuff far crazier than this little post about some british climate policy. So when you're done beating up on Paul, come on over. And if you accidently contribute something constructive, rather than just defending your world-view from the 'uneducated sheeple' you clearly see everywhere, all the better. k thx bai Wow.. a guy comes by, makes a comment based on the post he’s read and returns to find himself under attack.

Robert Koslover, JasperPants – your responses suggest you identify strongly with the zealots who irk me so.

You’ve made that association all by yourselves.

*I* didn’t resort to attacks by name, and Robert Koslover, my ill-mannered eyes still can’t take in your many, many words in #8, so I really can’t know if/what/how I’ve provoked such a strong response from you. But no motherfucker tells me how to speak, I’ll do as I please. Best of luck with your patent.

JasperPants – why would I be coming after you? Let’s skip the strawman-argument argument, ‘least I repeat myself. Viridianism is about designing for a better world in general. Enjoy your hair shirt, if that’s how you want to roll.

Oh, and whichever of you implied I’m hiding behind my ‘net id, ‘least I linked to my blog. I also write over on http://grinding.be, where we talk about watching the world die and upgrading ourselves to go into space – stuff far crazier than this little post about some british climate policy. So when you’re done beating up on Paul, come on over. And if you accidently contribute something constructive, rather than just defending your world-view from the ‘uneducated sheeple’ you clearly see everywhere, all the better.

k thx bai

]]> By: JasperPants http://futurismic.com/2008/12/02/george-monbiot-unimpressed-by-climate-report/comment-page-1/#comment-17158 JasperPants Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:51:47 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=5036#comment-17158 m1k3y....I had to look up Viridianism to see what it is. Your turn now...look up "strawman argument". "It’s no different from the cigarette companies in the 1970s, and so many other crimes against humanity before that." "Zealotry on both sides"? Based on your post, I would take my chances with the hair shirt crowd.... BTW, I am still waiting for an answer from dagonwebs. Would you come after me too, m1K3y? m1k3y….I had to look up Viridianism to see what it is. Your turn now…look up “strawman argument”.

“It’s no different from the cigarette companies in the 1970s, and so many other crimes against humanity before that.”

“Zealotry on both sides”? Based on your post, I would take my chances with the hair shirt crowd….

BTW, I am still waiting for an answer from dagonwebs. Would you come after me too, m1K3y?

]]> By: Robert Koslover http://futurismic.com/2008/12/02/george-monbiot-unimpressed-by-climate-report/comment-page-1/#comment-17157 Robert Koslover Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:36:09 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=5036#comment-17157 To # 11, m1k3y 1. You are continuing the name-calling. Please consider behaving better. 2. You are also provably wrong: You say "The only reason there are Deniers in the first place is because the vested interests are funding them from the millions and billions of dollars they’re making, knowing full well it’s the wrong thing." Well, guess what? Despite the fact I am an AGW-skeptic, I have a financial interest in promoting actions to combat global warming! You see, I have a patent on an invention that could prove to be very helpful in economically extracting energy from ocean waves, a technology that produces zero greenhouse gases. You can look it up if you want (US Patent # 7,166,927, Jan. 23, 2007). The more concerned or fearful the taxpaying public becomes about AGW, the more likely I am to get additional funding for my R&D! And yet, at the same time, I am an AGW skeptic! Why? Because I am an honest scientist, that's why! If AGW proves to be real, one of my inventions may someday turn out to be part of the solution. But I'm NOT promoting AGW. Amazing, huh? Yet, you've already decided that anyone who questions AGW must be a shill for an oil or coal company, right? Additionally, I've used my real name on this blog, and it isn't a common name. I have nothing to hide. You might want to rethink your assertion that all AGW-skeptical scientists have vested financial interests in spewing mountains of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. To # 11, m1k3y
1. You are continuing the name-calling. Please consider behaving better.
2. You are also provably wrong: You say “The only reason there are Deniers in the first place is because the vested interests are funding them from the millions and billions of dollars they’re making, knowing full well it’s the wrong thing.” Well, guess what? Despite the fact I am an AGW-skeptic, I have a financial interest in promoting actions to combat global warming! You see, I have a patent on an invention that could prove to be very helpful in economically extracting energy from ocean waves, a technology that produces zero greenhouse gases. You can look it up if you want (US Patent # 7,166,927, Jan. 23, 2007). The more concerned or fearful the taxpaying public becomes about AGW, the more likely I am to get additional funding for my R&D! And yet, at the same time, I am an AGW skeptic! Why? Because I am an honest scientist, that’s why! If AGW proves to be real, one of my inventions may someday turn out to be part of the solution. But I’m NOT promoting AGW. Amazing, huh? Yet, you’ve already decided that anyone who questions AGW must be a shill for an oil or coal company, right? Additionally, I’ve used my real name on this blog, and it isn’t a common name. I have nothing to hide. You might want to rethink your assertion that all AGW-skeptical scientists have vested financial interests in spewing mountains of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

]]> By: JasperPants http://futurismic.com/2008/12/02/george-monbiot-unimpressed-by-climate-report/comment-page-1/#comment-17156 JasperPants Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:33:08 +0000 http://futurismic.com/?p=5036#comment-17156 Paul, I don't think AGW is a fraud. I think in Rio in 1992, mostly well meaning people really believed the earth was facing catastrophic warming. Fast forward to today and there is a lot of blood sweat and tears invested into the situation today. New evidence that does not support the "consensus" is not going to be welcome. So , I say "no" to the first half of your first point. But a "yes" to part 2 of your first point. As for #2, yes, I think solar radiation and perhaps decreased solar wind activity has a not well understood (yet) role in GW. My understanding is that research is just beginning to start looking at this. Are you setting me up? Paul, I don’t think AGW is a fraud. I think in Rio in 1992, mostly well meaning people really believed the earth was facing catastrophic warming.

Fast forward to today and there is a lot of blood sweat and tears invested into the situation today. New evidence that does not support the “consensus” is not going to be welcome. So , I say “no” to the first half of your first point. But a “yes” to part 2 of your first point.

As for #2, yes, I think solar radiation and perhaps decreased solar wind activity has a not well understood (yet) role in GW. My understanding is that research is just beginning to start looking at this.

Are you setting me up?

]]>