TheRPGSite

What'd you do THIS time?

http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=357784

copycatting that other guy who's suing them?

i got nothin'

They "probably"... misunderstood him.

It's not like... he "is" the most articulate "poster" out there.

now i'll have to take him off IL again to find out the answer

well, I guess something about "I'm gonna sue you" came off poorly. How woulda thought it?:D

did he say it in klingon, and someone there understood?  :haw:

Coud one of you guys quote the relevent text ?
 Just like pundit - that link now leads me nowhere.


 Thank You .

- Ed C.

The link works.

Just says they baned a user by the name of Qoltarcha, I guess we were led to believe it was you.

Quote from: KoltarJust like pundit - that link now leads me nowhere.

That needs sig'd.

Quote from: McrowThe link works.

Just says they baned a user by the name of Qoltarcha, I guess we were led to believe it was you.

 No, that was my handle there.
 They did ban me.

 Oh and cute , Kyle, very cute.

- Ed C.

Here you go:

Quote from: KillfalconQoltarcha' banned.
In recent communications, the user Qoltarcha' threatened the mods with legal action. As per instructions from SKOTOS, he has been banned indefinately.


We cannot discuss this further at this time. We are not lawyers, after all.

I can't decide. Is Coaltar a rube or a poor slob?

"Congratulations," or "sorry," depending upon what you'd like to hear.

I just keep my thing going there for game-trading purposes, really.  Otherwise...

Quote from: Danger"Congratulations," or "sorry," depending upon what you'd like to hear.

I just keep my thing going there for game-trading purposes, really.  Otherwise...

 I'm not sure which one is more appropriate.

 Thank you for the thought tho.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarNo, that was my handle there.
 They did ban me.

So, again - what happened? I'm not giving you a hard time, I want to know.

Same here!

Regail us with legendary stories of rhetorical battle with the denizens of Mos Eisley!

Quote from: WerekoalaSo, again - what happened? I'm not giving you a hard time, I want to know.

 Ask me in a PM ...had a minor work emergency earlier tonight.
I wind up getting more hours the next 2 weeks at the game store. The timing on all this just sucked.

- Ed C.

Quote from: GunslingerThat needs sig'd.

:haw:

!i!

You guys wanna know ? You really wanna know ?  Send me a PM or e-mail . When the SJG forums tempa-bnanned me for 48 hours ...I didn't feel  like gossiping about that either.

 Want to know the last thread that I was annoyed with? Look in the Tangency section.

 As a short note to all of this : On here the ones who act like assholes have much better manners than the ones who like A-holes over there. Thats not sucking up, just a pattern that I've noticed.

 That may not be a big deal - but it does make some of you look a little better  - whether you like to hear that or not.

- Ed C.

My sources tell me that this Tangency thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=357618) got Koltar upset and bannorzed. It was about global warming. Koltar expressed his usual wilful ignorance of the subject - "tell me about it, I don't believe it, give me proof," "Here are some links," "Okay I won't read those but will just keep saying I don't believe it" - and was duly roasted by the usual Tangency mixture of Middle-Classed Bleeding Hearts and People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About. The latter group is the minority of course, but it's there.

When you talk bullshit, you get called on it, though it has to be in a roundabout way on rpg.net, and get called on that bullshit even when it's bullshit about important issues (the indignation is usually greater with unimportant issues, like whether Traveller 4e was any good). Koltar's not usually the target of being called on bullshit, so he got upset about it.

Others will have to check, as I'm bannzorzed myself, I can't see the thread in question.

Edit: oh, and for reasons unknown, he followed it up wth PMed legal threats to the mods. Which demonstrates once again that rpg.net, or any discussion forum, really has only one rule: don't fuck with the mods.

By-the-way.....


 Considering the many, many strands of gray hair in my beard  - seeing the phrase young man next to my name all night actually gives me quite a smile.

 Thanks WereKoala!!


- Ed C.

*shudder*

He played the Corn-fed, Common-sense-over-book-larnin'-any-day, Mid-western American hand to the hilt.

Crackity Jones, man, what did you do off-thread?

!i!

"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," - President GW Bush, 7 July 2005

Even a retarded, dyslexic, alcoholic and incompetent businessman who never got a job without his pappy givin' it to him and who never reads the papers because he has staffers to tell him what's happening recognises it.

It's hard being an oppressed minority. It makes you angry. Just ask El Fight The Man! Latino Amado G, if you can find that pasty-faced, pseudocommie, middle-classed, self-pitying fucker.

I'm angry, I tells ya. I'ma gonna sue.

Kyle , you're blathering - go share a drink with either Jeff or Sett.
One of them might be buying.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt was about global warming. Koltar expressed his usual wilful ignorance of the subject - "tell me about it, I don't believe it, give me proof," "Here are some links," "Okay I won't read those but will just keep saying I don't believe it" - and was duly roasted by the usual Tangency mixture of Middle-Classed Bleeding Hearts and People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About. The latter group is the minority of course, but it's there.

Do you want to know how to tell that Global Warming isn't really about Global Warming but is about anti-industrialization?

First, the focus from the usual suspects is always about cutting carbon dioxide emissions and never about ways to take the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.  And, yes, there are plausible ways we might be able to do that.

Second, the usual suspects aren't embracing alternate fuel technologies that create oil from, for example, organic farm waste, even though the carbon it uses won't contribute to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  I've seen at least one commentator say of such technology that "the bad news" about the technology is that it will let industrialization go on.

Third, the usual suspects demand compliance with agreements like Kyoto that will have huge economic impacts but almost zero impact on atmospheric carbon dioxide.  And, of course, few countries are actually complying with Kyoto who have signed up for it.

Fourth, many of the usual suspects who make the most noise will be least impacted by the medicine that they prescribe for everyone else and don't seem to do a very good job of leading the sort of austere lifestyle they expect everyone else to live.  Carbon credits?  Give me a break.  How about real unilateral reductions if they really believe what they are saying?

Quote from: Kyle AaronIt's hard being an oppressed minority. It makes you angry. Just ask El Fight The Man! Latino Amado G, if you can find that pasty-faced, pseudocommie, middle-classed, self-pitying fucker.

You know, a lot of that describes me, but I think I call people racist less.
I mean, it still happens sometimes, but I usually apologize. :deflated:

Ayup, it's all a conspiracy, I tells ya. Dem dose fedruls, dey all wanna bring on in dem black helimocopptuhs frum dat yuunahted nauyshuns, an' take us all over an' make us live like dem nigras in dat dere Afriker.

Buncha goddamn commie mutant traitors!


Morrow, stay on topic for once. This is about Koltar getting banned. Which is because he got upset and thought he saw a librul consipracy agin' him. When really it was just that he was talking bullshit, and talking the kind of bullshit that you're allowed to call on rpg.net. Most you can't, that you can.

This thread is about mocking Koltar for forgetting the one rule of any discussion forum: don't fuck with the mods.

To wit; thank god there aren't any Mods here. At least, not in the traditional sense.

I had a lot more hair on my head when I was that kid's age. (it was the 1970s, had to rebel a little bit against my Dad somehow)


 Actually if you guys pay me enough - I'll post as my avatar a shot of me when I was that  age.  (Or verified proof of a big amount donated to an actual charity)


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMorrow, stay on topic for once.

You introduced the underlying issue as a topic.  Stop talking trash and then getting upset when someone else calls you on it.  As if your entirely predictable anti-American shtick is on topic?

Quote from: Kyle AaronThis is about Koltar getting banned. Which is because he got upset and thought he saw a librul consipracy agin' him. When really it was just that he was talking bullshit, and talking the kind of bullshit that you're allowed to call on rpg.net. Most you can't, that you can.

Have you actually asked Koltar exactly why he was banned and what he was annoyed at?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronThis thread is about mocking Koltar for forgetting the one rule of any discussion forum: don't fuck with the mods.

Eh.  Here I can call the site owner a lawncrapper.  That's because he also happens to actually put his money where his mouth is when it comes to moderation principles.  What Koltar forgot is that the mods on TBP often have no sense of humor.

Quote from: KoltarKyle , you're blathering - go share a drink with either Jeff or Sett.
One of them might be buying.


- Ed C.

Not if the fucker is on his "I hate America" soapbox again.


Koltar, after reading the thread, take the banning as a badge of honor. I mean shit, there were Global Warming proponents in there claiming that biofuels are "carbon neutral" and thus safely may be burned without emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I guess he never heard of combustion.

I realise that paranoia clouds the reason of many here, but let's be quite clear: klingon-dude was banned because he threatened the site with legal action. At that point, the ban isn't an act of spite, it's plain common sense.

This has nothing to do with klingon-dude's brave stance against reality-based science, and everything to do with him being a bombastic idiot.

EDIT: And hooray for the RPGsite, where I can point and laugh at the bombastic idiot as much as I please: haha, you bombastic idiot, you!!

Ned

Having read the Global Warming thread, I couldnt see any evidence of Moderator involvement at all - not even a black text on-topic comment, so presumably the banworthy stuff was all confined to PMs.

Who sent the first one?

Quote from: O'BorgHaving read the Global Warming thread, I couldnt see any evidence of Moderator involvement at all - not even a black text on-topic comment, so presumably the banworthy stuff was all confined to PMs.

Who sent the first one?

That WAS the problem...in at least 4 places, by their own rules there should have been a moderator jumping in there with some red text . There wasn't one.


- Ed C.

But did the Mods send you a "Stop citizen, or be bannzorated!!1!" PM or did you send them a "I demand action, you facist bastards!!" PM?

Quote from: KoltarActually if you guys pay me enough - I'll post as my avatar a shot of me when I was that  age.  (Or verified proof of a big amount donated to an actual charity)

Actually if I pay you enough, will you never post a picture of yourself to the internet again? My Adblock grows tired.

- Q

Congratulations Koltar!  I practically had to beg Cessna to ban me so I could be one of the cool kids.

Heh, global warming, the problem is that I'm largely in favour of it.  Cold here in the winters.  Anyhow, I do think both sides have devolved into a hopeless is not caused by people / is too debate.  Gore is morally bankrupt and a complete hypocrite either way and don't get me started on David Suzuki.

Even so, I very much want the technological inovations and rethinking of our urban planning that this could bring about.  Puts me in a funny place y'know.  I'd love to see a bus that would free my 60 minutes a day of commuting up for reading.  I'd love to see passenger trains between major centres again.  I'd love to not need to own a car to get by, damn things cost more than Warhammer and I know which I enjoy more.

But then, I think we'll get there without legislation when oil gets up past $100 / barrel and 90% of China's population gets lung cancer similtaneously.

I don't really see a problem with the ban, if you threatened them legally ya kinda got what was coming to you.

However, the mods allowing them to pile on and gang up was total crap and I said as much in that thread. I'm sure I'm going to get into trouble for pointing it out. :haw:

Quote from: jeff37923Koltar, after reading the thread, take the banning as a badge of honor. I mean shit, there were Global Warming proponents in there claiming that biofuels are "carbon neutral" and thus safely may be burned without emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I guess he never heard of combustion.

That one got me too...

Bill

It's slightly more complicated than that according to Wikipedia:

QuoteBiofuels and other forms of renewable energy aim to be carbon neutral. This means that the carbon released during the use of the fuel, e.g. through burning to power transport or generate electricity, is reabsorbed and balanced by the carbon absorbed by new plant growth. These plants are then harvested to make the next batch of fuel. Carbon neutral fuels lead to no net increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which means that global warming need not get any worse.

In practice, biofuels are not carbon neutral. This is because energy is required to grow crops and process them into fuel. Examples of energy use during the production of biofuels include: fertilizer manufacture, fuel used to power machinery, and fuel used to transport crops and fuels to and from biofuel processing plants. The amount of fuel used during biofuel production has a large impact on the overall greenhouse gas emissions savings achieved by biofuels.

Quote from: droogIt's slightly more complicated than that according to Wikipedia:

I was going to post something very similar but you beat me to the punch :)

Anyway this is off topic - we're supposed to be arguing about Koltar's banning ;)

Global warming, wikipedia, Klingons, rpg.net... this thread has got it all.

...cats and dogs living together... mass hysteria!!


- Ed C.

Wow.  I am impressed.  

I don't quite get how that works.  You threaten to sue them and you are automatically banned?  What's the logic there?

Quote from: walkerpI don't quite get how that works.  You threaten to sue them and you are automatically banned?  What's the logic there?

It's like when you get into an auto accident.  You're supposed to exchange only necessary information with the other driver, then shut up.  Don't say anything that could be potentially incriminating or otherwise weaken your case when the arbitrators take up the matter.

So, yeah, when someone says they're going to sue you, the only sensible response is, "Really?  Well then, have your lawyer talk to mine."  After that, you sever all communication except through legal channels.  On a discussion forum, that means revoking someone's membership at least until the matter has been resolved.

!i!

But I never said that.

 Since I can't access the original PM...the exact wording is lost to me , it was sarcastic , not seriuously said.
I was pissed off tho.

 By-the-way, for those of you with long memories  - how often do I cuss in general ? How long did it takje before I used a cussword in a message?

Hell I got complaints from some of you because I was too nice.


 Its not that big a deal. Exalted and SoTC aren't really my games anyway.  How about tossing a thought into one of the 3 or 4 threads that I've started up in roleplaying?


- Ed C.

Ask for trial by combat! ;)

Quote from: One Horse TownAsk for trial by combat! ;)

(NO comment)



(well, okay I DO appreciate the humor of that thought....)

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSo, yeah, when someone says they're going to sue you, the only sensible response is, "Really?  Well then, have your lawyer talk to mine."  After that, you sever all communication except through legal channels.  On a discussion forum, that means revoking someone's membership at least until the matter has been resolved.

Yes, that makes sense.  However, it's Koltar and it's a gaming message board.  The whole thing just reeks of people taking themselves way too seriously.  Maybe some diplomatic words to calm down an angry client and a bit of their supposed moderation on the thread might be a bit more effective in keeping their customers happy instead of an arbitrary banning.  That shit is hilarious.  I bet they feel all cool and tough, passing memos back and forth.

Welcome to the club, Koltar.

Hopefully this means you'll now spend more time posting on here!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWelcome to the club, Koltar.

Hopefully this means you'll now spend more time posting on here!

RPGPundit

That seems very likely.

Can I do a PSA type request here?

I used to get up in the Santa version of my outfit every year and help out TOYs-For-TOTs at an Indiana area Sci-Fi convention.  Because of my work schedule and getting hit by that car  I haven't been able to help them out as much.

Could all of you people that are having good-hearted fun at my expense give a little something to Toys For Tots this year ? (Or similiar kids charity in your own country) Either a toy or a few bucks to get a gift for a kid during the HOliday season would work.

 Thanks.


 - Ed C.

Werent you here talking about wanting to get banned from tBP a couple of months ago?

Quote from: RoninWerent you here talking about wanting to get banned from tBP a couple of months ago?

That was then, this is now.

Things go in cycles.

 To everything there is a season......
   (you know the rest ....)

 Hey!! Its Football season!! . Gawddamnit our local team is supposed to be better than this.
 Well at least with the fall weather young women don't know if they should be wearing shorts or not....so I get to see a lot of tight jeans and sandals combinations at the mall.


- Ed C.

Quote from: walkerpYes, that makes sense.  However, it's Koltar and it's a gaming message board.

Oh, that bit.  Yeah.  It's a bit like Lord of the Flies, isn't it?  The choir boys have taken control of the island and all hell breaks loose.

Oh, and I noticed while wading through Tangency that Curt is back.  E-e-yeah. :what:

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOh, that bit.  Yeah.  It's a bit like Lord of the Flies, isn't it?  The choir boys have taken control of the island and all hell breaks loose.

Oh, and I noticed while wading through Tangency that Curt is back.  E-e-yeah. :what:

!i!

That was when I stopped logging in any more, except to check out what the d20 forum has been doing with the points of light concept.

the only time i bother to look over there any more is when someone here refers and links back to something or other.  then i look around for a few minutes, get tired of the place, stop by trouble tickets for fun, and leave.

I read the thread over at rpgnet, and I believe they plainly dogpiled Koltar AGAIN. The other gang of posters were deliberately being obnoxious dicks. Kolt was more restrained. The mods must have seen the mini-flamewar brewing, but ignored the Kolt-baiting-and-flaming, because they just don't like Koltar.

Don't get me wrong. Kolt's argument on the global warming thread was kinda weak, and if he threatened to sue rpgnet, that's kinda lame too, but the fact of the matter is, they kept dogpiling and flaming him. I can understand him losing his cool in a PM.

If I was an admin, and someone threatened to sue me, I'd just tell them to fuck off, and then go along my merry way. Banning is unnecessary. I'm not really interested in stifling dissent. Let people rant away, I say. Folks need an outlet, sometimes. RPGnet overreacted a bit, as usual.

Kolt, you still have a home here, and many RPGnetters take heed to what's going on here, so I wouldn't worry about the banning or people's mockery of you over it. You'll be fine. :)

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI read the thread over at rpgnet, and I believe they plainly dogpiled Koltar AGAIN. The other gang of posters were deliberately being obnoxious dicks. Kolt was more restrained. The mods must have seen the mini-flamewar brewing, but ignored the Kolt-baiting-and-flaming, because they just don't like Koltar.

that's just standard operating procedure there.  then they can pull out the hyena/zebra graphic, etc. etc.  

honestly, why even bother going there anymore?  and where did this occur?  probably TO, if it's a discussion of global warming.  so, of all places, the clique-iest place on rpg.net.  it's like jumping into the lion-pit and saying, "why did i get bitten?" :rolleyes:

I'm just slightly disappointed it wasn't a massive flame out rather than behind closed doors as it were. It's more akin to Al Capone being done for tax evasion. Not terribly surprised though, it's been on the cards for some time and while there was an element of dogpiling Koltar really didn't help himself in that thread or in others of a similar vein.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambI read the thread over at rpgnet, and I believe they plainly dogpiled Koltar AGAIN.

Yes, they did. Because he walked into the thread, laid down, and said "Free ride boys, hop on!" You can say "AGAIN" in all caps like you're tired of it all you want to, but he should quit giving free rides. Of course, every time he posts there, I look for the hidden text that says "Look at Me! Over here! Look at me!!!!!!!11! I need ATTENTION!!!"  I think everyone went quite easy on him, and it's a shame. I would have liked to have read an actual bon-fiery dog piling. Like the old days.

The banning notice said the banning is a result of SKOTOS (is that it?) policy. I  bet that new policy is related to the Ken whatshisface legal action threat thing. I guess it's a CYA thing.

Quote from: danzig138The banning notice said the banning is a result of SKOTOS (is that it?) policy. I  bet that new policy is related to the Ken whatshisface legal action threat thing. I guess it's a CYA thing.

Actually there was some female poster long before Ken Whitman who threatened Skotos with legal action (after getting another temp-ban) and Shannon posted a curt note that her ban was now permanent, never to be appealed.

There's still an RPG.Net?

Quote from: KoltarCould all of you people that are having good-hearted fun at my expense give a little something to Toys For Tots this year ? (Or similiar kids charity in your own country) Either a toy or a few bucks to get a gift for a kid during the HOliday season would work.

Here Down Under the two main supermarket chains and a few other department store chains have a big-arsed Christmas tree outside each store, you donate presents to it. We do that already. I think it's a good initiative. The most degrading part of being poor is being unable to give. That's particularly hard for parents with kids. You can deny yourself anything, but it's hard to deny your kids stuff.

Thanks Kyle...thats at least one.

 You know what ?
 If any of you that still have accounts on rpg.net see my name mentioned (in any form) after the ban announcement  - tell them I'd like them to donate a toy or a few bucks to TOYS-For-TOTS or a few bucks for every comment. (again , or similiar charities in countries that aren't the U.S.A.)

- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe most degrading part of being poor is being unable to give. That's particularly hard for parents with kids. You can deny yourself anything, but it's hard to deny your kids stuff.

We do all right. You just have to bring them up with the right expectations.

Quote from: droogWe do all right. You just have to bring them up with the right expectations.

Oh I know. That was how I was brought up. But I think that it's nice for kids twice a year to be able to have something nice, a toy or book or game.

When I was a kid we were quite poor by Aussie standards. In those days there was a "Christmas Club" savings thing, you'd go to the bank and put one or two bucks in each week, at the end of the year at Christmas or Hannukah time, you'd have $50-$100 saved up. That was enough for a couple of presents, a nice roast dinner and so on.

To not even be able to manage that, that'd be hard, I think.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOh I know. That was how I was brought up. But I think that it's nice for kids twice a year to be able to have something nice, a toy or book or game.

Savers, man.

Quote from: danzig138Yes, they did. Because he walked into the thread, laid down, and said "Free ride boys, hop on!" You can say "AGAIN" in all caps like you're tired of it all you want to, but he should quit giving free rides. Of course, every time he posts there, I look for the hidden text that says "Look at Me! Over here! Look at me!!!!!!!11! I need ATTENTION!!!"  I think everyone went quite easy on him, and it's a shame. I would have liked to have read an actual bon-fiery dog piling. Like the old days.

Kolt wasn't screaming for attention within the thread. If you read the thread, you'll see that the other posters were the ones truly screaming for attention. Kolt did, however, make the mistake of giving his position on global warming without properly supporting it. It also didn't help that his position was at odds with most of the other posters, so predictably, this being RPGNet, he got dogpiled. The other posters got obnoxious about it, and resorted to personal attacks against him. After being dogpiled, he compounded his mistake with a PM to the mods (supposedly threatening to sue them, though I don't know if the mods statement on this is true). If Koltar was smarter, he'd have said "to Hell with it", and just left.

Kyle Aaron once stated, "don't piss off the mods", and this is the truth. The mods dislike Kolt, so he gets the axe. Such is life.

Quote from: danzig138The banning notice said the banning is a result of SKOTOS (is that it?) policy. I  bet that new policy is related to the Ken whatshisface legal action threat thing. I guess it's a CYA thing.

You're probably right about that. We can thank Ken for that bullshit. :(

Quote from: droogSavers, man.

The banks still have 'em? I'd assumed that the current thing of charging you to deposit your money, etc etc had wiped out those old useful services.

I mean, there's always the tin you chuck coins in, but it's tempting to open it early, whereas if it's in a bank you mightn't.

Oh well, anyway we'll chuck something under the tree this year. Even though we fucking hate Christmas carols and the whole three-month-Christmas-in-stores thing.

Why hate?

 Invite a few Christians to Hannukah get-togethers...and go to a few Christmas parties.
 However you look at it ...all those parties, food, smiles and gift-giving can be a good thing.  Especially donating so that kids of any faith have a present during that time of year.

- Ed Charlton


(My Grandfather played Santa for 3 decades before he died...and now I play the "Klingon Santa" when I can to help out charity.  I really mean all of the above in the best way possible. )

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe banks still have 'em? I'd assumed that the current thing of charging you to deposit your money, etc etc had wiped out those old useful services.

No, no. I mean Savers, the op shop.

I'm going to buy a baker's dozen copies of Poison'd, wrap them up and give them to my local Toys for Tots. Does that count?

Quote from: walkerpI'm going to buy a baker's dozen copies of Poison'd, wrap them up and give them to my local Toys for Tots. Does that count?

Right idea...but defnitely the wrong product for that time of year . (but you knew that)

 Now some affordable small kits of LEGO Pirates toys & stuff - some kids might like that kind of thing .



- Ed C.

Quote from: danzig138Yes, they did. Because he walked into the thread, laid down, and said "Free ride boys, hop on!" You can say "AGAIN" in all caps like you're tired of it all you want to, but he should quit giving free rides. Of course, every time he posts there, I look for the hidden text that says "Look at Me! Over here! Look at me!!!!!!!11! I need ATTENTION!!!"  I think everyone went quite easy on him, and it's a shame. I would have liked to have read an actual bon-fiery dog piling. Like the old days.

The banning notice said the banning is a result of SKOTOS (is that it?) policy. I  bet that new policy is related to the Ken whatshisface legal action threat thing. I guess it's a CYA thing.

Nice try, but Kolt was just trying to suggest an alternate POV. He just happend to run into one of the roving packs of know it all jackasses that festers in Tang. Yeah, you know the ones: the guys who think they know the facts on everything and no matter the evidance you put forth it's from an invalid source.

Quote from: walkerpI'm going to buy a baker's dozen copies of Poison'd, wrap them up and give them to my local Toys for Tots. Does that count?

Sure. As long as you promise to place your home address on them so that the torch-carrying angry mob know where to go.


REVENGE!

Quote from: McrowNice try, but Kolt was just trying to suggest an alternate POV. He just happend to run into one of the roving packs of know it all jackasses that festers in Tang. Yeah, you know the ones: the guys who think they know the facts on everything and no matter the evidance you put forth it's from an invalid source.

I've run afoul of them before.

The thing is, all viewpoints are accepted in TO, as long as they are the popular ones for the TO crowd.

Quote from: McrowNice try, but Kolt was just trying to suggest an alternate POV. He just happend to run into one of the roving packs of know it all jackasses that festers in Tang. Yeah, you know the ones: the guys who think they know the facts on everything and no matter the evidance you put forth it's from an invalid source.

Actually, Koltar offered no evidence at all.

"I think X, because of Y and Z."
"I think that's wrong."
"Why?"
"Well, I just think it's wrong."

The second guy is going to get mocked wherever he's posting and whatever the topic.

But that wasn't why he got banned. He got banned because the mods didn't like him, and because he then gave them a plausible excuse to ban him.

[/B]

Oh, and someone said earlier that here that didn't apply, because we can abuse RPGPundit. Wrong. I didn't say, "don't abuse the mods", I said, "don't fuck with the mods." Because RPGPundit is a persona designed to create controversy, drama and attention, abusing him isn't fucking with him, it's actually helping him. Fucking with him would be turning the roleplaying discussion forum into Forgerspace, or turning Off Topic into some political flamefest, or everyone speaknig super-politely all the time, moderating their own opinions so that everything dissolved into bland greyness.

He's already said he'll ban someone if he thinks they're a "disruptive" poster. That means, "if they fuck with me and what I want for this forum."

Koltar fucked with the mods. He did that many times by questioning them. They find that very disturbing.

Kyle,

 Have a coke and a smile  - you're way tooo invested in this.
 By now I'm over it.  (even if others don't seem to be)


 Okay fine - have a beer and a smile....but you'll have to get it from your own fridge.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarKyle,

 Have a coke and a smile  - you're way tooo invested in this.
 By now I'm over it.  (even if others don't seem to be)


 Okay fine - have a beer and a smile....but you'll have to get it from your own fridge.


- Ed C.

I'll give him one of mine for his last post. But he has to have a shot of Southern Comfort first before he chases it down with the beer.

The mods are on edge about legal complaints because of the Ken Whitman thing. They're humourless and prone to misinterpretation at the best of times, but that didn't help.

In their fantasy world, they sit in some big boardroom where they have meetings and call in their team of lawyers to discuss the Qoltarcha suit.

But since we're venting, why don't they expend some of their effort on fixing their friggin' search function.  I mean, c'mon, how lame is that.  I just picked up Roanoke and I'm sure I've seen several threads there with advice on how to play it.  I search for Roanoke but get nothing.  I then find a long AP report whose latest post was yesterday on Roanoke.  Why not get rid of those mods and get some people to fix up their forum software.  That might help the community a bit.

Sorry, I got serious there. I'll stop now.

Walkerp,

 I complained about the lack of a usable search function months ago over there. I was basically told to shut up and live with it. (This was in a Trouble Tickets thread.)

 You know if they didn't coddle the existence of The Tangency Monster that they won't let die - they might have enough memory space to restore a normal vbulletin search function .

 For pity's sake!! Theoretically its the same or similiar set up as this forum and the SJG  Forums. Two forums that I can normally do a successful search on.


- Ed C.

The mistake was to state that you had some doubts about man-made global warming. Man-made Global Warming is the New Religion. Doubt, of any kind, is blasphemy, and is treated as such. See the thread itself - its stated many times that there is "no serious debate" about the matter. Its settled, and ANY scientist (much less layman) who dares question the tenants of the New Faith are heretics who must be clensed and pruged. After all - they're ON THE PAYROLL OF BIG OIL! (ooooo!)

Morons. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Werekoala][...] Man-made Global Warming is the New Religion. Doubt, of any kind, is blasphemy, and is treated as such. [...] ANY scientist (much less layman) who dares question the tenants of the New Faith are heretics who must be clensed and pruged. After all - they're ON THE PAYROLL OF BIG OIL! (ooooo!)

Morons. :rolleyes:

Actually, questioning it is fine. You question, they answer. That's called "learning".

Doubting it with some basis to that doubt is fine, too. You offer your opinion and the reasons for it, and they respond with what they think, and their reasons for that. That's called "debate."

But just saying, "I don't believe it" and leaving it at that isn't fine. Belief or disbelief with no basis to it - that is religious faith.

Koltar didn't say, "I don't believe it, because of X and Y," he just said, "I don't believe it."

The problem wasn't what he said, but his complete and utter lack of any reasoned support for that belief, or any knowledge of the reasons for the opposing view. That's called, "being wilfully ignorant." If you want to critique an idea and be taken seriously in that critique, you have to learn about that idea, and learn why others believe in it.

For example, if I just say, "Forge theory suxxorz", why should anyone listen to me? But if I say, "Forge theory suxxorz, because -" and then show that I've read their crappy essays, then I become worth listening to.

Simple statements of belief or disbelief never get anyone any respect, nor do they deserve it.

They weren't asking Koltar to believe or disbelieve anything, they were just asking him to back up what he said. I don't think that's a big thing to ask.

In any case, he was not banned because he's wilfully ignorant, he was banned because he fucked with the mods. If rpg.net were to ban all the wilfully ignorant people, they'd have a considerably smaller membership.

Its not willful ignorance.

 All the facts are NOT in.

 Just because 80 out of 100 people say "You must believe this, because we say so !" - doesn't mean that I have to . it goes both ways...they havem't backed up their side adequately.  The 20 who disagreed might actually be the ones who are right.

Just because a majority of anyone says something about anything - that does the majority is right.

 Zheesh!!
Start a different thread about it, Kyle - its one of your pet topics, not mine.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron

Rule Zero: don't fuck with the mods. All the other rules are just cosmetic

[/B]

I use rule Zero point One :
Don't get involved with the mods. At all. Do not post direct resposes to their posts. Do not post in threads they start. If one of them starts posting in a thread you're already involved in, walk quietly away.

There's an old, old folk saying : "Birds of a feather, flock together" which I have found to be largely true (with a few caveats). If you think someone's a dick, chances are you'll think similar of those they choose as their best friends. Or as fellow Moderators.

See what I mean? "I don't believe it, because... I don't believe it!" Thus, zero credibility and respect.

O'Borg, you're right. Safest to fly under the radar. If you can't avoid that, just post absolutely nothing of any substance whatsoever, like Wakshani or SteveD.

No.... its not a matter of belief.

Science is not a religion.

 Jeez- start a new thread if you want to re-start the damn argument.

Quote from: KoltarNo.... its not a matter of belief.

I can really, really hear you saying that in a Klingon voice :D

Dude I was once near a protest in DC where the local leftists were protesting "global warming" amongst other bullshit, and to cap it off they set fire to an old tire.

Sometimes my irony meter redlines.

Quote from: Kyle AaronFucking with him would be turning the roleplaying discussion forum into Forgerspace, or turning Off Topic into some political flamefest, or everyone speaknig super-politely all the time, moderating their own opinions so that everything dissolved into bland greyness.

And I've seen all of those things happen and have never seen the ban-hammer come out because of it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronHe's already said he'll ban someone if he thinks they're a "disruptive" poster. That means, "if they fuck with me and what I want for this forum."

And that's not messing with the mods, that's messing with the site.  That's the big difference.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSimple statements of belief or disbelief never get anyone any respect, nor do they deserve it.

I find this statement to be an interesting contrast to your claims, in another discussion, that simply yelling "Bollocks!" at people can be a legitimate response when you feel that your position doesn't require serious defense.

Quote from: Abyssal MawDude I was once near a protest in DC where the local leftists were protesting "global warming" amongst other bullshit, and to cap it off they set fire to an old tire.

Sometimes my irony meter redlines.

 In general, I  dislike or hate extremism in either direction on controversial topics.
Both sides just get to yelling and no one gets to hear anything or is able to listen.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSimple statements of belief or disbelief never get anyone any respect, nor do they deserve it.

WRONG. Everyone deserves respect until they act like dicks. Kolt did not act like a dick. The other posters acted like dicks. His failure to explain the reasoning behind his statement, besides essentially saying "all the facts aren't in yet", is not an excuse for assholish behavior.

Being an asshole on this site is not a big deal, because we can just tell someone to fuck off, and be done with it. But things don't work that way on RPGNet. It's hard to express an unpopular opinion on RPGNet. Why? Because the dicks can act like dicks if they agree with the moderation, and if you defend yourself too much, you're fucked. As you said, "don't piss off the mods".

That being said, Koltar should have avoided that thread.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambWRONG. Everyone deserves respect until they act like dicks. Kolt did not act like a dick. The other posters acted like dicks. His failure to explain the reasoning behind his statement, besides essentially saying "all the facts aren't in yet", is not an excuse for assholish behavior.

Being an asshole on this site is not a big deal, because we can just tell someone to fuck off, and be done with it. But things don't work that way on RPGNet. It's hard to express an unpopular opinion on RPGNet. Why? Because the dicks can act like dicks if they agree with the moderation, and if you defend yourself too much, you're fucked. As you said, "don't piss off the mods".

That being said, Koltar should have avoided that thread.

considering his track record of spouting off about "tBP" and hatred of TO, why even poke your head in there?  you have nothing better to do?  :rolleyes:

pure stupidity, all around.

Quote from: KoltarIn general, I  dislike or hate extremism in either direction on controversial topics.
Both sides just get to yelling and no one gets to hear anything or is able to listen.


- Ed C.

Yeah, but do you know how much pollution a burning tire creates? Well, actually I don't either, but judging by the thick cloud of black smoke I guess it's a bunch.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYeah, but do you know how much pollution a burning tire creates? Well, actually I don't either, but judging by the thick cloud of black smoke I guess it's a bunch.

Protests are always good for that sort of fun ironic stuff.  I recall when I was at Purdue, there was a small group protesting there called the National Anarchy Directive.  Found that name sort of funny.

Mentioned that on another site once, and was lectured at length by a upper-middle class suburban anarchist on why that wasn't funny or conflicting.  Didn't care then, don't care now.

It is rather convenient for some that the search function remains broken.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstProtests are always good for that sort of fun ironic stuff.  I recall when I was at Purdue, there was a small group protesting there called the National Anarchy Directive.  Found that name sort of funny.

Mentioned that on another site once, and was lectured at length by a upper-middle class suburban anarchist on why that wasn't funny or conflicting.  Didn't care then, don't care now.

Very funny, I used to think I was an anarchist, we had meetings too. :)

Actually heard of a bunch of professed passifist blokes having meetings about a 'revolution'. They didn't like it pointed out that revolutions of the type they wanted usually requires violence. I guess they never found anyone to do the actual fighting for them.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstMentioned that on another site once, and was lectured at length by a upper-middle class suburban anarchist  

Careful now, we've got some neo-hippies on this site who resemble that description.

As an aside threadjack, why do the rest of you think that coffeeshop pseudointellectuals gravitate towards the internet?

Quote from: darActually heard of a bunch of professed passifist blokes having meetings about a 'revolution'. They didn't like it pointed out that revolutions of the type they wanted usually requires violence. I guess they never found anyone to do the actual fighting for them.

Pacifist revolutionaries hiring mercenaries to bring about change in a non-violent way, now there's a Traveller adventure waiting to happen...

Quote from: jeff37923Careful now, we've got some neo-hippies on this site who resemble that description.

As an aside threadjack, why do the rest of you think that coffeeshop pseudointellectuals gravitate towards the internet?

If they spout that sort of stuff in everyday life, their chances of a swirlie, wedgie, or gut punch (depending on their age bracket) increase dramatically. :p

Really, same reason any of us assholes sound off on the internet--who'd put up with us shouting this shit out in Starbucks or on the street?

Quote from: jeff37923As an aside threadjack, why do the rest of you think that coffeeshop pseudointellectuals gravitate towards the internet?

Easy.

This sort of thing is the best fire-and-forget thing around.  Yell something, see how its accepted (or not), and then modify your position depending upon the noted level of "hell yeah," or "fuck you," and then feel how in touch you are with the common man.

All without losing any sort of "cache" you may have amongst your peers (lucky them), and without actually putting your own ass out on the line in any way, shape, or form.

Welcome to the passive-aggressive revolution.  Hope you got Broadband.




Fuckers.

Quote from: DangerEasy.

This sort of thing is the best fire-and-forget thing around.  Yell something, see how its accepted (or not), and then modify your position depending upon the noted level of "hell yeah," or "fuck you," and then feel how in touch you are with the common man.

All without losing any sort of "cache" you may have amongst your peers (lucky them), and without actually putting your own ass out on the line in any way, shape, or form.

Welcome to the passive-aggressive revolution.  Hope you got Broadband.




Fuckers.

:blink:

Damn. That's good.

Wait...I mean, that's good if everyone else in my online peer group thinks so.

I don't think you'll have too much trouble with that around here, Zach. Vague, blanket ad hominems are the order of the day.

Quote from: droogI don't think you'll have too much trouble with that around here, Zach. Vague, blanket ad hominems are the order of the day.

Then I'm home.

HA ha--mcrow got himself banned too.

Quote from: droogHA ha--mcrow got himself banned too.

Interesting...

 Connected somehow ? or not ??


- Ed C.

Global warming thread, looks like.  Used the term "know-it-all jackasses".  Was it worth it, Mike? :p

Smugness reaching peak levels here...  A lot of self-congratulating and patting each other on the back... atmosphere not dissimilar to Forgies sitting around post cabin-boy neck-raping...

Quote from: droogI don't think you'll have too much trouble with that around here, Zach. Vague, blanket ad hominems are the order of the day.

Quote from: walkerpSmugness reaching peak levels here...  A lot of self-congratulating and patting each other on the back... atmosphere not dissimilar to Forgies sitting around post cabin-boy neck-raping...

Ha! I got you that time white whale forum! Feel my internet scorn!

REVENGE!

Quote from: jeff37923Careful now, we've got some neo-hippies on this site who resemble that description.

Luckily, Sgt. Jeffy is here to straighten them all out with his hardnosed fact-like commentary on The Way Things Really Are... On Wikipedia!

Quote from: O'BorgActually there was some female poster long before Ken Whitman who threatened Skotos with legal action (after getting another temp-ban) and Shannon posted a curt note that her ban was now permanent, never to be appealed.

sigh...pultnyplasticcollective...I guess flogging her amature porn to Waakashani while proclaiming the truth of the Mormon church was original at least.

I'd be lying if I said the day she got banned wasn't the happiest day of my internet life.

Quote from: John MorrowI find this statement to be an interesting contrast to your claims, in another discussion, that simply yelling "Bollocks!" at people can be a legitimate response when you feel that your position doesn't require serious defense.

When your position doesn't require serious defence because... it's backed up by tens of thousands of man-hours of science, is easily-referenced, etc etc etc.

If you want to claim something which almost no informed person believes, then you'd best want to back it up.

But see, here we're talking about "respect." Yelling "bollocks!" doesn't get you respect from the person you yell it at. Basically, Koltar was yelling "bollocks!" to the people discussing climate change. So he didn't get respect. On the flipside, yelling "bollocks!" at Koltar, I also wouldn't expect him to respect me for it. But I would expect him to either a) back up what he was saying, or 2) shut the fuck up. Either would be fine by me.

Quote from: Sacrificial LambBeing an asshole on this site is not a big deal, because we can just tell someone to fuck off, and be done with it. But things don't work that way on RPGNet. It's hard to express an unpopular opinion on RPGNet. Why? Because the dicks can act like dicks if they agree with the moderation, and if you defend yourself too much, you're fucked. As you said, "don't piss off the mods".

Absolutely right. That's why I mentioned (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145297&postcount=20),

Quote from: Kyle Aaronthe usual Tangency mixture of Middle-Classed Bleeding Hearts and People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About. The latter group is the minority of course, but it's there.

When you talk bullshit, you get called on it, though it has to be in a roundabout way on rpg.net, and get called on that bullshit even when it's bullshit about important issues (the indignation is usually greater with unimportant issues, like whether Traveller 4e was any good). Koltar's not usually the target of being called on bullshit, so he got upset about it.

He disagreed with the cool kids, they piled on him, and because they're the cool kids, they got away with it.

But I mean, it's not like no-one told him that Tangency Open on rpg.net is a cliquey place, and that he should stick to the roleplaying subforums if he wanted to have interesting and useful discussions and avoid being bannzorzed. Nor can he claim no-one warned him that the mods protect the cool kids.

Step in the swamp, kick the 'gator, an' you're a-gonna git bit.

Quote from: Abyssal MawYeah, but do you know how much pollution a burning tire creates? Well, actually I don't either, but judging by the thick cloud of black smoke I guess it's a bunch.

Actually, if it's natural rubber, it'd be carbon-neutral; the rubber tree absorbed carbon in growing the sap, and then it got let out when the tyre burned. If it's synthetic rubber, well than it's definitely an extra contribution to atmospheric carbon to burn the thing. But either way, that's noxious shit. Ain't no good way to dispose of tyres. So your rotesting kids were fucksticks. But that's all part of being bleeding heart middle-classed.

Quote from: David Johansensigh...pultnyplasticcollective...I guess flogging her amature porn to Waakashani while proclaiming the truth of the Mormon church was original at least.

Mate, she wasn't the best. redredredderreddest, now she was crazy. Used to post pictures of her menstrual body art, then signed the petition asking for Tangency to be made "an emotionally safe environment." (Mocked at the time by Cessna, later enforced by him.) Wooooo. Wacky days!

She didn't even game, either.

Quote from: jeff37923Careful now, we've got some neo-hippies on this site who resemble that description.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineLuckily, Sgt. Jeffy is here to straighten them all out with his hardnosed fact-like commentary on The Way Things Really Are... On Wikipedia!

Here's one of them now!

FEEL his neo-hippie internet scorn!

A quick note on this "carbon neutral" bullshit.

If you burn anything with carbon as part of its chemical composition in our atmosphere, you will be creating carbon dioxide which is usually expelled into the atmosphere. Since the Earth is viewed as a closed system in every "carbon neutral" definition, then everyfuckingthing that is burned with carbon in it is "carbon neutral" no matter what it is.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhen your position doesn't require serious defence because... it's backed up by tens of thousands of man-hours of science, is easily-referenced, etc etc etc.

If you want to claim something which almost no informed person believes, then you'd best want to back it up.

I agree that it's always best to back up what you say, especially if it's not the mainstream position.  What I didn't and don't agree with is that people who express non-mainstream positions without backing them up should simply be dismissed or put down.  Actually, I think Sacrificial Lamb largely got it right in this reply (http://www.therpgsite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=145873&postcount=94) to you: "Everyone deserves respect until they act like dicks."

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut see, here we're talking about "respect." Yelling "bollocks!" doesn't get you respect from the person you yell it at. Basically, Koltar was yelling "bollocks!" to the people discussing climate change. So he didn't get respect. On the flipside, yelling "bollocks!" at Koltar, I also wouldn't expect him to respect me for it. But I would expect him to either a) back up what he was saying, or 2) shut the fuck up. Either would be fine by me.

But that, ultimately, is the problem with yelling "Bollocks!" without anything to back it up.  It doesn't get you any respect and really doesn't accomplish anything, other than maybe to make you feel good for letting off some steam.  It doesn't change the behavior of the other side or teach them (or anyone who agrees with them or is sitting on the fence) anything.  And at worse, it makes you look like the bad guy for acting like a jerk toward someone else who wasn't acting like a jerk.

Bollocks!

Quote from: jeff37923A quick note on this "carbon neutral" bullshit.

If you burn anything with carbon as part of its chemical composition in our atmosphere, you will be creating carbon dioxide which is usually expelled into the atmosphere. Since the Earth is viewed as a closed system in every "carbon neutral" definition, then everyfuckingthing that is burned with carbon in it is "carbon neutral" no matter what it is.

A small additional note: Hydrocarbons, whether mystic biofuels or evil petrochemicals, break down to water and CO2 (in the simplest terms) when they burn. Also, plants absorb this CO2 whether it comes from the benevolent and pure biofuel or evil and vile petrochemicals.

In other words, biofuels are a political tool. Reducing carbon emissions will come from not using hydrocarbons for fuel...

Bill

Quote from: jeff37923A quick note on this "carbon neutral" bullshit.

If you burn anything with carbon as part of its chemical composition in our atmosphere, you will be creating carbon dioxide which is usually expelled into the atmosphere. Since the Earth is viewed as a closed system in every "carbon neutral" definition, then everyfuckingthing that is burned with carbon in it is "carbon neutral" no matter what it is.

No, it's the opposite.  Carbon neutral refers to carbon in the ground versus carbon in the atmosphere.  Anything that you burn is going to put carbon in the atmosphere.  So burning natural rubber is releasing carbon into the atmosphere that was once stored in an inert form outside the atmosphere.  The issue isn't how much carbon there is in total, it's how much carbon there is in the ground versus how much in the air.  It's when there is too much in the air that you start to have a problem.

So whoever said that burning a tire made from rubber-tree rubber is more carbon neutral than burning a tire made from petroleum-based rubber was wrong.  I mean, it is a teeny bit better in that the production process is slightly more carbon neutral, but burning either one of them is not good.

Quote from: HinterWeltIn other words, biofuels are a political tool. Reducing carbon emissions will come from not using hydrocarbons for fuel...

Too true.  What cracks me up is how everyone jumped on the ethanol bandwagon, getting fat subsidies and claiming it was for the environment and now the potential supply has gone up that prices are dropping so fast it looks like it might have been just as smart to just make corn for feed.

Quote from: jeff37923A quick note on this "carbon neutral" bullshit.

If you burn anything with carbon as part of its chemical composition in our atmosphere, you will be creating carbon dioxide which is usually expelled into the atmosphere. Since the Earth is viewed as a closed system in every "carbon neutral" definition, then everyfuckingthing that is burned with carbon in it is "carbon neutral" no matter what it is.

While that's basically true, it misses the key point of the claim.  The point is that the carbon in fossil fuels was taken out of the Earth's atmosphere millions of years ago, when the Earth was warmer (for a long time, there was no ice at the Earth's poles) and locked up in rocks.  Returning that carbon to the atmosphere could make the earth much warmer again, the way it once was when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Quote from: HinterWeltIn other words, biofuels are a political tool. Reducing carbon emissions will come from not using hydrocarbons for fuel...

Bill

I think I love 'ya  Bill!


 Before our game session yesterday I wounds discussing this whole ropic with one of my players. (We had some time to kill). This is the player who grew up in Europe and was mostly raised there, hus huband is a scientist . (theoretical type)

 The gist of what we talked about ?

 The problem with topics like this comes from the moment when you say "What do you believe?" and the non-scientist layman hwars the world belief and twists it into a kind of relion or politics.

 The the real problem is when politics or religion gets mixed with science or turns it into bas science.

Now could someone just start a new thread with Gobal warming as the topic and title ? Please ?

Quote from: HinterWeltA small additional note: Hydrocarbons, whether mystic biofuels or evil petrochemicals, break down to water and CO2 (in the simplest terms) when they burn. Also, plants absorb this CO2 whether it comes from the benevolent and pure biofuel or evil and vile petrochemicals.

Correct.  But the hydrocarbons in biofuels would be returned to the atmosphere, anyway, through the process of decay while the carbon in petrochemicals has been locked up in rocks for millions of years and winds up being added to the atmosphere.

Quote from: HinterWeltIn other words, biofuels are a political tool. Reducing carbon emissions will come from not using hydrocarbons for fuel...

The source of the carbon matters.  Bacteria and higher life forms return the carbon in, say, corn back into the atmosphere when the corn is digested and the hydrocarbons are used for energy.  Distilling that corn into alcohol traps those hydrocarbons and let them get used for fuel, instead.  So it's the same carbon either way.

Quote from: John MorrowWhile that's basically true, it misses the key point of the claim.  The point is that the carbon in fossil fuels was taken out of the Earth's atmosphere millions of years ago, when the Earth was warmer (for a long time, there was no ice at the Earth's poles) and locked up in rocks.  Returning that carbon to the atmosphere could make the earth much warmer again, the way it once was when there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This is a seriously weak argument. I swear, it sounds like something an accountant would come up with. I get the argument, but in the end, you are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate higher than can be absorbed. So, yes, your source may matter, but you would need to look at the rate of production vs rate of absorption to make a meaningful statement on that front. To put it simply, we would be better served looking for ways other than hydrocarbons to fuel our societies.

Bill

Does Koltar really care that he can't go back to RPG.Net anymore?  That's the real question.

If he does, there had better be a good reason.  If he doesn't, then good riddance.

Right?

Quote from: walkerpToo true.  What cracks me up is how everyone jumped on the ethanol bandwagon, getting fat subsidies and claiming it was for the environment and now the potential supply has gone up that prices are dropping so fast it looks like it might have been just as smart to just make corn for

The fundamental problem, in my view, is just general over consumption.  Rather than looking for magical fuels, we should just cut down on our use of fuel in general.  Easier said than done, but would do wonders for our society in general.  Get some people in shape as well.

Quote from: walkerpThe fundamental problem, in my view, is just general over consumption.  Rather than looking for magical fuels, we should just cut down on our use of fuel in general.  Easier said than done, but would do wonders for our society in general.  Get some people in shape as well.

I didn't need a car in Tokyo but I'm not sure that most people want to live that densely packed.

Quote from: HinterWeltThis is a seriously weak argument. I swear, it sounds like something an accountant would come up with. I get the argument, but in the end, you are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate higher than can be absorbed. So, yes, your source may matter, but you would need to look at the rate of production vs rate of absorption to make a meaningful statement on that front. To put it simply, we would be better served looking for ways other than hydrocarbons to fuel our societies.

If you are using only biofuels, then you aren't adding carbon dioxide at a rate higher than it can be absorbed because the production of the fuel requires that carbon to be absorbed in the first place.

We do have ways other than hydrocarbons to fuel our societies but there is always a complaint about any alternative energy technology whenever it actually gets implemented.  Nuclear?  Waste disposal.  Wind?  Kills endangered birds and spoils the horizon.  Hydroelectric?  Ruins river ecosystems.  Solar?  Requires too much surface area to be covered in collectors.  I'm waiting for people to start screaming about the battery disposal problems with hybrids.

Quote from: KoltarNow could someone just start a new thread with Gobal warming as the topic and title ? Please ?

You count as "someone".  Go for it.  Why are you waiting for someone else to do it for you?

Quote from: walkerpThe fundamental problem, in my view, is just general over consumption.  Rather than looking for magical fuels, we should just cut down on our use of fuel in general.  Easier said than done, but would do wonders for our society in general.  Get some people in shape as well.

Every time this arguement comes up, it is another point for the pro-luddites.

As an intelligent human being who enjoys the benefits of technology, I say fuck the entire conservationist mindset. I lived through the Carter administration and its "think small and conserve" attitude towards resources. It sucked and didn't help anybody in the long run. Instead of cutting back, they should have been investing in research. Hell, we might have had fusion by now. We could have had solar power satellites in orbit by now, solving an energy supply problem. Instead, we had that asshole in his fucking sweater telling people to turn down their thermostats and bundle up for winter.

The bizarre thing about biofuels being claimed to be "carbon neutral" is that the carbon doesn't balance out. While you are producing equivalent carbon dioxide when you burn ethanol or methanol (the two most common biofuels) than is being absorbed by the starting plants that are the source (because biofuels are less efficient than petroleum products so you have to burn more to get the same energy), when you do harvest the plants to make the biofuel you are removing that much more carbon dioxide fixing photosynthetic life as well. You are taking out of the system more carbon dioxide absorbtion than you putting back in with carbon dioxide emmission, so its still a negative balance. The only way to really reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide is to breed huge algae mats, but while the Sierra Club loves trees (which are comparatively inefficient carbon dioxide absorbers) they would have a suburban mass freak out if their backyard vistas became predominantly green slime.

Now, there other byproducts of petroleum based fuels that are problems which you don't get from biofuels. I'm talking about nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and carbon monoxide - the pollutants which contribute to acid rain. If the "carbon neutral" proponents would push their idea based on that, I'd be more inclined to support the idea. As it is, whining about man-made carbon dioxide production is crap in my book.

Quote from: jeff37923Now, there other byproducts of petroleum based fuels that are problems which you don't get from biofuels. I'm talking about nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and carbon monoxide - the pollutants which contribute to acid rain. If the "carbon neutral" proponents would push their idea based on that, I'd be more inclined to support the idea. As it is, whining about man-made carbon dioxide production is crap in my book.

Definitely Jeff. I am not pro-oil, just truly think the answer lies in areas not explored (or perhaps exploited).

Bill

Quote from: jeff37923Now, there other byproducts of petroleum based fuels that are problems which you don't get from biofuels. I'm talking about nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, and carbon monoxide - the pollutants which contribute to acid rain. If the "carbon neutral" proponents would push their idea based on that, I'd be more inclined to support the idea.

Er...they do.  I think that you're focusing on the "carbon-neutral" argument as much as these more vocal proponents who piss you off do.  Perhaps you should become a proponent of the more tangible benefits that these others are under-playing.

In the interest of fair disclosure, I burn locally produced biodiesel -- B99 -- in my car.  My primary goal is to not contribute to corporate petroleum sales, but also to reduce my personal net free carbon output along with the reduction of noxious byproducts from the burning of fossil fuels.  Furthermore, I'm beginning to try to inform biofuel users of the impact that our alternative fuel use has on agricultural production, specifically, the competition it creates with food resources.  I try hard to not delude myself about the ultimate impact of my choices.

!i!

Small and friendly appreciative golf clap for Ian A - he actually walks a bit of his talk, would that there were more like him.

- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarSmall and friendly appreciative golf clap for Ian A - he actuallys walks a bit of his talk, would that there were more like him.

Yep.  Big ups to that.  Nice work, Ian Absentia.

at least he has the option, where he lives.  good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.  you'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

Quote from: jeff37923Every time this arguement comes up, it is another point for the pro-luddites.

As an intelligent human being who enjoys the benefits of technology, I say fuck the entire conservationist mindset.

I love technology and I do think that is an important path for our future energy concerns, but at our current first-world levels of consumption, it doesn't matter what we find short of a perpetual motion machine.  We are just an incredibly wasteful society at all levels.  We don't need SUVs, we don't need bottled water, we don't need "swiffers".  Cutting back on what are basically mass-produced faux-luxury goods would be no sacrifice for anyone and would go a long way towards bringing down expenses for families and fuel consumption in general.  Somehow suggesting this gets equated with being a luddite?

Quote from: beeberyou'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

A bloke gave me a lift home from work the other day. He was running his car on biodiesel produced from waste frying oil.

Quote from: beeberat least he has the option, where he lives.  good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.  you'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

Modding a diesel engine to handle that stuff is pretty easy.  Collecting and filtering the grease is not though.  A friend of mine runs the generator that heats his floors with restaurant grease that he gets for free.  But he lives in the country and has the space to store and filter it.  Only problem is the bears who consume the grease a lot faster than his generator.  I think their greasy shit though is probably carbon neutral at least.

I bet if fuel prices went up to where they probably should be, you'd see a lot more B99 stations popping up all over the country.

Quote from: walkerpI love technology and I do think that is an important path for our future energy concerns, but at our current first-world levels of consumption, it doesn't matter what we find short of a perpetual motion machine.  We are just an incredibly wasteful society at all levels.  We don't need SUVs, we don't need bottled water, we don't need "swiffers".  Cutting back on what are basically mass-produced faux-luxury goods would be no sacrifice for anyone and would go a long way towards bringing down expenses for families and fuel consumption in general.  Somehow suggesting this gets equated with being a luddite?

holy shit, i'm actually agreeing with walkerp :what:

well said, sir.

Quote from: beeberat least he has the option, where he lives.  good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.  you'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

I know a guy in Michiania (Michigan- Indiana borderland) who does that. His car is nasty, but he drives for free.

Quote from: beeberat least he has the option, where he lives.  good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.  you'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

 Could you do that where you live? On your own" With the help of a friend maybe?

 Honestly, if there are other people in New Jersey who would like a fuel alternative car and might be willing to pay for it whats stopping you (or someone) from starting up a business that provides that alternative?


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarHonestly, if there are other people in New Jersey who would like a fuel alternative car and might be willing to pay for it whats stopping you (or someone) from starting up a business that provides that alternative?

You need to be able to collect the grease, which is kept in a separate container at the back of restaurants.  Now I don't know this for a fact, but a very real impediment could be the mafia, who controls most of the waste collection in the Northeast.  They get contracts to haul away stuff and if you came in starting to pick up fast food chains' grease for free or a cheaper price, they might not be too happy with that.

Then you need to filter it, which is trivial, but requires some space and time.  You just pass it through a screen to get all the crunchy bits out.

Modding a diesel engine is pretty cheap.  

I think with a good business plan and a decent initial investment, it wouldn't be too hard to start up such a business.  Again, if fuel prices were to double as they should if we were in a true free market, I'm sure you'd see tons of these popping up.   It would be a profitable enterprise.

Quote from: beeberat least he has the option, where he lives.  good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.  you'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

I'm just glad they are getting the MBTE out of our gas in NJ.  There's a great tale of environmental regulations creating environmental problems.

Quote from: walkerpToo true.  What cracks me up is how everyone jumped on the ethanol bandwagon, getting fat subsidies and claiming it was for the environment and now the potential supply has gone up that prices are dropping so fast it looks like it might have been just as smart to just make corn for feed.

Not to mention the fact that the prices for all kinds of foods are shooting up because we don't have as much of the grain to feed the animals anymore.

Quote from: WerekoalaNot to mention the fact that the prices for all kinds of foods are shooting up because we don't have as much of the grain to feed the animals anymore.

I've read that it's having an even larger impact in Mexico, where the price of tortillas has doubled recently.  (And, yes, I know there are complexities behind that that include US farming subsidies.)

Quote from: WerekoalaNot to mention the fact that the prices for all kinds of foods are shooting up because we don't have as much of the grain to feed the animals anymore.

But at the same time (just to show that I'm fully capable of talking out of both sides of my mouth simultaneously), we've seen exactly the same things as a result of speculation of petroleum resources.  Higher prices for chemical fertilisers, high costs for transportation, higher prices at the supermarket.

In reality, there's plenty of feed grain for food production, but now there's competition in the market for it.  Speculative trade is what's driving the market higher, not real scarcity.  Now, if we could simply remove free market capitalism from the equation, nationalise the production of food and fuels, we'd all be better off.  Right? :D

!i!

Quote from: KoltarSmall and friendly appreciative golf clap for Ian A - he actually walks a bit of his talk, would that there were more like him.

By the way, thank you, but I'm oddly uncomfortable with the praise.  I've made the swtich to biofuels for my car for personal and practical reasons, but I see plenty of people whose snotty window stickers suggest that they're going for the smugness factor.  While I agree with many of the slogans in spirit, that sort of in-your-face smugness forces an emotional response, an artificial divide where people choose sides based on some the slogan some smarmy jackass pastes to his car.  I have a prominent "Biodiesel" sticker in my rear window to let people know that it's a simple and viable alternative fuel, and that they're welcome to ask me about it (and some do).  At the same time, I'm tempted to print a bumper sticker that reads "My wife's car gets really shitty gas mileage."

Quote from: beeberat least he has the option, where he lives. good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.

Good point. The greater Seattle area is something of a statistical blip on corporate petroleum's radar.  The idea of biodiesel has caught on sufficiently in this region (due greatly to tech-money affluence -- people affluent enough to afford the luxury of being environmentally conscious) to drive a practical market in the stuff.  It's actually hitting kind of a boom locally, where there are now competing biodiesel retailers within a few blocks of one another.  The benefit of this is that, with a profitable market available to retailers, biodiesel will become both more available and more affordable to less affluent consumers (like myself :deflated: ).

As far as the home brewing goes, I've begun to amass the plans and raw materials for cooking up the stuff in my garage.  An added side benefit to the homebrew hobby is that it keeps used cooking oils out of landfills.  Add another plus to the ledger.

!i!

So how much do you pay for your fuel?

Currently, about US$3.30 a gallon for B99, which is about 30 cents more per gallon than petroleum diesel.  When I first started using biodiesel about a year and a half ago, I was paying about $2.50 a gallon, which was about 40 to 60 cents a gallon less than petro-diesel, part of the attraction for going bio.  The tables have turned in fairly short order, which is in great part due to the competition between food markets and fuel markets for soy beans.  So the competition for resources hurts both sides of the equation, though I suppose it helps soy bean growers and biodiesel manufacturers and retailers.

Here's another potentially negative side effect.  The local biodiesel entrepreneur, Propel Fuels, in order to meet the growing demand for fuel, began seeking out alternative sources for soy beans.  Where did they turn?  One of the world's largest producers of soy -- Brazil.  How does Brazil meet the increased demand for soy?  By carving out more arable land from rainforest.  Not so great, huh?  Especially when one of the great appeals of biodiesel is that it can be "home grown" from local agricultural produce with a minimum amount of transportation of either raw materials or finished product.  Propel Fuels' customers got wind of this, though, and raised the hue and cry.  To their credit, Propel agreed to not used soy imported from Brazil, and made a pledge to try to use locally grown soy.

!i!

So you're actually paying more than you would for regular gasoline?  Do you get way better mileage?

If you get the griesel setup going, you'll be saving a lot more, I imagine.

Quote from: beeberat least he has the option, where he lives.  good luck finding any alternative fuels sources here in NJ.  you'd have to mod your car to run on fryer oil or something.

Actually, this is quite possible.  Straight fryer oil with a very basic filtering doesn't run as efficiently as refined biofuel, or even regular gasonline, but it works, and in some cases, can be done without any modification to the vehicle.

You're a touch out of date on biofuels, current thinking is they are an environmental disaster, that the push for them may be worsening climate change and that it is also causing severe loss of biodiversity in some parts of the world and is also leading to a situation where the poor are finding their food production converted into fuel for other countries.

It's working ok at a very local level, a bioconverter in the shed sort of thing, but it's not a meaningful part of addressing climate change and nobody credible is really still arguing it is.

Sadly, the incredible include many governments, as it's a hell of a lot easier than looking into ways of actually reducing output.

To a large extent I do this for a living, work on climate change issues I mean, within the private sector among people who really do care pretty much only about profit.  The only people denying the phenomenon and it's human causes are those who for some bizarre reason think it is a party political issue, which it really isn't.  That's made worse by some fucking bandwagon jumping neo-luddites who wanted to throttle progress anyway and see this as a gaia given excuse to do so.  Sadly, the fact that fuckwits have jumped on the bandwagon doesn't make the science wrong.

Anyway, fuck it, I deal with senior analysts at major investment banks who spend their time looking very closely at weather patterns and agricultural yields, the data is extremely clear, the international reports tend to downplay the scientific consensus as a result of Chinese and US political pressure.  Personally I think there is little realistic chance of our addressing the issue, as the current US administration has basically torpedoed international cooperation on the point.  

But fuck it, trying to convince people like Koltar is a waste of time, because he'd rather rely on folk wisdom and political partisan crap than science.  Me, I'm sticking with the science, which is now overwhelmingly supportive of climate change as being a human driven phenomenon.

But then, the US is a country where the teaching of evolution is under threat and which has some of the worst and most partisan broadcast news I have seen anywhere in the world, you guys really need to fight against the wave of superstition that I think is doing terrible damage to your country.

As for carbon sequestration, any credible approach will involve reductions in CO2 production and sequestration, but to date there is not a single commercially viable sequestration technology out there.  President Bush is correct that we need to invest in those technologies, and his critics who argue purely for demand side measures are wrong, but he is wrong in thinking that will be the sole solution.  Put simply, that would require miracle breakthroughs, and smart public policy does not rely on miracles.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaCurrently, about US$3.30 a gallon for B99, which is about 30 cents more per gallon than petroleum diesel.  When I first started using biodiesel about a year and a half ago, I was paying about $2.50 a gallon, which was about 40 to 60 cents a gallon less than petro-diesel, part of the attraction for going bio.  The tables have turned in fairly short order, which is in great part due to the competition between food markets and fuel markets for soy beans.  So the competition for resources hurts both sides of the equation, though I suppose it helps soy bean growers and biodiesel manufacturers and retailers.

Here's another potentially negative side effect.  The local biodiesel entrepreneur, Propel Fuels, in order to meet the growing demand for fuel, began seeking out alternative sources for soy beans.  Where did they turn?  One of the world's largest producers of soy -- Brazil.  How does Brazil meet the increased demand for soy?  By carving out more arable land from rainforest.  Not so great, huh?  Especially when one of the great appeals of biodiesel is that it can be "home grown" from local agricultural produce with a minimum amount of transportation of either raw materials or finished product.  Propel Fuels' customers got wind of this, though, and raised the hue and cry.  To their credit, Propel agreed to not used soy imported from Brazil, and made a pledge to try to use locally grown soy.

!i!

In fact, my understanding is that cutting down the rainforest results in CO2 release which more than outweighs any benefit of the use of biofuels.

I attended a briefing by the head of agricultural trading at a bulge bracket investment bank recently, he forecast increased volatility against a background of major social and political unrest as competition for food and particularly water became increasingly an issue.

The water is the key bit, currently the 21st century looks like it could be the century of the drought, though the thing with climate change (and it's climate change people, not global warming, that latter term is deeply misleading) is that it is fairly chaotic and we can expect a variety of extremes to get more so - more droughts, more floods (not generally at the same time naturally), more hurricanes and so on.

Uh... The way I understand it, and I'm pretty ignorant about most of it, is that soy beans are almost fungible world wide. So no matter where the soybeans come from if the demand goes up Brazil will be chopping down rain forest to help meet that demand.

So we're all fucked, Balbinus? Roll on the apocalypse!

Quote from: BalbinusSadly, the incredible include many governments, as it's a hell of a lot easier than looking into ways of actually reducing output.

Sadly, legislation to reduce output is just about the most unpopular choice a politician can make.  Asking North Americans to consume less has somehow become akin to a violation of their civil rights.  This 2 generations away from a society that bought war bonds and saved scrap metal to defeat the nazis.

I mean look at Burma.  Those people lived under terrible political repression and total lack of freedom and did nothing.  Take away their oil subsidies and suddenly the whole nation is on the streets.  We're pretty lame and selfish, us humans.

Quote from: droogSo we're all fucked, Balbinus? Roll on the apocalypse!

until it becomes profitable to reverse the current climate trend, or at least retard its progress, ain't zip enough going to help.  too many people, too much stupidity, too much "me first" or "not in my backyard" mentality.  

it needs to get a hell of a lot worse before anything will change.  and i, for one, have no faith in humanity.  it's the main reason my wife & i aren't having any children.

Quote from: BalbinusYou're a touch out of date on biofuels, current thinking is they are an environmental disaster, that the push for them may be worsening climate change and that it is also causing severe loss of biodiversity in some parts of the world and is also leading to a situation where the poor are finding their food production converted into fuel for other countries.

Yep.  The notion of biofeuls as an across-the-board replacement for petroleum based fuels is a, ultimately, a dead-end.  Sensible minds are referring to it as an intermediary step away from petroleum, one that doesn't require a wholecloth overhaul of the combustion engine vehicle market (at least not right now.  Research is being conducted on oil producing algaes that could be grown in otherwise unarable land, and would not compete with food production.

QuoteMe, I'm sticking with the science, which is now overwhelmingly supportive of climate change as being a human driven phenomenon.

[...snip, clip, & paste...]

The water is the key bit, currently the 21st century looks like it could be the century of the drought, though the thing with climate change (and it's climate change people, not global warming, that latter term is deeply misleading) is that it is fairly chaotic and we can expect a variety of extremes to get more so - more droughts, more floods (not generally at the same time naturally), more hurricanes and so on.

The company for which I work deals with water rights and water production, and it was eye-opening to attend a conference of local municipalities and property stakeholders last year when the keynote speaker stood up and said, in effect, "Climate change is real, it is affecting us now, it is making our traditional and dependable sources of water increasingly erratic and undependable.  We can't wait for national and international policy makers to come to an agreement on the matter, so we need to address the situation ourselves, now."  On a practical level, science is still winning out against politicians and folk wisdom.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaIn the interest of fair disclosure, I burn locally produced biodiesel -- B99 -- in my car.  My primary goal is to not contribute to corporate petroleum sales, but also to reduce my personal net free carbon output along with the reduction of noxious byproducts from the burning of fossil fuels.  Furthermore, I'm beginning to try to inform biofuel users of the impact that our alternative fuel use has on agricultural production, specifically, the competition it creates with food resources.  I try hard to not delude myself about the ultimate impact of my choices.

!i!

I can see some good things from biofuels, but "carbon neutral" ain't one of them.

Here in Tennessee, we've got legislature and businesses that support biofuels. In fact, most of the heavy machinery that is state owned has a requirement that they run on biodiesel. As a self-sufficiency method, I'm all for it.

Here's a few links:

http://www.technoride.com/article/Auto+Oddities+Moonshine+Fuel/179395_1.aspx

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/10/15/tenn_stills_fire_up_for_new_home_brew/

http://www.alaskajournal.com/stories/052106/og__20060521019.shtml

As an aside, it should be noted that NASCAR qualified vehicles all burn alcohol in racing events. There is no gasoline in gasoline alley anymore.

Quote from: walkerpI love technology and I do think that is an important path for our future energy concerns, but at our current first-world levels of consumption, it doesn't matter what we find short of a perpetual motion machine.  We are just an incredibly wasteful society at all levels.  We don't need SUVs, we don't need bottled water, we don't need "swiffers".  Cutting back on what are basically mass-produced faux-luxury goods would be no sacrifice for anyone and would go a long way towards bringing down expenses for families and fuel consumption in general.  Somehow suggesting this gets equated with being a luddite?

Yes.

One man's definition of a faux-luxury good is another man's essential. There are places where bottled water is the only safe drinking water available. Once you start deciding for other people what it is they really need to live, then you start micromanaging their lives. Your standards are not everyone's.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Does Koltar really care that he can't go back to RPG.Net anymore?  That's the real question.

If he does, there had better be a good reason.  If he doesn't, then good riddance.

Right?

That's the question, yes.

But you're no n00b, so you should know by now that no thread stays on-topic after its first 100 posts, nor can it be dragged back to its original topic more than momentarily by any human efforts.

Quote from: jeff37923Yes.

One man's definition of a faux-luxury good is another man's essential. There are places where bottled water is the only safe drinking water available.

Not in the first world.  

Besides, your logic is flawed.  If there is no safe drinking water, than stored water is by everyone's definition no longer a luxury.  If there is safe drinking water, bottled water is an unecessary luxury.

If you're going to make the weak "where do you draw the line" argument, at least use a better example.

Quote from: walkerpNot in the first world.  
.

Incorrect- I just got back from Northern Spain, and the water is not safe to drink; even the locals were urged to avoid it during my stay, and my five days on the toilet stand as a testimony that said warning came a bit late.

Quote from: John MorrowWe do have ways other than hydrocarbons to fuel our societies but there is always a complaint about any alternative energy technology whenever it actually gets implemented.

Of course. But here's where we come to the point that even if burning the sooty black stuff gives us Vitamin fucking C, still there's a finite amount of it, at some point demand will exceed supply by a large amount, so that from our perspective it's running short, and then...

As we pass the halfway-mark in pumping oil from the ground, the rate of production will drop. Since demand keeps rising thanks to industrialising countries, well... demand will exceed supply, and it'll be harder and harder to justify burning the stuff just to drive four blocks to the shops (here Down Under, 40% of all trips are under 5km), and harder and harder to afford driving much further, or to have the airconditioning set at chill temperatures while you're out all day.

As oil runs short and becomes more expensive, those alternatives are going to start looking much more palatable to people. Even a Jew will eat pork if it's that or starve, and even an American or Australian will take the train if that's the only way to get to work.

The other possibility is that as the stuff runs short and the price goes up, only the rich will drive or have oil-dependent products, while the poor have none at all; the rich-poor gap is already an oil gap. So our cities will become smoggy wastelands of shanty towns and gated communities of the rich. This is quite possible, but I prefer to be optimistic, and assume that people do in fact do the right thing once all alternatives have been exhausted.

Quote from: jeff37923As an aside, it should be noted that NASCAR qualified vehicles all burn alcohol in racing events. There is no gasoline in gasoline alley anymore.

what kind of mileage do they get on that fuel?  i've wondered that, and the same for jet engines vs. prop engines (avgas efficiency).

Well, Looks like they didn't like my "Big purple Toilet" comment over there, calling all the people that were picking on Koltar jackasses probably didn't hel either.

Either way I have a three day vacation.

That's such a hilarious application of the group attack rule, it's basically an Orwellian way of saying that criticism of the authorities will not be tolerated.

Quote from: McrowWell, Looks like they didn't like my "Big purple Toilet" comment over there, calling all the people that were picking on Koltar jackasses probably didn't hel either.

Either way I have a three day vacation.

 Thanks man!,

 I was browsing from an unregistered computer - and I couldn't follow their link to see why you got smacked.

 Anyone able to cut and paste the text?

 Mainly I'm just curious.


- ed C.

Quote from: walkerpThat's such a hilarious application of the group attack rule, it's basically an Orwellian way of saying that criticism of the authorities will not be tolerated.

Yeah, the email they sent me said that I made a group attack against all  RPG.net users when infact I was just insulting the mods and they few dickheads in that thread. No big loss for me, I'm going to continue to point out jackasses when I see them. :D

Quote from: KoltarI was browsing from an unregistered computer - and I couldn't follow their link to see why you got smacked.

 Anyone able to cut and paste the text?

 Mainly I'm just curious.

It's like dogs humping in the street, man.  Just try to not watch.

!i!

Quote from: KoltarThanks man!,

 I was browsing from an unregistered computer - and I couldn't follow their link to see why you got smacked.

 Anyone able to cut and paste the text?

 Mainly I'm just curious.


- ed C.

Nina said:

QuoteIf that's your opinion of this board, then surely you won't mind your three-day mandatory vacation for attacking its users.

in response to me saying:

QuoteWell, if nothing else at this thread is proof that you can still be shouted down by a bunch of know-it-all jackasses here on the big purple toilet.

Quote from: walkerpThat's such a hilarious application of the group attack rule, it's basically an Orwellian way of saying that criticism of the authorities will not be tolerated.

Yup - if you're on the wrong side, don't you DARE speak up, and especially don't try to defend yourself or your point of view, or *smack*.

mcrow didn't defend himself or anyone else, he just abused them all.

Abuse isn't a defence, it's just abuse. It may be deserved abuse, but it's still nothing more than abuse.

For example,

Uncle Ronny: "You only think you're having fun when gaming this way, really you're brain-damaged by your bad gaming experiences and can't tell what fun really is."
Kyle: "You're a cocksmock."

That's abuse, not defence.

Uncle Ronny: "You only think you're having fun when gaming this way, really you're brain-damaged by your bad gaming experiences and can't tell what fun really is."
Kyle: "If our experiences make us unable to perceive what is and isn't true, then for all you know you may also be brain-damaged, and so your own descriptions of your games being fun may also be wrong."

That's a defence, and is no way abusive.

Abuse will on rpg.net score you a ban. They certainly have pet posters they love or hate, so that exactly how abusive you can be and get away with it varies a lot, but basically if you abuse enough people eventually you'll be banned.

If you just defend and argue as above, then of course you may earn some mod's hatred, and then they'll look for an excuse to ban you later.

mcrow abused them. Of course they banned him. I think you have to realise that even in some tyrannical state, some people are justly imprisoned. Even Stalin's Russia had common thieves and murderers who justly went to prison; most people who went to prison did not deserve it, but a few did. Likewise, even on a message board with partial and deliebrately inconsistent moderation, sometimes they have a well-known rule, someone deliberately breaks it, and thus cops a ban; most people banned from rpg.net didn't deserve it, but a few were just asking for it. Say, by abusing people or threatening the mods with legal action.

Since Koltar doesn't seem to really want to start a new thread on this...

Quote from: BalbinusYou're a touch out of date on biofuels, current thinking is they are an environmental disaster, that the push for them may be worsening climate change and that it is also causing severe loss of biodiversity in some parts of the world and is also leading to a situation where the poor are finding their food production converted into fuel for other countries.

Converting crops into biofuel is not the only way to create it.  The Thermal Depolymerization (TDP) process that I posted links about earlier converts things like agricultural waste and sewage into oil.  Yes, they've hit some snags but none of them are show-stoppers.  And until recently, they weren't getting biofuel subsidies like ethanol because the ethanol subsidies are really farm subsidies.

Quote from: BalbinusThe only people denying the phenomenon and it's human causes are those who for some bizarre reason think it is a party political issue, which it really isn't.

Not really.  A lot of people denying the phenomenon often simply have a different perspective.  I've taken a college-level climatology class (a lesson from the first class - there is no such thing as a normal climate), have looked at paleo-climatology, have relatives who talked about major weather events from the early 20th Century, and so on.  Simply put, climate has been changing for as long as the Earth has had a climate, with or without the intervention of human beings.  And the reason why it plays out as a political issue is the same reason why so many do, which I think is pretty well explained by Thomas Sowell in his book A Conflict of Visions.

Quote from: BalbinusAnyway, fuck it, I deal with senior analysts at major investment banks who spend their time looking very closely at weather patterns and agricultural yields, the data is extremely clear, the international reports tend to downplay the scientific consensus as a result of Chinese and US political pressure.

And what does that data clearly say?

Quote from: BalbinusPersonally I think there is little realistic chance of our addressing the issue, as the current US administration has basically torpedoed international cooperation on the point.

The "current US administration" is irrelevant to the problem.  Do your really think that the US Senate, regardless of which administration is in power, would ratify a treaty that would hurt the US economy?  Are any of the Western nations that signed on to Kyoto actually meeting the goals set by that treaty?  And is there any chance of anyone meeting the goals of a treaty with more ambitions objectives than Kyoto, which is what's actually needed to make any difference?

Quote from: BalbinusBut fuck it, trying to convince people like Koltar is a waste of time, because he'd rather rely on folk wisdom and political partisan crap than science.  Me, I'm sticking with the science, which is now overwhelmingly supportive of climate change as being a human driven phenomenon.

Really?  So what caused the Medieval Climate Optimum?  How about the Little Ice Age?  How about the Holocene Climate Optimum?  How about the Younger Dryas?  And why were these periods when it was warmer than it is today called "Climate Optima"?  All human driven?  Do you really believe that climate didn't change before humans?

Quote from: BalbinusBut then, the US is a country where the teaching of evolution is under threat and which has some of the worst and most partisan broadcast news I have seen anywhere in the world, you guys really need to fight against the wave of superstition that I think is doing terrible damage to your country.

Do you really believe that the teaching of Evolution is under threat in New York City or Los Angeles?  I don't.  Free clue.  Education policy is set at the state and local level in the United States.  That the Kansas Board of Education decided they wanted to teach Intelligent Design (they didn't try to stop teaching Evolution) has no impact on what goes on in other parts of the United States.  In fact, even the people of Kansas were not terribly supportive of that decision.  Since you believe the media in the US is so biased, perhaps you should stop believing everything they say.

As for the most partisan broadcast news, perhaps part of the problem is that you don't notice the partisanship in your own news, ignore the local partisan news that you don't agree with, and are forgetting the vast portions of the world's population that don't live in places with a free press.  There are, of course, global warming skeptics outside of the United States.  There is a wonderful page addressing the reasons for global warming skepticism, for example, from the Telegraph in the UK here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml) with backing data here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf) and follow-up addressing critics here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml).    There is the Australian ABC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle (you can find copies of it, and a debate about it, online).  And then there is Dane Bjørn Lomborg's take on the issue in "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming".  But only Americans the US has partisan media that would make such claims, right?  And, of course, Michael Crichton (here (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html) is his take) and Larry Niven (see the ending of Fallen Angels) are hardly superstitious Creationists, yet both have expressed skepticism about global warming or the orthodox environmentalist interpretation of it.

Should I assume that you assess the scientific data on global warming with the same level of partisanship and lack of attention to detail with which you are making those claims?

Ultimately, the problem is that the atmosphere (as does much of the global environment) suffers from the curse of the commons, and so long as it's advantageous for someone to exploit the environment and get away with it, they will.  Again, I point out that even those countries who have signed on to even a the relatively mild Kyoto agreement have not and probably could not meet the goals, despite all of the noises they've made in support of it.

Oh, I forgot to point out that the poles on Mars are melting, too.  Seems like there is global warming on Mars.  I guess America shouldn't have sent those two solar-powered SUVs there, huh?

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course. But here's where we come to the point that even if burning the sooty black stuff gives us Vitamin fucking C, still there's a finite amount of it, at some point demand will exceed supply by a large amount, so that from our perspective it's running short, and then...

...then the more expensive alternatives become viable and people will start using them.  It's not going to happen before that.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAs we pass the halfway-mark in pumping oil from the ground, the rate of production will drop. Since demand keeps rising thanks to industrialising countries, well... demand will exceed supply, and it'll be harder and harder to justify burning the stuff just to drive four blocks to the shops (here Down Under, 40% of all trips are under 5km), and harder and harder to afford driving much further, or to have the airconditioning set at chill temperatures while you're out all day.

The problem is that American (and I suspect Australian) suburbs are designed for cars and driving.  It's going to require a major shift in habitation patterns to change that.  I suspect it's more likely that we'll see smaller and/or more fuel-efficient cars first.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAs oil runs short and becomes more expensive, those alternatives are going to start looking much more palatable to people. Even a Jew will eat pork if it's that or starve, and even an American or Australian will take the train if that's the only way to get to work.

Yes, but before things get to that point, alternative fuels may become economically viable.  Yeah, $80 a barrel looks mighty expensive when oil is running $40 a barrel, but it looks pretty cheap when oil is running $100 a barrel.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe other possibility is that as the stuff runs short and the price goes up, only the rich will drive or have oil-dependent products, while the poor have none at all; the rich-poor gap is already an oil gap. So our cities will become smoggy wastelands of shanty towns and gated communities of the rich. This is quite possible, but I prefer to be optimistic, and assume that people do in fact do the right thing once all alternatives have been exhausted.

Well, one of the big problems is that the developing world wants to keep developing.  They don't want to keep living in grass huts.  They want to own a car, a house with a bit of land around it, and be able to drive a car 5km to the store, just like Americans and Australians do.

Quote from: John MorrowWell, one of the big problems is that the developing world wants to keep developing.  They don't want to keep living in grass huts.  They want to own a car, a house with a bit of land around it, and be able to drive a car 5km to the store, just like Americans and Australians do.

and there is the crux of the problem.  we won't stop consuming, and others watch to consume as much as we do.

Quote from: BalbinusThe water is the key bit, currently the 21st century looks like it could be the century of the drought, though the thing with climate change (and it's climate change people, not global warming, that latter term is deeply misleading) is that it is fairly chaotic and we can expect a variety of extremes to get more so - more droughts, more floods (not generally at the same time naturally), more hurricanes and so on.

But the climate has been fairly chaotic all along.  The Dust Bowl happened less than 100 years ago, and that caused my aunt's family to migrate to California from Oklahoma.  My father has told me about 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane that wiped out boardwalks and vacation homes all along the New Jersey coast.  A few hundred years ago, the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey as well as the Thames river would freeze solid in the winter.  

Of course the Little Ice Age corresponded to the Maunder Minimum, a period of low solar activity, not carbon dioxide decreases.  In fact, the graph of solar activity in the Wikipedia article on The Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) is worth a look.

Quote from: beeberand there is the crux of the problem.  we won't stop consuming, and others watch to consume as much as we do.

And the only way it's going to stop is to run out of it or for it to become too expensive to consume.  Personally, I'm betting on the development of cost-effective alternatives.  

Personally, I'm worried about a pole flip (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2889127.stm) than global warming.  If we lose our magnetic field for even a few years, it will make a real mess out of everything.

Quote from: beeberwhat kind of mileage do they get on that fuel?  i've wondered that, and the same for jet engines vs. prop engines (avgas efficiency).

Found an interesting handout while looking the answer to this up:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/rmk5024/alcohol.htm

Ethanol and methanol are both less energetic than gasoline. To match a gallon of gasoline, you would have to burn 1.63 gallons of ethanol or 1.975 gallons of methanol.

(As a gaming aside, Twilight: 2000 lists gasoline as having a fuel consumption value of 1, ethanol as having a fuel consumption value of 3, and methanol as having a fuel consumption value of 4. Twice that of the BTU values indicated.)

Quote from: jeff37923Found an interesting handout while looking the answer to this up:
 
http://www.personal.psu.edu/rmk5024/alcohol.htm (http://www.personal.psu.edu/rmk5024/alcohol.htm)
 
Ethanol and methanol are both less energetic than gasoline. To match a gallon of gasoline, you would have to burn 1.63 gallons of ethanol or 1.975 gallons of methanol.
 
(As a gaming aside, Twilight: 2000 lists gasoline as having a fuel consumption value of 1, ethanol as having a fuel consumption value of 3, and methanol as having a fuel consumption value of 4. Twice that of the BTU values indicated.)

That's slightly misleading as it assumes a straight fuel swap with no modifications to the engine.
 
Ethanol and Methanol have a higher octane rating than straight gasoline, so the engine can run higher compression and produce more horsepower for the same amount of fuel. It balances things out quite a bit.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you really believe that the teaching of Evolution is under threat in New York City or Los Angeles?  I don't.  Free clue.  Education policy is set at the state and local level in the United States.  That the Kansas Board of Education decided they wanted to teach Intelligent Design (they didn't try to stop teaching Evolution) has no impact on what goes on in other parts of the United States.  In fact, even the people of Kansas were not terribly supportive of that decision.  Since you believe the media in the US is so biased, perhaps you should stop believing everything they say.

No, because education is set at state level, if it were set at national level the Kansas issue would never have happened.  I am aware of the state's role in education John.  My point is it is part of a cultural movement, and although not backed by a majority anywhere is nonetheless winning real victories.

We have the same issue in the UK incidentally, albeit as is often the case several years behind the US position, here it tends to be Muslim creationists rather than Christian and they lack the national power base to have much influence as yet on the national debate, but it is still becoming an issue.

And I didn't say the US media were biased, I said the broadcast news was crap, on which note:

Quote from: John MorrowAs for the most partisan broadcast news, perhaps part of the problem is that you don't notice the partisanship in your own news, ignore the local partisan news that you don't agree with, and are forgetting the vast portions of the world's population that don't live in places with a free press.  There are, of course, global warming skeptics outside of the United States.  

I wasn't comparing US broadcast news to UK broadcast news, I was comparing US broadcast news to UK, Candadian, French, Italian and Japanese broadcast news all of which I have some experience with.  US broadcast news is shockingly bad, it's not just an issue of partisanship, it's also issues such as breadth of report and level of analysis.

US print news by contrast is very good, the daily stuff anyway, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal (which I subscribed to for years incidentally) are all excellent, better IMO than their UK equivalents though I think the French and Italian newspapers are better than either.  I don't know Canadian or Japanese print news at all so can't comment on them.

I think the US fares poorly for news magazines, I don't think Time and Newsweek compare at all well to the Economist (which I still subscribe to) or even to papers like L'Espresso or Panorama in Italy though they're closer to them.  But for daily print news the US is very well served and where I have a choice there are US papers I take in preference to UK ones for precisely that reason (I tend to take the WSJ and the Washington Post, the NYT tends to annoy me for some reason, but these things are often purely taste).

Quote from: John MorrowThere is a wonderful page addressing the reasons for global warming skepticism, for example, from the Telegraph in the UK here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml) with backing data here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf) and follow-up addressing critics here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml).    There is the Australian ABC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle (you can find copies of it, and a debate about it, online).  And then there is Dane Bjørn Lomborg's take on the issue in "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming".  But only Americans the US has partisan media that would make such claims, right?  And, of course, Michael Crichton (here (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.html) is his take) and Larry Niven (see the ending of Fallen Angels) are hardly superstitious Creationists, yet both have expressed skepticism about global warming or the orthodox environmentalist interpretation of it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast in the UK, Channel 4 (the broadcaster) got into a lot of trouble over it when several of the scientists quoted in the program publicly complained that their views had been deliberately misrepresented for political ends, it has also been thoroughly debunked (this study http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/ specifically rebutted the core points made by the broadcast).  At the very least it is a hugely controversial broadcast, and is regarded by many as a work of outright and deliberate fraud.

Bjørn Lomborg is a statistician and political scientist, the Skeptical Environmentalist (his first book) argued that human factors were not involved in climate change but was soundly debunked by climate scientists (in particular in the Scientific American), he went outside his field quite simply.  In any event, it does not reflect his current thinking, after the Skeptical Environmentalist was debunked Bjørn changed tack, he now no longer argues that there is not a significant human factor in climate change, rather he now argues there are more important environmental issues to address first and that in any event it is too late to do anything about it.  He is not a particularly credible figure, he strikes me as a bit like Michael Moore, someone prepared to take any argument provided he gets to the destination he wants, and like Michael Moore I'm not sure he particularly helps his own side of the debate.   Bjørn does now accept in full the IPCC report incidentally, as such he does not argue that climate change is not caused by humanity.

By which I do not mean obviously all climate change at all periods, rather the radical and unexpected climate change currently underway.

Anyway, the point is, although he argues we shouldn't do anything, he no longer argues that we are not responsible.

Michael Crichton is an author, and one incidentally who believes that he has communicated with his dead grandfather in a spirit walk, his views are no more salient than anyone else's.  Larry Niven is incredibly right wing, and for some reason in the US climate change is a party political issue, it isn't most other places.  I think you're assuming I'm a liberal, I'm not, it's just that in the UK this is not a party political issue in that way (and even if it were, science is science).

I didn't respond to the Telegraph because I don't respect it as a newspaper, I don't think it's a serious journal, that and science coverage in the UK press is shockingly bad, much worse than in the US (my favourite headline was in the Times, "Killer Black Hole Maurades Universe, Devouring Stars", a story about the possibility of detecting a black hole at the galactic core).

I prefer to go with the IPCC than a bunch of political axe-grinders, the IPCC is a body made up principally of scientists, I give them more credence than I give people who need to generate controversy to sell programmes and books.

There were many excellent points in your post I haven't responded to, I'll try to later, but I thought you suspected me of anti-Americanism and that is quite wrong.  I really like America, I think it's a great country with much to offer, that doesn't make it flawless and it doesn't mean there isn't some stuff there that's shoddy just like there is stuff here that is shoddy and stuff in all the many places I routinely travel to that is too.

Quote from: droogSo we're all fucked, Balbinus? Roll on the apocalypse!

Not we, no.

They.

Folk in the developing world mostly, John is quite correct that market economics will result in alternative fuel sources being developed as fossil fuel use declines, whether due to government action or increasing cost of sourcing and producing fossil fuels.  The peak oil guys may or may not understand geology, but they definitely don't understand economics.

The threat to the West is of increasing global instability leading to an increase in failed states and global terrorism, the threat to the developing world is crop failures, drought, mass population movements and political instability.

There is also some very interesting data on the effects of bread subsidies on fertility, essentially my understanding is that bread subsidies lead to population increases, which result in increased demand for bread.  Ending subsidies leads to political unrest, maintaining subsidies becomes increasingly unaffordable as the population increases, if bread costs were to rise globally that in itself could push some states to the wall.

It's a textbook example of why state intervention can sometimes make things much worse in the long term, though better in the short term.  

Back to climate change, the nightmare statistics are actually in China and India, China famously is opening a new coal fired power plant every week.  China and India make the point, which I have a degree of sympathy with, that we are asking them to cut back on developments we have already enjoyed and that's fine for us but crippling for them.  I don't have a good answer to that, nobody does, so learning to live with climate change probably is our only politically viable option, but the implications of that are much worse than most people realise.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the climate has been fairly chaotic all along.  The Dust Bowl happened less than 100 years ago, and that caused my aunt's family to migrate to California from Oklahoma.  My father has told me about 1944 Great Atlantic Hurricane that wiped out boardwalks and vacation homes all along the New Jersey coast.  A few hundred years ago, the Hudson River between New York and New Jersey as well as the Thames river would freeze solid in the winter.  

Of course the Little Ice Age corresponded to the Maunder Minimum, a period of low solar activity, not carbon dioxide decreases.  In fact, the graph of solar activity in the Wikipedia article on The Little Ice Age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age) is worth a look.

Absolutely, the point is we have greatly exaggerated it, now to be fair other things can also exaggerate it and it is by its nature a chaotic system, but we have greatly increased certain trends and made it more chaotic (and are continuing to make it more so).

Quote from: BalbinusNo, because education is set at state level, if it were set at national level the Kansas issue would never have happened.  I am aware of the state's role in education John.  My point is it is part of a cultural movement, and although not backed by a majority anywhere is nonetheless winning real victories.

Fair enough.  But I don't think it's nearly as bad as a lot of people, particularly non-Americans, seem to think it is.

Quote from: BalbinusWe have the same issue in the UK incidentally, albeit as is often the case several years behind the US position, here it tends to be Muslim creationists rather than Christian and they lack the national power base to have much influence as yet on the national debate, but it is still becoming an issue.

Glad to hear that, since Kyle was arguing that this is a distinctly American problem.

Quote from: BalbinusI wasn't comparing US broadcast news to UK broadcast news, I was comparing US broadcast news to UK, Candadian, French, Italian and Japanese broadcast news all of which I have some experience with.  US broadcast news is shockingly bad, it's not just an issue of partisanship, it's also issues such as breadth of report and level of analysis.

I spent some time in Japan and I can't say that the Japanese news seemed all that different to me.  For example, when SwissAir 111 went down over Nova Scotia, it got very little play in Japan because, well, no Japanese were involved.  That's the very same criticism that I see leveled at the US media.  And there are plenty of domestic issues that just don't get discussed in Japan, to my knowledge, in any media.

There are also plenty of critics of the media in Canada in the UK and lots of quirks, including issues such as the Canadian blackout of the Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka and complaints of the BBC's partisanship on various issues.  I'm not claiming that the United States broadcast media (especially if you are talking about the evening network news broadcasts) is excellent or unbiased.  I'm simply not convinced that things are so vastly superior elsewhere.

Quote from: BalbinusUS print news by contrast is very good, the daily stuff anyway, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal (which I subscribed to for years incidentally) are all excellent, better IMO than their UK equivalents though I think the French and Italian newspapers are better than either.  I don't know Canadian or Japanese print news at all so can't comment on them.

I only really know Japanese print news in English.  Since it often use AP and Reuters feeds as sources, I can't really say that I know what the real Japanese news is like for certain.

Quote from: BalbinusI think the US fares poorly for news magazines, I don't think Time and Newsweek compare at all well to the Economist (which I still subscribe to) or even to papers like L'Espresso or Panorama in Italy though they're closer to them.

I can't really say that I disagree with you there, in terms of the US magazines or the Economist.  

Quote from: BalbinusBut for daily print news the US is very well served and where I have a choice there are US papers I take in preference to UK ones for precisely that reason (I tend to take the WSJ and the Washington Post, the NYT tends to annoy me for some reason, but these things are often purely taste).

The New York Times has reached a point where their partisanship is making them reckless and sloppy while I think the Washington Post hasn't.  Part of what helps at the WSJ is that the bias on their editorial page, political page, and news pages are different, so between them, things sort-of even out.

Quote from: BalbinusThe Great Global Warming Swindle was broadcast in the UK, Channel 4 (the broadcaster) got into a lot of trouble over it when several of the scientists quoted in the program publicly complained that their views had been deliberately misrepresented for political ends, it has also been thoroughly debunked (this study http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/ specifically rebutted the core points made by the broadcast).  At the very least it is a hugely controversial broadcast, and is regarded by many as a work of outright and deliberate fraud.

I don't doubt it was controversial, but have you read any of the points raised against that paper (such as why, if the issues it addresses had already been settled, a new paper in response to the documentary was needed)?  I presume, for example, that you've read Nir Shaviv's take on Lockwood and Fröhlich (http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/07/nir-shaviv-why-is-lockwood-and-frohlich.html), right?  Or how about the Danish National Space Center's reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich (http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view)?

That's the problem that I have when I hear the phrase "thoroughly debunked".  It usually means that a person has read the rebuttal but never the rebuttals of the rebuttals.  More on that in a moment.

Quote from: BalbinusBjørn Lomborg is a statistician and political scientist, the Skeptical Environmentalist (his first book) argued that human factors were not involved in climate change but was soundly debunked by climate scientists (in particular in the Scientific American), he went outside his field quite simply.

This time "soundly debunked".  Have you read Lomborg's response to The Scientific American (http://www.greenspirit.com/lomborg/ScientificAmericanBjornLomborgAnswer.pdf)?  In other words, have you looked at the rebuttal of the rebuttal?  And isn't saying that "he went outside his field" simply an ad hominem attack or, at best, an appeal to authority?  Shouldn't people actually assess the claims being made by both sides?

Quote from: BalbinusIn any event, it does not reflect his current thinking,

It never did, which was why it drew so much criticism.  But "current thinking" is not necessarily "correct thinking".

Quote from: Balbinus[A]fter the Skeptical Environmentalist was debunked Bjørn changed tack, he now no longer argues that there is not a significant human factor in climate change, rather he now argues there are more important environmental issues to address first and that in any event it is too late to do anything about it.

I think there is a bit more to his current argument than that.

Quote from: BalbinusHe is not a particularly credible figure, he strikes me as a bit like Michael Moore, someone prepared to take any argument provided he gets to the destination he wants, and like Michael Moore I'm not sure he particularly helps his own side of the debate.   Bjørn does now accept in full the IPCC report incidentally, as such he does not argue that climate change is not caused by humanity.

So what specific destination do you think Bjørn Lomborg is trying to get to?

Also bear in mind that while he is accepting the IPCC numbers, he is accepting the median values (while many Global Warming alarmists uses the worst case values) and he doesn't necessarily agree with all of their conclusions.  And, of course, there are many degrees of skepticism about Global Warming including whether it's happening at all, how much it's happening, and whether it's caused by human activity.

Quote from: BalbinusBy which I do not mean obviously all climate change at all periods, rather the radical and unexpected climate change currently underway.

There is evidence that climate change has been fairly radical during other periods (including the shift into the Little Ice Age) and what's unreasonable to to expect that climate won't change.  That climate change is "unexpected" represents a fairly profound misunderstanding of climate, I think.  Again, one of the first things I was told in my college-level climatology class was that there was no such thing as a normal climate.

Quote from: BalbinusAnyway, the point is, although he argues we shouldn't do anything, he no longer argues that we are not responsible.

And that's fine, but a large part of the debate is also how responsible humans are.  As I mentioned above, there are a range of claims on the subject, some more skeptical of human involvement than others.

Quote from: BalbinusMichael Crichton is an author, and one incidentally who believes that he has communicated with his dead grandfather in a spirit walk, his views are no more salient than anyone else's.  Larry Niven is incredibly right wing, and for some reason in the US climate change is a party political issue, it isn't most other places.

As I said, I think Thomas Sowell does a pretty reasonable job of explaining that.  And while it may not be a party political issue in the rest of the world, I think it certainly is a political issue, in the sense that Lomborg was attacked by the left and embraced by some on the right, that the Telegraph prints articles critical of Global Warming while the Guardian prints articles critical of those Telegraph articles, and so on.

Quote from: BalbinusI think you're assuming I'm a liberal, I'm not, it's just that in the UK this is not a party political issue in that way (and even if it were, science is science).

Not exactly, no.  If you were a liberal in the American sense, I doubt you'd be placing any trust in financial analysts.  But I do think that "science is science" tends to fall down when the science becomes political (e.g., DDT, which even UN organizations are now recommending be allowed for indoor spraying, 30 million deaths later).  

Quote from: BalbinusI didn't respond to the Telegraph because I don't respect it as a newspaper, I don't think it's a serious journal, that and science coverage in the UK press is shockingly bad, much worse than in the US (my favourite headline was in the Times, "Killer Black Hole Maurades Universe, Devouring Stars", a story about the possibility of detecting a black hole at the galactic core).

Perhaps you should read the actual claims made, then, and assess those?

Quote from: BalbinusI prefer to go with the IPCC than a bunch of political axe-grinders, the IPCC is a body made up principally of scientists, I give them more credence than I give people who need to generate controversy to sell programmes and books.

I think you are sadly mistaken if you think that the IPCC doesn't include any political axe-grinders and that scientists can't put politics before science.  Having seen plenty of goofy claims from scientists, I really don't give people who have to tow the party in order to get research grants any more credence than people trying to generate controversy to get their money.  So what's the alternative?  Actually reading their claims and counter-claims and looking at the sorts of tactics they apply to address one another.

Quote from: BalbinusThere were many excellent points in your post I haven't responded to, I'll try to later, but I thought you suspected me of anti-Americanism and that is quite wrong.  I really like America, I think it's a great country with much to offer, that doesn't make it flawless and it doesn't mean there isn't some stuff there that's shoddy just like there is stuff here that is shoddy and stuff in all the many places I routinely travel to that is too.

Fair enough.  I've just gotten a bit tired of seeing America getting beaten up.  American certainly has it's flaws, but just as Americans are often blind to America's flaws, I think that other people don't realize that they wear the same kind of blinders about their own countries, ethnicity, and politics.

Quote from: BalbinusAbsolutely, the point is we have greatly exaggerated it, now to be fair other things can also exaggerate it and it is by its nature a chaotic system, but we have greatly increased certain trends and made it more chaotic (and are continuing to make it more so).

Looking at history, I'm simply not convinced that's true (that things are getting more chaotic).  Part of the point I was making was that I think most people's memory of what the weather is like starts sometime after 1950, if not after 1970.  And even those droughts and hurricanes from the first part of the 20th Century pale in comparison to the issues caused the Medieval Climate Optimum and the Little Ice Age, both of which involved fairly rapid shifts in climate (my Medieval history professor in college talked about the years in Europe when it rained so much that the crops rotted in the fields).

Quote from: John MorrowLooking at history, I'm simply not convinced that's true (that things are getting more chaotic).  Part of the point I was making was that I think most people's memory of what the weather is like starts sometime after 1950, if not after 1970.

Fortunately, climatologists, hydrologists, and historical geologists are basing their observations on a wider body of data.  The notion that current trends are still within the range of historical historical data doesn't diminish the correlation with increased population, industrialisation, and industrialised agriculture.  These scientists aren't simply pulling numbers out of a hat.

!i!

Quote from: BalbinusThe threat to the West is of increasing global instability leading to an increase in failed states and global terrorism, the threat to the developing world is crop failures, drought, mass population movements and political instability.

Those problems have been happening anyway.  People need to remember that almost all of those problems plagued Europe and the United States at various points until the latter part of the 20th Century.  Not only two World Wars but also things like the Dust Bowl which, as I mentioned, let my aunt's family to migrate from Oklahoma to California.  In fact, plenty of American immigration from Europe, until the mid-20th Century, was driven by many of those issues.  Again, I think the problem here is that many people's memories stop at 1950 or 1970.

Quote from: BalbinusBack to climate change, the nightmare statistics are actually in China and India, China famously is opening a new coal fired power plant every week.

And, of course, China and India are exempt from the Kyoto reduction framework, which is why I find the importance people give to that agreement so laughable.  Even if followed to the letter, it wasn't going to do much and, of course, almost nobody who signed on to it is really following it, anyway.  So is it worse to just admit that you aren't going to follow it and not sign it or praise it, sign it, and then not follow it?

Quote from: BalbinusChina and India make the point, which I have a degree of sympathy with, that we are asking them to cut back on developments we have already enjoyed and that's fine for us but crippling for them.  I don't have a good answer to that, nobody does, so learning to live with climate change probably is our only politically viable option, but the implications of that are much worse than most people realise.

It's not just China and India.  Much of the Third World feels that way.  And there are plenty of examples of them being jerked around by the developed world on environmental issues (e.g., DDT, genetically modified crops, etc.).

Quote from: jeff37923As an aside threadjack, why do the rest of you think that coffeeshop pseudointellectuals gravitate towards the internet?

Because of the obvious browsing superiority of Safari? :keke:

IMO, talking makes you feel better about your opinions without the burden of trying to live them out in your life and influencing others through its example. No one really goes to the mat like Ghandi or MLK anymore, cause that shit is hard. Far easier to set up a blog and enjoy the echo of your fellow readers.

Let's try this again...

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFortunately, climatologists, hydrologists, and historical geologists are basing their observations on a wider body of data.

Yes, often carefully selected to exclude inconvenient points like the Medieval Climate Optimum, the Little Ice Age, and so on.  Conveniently, the periods of time they often talk about end just before a major climate shift that would discredit their analysis.
 

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe notion that current trends are still within the range of historical historical data doesn't diminish the correlation with increased population, industrialisation, and industrialised agriculture.

Correlation does not equal causation.  And looking at the variability in climate in the past can help one determine how much of it seems to be causation and how much is simply unrelated correlation.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThese scientists aren't simply pulling numbers out of a hat.

In some cases, they almost seem to be.  Did you read the PDF of calculations and citations that accompanied Christopher Monckton article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf)?  Here (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/) is a more detailed treatment of one such example.  And, yes, I know that McIntyre and McKitrick have their critics but, as always, it's important to read the rebuttals and the rebuttals of the rebuttals and not simply assume that one rebuttal settles the debate for eternity.

"Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes," John.  Your arguments rely on an endless succession of possible exceptions, and the proof you're looking for can only be determined in retrospect.

!i!

The short version, for Morrow: "Bollocks. Bugger off." :p

The longer version - and if you can't be bothered reading through it, that's entirely fair, but you cannot then claim an informed opinion, nor should you expect more from anyone else than "bollocks, bugger off." I don't want to read about (for example) the US Presidential election, but by the same token I'll also not pretend to have an informed opinion about its details. It's alright to be ignorant so long as you're not pretending to be smart.

A good website talking about climate change issues in both layman's and scientific terms, with copious links and checkable references, is realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/).

They debunk The Great Global Warming Swindle here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414).

NASA and the USGS now believe (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11531-dust-blamed-for-warming-on-mars.html) that the recent warming on Mars can be entirely accounted for by its dust storms.

Solar forcing is a favourite of many denialists like Morrow, their argument being, "well if the sun's shining brighter, of course it's hotter." Logical on the face of it. The problem is that the Sun is not shining more brightly over time, radiance follows the sunspot 11-year cycle,


In addition, in 2006 there was a recent review (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf) (740kb pdf) of studies on the solar forcing issue; among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.) "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.

What about them cosmic rays? Sadly, we cannot blame them for gloabl climate change, since they also are cyclical, and have a steady trend over the past 56 years - actually slightly downward, but not considered significant. You can get the raw data here (http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html), but graphs are so pretty, no?

(http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/images/0_1950-2006.GIF)

Morrow et al's response is a bit like the four stage foreign office response to any crisis, as described so well in Yes, Prime Minister.

Bernard Woolley: What if the Prime Minister insists we help them?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Then we follow the four-stage strategy.
Bernard Woolley: What's that?
Sir Richard Wharton: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage one we say nothing is going to happen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
Sir Richard Wharton: In stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we *can* do.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.

Stage three can have added to it, "the problem needs careful study." So for example if your car is stuck on the railway tracks and think you hear the toot of the horn of a train coming, you can sit there arguing with your fellow passengers about whether or not the train is coming, and if so, exactly how far away it is. Toot, toot.

The point of this kind of debate is to avoid action, so that someone else will be the one to make the difficult decisions. Just imagine being a Western parliamentary, congresional or Presidential candidate and trying to get elected on a platform of "no more burgers and SUVs!" Try it out, see if you win.

There are certainly things we could do to mitigate the inevitable energy descent, to make the transition less painful. These things could make us a great deal of money - for example, we in Australia could stop sending all our solar panel technology overseas (we're very conservative and risk-averse here, preferring just to mine the country) - money which we could then use to help transition to a lower-waste lifestyle. But we'd rather someone else made those decisions. After all, Neighbours is on later, and that will command all our attention.

Quote from: Ian Absentia"Sometimes, sometimes, sometimes," John.  Your arguments rely on an endless succession of possible exceptions, and the proof you're looking for can only be determined in retrospect.

Would asking for a little more detail be too much for you?  Or is the goal here to be vague enough that it's not possible for me to address your complaint?

Quote from: John MorrowWould asking for a little more detail be too much for you?  Or is the goal here to be vague enough that it's not possible for me to address your complaint?

First, I should apologise, because my comment was a bit of an ad hominem. But I criticised you instead of your argument because your means of refuting others' arguments is to suggest or cite exceptions to statements and conclude from those exceptions that the argument is false.  I call that sort of thing "bath-watering" as in "throwing out the baby with..."  In a sense, it's just as much a case of cherry-picking as the accusation you made that sometimes scientists cherry-pick their data to support their theses.  It's boorish and tedious.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFirst, I should apologise, because my comment was a bit of an ad hominem. But I criticised you instead of your argument because your means of refuting others' arguments is to suggest or cite exceptions to statements and conclude from those exceptions that the argument is false.  I call that sort of thing "bath-watering" as in "throwing out the baby with..."  In a sense, it's just as much a case of cherry-picking as the accusation you made that sometimes scientists cherry-pick their data to support their theses.  It's boorish and tedious.

!i!

Microsoft I believe once referred to that marketing technique as "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".  You don't have to actual debunk or disprove a thing, just cast a lot of vague aspersions and doubt over it with little to no support.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA good website talking about climate change issues in both layman's and scientific terms, with copious links and checkable references, is realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/).

I'm glad you didn't use the word "non-partisan".

Quote from: Kyle AaronThey debunk The Great Global Warming Swindle here (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414).

Of course they do.  I can find a "debunking" of everyone one of these arguments from both sides.  That's why it's important to read the rebuttals of the rebuttals and so on.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNASA and the USGS now believe (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11531-dust-blamed-for-warming-on-mars.html) that the recent warming on Mars can be entirely accounted for by its dust storms.

Mars isn't the only other planet showing warming.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSolar forcing is a favourite of many denialists like Morrow, their argument being, "well if the sun's shining brighter, of course it's hotter." Logical on the face of it. The problem is that the Sun is not shining more brightly over time, radiance follows the sunspot 11-year cycle,

Ah, "solar forcing".  You have been reading rebuttal sites, haven't you?

Again, have you bothered to look for anyone who disagrees with or rebuts those assertions?

For example:

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html)

And since you seem to like Wikipedia charts:


Oh, and let's not forget the the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening for a while now, letting more radiation hit the Earth.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn addition, in 2006 there was a recent review (http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf) (740kb pdf) of studies on the solar forcing issue; among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.) "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.

There results "imply" that human influences "must" far outweigh the Sun's effects?  It's not that difficult to find other studies that come to a different conclusion, which is why I find the confidence with which people declare these questions "thoroughly debunked" quite unwarranted.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat about them cosmic rays? Sadly, we cannot blame them for gloabl climate change, since they also are cyclical, and have a steady trend over the past 56 years - actually slightly downward, but not considered significant. You can get the raw data here (http://ulysses.sr.unh.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html), but graphs are so pretty, no?

Of course if you actually followed any of the links I posted earlier in this tread, you would have found that very chart being addressed.  But why bother reading what the other side has to say when you've made up your mind, right?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronMorrow et al's response is a bit like the four stage foreign office response to any crisis, as described so well in Yes, Prime Minister.

And it always comes back to the ad hominem attack or straw man.  Why is that, exactly?

By the way...

Quote from: John MorrowCorrelation does not equal causation.  And looking at the variability in climate in the past can help one determine how much of it seems to be causation and how much is simply unrelated correlation.

No shit.  There's a reason why I used the word "correlation" instead of "causation".  That trend in the range of variation seen in both the historical and geological record is exactly what I referred to.  Responsible science is all about correlation and trend.  Causation is the domain of policy.  But responsible policy isn't about hemming and hawing and saying, "but, sometimes, maybe, except".

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFirst, I should apologise, because my comment was a bit of an ad hominem. But I criticised you instead of your argument because your means of refuting others' arguments is to suggest or cite exceptions to statements and conclude from those exceptions that the argument is false.

For example?

I actually posted some fairly lengthy rebuttals but I assume nobody is bothering to actually read them.  That's the way these things usually go.  That's why I'm not bothering to find peer-reviewed sources because whenever I've gone through the trouble, nobody really cares.  It's more of an, "I dare you, because I don't think you'll take the time to do it!"

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI call that sort of thing "bath-watering" as in "throwing out the baby with..."  In a sense, it's just as much a case of cherry-picking as the accusation you made that sometimes scientists cherry-pick their data to support their theses.  It's boorish and tedious.

And what's the baby being thrown out with the bath-water here?

So, No one saw the newer Four Horsemen thread, which seemed to be set up to shift the Gobal Warming (And other controversies) chat over there.


- Ed C.

Quote from: John MorrowThose problems have been happening anyway.  People need to remember that almost all of those problems plagued Europe and the United States at various points until the latter part of the 20th Century.  Not only two World Wars but also things like the Dust Bowl which, as I mentioned, let my aunt's family to migrate from Oklahoma to California.  In fact, plenty of American immigration from Europe, until the mid-20th Century, was driven by many of those issues.  Again, I think the problem here is that many people's memories stop at 1950 or 1970.

That's why I said increasing John, I appreciate many folk's memories stop as you say, but not mine.  I said increasing to denote more than would otherwise be the case, other things being equal.  We can (IMO) say that this will make things much worse, we cannot say with any certainty how bad things would be otherwise but the world being as it is we can be sure that Mr Fukuyama would have been wrong no matter what happened.

My point is that IMO climate change will increase the issues I outlined over the coming century, not that we would not have had them anyway, but that this will make them worse than would otherwise have been the case.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd, of course, China and India are exempt from the Kyoto reduction framework, which is why I find the importance people give to that agreement so laughable.  Even if followed to the letter, it wasn't going to do much and, of course, almost nobody who signed on to it is really following it, anyway.  So is it worse to just admit that you aren't going to follow it and not sign it or praise it, sign it, and then not follow it?

For good or ill, the US is still leader of the free world and all that, having the US on board would have made it easier to bring pressure to bear.  That said, I think Kyoto is a sad joke to be honest.  I've spent a lot of time looking at the Kyoto principle and it's a bloody depressing document if you're on my side of where the evidence points if you get my drift.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not just China and India.  Much of the Third World feels that way.  And there are plenty of examples of them being jerked around by the developed world on environmental issues (e.g., DDT, genetically modified crops, etc.).

Sure, but China and India are the ones undergoing massive industrialisation on an epic scale, those are the two that count globally in terms of contribution.    As I said, I sympathise, we have screwed the developing world royally on a great many issues and frequently ask them to do as we say, not as we did.  The reason for citing China and India is the size of their economies, populations and scale of development.  Other developing countries matter, but nobody remotely on their scale.

On the debunking, there's no end to that as you note.  I have for example read Lomborg's rebuttal of his own debunking, I have read rebuttals of that, and rebuttals of those rebuttals.  At the end of the day, you have to read such evidence as you are able to understand and have time to absorb and take a view, there is never an end to the cycle of rebuttals one can quote.  That said, an equality of rebuttals does not mean the rebuttals are of equal quality, again we have to assess for ourselves what we find persuasive.  Lomberg to me feels like Michael Moore, I simply don't trust the man and I don't think he has the training to make the claims he does.  Your mileage may vary (on Lomborg, I suspect your mileage may not vary so much on Moore who I regard as a partisan  hack who intentionally distorts facts for political ends, but that's another debate).

I need to post on some roleplaying threads...

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBy the way...No shit.  There's a reason why I used the word "correlation" instead of "causation".  That trend in the range of variation seen in both the historical and geological record is exactly what I referred to.  Responsible science is all about correlation and trend.

Not when claims are being made by scientists about causation, as they are in the global warming debate.  If you want to make claims about causation, then you need to show causation, not simply imply it or claim it's there.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaCausation is the domain of policy.  But responsible policy isn't about hemming and hawing and saying, "but, sometimes, maybe, except".

Responsible policy also isn't about passing meaningless treaties that nobody follows and promoting plans that will throw the world's economy into a tailspin.  

And I would argue that America's Founding Fathers, by creating a government of checks and balances designed to make it difficult to get anything done, understood that hemming and hawing instead of grabbing a bunch of the public's money and liberty to do "something" in a hurry when the threat isn't clear is a good thing.  The world does not need a global version of The Great Leap Forward.

Quote from: KoltarSo, No one saw the newer Four Horsemen thread, which seemed to be set up to shift the Gobal Warming (And other controversies) chat over there.


- Ed C.

I thought that was the new Commit Suicide Because the World Is So Depressing and Give jeff37923 Your Money Since You Won't Be Needing It Anymore thread.

Come on guys. Everyone knows that the real threat to us is someone walking into your house/place of work and blowing themselves up.

Quote from: John MorrowFor example?

I actually posted some fairly lengthy rebuttals but I assume nobody is bothering to actually read them.  That's the way these things usually go.  That's why I'm not bothering to find peer-reviewed sources because whenever I've gone through the trouble, nobody really cares.

I have read them actually, I haven't responded to everything by any means and being perfectly honest I wouldn't follow up peer reviewed articles as I just don't have the time currently (and in any event I trust you to summarise them accurately) and could be quite unqualified to assess them, but I have read your rebuttals and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Not responding to every point doesn't mean not reading them, for me at least if I don't respond to a point it's more likely because I don't have the time to post the kind of response it would deserve.  I'm surprised Kyle has the time to post his.

Of course, if I don't reply, I can't expect to change your mind, but that's a choice I make with any post I choose not to reply to or only to partially reply to.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's why I said increasing John, I appreciate many folk's memories stop as you say, but not mine.

Fair enough.  My point here is that we've been living in a period of relative peace and stability for long enough that a lot of people seem to forget how abnormal that might be and what things were like before it.

Quote from: BalbinusI said increasing to denote more than would otherwise be the case, other things being equal.  We can (IMO) say that this will make things much worse, we cannot say with any certainty how bad things would be otherwise but the world being as it is we can be sure that Mr Fukuyama would have been wrong no matter what happened.

I think it may certainly press the issue, but I think those issues are inevitable.  The growth and industrialization of places like China and India are going to create environmental problems (e.g., pollution, fresh water shortages) and resource problems (e.g., oil, lumber, steel, etc.) regardless of whether Global Warming happens or not.  There are going to be growing pains.  And my concern with attempts to manage it is not over intentions (which I think are often noble) but results (attempts at centrally planning things like that have a very good history of killing millions of people).  See your own bread subsidy example.  The Road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

Quote from: BalbinusMy point is that IMO climate change will increase the issues I outlined over the coming century, not that we would not have had them anyway, but that this will make them worse than would otherwise have been the case.

I agree with that.

Quote from: BalbinusFor good or ill, the US is still leader of the free world and all that, having the US on board would have made it easier to bring pressure to bear.

In the US, treaties require Senate ratification.  That's just not going to happen with a treaty like Kyoto.  That's why the Clinton administration never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and why I said that the administration in power is irrelevant.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said, I think Kyoto is a sad joke to be honest.  I've spent a lot of time looking at the Kyoto principle and it's a bloody depressing document if you're on my side of where the evidence points if you get my drift.

I understand exactly what you are saying.  Even if it works exactly as expected, it really does nothing.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, but China and India are the ones undergoing massive industrialisation on an epic scale, those are the two that count globally in terms of contribution.    As I said, I sympathise, we have screwed the developing world royally on a great many issues and frequently ask them to do as we say, not as we did.  The reason for citing China and India is the size of their economies, populations and scale of development.  Other developing countries matter, but nobody remotely on their scale.

Fair enough.  Agreed.

Quote from: BalbinusOn the debunking, there's no end to that as you note.  I have for example read Lomborg's rebuttal of his own debunking, I have read rebuttals of that, and rebuttals of those rebuttals.  At the end of the day, you have to read such evidence as you are able to understand and have time to absorb and take a view, there is never an end to the cycle of rebuttals one can quote.  That said, an equality of rebuttals does not mean the rebuttals are of equal quality, again we have to assess for ourselves what we find persuasive.

Absolutely.  But I think that the pattern and tone of the rebuttals can provide some information, as well.

Quote from: BalbinusLomberg to me feels like Michael Moore, I simply don't trust the man and I don't think he has the training to make the claims he does.  Your mileage may vary (on Lomborg, I suspect your mileage may not vary so much on Moore who I regard as a partisan  hack who intentionally distorts facts for political ends, but that's another debate).

However questionable Lomborg's motives are, though, I found the original Scientific American rebuttal to be an embarrassment to the magazine.  If you are going to claim the high ground of science, at least act like scientists.

Quote from: BalbinusI need to post on some roleplaying threads...

Probably a good idea.

Quote from: BalbinusNot responding to every point doesn't mean not reading them, for me at least if I don't respond to a point it's more likely because I don't have the time to post the kind of response it would deserve.  I'm surprised Kyle has the time to post his.

OK.  Fair enough.  But I posted a link to a page that addressed a chart that Kyle posted, before he posted it.

Quote from: BalbinusOf course, if I don't reply, I can't expect to change your mind, but that's a choice I make with any post I choose not to reply to or only to partially reply to.

I'm willing to believe that climate change is happening and I'm even willing to believe that there is a human caused component to it.  I simply don't believe that we understand climate well enough to understand exactly what's going on or to project what's going to happen in the future with any certainty.  I'm also skeptical of any single-cause analysis of a complex issue and I think that they insistence that it's all man-made is being driven by the Luddite wing of the environmentalist movement more than science.  And in the big scheme of things, I trust people to respond to the changes better than I trust them to predict and try to change them before they happen.

Quote from: One Horse TownCome on guys. Everyone knows that the real threat to us is someone walking into your house/place of work and blowing themselves up.

 Damn!! Not at my workplace hopefully - that would be a lot of shredded and shattered D&D books, reaper miniatures in their packaging and board games everywhere.  
 Now if the guy could be in the middle of the hallway with an almost dud explosive or limited radius explopsive device - I'd LOVE to destroy that singing tree thats in the main hallway of the Mall.


That singing tree is really obnoxious.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarDamn!! Not at my workplace hopefully - that would be a lot of shredded and shattered D&D books, reaper miniatures in their packaging and board games everywhere.  

I assume you guys carry at least one copy of the Hero core book?  Keep that near the counter in case of the above situation.

Quote from: walkerpI assume you guys carry at least one copy of the Hero core book?  Keep that near the counter in case of the above situation.

I believe we have TWO copies and a maybe a few sidekickers too.


- Ed C.

Quote from: One Horse TownCome on guys. Everyone knows that the real threat to us is someone walking into your house/place of work and blowing themselves up.

no, no, the real threat is someone close to you going haywire or whatever and killing you!  

that, or transfats, or killer african bees or something

I hereby hang up my satirists hat. :D

Edit: Actually, African bees are here, i tell you! They're here!

Quote from: David Johansensigh...pultnyplasticcollective...I guess flogging her amature porn to Waakashani while proclaiming the truth of the Mormon church was original at least.

I'd be lying if I said the day she got banned wasn't the happiest day of my internet life.

PPC was a fake.

The photos?  Taken from the site of a woman named Dawn, who's Canadian, and most certainly not the gamer type.  (Dawn appeared on TechTV's Unscrewed as part of the host's segment about camwhores doing trivia while semi-naked; not a great show that was.)

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerPPC was a fake.

The photos?  Taken from the site of a woman named Dawn, who's Canadian, and most certainly not the gamer type.  (Dawn appeared on TechTV's Unscrewed as part of the host's segment about camwhores doing trivia while semi-naked; not a great show that was.)

I fucking knew it. Who says noodling around with net porn never taught you anything.

:sweatdrop:

Well, you know what I mean.

Quote from: Bradford C. WalkerPPC was a fake.

The photos?  Taken from the site of a woman named Dawn, who's Canadian, and most certainly not the gamer type.  (Dawn appeared on TechTV's Unscrewed as part of the host's segment about camwhores doing trivia while semi-naked; not a great show that was.)

Interesting, I can half-way believe it given just how screwy her whole line was.  On the other hand she could have been what she said she was, only using pictures of someone more attractive.

Quote from: David JohansenInteresting, I can half-way believe it given just how screwy her whole line was.  On the other hand she could have been what she said she was, only using pictures of someone more attractive.

Actually, if I recall, PPC was a guy. So, there's something to think about; an internet meme in action!

An important lesson learned from playing on various World of Darkness MUSHes from the mid-90s: If you're approached by a self-described hot bi-sexual woman who wants to share pictures of herself and chat dirty with you, better than 9 out of 10 times it's a guy.  PPC totally fit the mould.

!i!

Quote from: BalbinusNot responding to every point doesn't mean not reading them, for me at least if I don't respond to a point it's more likely because I don't have the time to post the kind of response it would deserve.  I'm surprised Kyle has the time to post his.

Along with roleplaying, an interest/hobby of mine is permaculture, democracy, and a future for the world. In current times those turn out to be pretty strongly-connected.

For example, a sensible energy policy would be to have distributed renewable energy - solar panels on homes, solar thermal and/or wind in neighbourhoods, rather than One Big Facility somewhere out in the sticks. It's sensible in terms of energy security, because some day fossil fuels will run short or be prohibitively expensive; it's sensible in terms of defence security, because terrorists or an enemy state can blow up One Big Facility but not millions of small ones; and it's sensible in terms of democracy, because when people get what they need from their own backyards, it's harder for a central government to compell them.

So, permaculture, democracy and a future for the world are things I'm interested in and study. Just as a keen D&Der can rattle off the rules without looking them up, I can rattle off this stuff without much effort.

Now, do I have the time for this? Well, I have the time in my day, I'm not pressed for every minute. But still, I like to try to spend my time on things which are either productive or entertaining, preferably both.

Dealing with the ignorant is productive, because you can educate them; dealing with the wilfully ignorant is unproductive, but sometimes entertaining. Wilfully ignorant guys like Koltar, after you've made fun of them for a bit it gets dull, he's just all-round ignorant. A decent person, but not knowledgeable about the world. But wilfully ignorant guys like Morrow are just frustrating. That's because he's an intelligent guy. It's like an eagle putting blinders on himself - excellent eyesight, but narrow view.

Quote from: BalbinusOf course, if I don't reply, I can't expect to change your mind, but that's a choice I make with any post I choose not to reply to or only to partially reply to.

You can't change their minds, mate. Their position is philosophical. It's a worldview. It's like that example I have of "philosophy" in d4-d4.
   
Philosophy
This represents for most people not a whole system of thought carefully considered and logically presented with footnotes, like a Kantian book of epistemology; instead, it's simply the filter through which they view the world, the way they interpret events. They interpret events so as to support their Philosophy. Also, they seek out events that support their philosophy: a Capitalist starts a business; a Catholic goes to Lourdes to see a miracle; an Empirical Scientist, if they don't actually have a career in science, joins the Sceptic's Society or watches science documentaries.

Example: A person has a long illness, and is told they've six months to live; they pray to Jesus, and live on, recovering fully.

The Empirical Scientist will call this a "spontaneous remission," and perhaps think it'd be good to study the hormonal effects of prayer, and whether those hormones promote natural antibodies, and...

Whereas the Charismatic Christian will say, "it's a miracle." The same event is thus interpreted differently by different Philosophies. In all philosophies, people tend to look for evidence to support their point of view: the Empirical Scientist sees "facts" everywhere, while the Charismatic Christian sees "miracles" everywhere. Of course, there are different degrees of philosophy.
So for example we see economic rationalists and communists both say, "our system will give happiness and prosperity to all." When you point out that it's been tried and didn't work, they say, "oh but really it did work... or if it didn't work, it's because it wasn't tried properly, or for long enough." Whatever data they're given, they twist it to support their philosophy. So if communism or economic rationalism give good results, that proves they work; if they give bad results, that proves they weren't tried properly or for long enough, so obviously they still work anyway; no matter what the data, the conclusion is proven.

A bit like old Freud and young Dora; Dora was a patient who came in complaining that her father was molesting her. But because her father was someone Freud knew, a fine chap all round, Freud thought it couldn't possibly be so. And so he said that Dora desired her father, was ashamed of it, and sublimated her shameful desires into fantasies that her father desired her, and did something about it. A neat theory, that denial - if Dora says, "yes, Dr Freud, I do desire my father", that proves his theory; if Dora says, "no, of course I don't you freak", that proves his theory, too! Neat! Whatever the data, the theory is proved! Awesome!

That's what we're seeing in these kinds of discussions from the Morrows and Koltars of the world. It's this immersion in their own philosophy. "Because I find the world too complicated to understand, obviously no scientist could ever understand it. So I can just ignore science and believe whatever I reckon."

Now, this sort of thing has happened many times before in history. The world changes faster than many people can understand it, or even accept that it is changing. We've had half a century of the greatest material prosperity that the common people of an entire civilisation have ever known. That it might end is unimaginable. Oh, sure, we can imagine it intellectually, write about it - but we can't imagine it in that real gut way, that way that makes us get our shit together in a sock and wire it tight, and fucking well do something about it.

Really, almost all of us are climate change deniers, if you go by our actions rather than our words. If you saw a guy on the train tracks fiddling about, and heard the horn of an oncoming train, and the guy said, "sure, I believe the train's coming," but he kept fucking about - well, you'd doubt whether he really believed it was coming.

Now, I actually do have time to argue with the guy on the tracks. But I can't really be arsed. I'm busy getting off the tracks myself. I'd rather focus my efforts on things which are productive, or at least entertaining.

Talking to Koltar, John Morrow and similar people about climate change and the like is neither productive nor entertaining, because they're wilfully ignorant. Talking to them about rpg stuff is sometimes productive, and almost always entertaining, because that's something they know about - and also something their minds are open about. It's easier to be open-minded about trivialities.

Sometimes I talk with these guys about important stuff anyway because I have hope, that quality which my friend - who stuck with a game group he wasn't enjoying - told me "separates us from the alien races." ;) But after one or two exchanges I remember just how hopeless it is and I leave them to it.

Some people are just really fucking good at ignoring reality. I was reading Goebbel's diaries once, and in February 1945, with two million Red Army soldiers across the Vistula and a million Allied soldiers across the Rhine, with Italy surrendered and Yugoslavia abandoned, Dresden firebombed and 200,000 people killed in one night, Goebbels was discussing with the Fuhrer... income tax reform.

That's far from unique in human history. Luckily, unanimity is not required for useful change. We can afford to leave a few clueless buggers lolling about saying, "well, it's a complicated problem, let's look at... let's not decide too hastily... after all, if we wait long enough maybe someone else will have to deal with it instead." Bugger that lot.

Man, Kyle is Pundit.

If you think like him, you're on top of the world.  If you don't, you're mired in a philosophy and can't think properly.

The irony of pointing it out the Freud example while doing the same thing in the post is fantastic.

Being an impatient/lazy/stupid/willfully-ignorant American, I just wish he'd do it in less words.

Quote from: Kyle AaronLuckily, unanimity is not required for useful change. We can afford to leave a few clueless buggers lolling about saying, "well, it's a complicated problem, let's look at... let's not decide too hastily... after all, if we wait long enough maybe someone else will have to deal with it instead." Bugger that lot.

Hear, hear!  Too bad there's so many of them.

Quote from: James J SkachMan, Kyle is Pundit.

If you think like him, you're on top of the world.  If you don't, you're mired in a philosophy and can't think properly.

The irony of pointing it out the Freud example while doing the same thing in the post is fantastic.

Being an impatient/lazy/stupid/willfully-ignorant American, I just wish he'd do it in less words.

As opposed to you, who are quick to tear down another's ideas but lack any alternative course of action?

Quote from: Old GeezerAs opposed to you, who are quick to tear down another's ideas but lack any alternative course of action?

What "ideas" were there?

EDITED TO ADD: If you're talking about his permaculture and so forth, I'd be happy to discuss them with him.  I just heard a gentlemen talking about it on (gasp!) NPR the other day and I was interested in how he thought it would work large scale.  Alas, I had to get in to work.

But Kyle isn't here (in this thread) to talk about his ideas.  He's here to bash people who don't agree with him as ignorant. For example:

QuoteTalking to Koltar, John Morrow and similar people about climate change and the like is neither productive nor entertaining, because they're wilfully ignorant.

Now I don't think Koltar had any specifics, but Morrow was hardly willfully ignorant - he just disagree with Kyle.

So forgive me if I tire of Kyle's holier(smarter)-than-thou attitude when really it boils down to "If you agree with me, you're obviously a rational, right-thinking person.  If you don't agree with me, you're willfully ignorant"

Quote from: James J SkachI just heard a gentlemen talking about it on (gasp!) NPR the other day...

Report for re-education, citizen.

!i!

yeah, you know us crazy lazy stupid American wild-eyed right wing zealots who don't listen to other points of view...

Surely you mean "crazy lazy stupid American piggy-eyed right wing zealots".

!i!

See, Kyle is doing the same crap that Son of Kirk was  - just Kyle Aaron is trying to seem more eloquent about it.

 Again its boiling down to : "If you don't think just the way I do, or believe exactly as I do - then you're obviously an idiot!"

 Which is what ticked me off about the originasl thread.

 Its a whole bunch of : You must agree with the group-think or you are an idiot. kind of shit.
 Its just as closed-minded and childish as anything they claim about other people.

 Although I do love the Catch-22 of the fact that with the Northwest passage opeinng up now - its going to be easier to get to oil in the seafloor up there. (you know what I mean).


Whats even funnier , God up in heaven? She could be saying "You're complaining about the heat and the warming ?? Oy Vey!! Fine, I'll throw another Ice Age at you!! That will cool you off for awhile. Hey, Jesus, my son...wanna create another star system ? It will be fun..." (*)


- Ed C.






* = Meant in jest, chill out everyone.

Quote from: KoltarSee, Kyle is doing the same crap that Son of Kirk was  - just Kyle Aaron is trying to seem more eloquent about it.

 Again its boiling down to : "If you don't think just the way I do, or believe exactly as I do - then you're obviously an idiot!"

 Which is what ticked me off about the originasl thread.

Of course, what got the dogpile started in the original thread was your vocal desire to not think for yourself, to sieze on contratradictory assertions as an excuse to make nice and ignore an issue.  It doesn't all boil down to conformity, Ed.  What some people are saying is, "If you don't bother thinking at all, then you're an idiot!"  Not a comforting sentiment, but it's not without its essence of truth.

Okay, no answers here, no bold assertions, no political views.  As a simple exercise in critical thinking, everyone remember to ask yourselves one question: "What shall we do?"  Whenever a tough issue of the day pops up in your face, ask yourself "What shall we do?"  You don't need solve the problem, but you need to give yourself an honest answer, and it can remain totally private.  Your answer can be that you intend to remain inactive, that you don't know what to do, or that you simply don't want to do anything, but answer the question honestly. "What shall we do?"

!i!

Quote from: Kyle AaronAlong with roleplaying, an interest/hobby of mine is permaculture, democracy, and a future for the world. In current times those turn out to be pretty strongly-connected.

And what does that mean, Klye?  How many books have you read on those topics?  How many with alternate viewpoints?  Yeah, you are "interested" and consider it a hobby but how are you any more qualified to talk about this issue than I am?

Because I've been interested in these topics for a long time, too.  Perhaps since the 1970s, when I was first bombarded with a steady diet of predictions that "The End of the World is Nigh", including an interesting little story that was published in a school magazine that I read in elementary school that told us what life would be like for school children in the future when the oil ran out (I forget the exact year in the story but I doubt it was later than 2000).  I took a college-level climatology class because I was interested in the subject.  I have a copy of Beyond the Limits, the sequel to The Limits of Growth published in 1992 concerning sustainable growth and the World3 systems dynamic model that they used to produce their scenarios.  

If you spend enough time looking at these theories and models and claims, you'll notice that they not only constantly change but are never right and often aren't even close.  We didn't run out of oil by the year 2000.  The Population Bomb never exploded.  The fairly sophisticated World3 model, for example, predicts that everything is going to start falling about around 2020 because, among other problems, it gets the population growth curve wrong.  While I don't think the World3 model is correct, I do recommend the book Beyond the Limits because it illustrates just how complex such models can be and illustrates a lot of the factors involved.

Quote from: Kyle AaronFor example, a sensible energy policy would be to have distributed renewable energy - solar panels on homes, solar thermal and/or wind in neighbourhoods, rather than One Big Facility somewhere out in the sticks. It's sensible in terms of energy security, because some day fossil fuels will run short or be prohibitively expensive; it's sensible in terms of defence security, because terrorists or an enemy state can blow up One Big Facility but not millions of small ones; and it's sensible in terms of democracy, because when people get what they need from their own backyards, it's harder for a central government to compell them.

I fully support localizing energy production for all of the security reasons that you mention.  I also think that there are economic benefits to local manufacture of energy.  Those are big reasons why I'm so interested in Thermal Depolymerization.  Solar power is fine, too, and will certainly become more economically viable as oil becomes more expensive.  As for wind power, in practice there is a lot of resistance to actually building such facilities in the United States (including some high-profile individuals who normally support environmental causes) because they are noisy, unattractive, and slice up birds.  

So I don't really have any problem with any of that.  I simply think that the change should be driven by economics and individual choices rather than a government mandate.  Out of curiosity, do you live in a home with solar or wind power?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo, permaculture, democracy and a future for the world are things I'm interested in and study. Just as a keen D&Der can rattle off the rules without looking them up, I can rattle off this stuff without much effort.

What "stuff" can you rattle off?  Frankly, I've seen little more than a Wikipedia level of knowledge on the topic from you and no evidence that you've ever questioned anything you've read from advocacy sites.  The fact that you "rattled off" a reply that included a graph that I'd already posted a rebuttal to suggests that you really aren't all that interested in what other people have to say and have little interest in changing your mind.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou can't change their minds, mate. Their position is philosophical. It's a worldview.

In what way have you changed your mind about this topic?  How about any other topic?  Or are you simply the pot calling the kettle "black" here?

Of course it might actually help change minds if your argument consisted of a bit more than personal attacks and a link to an advocacy web site.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSo for example we see economic rationalists and communists both say, "our system will give happiness and prosperity to all." When you point out that it's been tried and didn't work, they say, "oh but really it did work... or if it didn't work, it's because it wasn't tried properly, or for long enough." Whatever data they're given, they twist it to support their philosophy. So if communism or economic rationalism give good results, that proves they work; if they give bad results, that proves they weren't tried properly or for long enough, so obviously they still work anyway; no matter what the data, the conclusion is proven.

But that's exactly what the global warming alarmists have been doing.  If it gets warmer, it's evidence of global warming.  If it gets colder, it's evidence of global warming.  If there are more hurricanes, it's evidence of global warming.  If there are fewer hurricanes, it's evidence of global warming.  Droughts?  Global warming.  Floods?  Global warming.  And the best one of all is the theory that global warming will cause the next ice age.  So no matter what happens, the global warming advocates can claim they are right.

So based on your own indicators someone trying to prove a philosophy is right no matter what instead of making a rational assessment of the facts, how do the global warming alarmists fare?

Oh, and for your use of examples that include not only Freud's rape denial but a nearly perfect example of Godwin with your Goebbels example, Kyle, I give you the Ron Edwards award for laughably over-the-top attacks.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's what we're seeing in these kinds of discussions from the Morrows and Koltars of the world. It's this immersion in their own philosophy. "Because I find the world too complicated to understand, obviously no scientist could ever understand it. So I can just ignore science and believe whatever I reckon."

Not at all.

In his original Connection series, James Burke opens up one episode standing outside of a nuclear power plant and asks the viewer how they know whether nuclear power is safe or not.  The point that I took from that years ago was not that experts can't understand nuclear power but that laymen have to rely on experts and that leaves the laymen very vulnerable to manipulation or being wrong without even knowing it, because they lack the knowledge to assess the information themselves.

Later on, I did develop a great deal of skepticism over science's ability to understand complex systems and make accurate predictions of the future.  That comes from looking at history (an interest your list above was lacking) and the track record of scientists to understand everything and predict the future.  I'm not sure if you've been watching this stuff since the 1970s but I have, and the story keeps changing.  

That hardly means that I think I can ignore science and believe whatever I want.  It does mean that skepticism is warranted, especially when a claim is accompanied by demands for major expenditures or global changes to the way people behave.  And it does mean that I believe one can find a great deal of information looking at how the advocates and skeptics debate with one another.  How?  Because, like you, when people don't really know what they are talking about, they start relying on logical fallacies rather than sound arguments.

I assume you've heard of Carl Sagan?  He's the guy who came up with the greenhouse theory for the temperatures on Venus and proposed the idea of a Nuclear Winter.  In his book A Demon Haunted World, he presents his "Baloney Detection Kit" (a version can be found here (http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~urban/docs/baloney.html), that I'll be quoting from).  No doubt you can argue that I've "misused [it], applied [it] out of context, or even employed [it] as a rote alternative to thinking", which might be true if I hadn't looked at some of the facts as well, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Sagan describes his Baloney Detection Kit as "[t]ools for skeptical thinking."  He says:

"What skeptical thinking boils down to is the means to construct, and to understand, a reasoned argument and -- especially important -- to recognize a fallacious or fraudulent argument. The question is not whether we like the conclusion that emerges out of a train of reasoning, but whether the conclusion follows from the premise or starting point and whether that premise is true."

He starts of by saying that the tools include:

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the "facts."
  
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  
• Arguments from authority carry little weight -- "authorities" have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.
  
• Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don't, others will.
  
• Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you'll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
  
• If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) -- not just most of them.
  
• Occam's Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.
  
• Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle -- an electron, say -- in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

OK.  So how do the global warming alarmist stand up to the baloney sniff test?

• Global warming skeptics have had to fight to get the raw data and models used by global warming alarmists to support their claims.
• They avoid debate of the facts and prefer to claim that the issue has been settled and attack the motives of their opponents.
• The rely heavily on the idea of scientific consensus and authority to claim that their conclusions shouldn't be questioned.
• They focus on a single cause for global warming and automatically reject any other contributing factor.
• They consider their position a matter of great urgency upon which the fate of all mankind rests.
• They often limit their data so that cut off points conveniently occur just before the data stops supporting their hypothesis.  And people should be troubled by Dr. David Deming's claims that he was told by a prominent global warming alarmist that thought he was friendly to the cause, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
• The most alarming arguments are based on the most extreme positions rather than the most likely positions.  
• Personally, I'm not a big fan of Occam's Razor as a tool for detecting baloney, a point I'll happily discuss.  But for the sake of argument here, "The Sun" and the changes being just another of Earth's long history of climate cycles as just as simple as human carbon dioxide emissions, especially if one doesn't start their data after the Little Ice Age or ignore the Medieval Climate Optimum.
• Global warming theories are conveniently difficult to falsify global warming when no matter how the climate changes, there is a convenient global warming-related explanation for it.  What would be acceptable evidence that global warming isn't happening or that humans are not causing it?

Basically, the global warming alarmists are not talking like scientists.  They are talking like zealots and True Believers.  Ad hominem attacks?  Check.  Appeals to Authority?  Check.  Aguments from adverse consequences?  Check.  Special pleading?  Check.  And on and on.  This is not how people argue when they have the truth on their side.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronNow, this sort of thing has happened many times before in history. The world changes faster than many people can understand it, or even accept that it is changing. We've had half a century of the greatest material prosperity that the common people of an entire civilisation have ever known. That it might end is unimaginable. Oh, sure, we can imagine it intellectually, write about it - but we can't imagine it in that real gut way, that way that makes us get our shit together in a sock and wire it tight, and fucking well do something about it.

What you conveniently forget is that history is also full of examples of people taking extreme action without fully understanding the problem.  At least 20 million people have died from malaria who did not need to die because, in their zeal to ban DDT, environmentalists urged the banning of all DDT, including indoor spraying, which the UN is only now coming around to recommending.  That's at least 20 million dead, mostly third-world children.  Are you OK with that, Kyle?

In the state where I live, they tried to stop beach erosion by building jettys and beach walls which only made the erosion worse.  And there are all sorts of cases of introducing one species into an environment to solve one environmental problem, only to cause another.  So people who act before they understand the problem have a long track record of not only doing nothing but of making the problem worse.  And, in at least some cases, getting a lot of people killed.

I guess the phase, "Look before you leap," has wound up on the dustbin of parental advice along with the story about the little boy who cried "Wolf!".

Quote from: Kyle AaronReally, almost all of us are climate change deniers, if you go by our actions rather than our words. If you saw a guy on the train tracks fiddling about, and heard the horn of an oncoming train, and the guy said, "sure, I believe the train's coming," but he kept fucking about - well, you'd doubt whether he really believed it was coming.

Now, I actually do have time to argue with the guy on the tracks. But I can't really be arsed. I'm busy getting off the tracks myself. I'd rather focus my efforts on things which are productive, or at least entertaining.

And what are you personally doing to get yourself off of the tracks, Kyle?  Have you installed solar heating or power where you live?  A wind turbine?  You sure do seem to have a lot of free time to talk about role-playing games and to play role-playing games, right?  Rolling dice while Rome burns?

(ADDED:  As an FYI, my wife and I pay extra for our electricity to get electricity from alternative source energy suppliers.)

Quote from: Kyle AaronThat's far from unique in human history. Luckily, unanimity is not required for useful change. We can afford to leave a few clueless buggers lolling about saying, "well, it's a complicated problem, let's look at... let's not decide too hastily... after all, if we wait long enough maybe someone else will have to deal with it instead." Bugger that lot.

That lot is the majority.

(Sorry if there have been some minor text changes.  An attempt to add italics to a quote combined with a slow server/internet connection, caused most of my original to be lost and I had to restore it from an earlier edit I had a copy of.)

This has to be the most through eviseration of an opponent's arguements I've seen since Jimmy disected the GNS essays.

I'm starting to feel peer pressure to get banned from RPGnet myself...seems like everyone else is doing it.
It always amazes me that whatever topic is discussed over at TBP you will have posters claiming to be an expert on it.  Like anyone who makes 10 - 20 thousand posts to TBP ever gets out from in front of the computer long enough to go outside and see what the fucking temperature is anyway.
Koltar, you are better off out of that place.
I prefer to get my science news from somewhere other than Tangency.

Quote from: GrimjackI'm starting to feel peer pressure to get banned from RPGnet myself...seems like everyone else is doing it.
It always amazes me that whatever topic is discussed over at TBP you will have posters claiming to be an expert on it.  Like anyone who makes 10 - 20 thousand posts to TBP ever gets out from in front of the computer long enough to go outside and see what the fucking temperature is anyway.
Koltar, you are better off out of that place.
I prefer to get my science news from somewhere other than Tangency.

Thanks man.

 When I do I get to meet you in-person?? Or game with you ?  We're in the same town (and boy the temperatures sure have dropped recently)

Send me a PM sometime - let me know which local game stores you do your shopping at.


- Ed C.

Global warming is the biggest fucking red herring issue in all of environmental politics.  

It's pointless.  It's like the abortion debate, just a big non-issue for everyone to scream at each other about so they can avoid real problems.  

The conservative angle as been slowly giving up the fight anyway, notice the shift in the popular media discourse from "Global warming is a myth" to "well, maybe global warming is real, but here's a bunch of vague unprovable doubts about our role in the matter" to "Well, I guess global warming is real and we do have something to do with it, but here's a bunch of vague unprovable doubts as to just how much".  

And yet, in the end, it really doesn't fucking matter.  Yeah, the whole global climate catastrophe makes for scary stories to spook the younguns and everything, but the reality is, even if the whole CO2 thing is indeed a big load of fetid dingo's kidneys, there's still a whole bunch of other good reasons to cut back like limited supply, reliance on foreign sources, and all the other toxic pollutants spewed out at the same time as the dread CO2.

But by making a big show of the "debate" over global warming, it lets the politicians get away with what they love more than anything in the world, and that's blowing smoke up the collective ass on all sides of the political isle, conservative or liberal.

Actually gotta agree with you 100% there, JArcane.

More approval of JAs statement. I'm actually looking forward to English wine and some silver coins from the mines in the Italian Alps. You know, the ones abandoned to the advancing glaciers during the beginning of this last cold cycle we're just coming out of?

Another vote of confidence for JArcane's statement

Both John Morrow as J. Arcane make good solid points.

Quote from: WerekoalaMore approval of JAs statement. I'm actually looking forward to English wine and some silver coins from the mines in the Italian Alps. You know, the ones abandoned to the advancing glaciers during the beginning of this last cold cycle we're just coming out of?

My understanding of his point was that we should be limiting our consumption and waste.

Quote from: walkerpMy understanding of his point was that we should be limiting our consumption and waste.

That's just crazy talk!  It's our God-given right as Murrkuns to drive a car that only gets three miles per gallon!

Quote from: walkerpMy understanding of his point was that we should be limiting our consumption and waste.

We can do that to. MY point was, even if we do its not going to stop it, so may as well enjoy the warmer climate.

Quote from: walkerpI mean look at Burma.  Those people lived under terrible political repression and total lack of freedom and did nothing.  Take away their oil subsidies and suddenly the whole nation is on the streets.  We're pretty lame and selfish, us humans.

Hi I'm new. This is really an aside, but Burma has the longest-running insurgency in the world among its ethnic minorities--- so while its majority recently took to the streets (it hadn't for quite a while)--- there has been plenty of bloody opposition to the total lack freedom of which you speak.

Quote from: feralwolfHi I'm new. This is really an aside, but Burma has the longest-running insurgency in the world among its ethnic minorities--- so while its majority recently took to the streets (it hadn't for quite a while)--- there has been plenty of bloody opposition to the total lack freedom of which you speak.

And?

It's inaccurate to say that they did nothing until oil prices were raised.

Fair enough.  I was speaking in broad strokes when I made my point, which still stands.  The majority of the population did nothing and those who were actively working against the dictatorship did a whole lot less until the question of oil prices arrived.

I'm not trying to discount the incredibly difficult struggle of Aung Sn Suu Kyi, just pointing out what really tends to push a people into action.  I find it depressing.

Agreed, many causes of conflict boil down to economics, even if they on the surface appear to be something else. However, the ethnic minority insurgents in Burma really did no more or no less than usual in opposing the government due to oil prices rising. Anyway, I agree with your point. I find it depressing as well.

Canadians are god's people.

Quote from: AosCanadians are god's people.

[let's see if we can't find another spot on the post-invasion exemption list for this guy.  His attitude demonstrates potential, eh?]

Quote from: AosCanadians are god's people.

Small "g".

Quote from: walkerp[let's see if we can't find another spot on the post-invasion exemption list for this guy.  His attitude demonstrates potential, eh?]

I've been drunk all over Ontario and at least once in your own fair province.

Quote from: AosI've been drunk all over Ontario and at least once in your own fair province.

Excellent work.  I've been drunk in at least 7 states.  Speaking relatively, I need to catch up (you've been drunk in 20% of the provinces, whereas I've only been drunk in about 14% of the states).  We need more of these kind of cultural exchanges.

I've been drunk in four provinces and a territory!