Cinnamon for memory…mmm. Must remember to buy some….
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Beth Cooper
↧
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Philip Lee
I was tempted to write a reply denying your assertions about our leaders and thermonuclear war, but then I realized that I was old. That threat didn’t arise until my teen years. Back then we didn’t worry about man’s ability to destroy the world in various ways. We could avoid, for the most part, the holy rollers and their vision of the end of the world. I think it made us better neighbors because we didn’t have to band together to save the world. Consequently, we didn’t try so hard to browbeat others. And others pretty much left us alone. In that respect it was a better society.
I feel sorry for those of you who feel so strongly that man will produce a warming catastrophe. You are wrong, but even if you were right, there are so many people with more important issues — a person worried about starving next week isn’t interested in your issue. Politics will play such a role and engineering and cost that the science can only drive the politics so far. Then the starving will take over to demand their problems be solved.
That will be soon if the alarmist don’t improve their game. People are in the mood to solve problems and the global warming problem to me is that alarmists are blocking economic activity over a trivial temperature rise that you can experience in driving from Memphis to New Orleans.
↧
Comment on Education and the Art of Uncertainty by Bart R
Robert I Ellison | April 26, 2012 at 2:13 am |
Only 30 years for you? But you’re so much older than I, and I started educating myself in special relativity almost ten years earlier than you. However, I can’t say we’re both moving certainly toward understanding at the speed of light.
‘C for Celerity’ was entertaining, but still a work of imagination. It’s fine to teach children some forms of fiction. Fiction can be a great source of education. Still, representing fiction as fact, or folk etymology (or manufactured debate) as science is obviously abusive to some.
Whereas ‘c’ for ‘constant’ is more pedestrian, and likelier true, given the documentary evidence and conventions of the day.Still, as it’s likelier true, we can present our evidence to schoolchildren and let them judge for themselves, without framing it as a controversy.
But to the point. No offense intended to Mr. Mosher, but he’s a marketer of some sort, not a physicist or engineer. (Or maybe he is, but that’s not the point. He’s pretty accomplished at marketing, and has been credited rightly with good service in climate science.) The point is with great educational and professional credentials come great expectation of responsibilities. I claim no credentials, which may account for my irresponsibility, but should’t fall below expectations on that account for that reason. You claim virtually all credentials, and so never cease to disappoint in that regard, where you fall below the threshold of, say, even spelling Asimov’s name right. I was simply pointing out how disappointing it is to see (especially with the ‘Blame Mosher’ excuse) so much inaccuracy under the title of ‘education and the art of uncertainty’.
↧
Comment on Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth by Bart R
Neil Fisher | April 26, 2012 at 4:15 am |
Sorry, no. You’ve mis-guessed the sources of my conclusions; I’ve taken approaches less susceptible to the Salbyist Fallacy, for the simple reason that C12/C13 ratio, while entertaining, is unduly complicated, akin to asking which pennies in a gumball machine were part of which loan interest payments and which were part of which loan capital payment. Clever if you can pull off the math, but pointless to do while there’s so many better options.
I think the anthropogenic causes of CO2 rise can be adequately proven without resort to the consilient C12/C13 ratios, thus cutting the Gordion Knot.
However, I needed to use Propositional Logic in addition to Judgement Logic to get there.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by HR
Historically apocalyptic thinking has come out of a sense of oppression or loss. It appeals to the downtrodden or those who are seeing their power fade because it has a sense of ultimate vengeance and natural justice that looks impossible through their own action. In classical times it was a strong narrative in Judaism during the time when they were being slaughtered by the Greeks. Equally Christianity embraced it during the persecution by the Roman Empire, once Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire apocalyptic thinking was discouraged by the now establishment christian leadership. More recently it has been embraced by conservative during the Enlightenment and after the earth shattering French Revolution. And now by the Left as it retreats from it’s many 20thC adventures. It’s an intellectual cul-de-sac, but that doesn’t mean it can’t take us all down with it while it remains mainstream. It should be resisted with a little bit of humanism.
I’m curious whether people think the present apocalypse is different because it’s backed -up by satellite observations and the laws of physics? I can’t see it myself.
↧
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R
+1 (How’s that for reductionism? 
)
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R
And amylose for.. uhm.. Well, it’s good. Ask your qualified nutritionist.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R
Sort of like an anti-Cassandra?
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by HR
It;s CDC’s job to have us worrying about infectious diseases.
And it’s true we’ll all be killed by something one day.
↧
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R
So, is it too offensive to wear:
CO2 School
Sage, rage
Against Denying
And de Trite.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by NW
“And it’s true we’ll all be killed by something one day.”
Yes, I have it on very good authority that the mortality rate from all causes is unity, with a standard deviation of zero. 
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R
huh.
NW has a point.
There are much better, more educational and relevant answers to what after all wasn’t a very good statement. Especially as there’s worthwhile debate between the two opposed viewpoints, and both of the proponents are we know capable of better, from past posts.
Perhaps they could take a break and come back better rested?
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Bart R
Actually, it exceeds unity.
↧
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by HR
It’s not what the Reformation actually represented but how it impacted on different sections of society. Two versions of Christianity led many to believe that one version represented the Anti-Christ, Satan on earth, you can’t get much more apocalyptic than that.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Scott
http://b612foundation.org/b612/ This is the foundation web site. Actually it is a 60 m one most likely to hit in the next 100 years. That will keep us busyt for a while and then we can worry about the 3 C change again.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by beesaman
We expect our scientists to have definitive answers and an apocalypse is most certainly definitive in its conclusion. Human beings don’t do well with doubt, maybe we need to grow up a bit and get over not knowing everything, be more pragmatic in our outlook and not flip from one extreme to another.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by kim
Ka ka ka Katy, ca ca ca Carrington.
=============
↧
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Paul S
3mm/yr is actually consistent, at the lower end, with expected decadal rates at the end of the century, according to the IPCC: http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
At the higher end of projections persistent decadal rates of 3mm/yr aren’t expected until about 2025.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by Tom
Thank God, that the owners of Google, were able to place their explosives upon it before it hit the Earth.
↧
Comment on Perils of apocalyptic thinking by hunter
Joy,
*Your* scenarios are fictional. They are driven by disproven claims about slr. It is a nice bit of pathology that has you pretending that those who point this out about the science fiction you are trotting out are the ones who are engaged in ideological activities.
↧
