[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]
How about a masters in biochemistry and biophysics combined with current research career? That about do it for you?
And I’m not a naysayer. I’ve been on DB’s ass about his and the IPCC’s asinine attitude towards it, not denying that GC exists. I’m only forced into the role because people who have zero appreciable knowledge of chemistry like to post the sort of thing that he does and paint all skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as illiterates. You will notice, if you read attentively, that I’ve never made that blanket claim in reverse and that most scientifically active research personnel at major research universities are not making that claim either, which belongs only on fringe publications.[/quote]
You’ve been on my ass about my catastrophic anthropogenic claims, and yet, I’ve never made the claim that climate change in and of itself is or will be catastrophic. The catastrophes will occur when incremental climate change continues to take place and we do nothing to raise our level of preparedness. It’s kinda hard for the country to raise such preparedness levels if half the politicians in position to enact such preparations are in denial that any sort of significant climate change is occurring. THAT is the catastrophe, and quite frankly, there is no argument against the point that I have repeatedly made: that failing to acknowledge the preparations that should be made will be catastrophic.
[/quote]
I have no disagreement about that point, and you’ll note that I’ve never brought it up.
However, that is not the only point you’ve been asserting.
If you had said simply “let’s leave aside the argument about AGW for now, I want to focus this thread on assuming it is an imminent danger and id like to hear people’s ideas for solutions and/or what new problems the country might face” neither I nor anybody else would have had a problem with that. But you didn’t. You surrounded the above sentence with a lot of belittling and rather arrogant rhetoric–rhetoric which I know for a fact you do not have the subject matter expertise to back up in the degree you are asserting, while I have considerably more and more relevant–and then posited that this wasn’t a place for illiterates, though not in so many words.
Incidentally, you will notice in the previous thread I was on your ass that I had just finished taking C-dog to task for similar bullshit from the other side of the issue. I was equal opportunity.
[/quote]
Ah, so you’re the ethics police around here, eh? Fair enough. Of course I inserted some inflammatory language in my initial post. Don’t underestimate my knowledge of the science behind the issue. Reading up on the science behind the issue consumes a considerable amount of my free time. Granted, I do not have a degree in a science-related field (I won’t lump my political science degree into that category) and I will defer to you on the really esoteric aspects of this debate.
[/quote]
No I am not at all the ethics police. I believe that would be fruitless and frustrating. I am only after some consistency is all. You’re obviously intelligent and you’re arguing below your potential sir.
What irks me most however is the inflammatory coming from a person with zero formal science background which implies that I am borderline illiterate on a subject I have infinitely more training to understand. I don’t mind disagreeing, but that rather irritates me. You are obviously passionate about the subject and that is fine as well. I very much dislike blanket statements from someone who is not even a scientific peer implying I am a ‘hick’ ‘redneck’ or ‘science illiterate’. Obviously you have not come out and said that directly to me–however the implications from your repeated blanket comments are obvious and distasteful to me. Also I wanted you to know I wasn’t picking only on you–c-dog irritates the ever living fuck out of me as do people who uniformly paint all climate scientists in poor light.
At any rate, back on subject. You are most likely correct about the mass migration. My point was simply, why are we not doing anything about it already?
Seen through your perspective almost anything can become a national security issue, and although I agree and understand those implications I rather define “national security” more closely. Habit, perhaps.
It could be interesting to watch places farther north than the ‘bread basket’ states suddenly become the new grain farming center. That would wreak havoc on the midwest’s economy.
