Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 Next
Comments 3101 to 3150:
-
Bob Loblaw at 05:48 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 51: "Online is out in the street."
To begin, this is clearly wrong on several fronts.
- The Internet is not publicly-operated. People pay their ISP to get access, or get it for "free" from commercial establishments that build the cost into the products they sell.
- Most web sites, social media platforms, etc. are not publicly-operated. Each business or private entity that chooses to place information or a discussion forum on-line gets to choose what sort of open discussion they are willing to allow. They may choose to not allow any public commenting at all. They may choose varying moderation policies, such as "all comments will be moderated before being made visible". People may or may not have to register. SkS chooses a system where users must register, comments go live immediately, but are subject to moderation after the fact, as outlined in the Comments Policy.
- No "online" resource is forced to allow anyone to say anything they want, whenever they want. It's closer to "freedom of the press" - a freedom granted to anyone that has the money to own a press. Try walking into your local paper with your manifesto and demanding that they print it for you in tomorrow's paper. Please take a video of them laughing their heads off and post it to Youtube where we can all get a laugh.
Even if "online" was like "out on the street", nobody has the freedom to walk around saying anything they like to anyone they like wherever they like. I"ve previously mentioned libel and slander laws. I will now mention "public nuisance" laws. If your behaviour (even just spoken word) significantly affects the enjoyment of public spaces by others, you will be subject to legal restrictions.
I live in Canada. The relevant statue is in the Criminal Code, Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc. Quoting in part:
Every one who
- (a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,
- (i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,
- (ii) by being drunk, or
- (iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,
- (b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,
- (c) loiters in a public place and in any way obstructs persons who are in that place, or
- (d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
If Peppers truly believes that "free speech" gives people absolute freedom to speak, how would he react if he and his family went to a public park to have a picnic, and someone came up with a megaphone, started hurling insults and obscene taunts at him and his family, drowning out their attempts to have a nice family conversation, then followed them to the parking area as they tried to leave, followed them home, continued to hurl insults at them from public space in the street. etc?
To try to get back on-topic, the original post is about SkS considering its options with respect to participating in Twitter or not. Elon Musk paid $44B so that he could get to make the rules for his on-line social media site. Elon Musk has made claims about wanting a forum where "free speech" is allowed. What things has Elon done to make this so?
- Banning journalists for questionable reasons, and then imposing conditions for their return.
- Threatening to ban links to other social media sites.
It certainly sounds like Elon wants "free speech" for some, but not "free speech" for all. Well, it's his company, his rules. But Apple is not infringing on Elon's "free speech" rights if they decide they do not want to do business with him.
And it is perfectly reasonable for SkS to question whether they want to be part of Twitter.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:55 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
In addition, you state, "We'll run out of lithium before fossil fuels." I question that assertion.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:53 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug @358, 356...
It's my understanding that vegetation is both an absorber and emitter of CO2. So, just increasing vegetation by a small fraction isn't going to do much to change the overall balance. There certain is some sequestation, so it's a good thing to do, but it would take far more than a 0.5% change to offset all human emissions. And, in fact, we are currently operating in the opposite direction with deforestation in important places like the Amazon. So, we'd need to first reverse that, and then reforest from there.
Regarding, "[a] lot of money dependent on renewables and EV's," it's not exactly clear what you mean by this. Wind and solar are now cheaper than all fossil fuel sources, so it's actually cheaper to replace retiring FF energy with clean energy free of carbon emissions. Ostensibly, these means it will cost less to transition to renewables than it would be to continue using FF's.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:42 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @53... "Maybe there isnt as broad a right to speak anymore."
The right to speak hasn't changed. You are still fully in your right to say anything you like, but likewise, people are free to criticize what you say. And if you say something people find offensive or damaging on their property or in their online forums, they are free to have you removed.
The only thing that has changed in recent times is that people using hateful language and conveying gross misinformation believe they should be immune from criticism. And that's just not how it works.
-
Doug Cannon at 02:31 AM on 27 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Eclectic @357
I find it hard to believe that the earth is at its maximum capability of supporting vegetation and couldn't increase it by 3.5%. Since 1960 we've improved land use to a level equivalent of over 3 Gigatons of CO2 annually.
I had done some estimates. Based on an average absorption of 77.5Tons per acre we would need an additional 200 million more acres. That's a little over .5% of total land mass. Not an easy task but certainly a reasonable target.
Even if we couldn't totally balance existing fossil fuel emissions we could make a pretty good dent. Maybe even enough to forego the need for battery back-up on a scale necessary for electric power generation. Hopefully we could get a capacity factor of close to 60% with a combination of wind and solar and only need 40% of existing fossil for electricity. (Then incentives for non plug-in hybrids could delay the downside of all-electric vehicles, which would otherwise delay the decommissioning of coal fired electricity.....but that's an issue for another day.)
I realize there's lot of money dependent on renewables and EVs which would make any such strategy unpopular with much of the investment and media community. But we're not getting far with the current approach of big meetings every few years to lie about goals with no plans.
Not to worry about running out of fossil fuels. We have over 240 years of known reserves at current useage (coal-139, oil-54, natural gas-49). We'll run out of lithium before fossil fuels.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:10 AM on 27 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @51... "You can't go out in the street and tell them what to say or not. Online is out in the street."
No one is doing that. What seems to be the issue for those complaining of "woke" and "cancel" culture is that people are criticizing your opinions. Thus, what I'm saying is, this isn't about free speech, per se. It's that some people want the "freedom" to say awful things without criticism. And that's not how free speech works.
Free speech is a double edged sword. If you want the freedom to speak how you wish, you have to accept others speaking as they wish in response.
-
EddieEvans at 22:37 PM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Here's a footnote for the problem of unrestrained "communication." Trolling now consumes much time with the outright repeating of the same untruths. Trolls are spamming the Internet, and it makes communicating to learn difficult, time-consuming.
-
Vissermc at 21:42 PM on 26 December 2022Examining Dr. John Christy's Global Warming Skepticism
This page could use an update. Christy claims all the climate models are overestimating when tested against the data. Paper link: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2021GL097420.
YouTube video where he claims models are off by factor of 2: https://youtu.be/qJv1IPNZQao
-
Eclectic at 12:41 PM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
@53 Peppers ~ you are under a severe misapprehension.
There has never been a human society with a broad "right to speak" (in the sense you mean: of unrestricted broad freedom). You are imagining a Golden Age which never actually existed.
Not even in the micro-society of your own household is there an unrestricted freedom to be abusive/ insulting/ threatening/ demeaning, etcetera. Or if your household does indulge in such behavior, then I confidently predict an early demise of the household.
No "broad right" in the time of Socrates or Cyrus, or in any century before or since. Not even in the time of Jefferson or Lincoln, Eisenhower or Bush snr. Every functioning society has restrictions ~ restrictions applied through good laws and/or bad repressive laws, through politeness or customary etiquette, or through plain old common sense and decency.
Peppers, you are out of touch with human reality. Please come down to Earth, and have a major re-think of your opinions.
Twitter and free-speech/censorship are very much the topic of this thread. The Original Post said it well, though narrowly. IMO it is the right decision for Twitterati to stay on Twitter and continue to fight the good fight . . . preferably without investing a debilitating amount of effort. Conceivably, the pendulum will eventually swing in a healthier direction sometime in the future. [Post-Musk!] Mastodon deserves to thrive, but may not be able to achieve the more universal usefulness of Twitter.
-
Eclectic at 12:05 PM on 26 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
Doug Cannon @356 ,
Before pursuing that idea of CO2 control by increasing mass of vegetation, it would be worth doing some back-of-envelope estimations. Potential increased tonnage of woody plants (and carbon content) per square km, as well as carbon in soil microbes/fungi . . . and where these requisite vast areas would go. And the ongoing supply of phosphates & other nutrients. And the continued increase needed. And the cycle of rotting. You might be unpleasantly surprised at the impracticalities involved.
Seaweed/algal stimulation by distributing iron salts over the pelagic ocean has been suggested . . . but failed to show practicality.
Simpler quicker & cheaper to use wind /solar /nuclear solutions ~ which we will have to do anyway, as fossil fuels run out.
-
Doug Cannon at 07:33 AM on 26 December 2022Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
I realize the article is out of date but I believe my logic would hold for 2022 as well as 2007.
The increase in ppm CO2 in the atmosphere by 2 ppm each year is pretty constant. That amounts to an additional 15.64 Gigatons per year. That's in the ballpark of the 60/40 split for absorption.
Ignoring the ocean absorption, that 15.64 Gigatons is 3.5% of the absorption over land. I'm wondering whether increasing vegetation/forest/etc. by 3.5% would hold atmospheric CO2 ppm constant. Then stretch that to 10% and we can forget about CO2 absorption plants. It seems more elegant than diverting trillions of dollars to renewables and batteries.
-
peppers at 06:53 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
BaerbelW
That was not the angle of the topic. In your sense, yes you can. There was a prior post about harm and retraining folks not agreeing, etc.
The only thing I would add would be about being welcoming to new posters. Its frustrating to hear the same ole, over again. But generally newly in's will bring those. And it will feel like work to repeat it all, but you may convert more. This is a small point.
And I have just said its best to close. There is a lot of disagreement around free speech Im surprised to find. Maybe there isnt as broad a right to speak anymore.
We recently heard about some peoples calling something foreign disinformation, censoring it and falsely advancing their group. I thought that was cheating and they were acting badly. They quelled free speech. Maybe this is just ok now and thats the new baseline. I hope to always hear the truth here.
Merry Christmas, D
-
BaerbelW at 04:41 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers
What you fail to understand is, that we can make rules for what can be posted as comments on our website, it's called the comments policy and when you and others registered you agreed to abide by it. One of the rules states:
No sloganeering. Comments consisting of simple assertion of a myth already debunked by one of the main articles, and which contain no relevant counter argument or evidence from the peer reviewed literature constitutes trolling rather than genuine discussion. As such they will be deleted.
So, we expect commenters to make sure that they are not simply repeating already and long-debunked myths about human-caused global warming before posting a comment. If they still do and we delete the comment, it's not censoring by any stretch of the imagination and it's also not an infringement on the commenter's right to free speech as others have already pointed out. Our website, our rules. Nobody is forcing you to post comments here after all.
As a general aside: We also have a rule for "All comments must be on topic." and I'm not really sure how many of the comments posted in this thread are actually on topic as far as our Twitter & Mastodon involvement go. How about calling it quits instead of running - or posting - in circles?
-
peppers at 04:16 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
HI Rob,
Yes, you can tell folks to leave or stay at your home or business. You can't go out in the street and tell them what to say or not. Online is out in the street. Thats the tolerance part. I thought we were stasis on this. Thx D
-
peppers at 04:13 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Free speech is important here as it is how you can deliver your message. Labeling an opposing message to your own thought as 'harmful misunderstanding' removes the usefulness of this site and your mission.
I'd think you would want to welcome them in, hear once again the same issues all newcomers bring and try and convince them. Not silence them. Here is the list of narrow exceptions to free speech:
Rights, against
To incite imminent lawless action. ( child porn?)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
To make or distribute obscene materials. (or maybe here)
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).The point that is really my business, is that free speech does not include labeling something something else on the delete list so you can cancel it.
I know I have worn this topic out! This is my opinion, Thx all, D
-
Rob Honeycutt at 03:54 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @40...
I don't know how more clearly to state this. "Free speech" only means that Congress cannot enact laws that limit what you say. Everyone else is fully in their individual rights to limit what you say with respect to their own properties and businesses.
If someone is asking you to leave their home or business because what you're saying, that is not a limit on your right to free speech. It merely means they're telling you you've stepped past the bounds of what they are willing to listen to. You are free to find another venue for what you want to say.
What you're asking for, as far as I can summize, is the "right" to say awful things and not be criticized for it. And that's not how it works. Congress cannot enact laws that prevent you from saying awful things, but your fellow citizens are fully within their right to ostricize you when you do.
What you're complaining about with "woke" and "cancel" culture is merely politically motivated labeling. It's linguistic framing designed to literally do what you're complaining about others doing.
You want free speech but don't want to allow others the freedom to exercise their right to free speech in their criticisms of what you say.
-
peppers at 03:35 AM on 26 December 20221.5 Degree Climate Target: Dead or Alive?!
HI, This was suppose to be somewhere else. Thx D
-
peppers at 02:50 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
eclectic,
Merry Chrstmas
you are using free speech to denounce free speech. You would miss it if gone.
the comparisons to physical harm to protect against speech does not equate. Someone promoting child harm would not fare well. Not a likely example either but you are trying to make a point, albeit extreme for a fast gain. You are using free speech.Bob yes you could call those labels. They were identifiers I thought and not as global as 'harm', but I may end up labeling too. I must have been implying negative to cite them and then my premise would have me ask, mwas I qualified to label cancel culture as a negative culture? And I was a I'm saying to not let people say their piece is a mistake. Goose and gander applies.
in addition to this site and this article, there are matches in opposition to equal it.
this Is historic. The second time in history a global issue has come to us. But this is worse. atom bombing involved deterring and withholding. This has been done and it is about containing. Even dreams of reversing. Every mock, every poke, every diminishment of one another makes me feel further from home, as Tom Hanks said in Private Ryan. Every attempt to force or bluster this through is not working and I don't know how to convey it except to display and convince and hopefully convert. The forum is free speech For that. minimizing What you don't want to hear has one minimizing what you came to get. New ones to your message.
got to get the kid in the car here. I'll add to this. Best. D -
Bob Loblaw at 01:01 AM on 26 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 45.
Once again, you are stating "And I maintain that labeling as harmful is a method to diminish the other, under the presumption that your opinion and/or conclusions are tantamount."
Yet you use labels such as "woke movement", "cancel culture", etc.
Are you familiar with the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? Take a look at definition # 2.
2. If something is good for one person, it should be equally as good for another person; someone who treats another in a certain way should not complain if the same is done to them.
-
Bob Loblaw at 00:37 AM on 26 December 2022From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations
Scruffy:
As the article makes no mention of CO2, nor the length of the cylinders, when discussing the 1% per cylinder, 37% for 100 cylinders example in figure 4 and related text, your criticism of those numbers is a straw man argument. The example shows the exponential nature of the absorption relationship, and you are reading more into it than it says.
You do not explain what "NIST data" you are referring to. NIST is not mentioned in the blog post.
As for the rest of your comment, you have missed an extremely important factor. You speak of CO2 molecules absorbing IR radiation and transferring energy to other molecules. You seem to be completely unaware that the same process of molecular collision will add energy to CO2 molecules and allow them to continually emit IR radiation at the same wavelengths that CO2 absorbs IR radiation. Your conclusion that "no energy will be radiated into space in the CO2 absorption spectra" is simply wrong. For it to be true, CO2 molecules would need to drop to a temperature of 0K, which won't happen as long as they can collide with other molecules (of other gases) and maintain a tempesrature above 0K. In fact, they'll be at a temperature equal to those other molecules.
The bogosity of your argument is also made clear by your claim that other greenhouse gases can emit IR radiation "in their own spectral lines", and pass energy up through the atmosphere - energy that they received by collision with CO2 that absorbed IR radiation. This magical thinking requires that other gases follow different physics from CO2 - they can emit IR radiation, but CO2 can't. Standard physics does not claim that CO2 is the only gas that matters - it just accepts that all greenhouse gases can both absorb and emit IR radiation in the spectral lines that match their internal energy state levels. And that collisions are constantly transferring energy from one molecule to the next - in both directions (not just one, as your hypothesis requires).
You clearly do not understand how greenhouse gases play a role in atmospheric energy transfers.
-
Scruffy Scirocco at 23:24 PM on 25 December 2022From the eMail Bag: the Beer-Lambert Law and CO2 Concentrations
Useful article, but the example doesn't accurately reflect CO2 absorption. The example states that if you lost 1% of your energy through absorption in each cylinder, you would still have 37% of your ebergy after 100 cylinders. This is correct. But CO2 absorbs energy far more efficiently than that. Using the NIST data, the transmittance is only 30% through a 10cm path at 200mmHg. It's losing 70% of its energy, not 1%.
Granted, 200mmHg is far more CO2 than the atmospheric .300 mmHG of CO2 we're dealing with, but this means that an equivalent "cell" of absorption at 1 atmosphere with 400ppm CO2 would be 65.8m. After only 5 such "cells" you would have lost 99.76% of your energy to absorption.
We can discount re-radiation passing energy forward, as that's accounted for in the NIST measurements. The lost energy will be converted to heat, which will then conductively transfer to the other 99.96% of the gasses in the atmosphere, which will pass the energy upwards in their own spectral lines.
NO energy will be radiated into space in the CO2 absorption spectra - that atmosphereis completely opaque at those frequencies. Adding more CO2 won't change that. The idea that adding CO2 will change the characteristics of the re-radiation as it goes up the atmospheric column assumes that CO2 is the only gas, and that other gasses won't be conductively robbing the CO2 of the heat it's absorbed.
What WILL happen as CO2 levels increase is that the heat absorption will occur closer to the surface, causing an apparent increase in temperature, but this is offset by cooler temperatures at altitude, not accounting for convection and increased oceanic evaporation, which, while increasing the water vapor in the atmosphere (Major greenhouse gas) will also increase cloud cover and thus surface albedo, lowering the surface temperature of the ocean. -
Eclectic at 14:21 PM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @44 ,
Your argument fails. Intellectually and morally.
The rhetorical quote you give, about the man: "advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing" ~ is an example of a fine rhetorical piece which, at first encounter, seems nobly liberal & almost Voltaire-like.
But further thought shows the piece to be absurd. And absurd, because in a civilized society there must be limitations & restrictions of extremes.
Peppers, I am confident that both you and I are strongly opposed to the abduction of children for organ-harvesting and/or torture. Yet if the shouting man were advocating such immoral activities ~ would you be nobly prepared to defend his free speech "rights"? (A rhetorical question, of course!)
And assuming you do not favor severe child-abuse ~ what happens if the shouting man were not actually advocating such crimes . . . but were merely advocating de-criminalization of these activities? Where do you draw the line, Peppers? Your argument so far has been that you strongly disapprove of drawing any line anywhere which could limit "free speech".
In short, your "free speech" position is absurd. So absurd, that I rather suspect you have been filling an idle hour or two with disingenuous nonsense. But no need for that, my friend ~ there is already enough and to spare, of nonsense on the internet. Why would you wish to add more?
-
peppers at 11:17 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
HI Charlie Brwon,
I dont think folks grappling or struggling with info, new to them, constitutes harmful information. Asking questions and trying to understand should not. And I maintain that labeling as harmful is a method to diminish the other, under the presumption that your opinion and/or conclusions are tantamount. You are challenged with that tack, to presume you have the last word as you also know new information may still arrive and could matter.
I am not trying to affect anyone else, but trying to figure this out a bit myself.
For something specific, I have not seen much detail in to the increase in human population from 1B in 1900 to 8B this year, yet it has an identical graph line for our Co2 increase. Not the 'humans breathe within the cycle' response. But the increase of consumption and giant leaps in fuel uses. 90.72% of this 8B have cell phones bankmycell.com. So where do these people in the somalian desert charge their phones? Because apparently almost everyone has one. Each and everyone of them also wants a car, because they are like you and I. As tech becomes more efficient, more can access one, more on the road and no gains are made. This could be very relevant as current GW reports are that no gains are being made.
My point is not about cell phones or breathing Co2 being net, but that defining the reason the increase has happened will dictate where to aim the guns. Oil gas and coal are just fulfilling demands. Our rocketing from 1 to 8 billion consumers is not talked about.
I am thinking about this, and other concerns. In what way am I being harmful to you?
Thx D
-
peppers at 10:41 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Nigelj,
I was certain we were close on our understandings. What differences remain are what will be mine as an individual.
Id like to repeat a partial of what I inserted before, from movie American President and can be utubed.
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free".
Merry Christmas, D
-
nigelj at 08:20 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @40
"The definition of what is a harmful misunderstanding from one people, one culture, one gender, class standing, etc., to another cannot be defined to concluded that all should be and think and do only as you do. "
I disagree. Harmful misunderstandings are defined where there is good scientific evidence and consensus. Science is also a universal language that cuts across cultures.However I do think people should still be allowed to challenge all consensus scientific positions, and other views, in the public realm like websites and in the scientific literature.
Censorship of opinion and information worries me, (with very limited exceptions like inciting violence, defamation law, etc, etc) because a well intended process can so easily be abused and go terribly wrong, and you would need a huge army of people trying to enforce it. People should read George Orwells 1984.
-
Charlie_Brown at 06:39 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @4, @25, @28
@25 you say “Dont label me (or someone) as 'harmful', simply in your limited view ( lacking other input), and assail my rights to influence my world too.”
It is an old and tiresome defense to hide behind “freedom of speech.” The first amendment right, indeed all rights, comes with responsibility to not abuse that right. The age-old example is that you do not have the right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theatre. It is akin to being morally wrong to spread disinformation that global warming and climate change are not real and cause no harm. @25 you ask “what determines this disinformation?” The answer is fundamental facts of science that explain global warming, which include conservation of energy, radiant energy transfer, and atmospheric physics.
@28 you imply that science is changeable and can be revised “if warranted by new evidence or perspectives.” True, but the key word is “new.” Deniers often repeat the same old arguments. For example, on another comment thread (Skeptical Science New Research Week for 50 2022 @49), you say “I am still struggling with our involvement with Co2 at .04 of 1% and water vapor is the main ghg factor at a hundred times more the effect at up to 4% of the total volume.” Bob Loblaw replied that these concerns are addressed in the standard myths, which does an excellent job of explaining the science at Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced levels.
Regarding being harmful, climate change will result in death and destruction, not in my limited view lacking input from others, but based on volumes of scientific research, some of which is referenced on this SkS website. Do a little homework. There is no excuse for spreading wrong information. -
Bob Loblaw at 06:28 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 40:
Seriously, dude? You think it is a Bad Thing for someone to use labels such as "misunderstanding", "harmful", etc. - but at the same time you use labels such as "woke movement", "cancel culture", etc? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
As for "physical harm" - that ignores all the other sorts of harm associated with speech. Have you ever head of "slander"? Or "libel" (the printed version)? I expect there are very few civilized societies that do not have laws against those forms of speech, and mechanisms where people can recover the damages (loss of reputation, loss of business, extreme emotional harm). And damage can and will occur long before it reaches a point where someone will take the time and effort to sue in court.
-
peppers at 05:58 AM on 25 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Rob,
I responded to a statement in 23, and this was attributed to you mistakenly.
"The serious problem is people who believe they are Right to persist in believing and sharing harmful misunderstandings rather than responsibly considerately learning and self-governing to be less harmful and more helpful 'To Others'."
They penned this in response rather, to an entry of Robs prior. But to respond I think you can decide who comes in your home and oversee what they do and say, as well as how you raise your children and where you worship. The statement above relates to woke cancel culture, labeling and otherwise infringing on the rights of others, to have opinions of their own back in their worlds. Which may be next door.
Retraining, canceling or otherwise silencing other humans means one is considering your opinion is more right than theirs. That they should all think as you and their opinion is now classified as harmful misunderstandings and the offender should be retrained, whatever that entails.
The key is understanding that what you think is right for you does not equal what someone else may think is right in their home. You will thank me to acknowledge that they also cannot tell you how to think in your home.
This is free speech and it includes the public space between all these homes, from all angles. Im reminded of being in line at the beach for something and overhearing a bicyclist loudly lamenting and lambasting all these strollers and roller bladers and runners mucking up the brand new bike path the City just put in. Another bystander, a City worker, heard enough and promptly corrected the speaker that the mission statement for the path included walking, running, skate boarders, strollers and more, as well as bikes.
What can be a clear distinction is real physical harm intended or being done to another. Thats definable.
The definition of what is a harmful misunderstanding from one people, one culture, one gender, class standing, etc., to another cannot be defined to concluded that all should be and think and do only as you do.
I have not found a perameter yet that would permit this. Whole nations have thought the wrong thing and later said, what were we thinking? There is no support in numbers for instance, to make what you think global, or so valid you should want to force it on or silence others. You can sell them something though...
This website promotes discourse. It goes back many years and years of productive discourse. It is biased, but it is no different than going in to a revival tent. They invite you to come in and intend on converting you. This is a respectful use of the free speech arena.
Labeling others thoughts as harmful 'in your opinion' to conduct acts of silencing or vilifying them will ultimately diminish your experience as well (the golden rule).
In my opinion. Thanks all.
Nigelj, some of this may respond to you as well,. On the definition of woke, it has changed several times. It started referring to black justice and some areas now equate it to thinking much like detailed above, canceling as valid woke activity, etc. Best D
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:09 PM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers @36... You seem to be suggesting I said, "Opposing views of anyone, anyone else are harmful misunderstandings, and the person needs to be inculcated and re-oriented to be less harmful/more helpful."
Again, this is gibberish, and it's most certainly nothing that I said.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:18 PM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
peppers makes the following interesting claim at the end of their post @10: “Separating physical acts from thoughts and perspective would allow a thought pool.”
It seems that the claim is 'only actions are harmful', with a clarification by peppers that 'only death threats’ are also harmful. Except for 'death threats' the claim is that 'thoughts' cannot be harmful because everyone’s opinion of what is a harmful thought would be different.
That appears to be the basis for peppers’ thoughts. Thoughts are not harmful. Only actions are harmful. What about the potential for the sharing of thoughts that are misunderstandings to result in harmful actions?
Follow my ‘thoughts about that’ (credit is owed to the originators of this post and those who have commented, but I will not be making specific references).
I will use climate science as the example. And I will focus on social media sharing of 'thoughts'.
The primary harmful actions from the perspective of 'climate science understanding of climate change harm being done' are the actions that increase the global average surface temperature (primarily the increase of ghgs, primarily CO2 from fossil fuel use).
Each person’s impacts may be small. But they all add up. The harmful human climate change impacts are the collective total of the activities of each human.
The important evaluation is the amount of harmfulness attributable to each person – not the comparison of national totals. A related understanding is that perceptions of prosperity or status that developed based on, and reliant upon, the harm of fossil fuel use are 'unsustainable developed illusions'. Attempts to maintain those developed perceptions are also harmful, even if a person wants to believe that it is harmful to limit their ability to maintain their harmfully obtained perceptions of prosperity and status.
The above is clearly about harmful physical acts. But creating and sharing beliefs/thoughts is also an ‘action’. That ‘action’ is understandably harmful if it delays the raising of awareness and understanding of the need for everyone to limit the harm done by physical actions.
Therefore, it is harmful for 'thoughts to be shared through social media' that would delay the learning of the need to rapidly end fossil fuel use. And the creation, initial presentation, of such 'delay provoking' misunderstandings is more harmful than sharing or liking them.
Therefore, and this is clearly supported by the evidence, there are cases where it is harmful to have 'no restrictions on sharing of thoughts' (btw, credible science does not allow debunked thoughts to continue to be repeated). Also, Harmful Thought Production Pools do exist (groups like the Heartland Institute).
Harmful thinkers will always be part of humanity. In order to develop sustainable improvements for humanity the influence of the harmful thinkers needs to be limited. The more limited the influence of harmful thoughts, the faster the development of sustainable corrections and improvements will be.
In conclusion, demands for 'freedom of expression of thoughts' should have to include an evidence-based rational system that will effectively limit the influence of harmful thoughts, with an agreement that freedom of expression would be justifiably limited if the 'system fails to limit harm done'. The marketplace of popularity and profit has proven to fail to limit harm done (on many matters, not just climate change impacts). In fact, the evidence indicates that 'freedom to believe and share misunderstandings' will develop more harmful actions and make it harder for thoughtful considerate people to limit the harm done (climate change impacts are not the only example of this).
People who demand 'freedom of expression in social media' need to prove how it will limit the production of harmful actions (and those harmful actions include expressing, liking and sharing misunderstandings).
Note: I have excluded the obvious harm of unjustified targeting of people through expressions of harmful misunderstanding in social media. Those are actions. And they are harmful actions because there is ample evidence that creating and sharing those misunderstandings prompts people to physically act harmfully towards the targeted person or identifiable group. And each participant promoting the misunderstanding shares responsibility for the harmful actions produced no matter how insignificant or misunderstood they claim their impacts were – Everybody’s actions add up.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:51 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @ 36:
You have placed a statement in quotes that has not been stated by anyone here other than yourself. You made it in comment #20. OPOF quoted you in comment #23 (and explained how he thought it was a misrepresentation of what he said). You have twice attributed this "quote" to Rob, who has said no such thing.
Please make an effort to actually read what people are saying, and respond to them properly. If you are going to be this sloppy about referencing what others have said to you, any discussion is going to be very difficult.
-
Bob Loblaw at 11:31 AM on 24 December 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Bobhisey @441:
In addition to explaining the graphic that Eclectic has pointed you to in comment 442, you may wish to read the "CO2 is saturated" thread, where much more information is available. Your argument about transmissivity falls into that category.
And - like so many climate science "critics" that have made this argument - it looks like your "transmissivity" position (as presented here) completely fails to account for the simple fact that CO2 that absorbs radiation in the 14-16um range will also emit radiation in the 14-16um range. What is seen from space (in any wavelength) is the total of what is emitted from the surface and transmitted through the atmosphere (however small that may be) plus what is emitted at every other height in the atmosphere (including the stratosphere) and transmitted.
All radiation of any specific wavelength is the same. You can't tell where a 14um photon was emitted, or at what temperature the emitting object was. It could have been emitted near the surface at near 288K, or it might have been emitted in the stratosphere at a much colder temperature - and with a much shorter path length (and smaller probability of being absorbed) to space.
Satellite measurements see it all. To assess where ti comes from, you need to do some detailed modelling. Modelling that shows that adding CO2 does have an effect.
-
peppers at 10:39 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Jnigel,
Getting caught up in Christmas and a 3 year old. Sorry and Ill be back! Ill be back and you and I agree on much. We will probably continue to not agree on the original premise we started with from Rob. People who do not agree with his self need to be: "Opposing views of anyone, anyone else are harmful misunderstandings, and the person needs to be inculcated and re-oriented to be less harmful/more helpful." Supercilious folly. Thx Nigelj, D
-
Eclectic at 09:52 AM on 24 December 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
Bobhisey @441 , you really need to explain your statement:
"zero energy escapes the earth in the 16-14 micron wavelength range"
~ is this a massive typographical error by you?
Please look at the graph in post #430 [above] which shows the satellite-measured radiation leaving the Earth i.e. "escaping the earth". Clearly, the energy escaping the planet at 16-14 micron range is (roughly) half the intensity at 12 or 18 microns for example. Enormously higher than "zero".
Or were you meaning to convey something entirely different? But what?
-
bobhisey at 08:13 AM on 24 December 2022Increasing CO2 has little to no effect
The best data on atmospheric transmissivity of Infra-red earth radiation is the data obtained by NASA in 1991. Unfortunately, this data was buried in an Appendix to an obscure paper and not available to the Scientific community. I found it, and published it on Amazon as "Infra-red Transmissivity of the Atmosphere--NASA Satallite report". It is in the public domain, and now can be found by search engines.
Inter alia, it shows that zero energy escapes the earth in the 16-14 micron wavelength range, the range where CO2 is effective. Showing that more CO2 can not cause global warming.
Thus, we must divert the money being wasted on the now disproven assumption to discovering what is actually causing global warming.
Further analysis of this is in my little book "Carbon Dioxide-Not Guilty". Confession, I make 6c a copy on kindle because they won't let me price below 99 cents! For free, email me at bobhisey@comcast.net and I will send you a pdf copy which you can use as you will, because I put it in the public domain.
-
nigelj at 06:34 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Eddie Evans @32, woke people dont want to want to "ban" bigots, racists, mysogonists, and ignorant people from society. Woke people just condemn their beliefs, and wish they would engage their brains, rather than being slaves to their emotions.
-
nigelj at 06:22 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @28
I quoted a few examples of physical harm. I didn't say they were the only forms of harm. I was trying to establish what if anything you believed in in terms of harm and consequences. I asked you whether you agreed with having consequences for those examples of physical harm. You still havent answered that question.
I have answered as many of your questions as possible, but you dont answer any of mine (or other peoples questions). You make yourself look evasive and like a troll and a hypocrite if you dont answer peoples questions explicitly. All it takes is a simple yes or no.
Why is it wrong to spread that definition of physical harm across general thought? You didnt really give a good reason. Did you not read Eclectics comment? Its all shades of grey. There are all sorts of harm including physical harm, socio-economic harm and deprivation, and mental harm, etcetera. They are all harmful. You cannot say they are not harmful just because they sit inside one category.
Its always going to be a case of what is the appropriate response in a specific situation. For example in my view we should not lock people up for personal abuse (like name calling), insults, racism, or internet bullying (threatening comments and relentlss abuse), but we can ban those people from internet forums (after a few warnings). This is what plenty of websites do these days. I will try one last time. Do you agree with doing that or not?
-
EddieEvans at 05:51 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Sorry, I meant to post under another, but related post.
-
EddieEvans at 05:30 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
In his essay, "Memes and the Exploitation of Imagination," Daniel C. Dennett argues that memes (smallest elements that replicate themselves') act like DNA.
"In the struggle for attention, the best ideas win, according to the principle of the survival of the fittest, which ruthlessly winnows out the banal, the unimaginative, the false.""I think that a new kind of replicator has emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate which leaves the old gene panting far behind."
These are "complex ideas that form themselves into distinct memorial units" like "arch," "wheel," wearing clothes." Philosophy after Darwin, Michael Russ(It's a stretch, I know, but fun.)
From Wikipedia"In 2018, the British political commentator Andrew Sullivan described the "Great Awokening", describing it as a "cult of social justice on the left, a religion whose followers show the same zeal as any born-again Evangelical [Christian]" and who "punish heresy by banishing sinners from society or coercing them to public demonstrations of same."
Replicate Mastodon, replicate as a meme, like "born again."
-
MA Rodger at 04:11 AM on 24 December 2022Record snowfall disproves global warming
On this David Viner quote from 2000 discussed @8,9&10, I think it's fair to say it applies to Southern England and is saying snow (perhaps lying snow rather tha snowfall) will be a lot rarer in coming years.
The Met Office does produce UK maps of both 'snow days' and 'snow lying days' for 30-year periods. These show decline in both with the more dramatic decline in 'snow days' although the most recent version of these maps (1991-2020) are yet to be published. (See maps in Fig 1 in this CEH 'Snow in Britain: the historical picture and future projections' document from 2016).
Of course, all these maps are saying is that the 1990s were less snowy than the 1960s and the 2000s less snowy than the 1970s.There is a better reckoning showing to winter 2012/3 in this 2013 Reading Uni blog which shows graphs of the annual number of 'snow lying days' at Reading since 1948/9. This shows the decline in snowiness up 2008 was reversed in the following years.
Another less-exacting attempt to show the level of UK snow is graphed out by decade below, based on this record here. Taking the method up-to-date puts the latest ten-years (2011/12-to 2020/21) at 22, so the snowiness is again showing decline, although a couple of 'very snowy' years would soon boost that up again.
-
Bob Loblaw at 02:15 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Eddie @ 30: yes, that use of "woke movement" by Peppers is rather bizarre. The only other use of "woke" on this page is when OPOF used the term in comment 14:
And, if they get publicly directly challenged regarding their presentation of a harmful misunderstanding (by a predatory news investigator) they will follow the play-book of being more misleading and claiming that they are being 'attacked by woke people (with the understanding that 'their fans' misunderstand being Woke to be a Bad Thing).
It seems obvious that Peppers has an emotional viewpoint of "woke", and the context in which he uses "woke movement" seemingly falls under OPOF's "...publicly directly challenged ... follow the playbook... attacked by woke people ... Woke to be a Bad Thing" clause.
For someone who is arguing some sort of "Free Speech" position, Peppers sure seems to like dismissing other opinions by labelling them.
-
EddieEvans at 00:54 AM on 24 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
I just happened to zip by this comment, and it seems to have lost its value in the mix of culture wars. "Feeling is not knowing, which is the woke movement in a nutshell,"
"Woke" is a type of awareness I thought, not a program. It is not a scientific term for sure, but wasn't Hume ushered in Kant's "woke" moment?
-
Eclectic at 23:51 PM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers, it seems the essence of your line of argument is a sort of nihilism ~ that one cannot really distinguish the gradations between black & white, or between good & evil . . . and therefore there is no distinction of these polarities (and that likewise we should not attempt the distinction).
Peppers, that sort of argument is an obfuscation or sophistry. It is used (as you are using it) as a motivated reasoning intended to hide from yourself your own emotional drive to avoid acknowledging the bleeding obvious. And the bleeding obvious is that we live in a world of grays ~ and that most of the time we can do a fair job of managing these realities . . . simply by using common sense.
As Ben F. or Abe L. might well say :- Nonsense, young man. You are avoiding your responsibility - your responsibility to act sensibly in this world. Examine yourself, to understand your inner desires for such a dereliction of duty. Overcome those unworthy emotions, Sir !
-
peppers at 21:39 PM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Eclectic
I am a student of Ben Franklin! Thanks for your inputs.
Where along this spectrum of of determining ideas from others should be categorized as dangerous, would you place your marker? Without subjugating others right to revolutionary ideas they may have. Nor interferring with UCBerkeley,"In science, ideas can never be completely proved or completely disproved. Instead, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting and refuting evidence, and may revise those conclusions if warranted by new evidence or perspectives,", which will need a constant flow of new ideas, both good and bad, to continue our mission of knowledge?
NIgelj
is on the way of defining his interpetation of dangerous; lisiting thieves, murderers and enviromental polluters as dangerous. I departmentalized death threats in the same way, as physical act. But it is wrong to then spread that definition across areas that involves general thought much less to others beyond your family, church, culture or need levels. Because you don't know.
Feeling is not knowing, which is the woke movement in a nutshell, the polar opposite of an academic dicipline such as science. Separating physical acts from thoughts and perspective would allow a thought pool. What do you think?
-
Eclectic at 20:19 PM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @25 and prior : with your permission I will add a comment on your statements.
You have allowed your thinking to become muddled, and you are not looking clearly at the reality of the situation. (But why is that the case?)
For example : you are making the logical error of using binary thinking in regard to "death threats". Sorry, Peppers, but death threats are not a separate category, but are toward one end of a spectrum - a continuum - of antisocial thoughts/actions.
And individuals (at various times) can slide back & forth along that spectrum. And they can by their speech influence other individuals, pushing those ones further along the spectrum. In other words, a multiplier effect occurs (the madness of crowds is an example - but there are many other examples).
Peppers, it is disappointing that you are not very aware of such tendencies of human nature. The lessons of history, and your own personal observations of life experience, should have educated yourself about it all.
Rather than taking a doctrinaire/dogmatic view against censorship, it would be better if you simply applied common sense to the issue. And there, a possible short-cut is to ask yourself :- "What view would Ben Franklin or Abe Lincoln or other wise/ heroic/ saintly (etc) historical person take, in the modern hi-tech situation?"
The second question to ask yourself is :- What deep emotional influences are causing my (Peppers) extraordinary amount of motivated reasoning in arguing for a position so opposed to common sense.
-
nigelj at 15:52 PM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Peppers @25
At no point have I promoted censorship of information. In fact @15 I indicated I oppose censorship of information and opinion other than 1)the usual time and place restrictions, and 2) website moderation rules forbidding personal abuse, off topic and spamming 3) racism and inciting violence. Defamation law also has its place. Do you oppose any of those sorts of limits?
To briefly answer your other questions. Disinformation is deliberately spreading false information. Misinformation is spreading false information. These are standard dictionary definitions. False information is determined by a consensus view of experts and sometimes by the courts. They are always open to challenge but until the consensus changes false information is false information.
I will label peoples views harmful If I deem them to be harmful. I assume you agree that theives, murderes and environmental polluters to be harmful? I also consider covid deniers to be harmful. Its normal for humans to make judgements about harm, and sometimes require penalties to discourage harmful activities (like theft) or to compensate people, because its part of how we survive and prosper. Sometimes we make the wrong judgements, but making no judgements will get us all killed.
Of course its needs to be genuine and significant harm based on evidence and responses need to be proportionate to the type of harm. Taking some level of risk in life is also healthy. So its a nuanced issue. IMHO.
-
peppers at 13:26 PM on 23 December 2022We’ll keep tweeting (for now) but have also started tooting.
Hi Nigel, What determines this disinformation? Is it what you say it is, or your group? That is censoring. That would be hubristic to determine you alone are right, or higher right. Let people speak. What is harmful to others? Is your censoring harmful to the freedom of others? Is something someone says you do not like or agree with, now recategorized as harmful, allowing you to censor and silence them in your estimation. Is that your process? That would be very wrong. Let people speak. It is the opposite of hubris to know, without losing your stance, what are the motivations, meanings, precedence, progeny, needs, desires and fears of other viewpoints, which can strengthen your own original stance. Or allow you to benefit from it if impressed. Or you will also watch it whither on itself if wrong. But let everyone speak. My grandmother said to give everyone a clean sheet of paper, and let them mark it up themselves. Dont label me (or someone) as 'harmful', simply in your limited view ( lacking other input), and assail my rights to influence my world too. All should speak. Nor is this the function of government or leaders, to influence freedom of speech in any way. BTW, death threats are another category. But absent that phenom, it is too dangerous to call anything else 'dangerous' to eliminate other rights of speech and assembly.
I am referring to within the zone of your own comments about the spirit of free speech. Not within science processes.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 08:21 AM on 23 December 2022Record snowfall disproves global warming
Joe T @8,
I share your interest and curiosity regarding those quotes by David Viner in 2000.
My admittedly amateur search on the Internet of Knowledge (and a massive amount of nonsense), found the earliest mentions to be in 2010 by climate denying people presenting their 'interpretations (potentially misunderstandings) of the quotes'.
It does not appear that any of them asked for clarification from the person they quote. That, along with the 10 year delay in making claims about the quotes, is a Red Flag to me. There appears to be no mention of David Viner's updated thoughts on the matter (I have read about the many incorrect statements made by Einstein that he later corrected).
The response by Tamino dated March 5, 2011 (here) appears to be a sensible evaluation of the merits of claiming that Viner's comments in 2000 are proof that climate scientists make incorrect statements. In this case the evidence appears to indicate that Viner was correct to say what he said in 2000. Mind you, if he had made an incorrect statement he later corrected it would also be incorrect to bring up the previous incorrect statement as evidence that 'in general' climate scientists 'are incorrect'.
-
MA Rodger at 08:07 AM on 23 December 2022Record snowfall disproves global warming
JoeT @8,
Most internet references to the Viner comment appear to cite an article in the Independent of 20/3/00 but the links to this article yield "page not found". But for the curious, a PDF of the article has been preserved by the denialists on the rogue planetoid Wattsupia. Note the later Viner quotes in the artiucle.
"Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said."
-
JoeT at 06:29 AM on 23 December 2022Record snowfall disproves global warming
It is commonplace that when winter arrives and heavy snowfall occurs that someone, somewhere will trot out the alleged quote in 2000 from David Viner, formerly of the University of East Anglia that 'within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".' Supposedly he also said, 'Children just aren't going to know what snow is'.
I searched this site and was unable to verify whether the quote is accurate. Specifically, whether he actually said 'in a few years' back in 2000. I couldn't find anything from Viner himself as to whether he was quoted accurately. It's not that this quote has any relevance to climate science in general — we all make comments that we wish we hadn't made. But I did want to know whether the quote is accurate for that moment when someone will bring it up in the local press. Thanks in advance!
