Posts by Farmer Green
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
As I see it, the answer that you have given pretty much is saying that you aren’t much interested in the subsequent questions.
I haven't seen them yet. It's something earlier in the thread right?
So , in giving an honest answer to your question , I wasn't aware that would lead to your assumption.
Sorry I had to duck away there. I had to load up with silage and feed the cows.
I'll take a look at the questions during my next break. -
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
It's so funny , because I saw that my original answer was likely to provoke an outburst.
George won't be back while I'm here.I don't believe that the climate is currently changing in a way that is out of the ordinary for the planet? But I can't know that.
But I also believe that there is not enough good evidence to say conclusively that it is or it isn't. Primarily , I think that the period during which we have extremely accurate observation is too short to draw a conclusion either way.
I'm aware that this answer will probably derail the conversation right there. , if it hasn't already been derailed. But as moz accurately observes , some people live for that sort of thing. -
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to Moz,
I see so much common ground when it comes to the actual actions that produce the net gains.
But like you say, some people will never see it that way. It is only mildly frustrating to see too little being done because some are perceived to lack the idealogical purity , and it has never stopped me from getting on with it.Does anyone condone pedophilia?
I attended a Catholic boys boarding school in the 60s. I think I might be close to being over it (the whole experience , that is. I was lucky) ; some still are not. -
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to George Darroch,
You couldn’t know because you weren’t involved, but I did answer it ; and encountered the uncertainty that Ben has since emphasized.
So I deleted my whole answer (a couple of minutes after I had posted it) , and suggested that clarification was needed. Ben obviously agreed.
Perfect George. Just jump to conclusions and immediately publish a falsehood i.e
“Mr Green refuses to answer it.”I wonder what would have been lost if you had simply said nothing and waited for the clarification.
Classical! :-)
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
1. If so, do you believe that the climate is currently changing in a way that is out of the ordinary for the planet?
That might not be precise enough.
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
If we talk with greater precision,
I apprehend that we cross-posted on that point. Slow typing ; even slower construction.
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
Agreed. I wonder if part of that framework has to deal with how the words are appropriated to one side or the other, and how to reverse that appropriation.
e.g. when the term "climate change" is used in a science forum it means purely and simply a change in the climate ; no positive or negative consequence ; no attribution of cause etc. that's the part of the impasse that I find interesting.
Terms like "climate denier" and "climate change denier" have cult meanings. If you use those words in a science forum they mean exactly what they say ; no more and no less. And make no sense whatsoever.But your other point is also interesting ; i.e. " we can say with some clarity what our actual position is ". My view is that a hell of a lot more can be done without crystallising a position. I don't believe that all the facts have emerged yet, but I can see plenty of reasons to be acting in a manner which coincidentally achieves a lot of the desired outcomes of one side , but for all the "wrong" reasons.
That is , the actions are consistent with dealing with AGW , but are done to achieve another highly desirable result, which is not in dispute and is under our control (we don't need to wait for other countries) and benefits us immediately and for the future.But as someone pointed out back then , my suggestions were unacceptable to most because they came from the wrong side of the fence. It's so much like C of E vs RC.
You wouldn't immediately recognise that they were both claiming to exhibit the pure form of Christian tolerance :-) -
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to BenWilson,
He denies that we should do much about it, although I’m not sure if it’s as simple as that
Well done. I was just looking back at the initial exchange in Nov. 2012. to see how it went off the rails immediately. It's quite informative.
What surprised me most though, re-reading that thread, was the way that Bart , without reading or understanding what I had actually said , leapt in and was so busy refuting what I had not said at all.
From there on it was downhill ; very entertaining.
-
@Moz.
Sorry, I don’t actually claim that I am a denier ; it is just that here at Hard News I was immediately labelled as one by Bart The Chief Inquisitor .
Do we share this, my second statement of “denialism” in the post to which you referred?
“I am a denier because I believe that if , 100 years from now, that most of the people in Godzone are worse off than we are today, it will be because of inequality, over-population, indebtedness to foreign interests, dissipation of capital (of various sorts), entrenchment of a class of elite . . . etc. etc. (feel free to add) and not because climate has made survival of humanity in Godzone nigh on impossible.”
I’m sure that we move in different circles but I can honestly say that I have never encountered a sceptic who explicitly denied that the climate is warming. Where did you personally encounter such a person?
-
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to Moz,
why doesn’t the mounting proof that climate change is a real threat persuade more skeptics?
Because that is not in dispute by those that you label sceptics.
I believe that climate change can be a threat as well as an opportunity, but I'm a denier, apparently.