Oh cool, it’s “risible” guy again. Yeah, coming from you I’m sure this all means a lot. Contributions like “What a thread” and laughing emojis really deepen the forum.

I hope you find something that brings you joy in life. This forum clearly isn’t it.

(PS—1. I only insult rude, sanctimonious twits; fortunately they’re a small minority— I’m good with everyone else. 2. If asking whether it’s cool if I start a separate thread is “insane,” maybe try a little self reflection. 3.— not sure where this obsession with me started, as I have no memory of you, but it does give me great joy that my presence here triggers you so. Must be rough. But also risible.)

Watched “The Apartment” (1960) and “It Happened One Night” (1934). Both good. I never saw either.

Is intention morally relevant to you? — BitconnectCarlos

Minimally. Why? Because professing benign intentions is the norm for states (and individuals) that commit crimes.

You do realize intention isn't purely internal, correct? — BitconnectCarlos

Hence why they’re professed.

I think you'd really like the climate change subreddit. — frank

:up:

But just as you can't troll, you can't bully either. — frank

I’m actually really nice. If people were equally nice, there’d be no problems.

I picked up on that bit from your OP. Sounds like a new rule for all posts. — Fire Ologist

No. Staying on topic isn’t a new thing.

universal rule — Fire Ologist

I haven’t once mentioned universal rules. The question was clear and simple. That people are struggling with it by — for various reasons — turning it into something it isn’t, really isn’t my problem. (But goes to show just what “studying philosophy” can do to the mind — and why most people should probably avoid it.)

Let the bombs and missiles fly! The Palestinians, like the Germans, need to get stomped on till they too wouldn't dream of ever voting in someone like Hamas again. — RogueAI

Usually something this gross doesn’t get said out loud. But I appreciate the transparency.

ISIS doesn't have an air force either. — BitconnectCarlos

True.

special stricture — Leontiskos

Nothing special about it.

Staying on topic isn’t that hard to enforce. I’ve done it; you’ve done it.

Also, I’d refer to this:

you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming

as basically what I was asking about. If it’s found to be the case that making a more specific thread is just as hard to moderate, fine.

I don’t see why people who want to discuss a particular topic must inevitably be disrupted and drowned out by useless “debate,” but so be it. In that case I should go to all the “God” threads, ignore the specific topic, and just bring the conversation back to how God doesn’t exist. Then keep doing so, even if ignored. I’m sure that would be within the spirit of the forum.

When Hamas gets an Air Force, let me know. But since they’ll be doing it with evil intentions in their hearts, I don’t see how it would change things.

climate change skepticism has to do with the effects of climate change. — Leontiskos

No it doesn’t. Any more than Holocaust denial “has to do” with the consequences of the Holocaust. You can make up a story about how “Gee, they ARE talking about the consequences—they just believe the consequences were nil,” but I don’t have time for silliness.

Accidental, intentional... doesn't matter. — BitconnectCarlos

When we do it it’s always with the best intentions.

What country do you live in? — RogueAI

It’s right there in my profile.

that is not the same as shooting a baby at point blank range — BitconnectCarlos

True, there is no moral equivalence. Bombing from the air is morally worse. But I’m glad you can see into people’s souls now. When they kill, it’s because of race and evil intentions — when we do it, it’s accidental and unintended.

You’re in good company though — basic tribalism. Your equivalent is out there, only they justify Hamas’ killings. And have better arguments.

rejected — BitconnectCarlos

Nope — laughed at it.

Yep. If you make a thread on geophysics or evolution, then posts from flat-earthers and creationists would be on topic. I'm glad you're figuring this out. :up: — Leontiskos

Then it’s truly remarkable how wanting to avoid those discussions by narrowing the conversation down in a separate thread is considered problematic. According to you, there’s basically no way to do so. Fine—point made. I don’t agree.

It's instructive that it is not only your opponents who believe you are attempting to prevent free expression, but ↪even those who agree with you. — Leontiskos

So is there an actual problem with reading comprehension here? Or are you just being lazy? Or perhaps just wanting to be silly for some reason?

The suggestion isn’t to prevent free expression, however ignorant, or to ban anyone— however deserving.
— Mikie

Whereas my suggestion is precisely the opposite, to prevent the expression of nonsense and rubbish, and ban people who persist in so doing. I guess it must be an ideological disagreement. — unenlightened

How someone can read this and conclude that he believes I’m attempting to “prevent free speech,” I don’t know. But you do you.

My ↪point was that the topic as you defined it includes the folks you are attempting to exclude. This is no coincidence. — Leontiskos

Yeah, and geophysics includes flat-earthers, and evolution includes creationists, etc. Got it. Whatever you say.

So this is another logical error, — Leontiskos

Which implies one has already been made. Which is not true, except my you.

Denying the Holocaust in a Holocaust thread is not against the philosophical ethos of the forum. — Leontiskos

Then your idea of what the “ethos” of the forum is is your own problem.

I don’t see any issue whatsoever with keeping things on topic, and don’t see it contravening anything— whether it’s rules or poorly-defined spirits.

Speaking of which — I’m moving this to the other thread.

.

It's not about Climate Change Skepticism, but about Climate Change Amelioration Skepticism — kazan

I can’t say I fully understood all of your post, but appreciate the effort. There’s certainly a lot of debate about how best to mitigate the problems we’re already seeing and will continue to see. No doubt.

The OP was really just a question for moderators. It was about whether I could create another thread without it being considered redundant (and therefore merged). In retrospect I might have just submitted it to them privately —thus giving the many people who have a beef with me one less opportunity to display their motivated reasoning.

:yawn:

Trotting out the tired WWII comparisons and the trusty ol’ “when the good guys do it, it’s not intentional.” Keep up the good work. :up:

So whichever side kills more babies is the bad side? Is that how we see history? — BitconnectCarlos

That’s a decent rule of thumb, sure.

So kill as many [Palestinian] babies as you like — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, that’s been the status quo for a long time. You always seem fine with it— or find a creative way to justify it. Just do the same when it’s Palestinians killing Israelis.

So the Israeli terrorists are still exchanging hostages. Glad to see the ceasefire is holding up, despite Trump and companies best efforts to derail it.

Hey remember when Trump said “ALL hostages must be released by Saturday or there will be hell to pay?” :lol: Thankfully, no one takes that imbecile seriously.

https://interestingengineering.com/energy/sodium-ev-battery-pushes-performance

Still a ways to go, but promising. There’s really not enough lithium for the long term.

Logic 101: those that deny the Holocaust ARE discussing the Holocaust — Namely, that its effects were nil (i.e., didn’t happen). Gotta allow that in a thread on the Holocaust, because otherwise it’s against the ethos of the forum.

Must be fun arguing against strawmen.

The OP's presuppositions are always open to debate as long as they are within the broad topic. — Leontiskos

Climate change denial is definitely on topic in a generic thread about climate change — fdrake

I, and others, don’t necessarily even agree with this — but given what’s actually been said, that’s exactly the point: simce it’s so generic and so broad, and thus gets spammed and trolled often because of it, why not create another thread that’s more specific. That was the question to the moderators. Pretty straightforward— except for those who want to make a show of their dedication to free speech and open debate; in that case, deliberately exaggerating the request is essential. Gives them something to fight for — even if it’s made of straw.

In other words, what you are proposing is a special stricture on a thread, not a topic. — Leontiskos

No. I’m proposing a more specific topic, and hoping to keep to that topic. Asking that people stay on topic, moving posts to another thread, etc., is constantly done by moderators here. Whether they agree that a separate thread should be created and not be redundant was the question— for them.

Mikie. Could you please explain what somebody must believe in order to avoid being called a "denier"? — Agree-to-Disagree

I’ll respond this one last time to you, then you’re going on ignore:

Don’t worry about it. I’ve explained it before, but it really doesn’t matter. Think of yourself any way you like, and be well. No hard feelings.

Yeah, says the guy who takes “let’s stay on topic” as “insisting on one stance is against the forum’s ethos.”

Yes, among you and those line you, I’m sure it’s “well known.” In fact I hope it is, because maybe you’ll stop bothering me with stupid bullshit like this.

Yeah— you’re right. Keeping a thread on a topic is definitely against the forum’s “ethos.”

If you’re both too stupid to understand what’s been said, and don’t bother to read, or “Don’t care,” then consider shutting the fuck up next time. :up: :grin:

You've proved yourself to be a risible character with absolutely zero self-awareness. — AmadeusD

I don’t even know who the hell you are, but OK!

“Risible” — :lol: That tells me all I need to know about you, in any case. (Speaking of “self-awareness.”)

No, it often does. Except when random imbeciles make Twitter-like comments for no reason — the joy in that comes from laughing at them, I guess. Or should I say it’s “risible.”

Having a thread which allows for a single stance is directly against the ethos of the forum. — AmadeusD

That’s not what was said. Try reading.

Mikies behaviour in general, for the last year at least has been almost unacceptably so. — AmadeusD

Is this English? You write as well as you read.

He's like the kid every lets run around and do weird shit because they're not to be taken too seriously. — AmadeusD

I don’t recall having any interaction with you whatsoever, so not sure where this is coming from.

Another idiot out of nowhere heard from— cool. Valuable insight. :lol:

find ↪Hanover's point more persuasive than your assertion. — Leontiskos

Which had nothing to do with what you said.

find ↪fdrake's post more persuasive than your assertion. — Leontiskos

Which has nothing to do with what you said.

And neither had much to do with what I said either.

That guy isn’t relevant. I ignored him for over a year, and I’ll do so again once I get my desktop and the ignore extension works again— and in the meantime too.

The point of a new thread is that the less specific one attracts a lot of people who want to debate climate change itself— and perhaps this distinguishes that a little in the future.

If things get too spammy, I’ll just start a private group chain via messages.

Trump is freezing climate funds. Can he do that?

“Courts have ordered the president to release Biden-era climate money — but he’s holding out.”

How this turns out will be significant in terms of legal precedent and will have some impact, but not a lot, on the transition to renewables. Likely to be stopped by the courts. Informative read. Gives detailed information about how funds are distributed.

Despite the US’s current government doing its best to destroy the prospects of decent survival, the transition is happening. Likely too late, as it should have happened 40 years ago— but it doesn’t seem like one administration of dopey climate deniers and fossil fuel shills can really stop it.

In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:



Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:



That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/

That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

Turns out there is.

Over 100 years:



And over 800 thousand years:



Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how only a few fractions of a degrees has large effects over time, which we're already beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records. The economic impact is in the hundreds of billions per year and increasing— far outweighing the cost of transitioning to renewables and mitigation efforts (this rendering the argument that it’s “too expensive” rather absurd).

In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.

one-off requests that lack overall consistency with the ethos of the forum, and which create lots of extra work for moderators do not seem like a great option. — Leontiskos

It’s exactly consistent with the ethos of the forum, and actually saves moderators time.

So I have no idea what you’re talking about.