I don't accept that you can blame everything on CC/GW. When "scientists" blame CC/GW for something it is often hard to prove or disprove it. Many people accept everything that "scientists" say about CC/GW without questioning it.

I think that the way that "scientists" blame everything on CC/GW has made many people skeptical about CC/GW. This probably partly explains why more is not being done about CC/GW. — Agree-to-Disagree

Climate scientists have been saying for many many years in response to questions as to whether this or that weather event is caused by climate change, that it is impossible to say on a day to day scale what is or is not the result of climate change. This is obviously so because weather is chaotic and climate is the generalisation of weather. For example, climate talks about prevailing winds, whereas weather talks about the wind today, or tomorrow.

But this careful talk has not persuaded you, because you have not been listening charitably to understand, but uncharitably to find fault. This is because you are unwilling to face the facts, or are unable to admit you have mistaken things, or you just like to be contrary, or some other motive.

Your criticisms are without merit and serve no function in this discussion but to divert, confuse and impede the understanding of the readers.

https://www.thelancet.com/countdown-health-climate

Another lamentation for you to download. Or just watch Sir Issac Newton and his pal Paul Beckwith break it all down for you below.

Looks interesting. Alas for the disenchanted, they have lost the song and are left with only noise.

“No doubt about it, these explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” said Dr Friederike Otto, from Imperial College London, who leads an international group of scientists who try to understand the role that warming plays in these type of events. — Matt McGrath - BBC

And there is no doubt about it. The sea is warmer, so more moisture evaporates. There is no doubt. That doesn't mean that every disaster is a record breaker, or else climate change isn't happening. :roll:

I gave plenty of evidence to support my view. — Agree-to-Disagree

You gave none.

My point is that "scientists" are not justified in saying that climate change made the 2024 Spanish floods worse. — Agree-to-Disagree

You are not justified in such a blanket criticism of a rather fulsome explanation of why the area is prone to such floods and a further explanation of how the higher sea temperatures in the mediterranean have made the flood even worse than previously. There is a whole fucking video of justification, you complete cockwomble.

This is true and would be meaningful if there were some way for people to choose not to be part of society — T Clark

There's no rule that says you get a choice, either. In fact you don't get a choice; you live in an anarchy and people set up governments and mafias everywhere. And they will do it on Mars too as soon as two or three are gathered together there, because that's just the kind of arseholes we are.

And if you think Musk is something other than a wannabe Mafia Godfather and divine emperor of Mars, you must be already living on the dark side of the moon.

What is anarchy and where has it worked before? — Tom Storm

I would say that anarchy is the state of no rules, and it is the universal social condition. There are not, nor can there be, any rules that forbid the setting up of any government, and you do not have to obey any governments that set themselves up.

A slightly more interesting question Is "what is the difference between a government and a mafia?"

The answer is sometimes, 'little or nothing', but to the extent that there is a difference, it is that in governments, power itself is limited and tempered by justice, by bureaucratic tradition, by honour and moral fibre, and by democratic limitations. And possibly there can be other features - you tell me...

Fair point. Ok, I concede; "obviously" was a misspoken epithet on my part.

The first premise isn't actually a contradiction — Michael

Nor is my first premise. I think my argument is valid and sound, and expresses the principle of explosion. Similar nonsense results when you divide by zero, and you can disguise that division in a similar way with a bit of algebra. Obviously the universe is the result of God accidentally contradicting Himself by making a mistake, which He cannot do, being infallible. Explains everything!

If contradiction, then anything.
contradiction.
therefore anything.

Valid, but unsound.

1. is a conditional contradiction.
2. fulfils the condition'

And from a contradiction, anything and everything follows. This is the principle of explosion.

That is to say, "1. A -> not-A" is impossible; when the impossible can happen, anything can happen.

When are "scientists" going to start reducing the rate at which they are increasing CO2 levels? COP29, the taxpayer funded annual holiday for climate scientists, is about to start. How many plane flights and private jet trips will this entail? — Agree-to-Disagree

This is a very feeble ad hominem, even by your low standards. Some scientists do more than others. They need to communicate with the world and with governments because one cannot do much alone, without changing the infrastructure and regulatory system.

Here is Paul Beckwith again talking about the tragedy in Spain.

They're rather jolly. Such extravagant displays can only evolve in an environment of plenty where the quality of the genes is all important and assistance with chick-rearing is not important. I guess the junior members of the troop are trainees the star of the show. Just another day of trying to work out what she wants...

Completely off topic today, but we need cheering up.

Paul Beckwith discusses the latest World Meteorological Organization Report on the atmosphere CO2 etc. levels. I'm sure politicians and economists are going to take measures to start reducing the rate at which we are increasing these levels really soon, and if they haven't actually committed to reducing our contribution to zero well I'm sure they will be doing that as well one of these days. But stopping increasing the rate is the first step to take, and we probably need to do that quite urgently now.

Have a nice day, while you still can.

https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69057-no-20-28-october-2024

https://library.wmo.int/viewer/69057/download?file=GHG-20_en.pdf&type=pdf&navigator=1

Seems like there has to be an answer. — Fire Ologist

My argument is everything is arbitrary after you have a living organism with 46 chromosomes. — Fire Ologist

And "46chromosomes" is not arbitrary?

Suppose in fact there doesn't have to be an answer. Suppose we have to make decisions about the rights and wrongs and the life and death of our neighbours in peace and in war; for the saints and the murderers, for the unformed and the agonised. Suppose the difference between murder and justified killing is something we establish and disagree about arbitrarily without end?

I'll tell you where I stand; I don't like abortion. But if a woman in society is in such a situation that her pregnancy is not wonderful news, or at least a bearable interruption, then the whole society is guilty. And I take the same stance about kids shooting their fellows in schools, and Trump, and Hitler, and Jews and Palestinians and Ukrainians and Russians.

Perhaps this is what is unique about 46 chromosomes; our capacity for unlimited cruelty to ourselves; our propensity to condemn each other while taking no responsibility for each other.

I don’t think it helps at all to have this conversation in religious terms. — Fire Ologist

"The spirit of the law" is not a religious term. But I don't think it helps to have the conversation in purely physical terms either, and that is my point. Matter and cells - some we are made of, some we eat, What's the difference?

It's just one damn thing after another.

I’m at least a collection of particles.

That’s all I need to be to have this conversation. — Fire Ologist

The law is said to have its letter, and also its spirit. I don't see why you and I need to manage with less?

Who speaks for the unborn? I don't know, but i know who sings for them.

Another careful picking apart of a bullshitter who ought to know a lot better.



And a new magic German feeling word to rival schadenfreude — "fremdschamen".

When I win the presidency, I'm going to nationalise McDonalds and put Trump in charge of it.

In the meantime, I am calling it for the democrats in a not quite landslide, based on early voting and anecdotal evidence of registered republicans voting democrat.

Super powers.

I used not to think that Trump was evil. — Wayfarer

Judge not, that ye be not judged. Condemn the sin, and not the sinner.

That says more about us than it does about him honestly. — Mr Bee

Yes. This is the hard lesson to learn; that it is plainly arguable where the most evil lies in American politics. Plainly, because people are arguing it here on this page in seeming good faith.

If politics is characterised as an equal battle between good and evil, then necessarily, evil will triumph, because the good have scruples and the evil have none. Or else there is no difference and the analysis fails altogether.

When the opposition has to be called evil, it is the failure of the good to maintain their own standards that has allowed it to happen. If there is a party of the good and a party of the evil, there is no question who to vote for; it is when one cannot tell them apart that evil can triumph.

A quickie, something for the weekend, to make you me, anyway, smile.

Ok, this is slightly off-topic, and the guy does a great imitation of the mad staring eyed mathematician.
But it relates to any number of waffles threads over in the hard-nosed philosophy section. It goes right against my instincts on the abstract, but it does it well.

Now this is a backroad so scenic and unspoilt, you may want to stop for a picnic. Or, if you need to be somewhere urgently, probably avoid the area altogether.

Procrastination is the result of internal conflict, and hence of a divided mind. If I am single minded, there can be no conflict; I am doing what I am doing, wholeheartedly.

I want the dishes clean and the kitchen tidy, but I want to go on sitting in my comfy chair dreaming. Such a conflict is uncomfortable, and there is no resolution, unless perhaps my wife will go and do the job. Procrastinating, I jump from one side to the other, arguing back and forth, and neither doing the job nor relaxing.

It is fairly easy to see the whole conflict as I have just described it, and obviously, the solution is that since i cannot relax properly until the dishes are done, I want to get the dishes done, and then relax.

But typically, the conflict is hard to see; perhaps I want to write a really good essay, but I am afraid I will not be able to, so I do not want to start and find out.

Or I want to stop smoking, but I do not want to suffer the withdrawal symptoms, so I want to smoke.

In such cases, it can be hard to see the whole conflict, and one is always on one side. and avoiding or ignoring the other. And until one can see the whole, there can be no resolution. There is a moment, possibly, though, when one becomes aware of the conflict as a whole, and in that instant, the conflict is ended. One writes the essay as best one can, or else one abandons the essay for good. One remains a contented smoker, or one stops smoking completely.

Yes, but falsely.
— unenlightened

But, also "No, but falsely." — punos

There is an asymmetry, I think. The answer "No." is a performative contradiction, while the answer "Yes." is not.

It is a matter of interpretation, but i suggest that a yes/no question can always be answered by yes, or by no. Usually, one answer is true and the other false. So under this understanding the correct answer is "Yes, it can be answered by "No.", but that answer would necessarily be false.

Pedants of the world unite, you have nothing.

When women can choose not to have children, a pretty high percentage of them don't. — frank

Perhaps child-rearing is an undervalued contribution to the economy; a cost that individuals choose not to bear unaided in support of a society that does not reward it.

In other news ...

Yes, but falsely.

We know that this is one-sided reporting. But the other side? You want to hear from them? There is no other side - the world is round.

Plenty of reading and good advice already.

But here is a handy free online crib sheet to use whenever you come across a name or a term that you are not familiar with. Philosophers love to name drop and use latin jargon so as to sound smart when they talk their nonsense. You don't want a treatise on every name, just a quick outline of who or what and when.

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/index.htm

There's other stuff there too - a timeline some stuff on logic, some history, etc but the dictionary is what will be most useful probably. Not to read wholesale, but to lookup this and that while you cruise here or elsewhere..

A 20,000 year old rock carving will carbon date the same whether it's been preserved for 20,000 years or freshly chiseled 20 minutes ago. — Outlander

Yes, but it looks as though you have misunderstood the science being reported. It's not carbon dating.
The sooty carbon layers from fire smoke deposits mark the annual layers of limestone deposit that build up in layers on the roof of the cave. This produces a barcode of thicker and thinner layers that can be matched over many years just the same way that tree rings can be matched so that a library can be built up from these flakes producing a continuous record of the years of habitation, and particular flakes can be associated with identifiable remains or artefacts of neanderthal or h.sapiens occupation and that enables them to say with confidence that they are occupying the cave if not at the same time, then at most one year apart. Carbon dating cannot get anything like that close, of course.

people falling into the conclusion that consciousness is definitely a quantum mechanical process missed that this is not proven yet. — Christoffer

I missed where people were falling into that conclusion. "Is Human Consciousness Quantum After All?" is the subtitle. And at the end of the video, the guy says. This is super exciting because maybe Penrose and Hameroff were right ...", having noted at the beginning that no one had taken their ideas seriously for years.

And of course it is only a very partial explanation at best, of something that every living cell has, that is possibly a precursor of what we might recognise as consciousness.

The most damning thing from the trove of evidence corruptly released just weeks before the election was that Trump sipped Diet Coke. What a Hitler. — NOS4A2

Nero fiddled.

I heard; some people are saying; a lot of people actually think; we'll be holding a press conference about it in a few weeks and I'll be making some really important announcements about that, I think you'll be very interested.

Make America Sane Again. We can do that nowadays, you know - we have these really smart nano-bots we can inject you all with and control what you think through G5. You'll all become so smart you'll think just like me. And you won't have to vote because the government will already know what you think.

I just saw this sign on a video:

"Orange is for pumpkins, not presidents."

Thus saith the Lord.

Do we get a referendum on what topics we have a referendum on?