Ozone Holes Notice

[Morganite]

(This could take a while...)
(Starting with Epsilon's post.)

---

Now, what we can debate about is, "Who is a reputable authority figure to appeal to?" Which has been the thrust of my argument.

---

Okay, I see what you're getting at here.
It seems to me, though, that that would be a really boring and pointless debate. I'd much rather spend my time actually looking at information on specific issues. Sure, none of us have any idea what we're doing, but if we look at enough stuff we might actually learn a thing or two. Who knows, maybe someone will even manage to *convince* someone else of something. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I'm sure it'll never happen if the only thing we argue about is who is and isn't an authority on something.

---

Necratoid's argument is that this is some vast left-wing hippie environmentalist conspiracy designed solely for the purpose of punishing American businesses.

---

That doesn't seem to me to be the point he's driving at at all in this thread. Part of the point seems to be "The ozone layer problem hasn't gone away, but no one's talking about it" where "no one" refers to the media coverage, not the scientific community. Which seems like a fair point to me. It's been *years* since I've heard a news report talking about the ozone layer. I'm not just interested in the scientific background on this issue. The mass media portrayal and the political implications are just as interesting.

---

Yes, I do not know very much about global climate change. Neither do you. Yes, we should shut up.

---

Really though, I want you to not shut up! Whenever anyone discusses the actual issues here, it's interesting. Maybe we don't know a lot about global climate change, but we certainly won't improve that condition by shutting up.
(On to Ayiekie...)

---

Perhaps you missed the part, Morganni, where when asked I presented the conclusions and reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Joint Science Academies, the American Meteorological Society, the Federal Climate Change Science Program, and the Geological Society of America, who all unequivocally declared that climate change exists and has man-made causes.

---

I don't really feel this is particularly useful, since it doesn't really provide a rebuttal to any specific argument about an issue. *I* have posted links to articles rebutting certain arguments that I believe you'd be opposed to. (Well, at least once anyway. '.' ) I don't feel I'm asking anything excessive in thinking you'd do the same, because that's how one gets a useful debate.

---

Do you think "Why the hell do you think you know better than thousands of people who do this for a living?" is a question that doesn't even deserve an answer?

---

To be blunt, no, I don't. I thought my previous statements would have made that obvious. I don't find anything that's not directly related to an actual issue to be particularly worthwhile. For this purpose, those three quotes cause me no particular distress, because they're actually expressing an opinion about an issue.
(Now, that second quote, I'd really like to see an actual rebuttal of this. Because the whole emissions trading thing confuses the hell out of me, and maybe if I heard a few more discussions of it I'd be able to figure out what was going on.)

---

Why is it if one person argues that Mars is warming because of increased solar output, that's a blow to the very foundations of the global warming belief and "very interesting and worth considering", but when it's immediately replied "No, that isn't the case" by a hell of a lot more people, that's dismissed without question?

---

So, increased solar output isn't interesting? I think it's interesting. I was expecting and hoping for someone to say "Yeah, but the climate model already factors it in, and it's not that important." Which I didn't exactly get, but Rev Dark posted an article that probably leads to a similar result. (The relavent part I'd summarize as "Mars is affected more by TSI variations than Earth is.")

---

Why is it the mainstream media presents there as being a debate in the scientific community about the matter, when the simple fact is that there's not?

---

Now, this gets into a subject that I find very interesting. Because most people who oppose the scientific consensus on global warming that I've heard seem to think that the mainstream media is firmly opposed to them and doesn't suggest that there's any debate at all. On other issues I've also found that both sides think the mainstream is opposed to them, regardless of the other details. Perhaps it's a question of what one considers mainstream. I bet an interesting psychology (or would it be sociology?) paper could be written on it.

---

You're not willing to call them on their bullshit, Morganni, so other people had to.

---

I most of the time have no interest in calling anyone on their bullshit. In a lot of cases other people have done a better job of it than I could have anyway.
I simply believe that the line of argument that I'm complaining about here isn't doing the job. It comes across as an attack on the person, rather than their statements. It creates noise that distracts from more interesting parts of the conversation. It causes me to spend over a half hour writing this post, when I could have been writing a much more interesting post about things like this. It causes me to give up even trying to respond to half of the things I find worthy of comment. And I really find your attitude on it confusing, because I think stopping it would make your arguments more effective overall, which I would think you'd want.
-Morgan really hates Chronicle 20 in Soul Calibur III.

"This continuity is now a Princess of Darkness crossover."
"... They're all going to die, aren't they?"
"Yep. Popcorn?"