[Grizzly]

I'm not sure we should count on some kind of unforeseen negative feedback mechanism kicking in to stabilize our climate. It's a definite possibility, and it'll lead to decades if not centuries of conspiracy theories and wrong-headed condemnation of scientists, but we can't assume it exists.

This bears repeating.

[Luis Dias]

I agree with it. The inverse is also true, notwithstanding how much prominent those fears creep up in the blogosphere, the newssites or even scientific circles, namely the catastrophic positive feedback loops that will threaten to get us beyond some hidden "thresholds" that will spiral all the equations in a non-linear fashion into other kinds of attractor nightmare scenarios.

[General Battuta]

I don't think there's perfect symmetry there, though. If we assume there is no negative feedback loop, the payoff of being wrong is marginal. If we assume there's no positive feedback loop, well, the payoff of being wrong...

[Grizzly]

I agree with it. The inverse is also true, notwithstanding how much prominent those fears creep up in the blogosphere, the newssites or even scientific circles, namely the catastrophic positive feedback loops that will threaten to get us beyond some hidden "thresholds" that will spiral all the equations in a non-linear fashion into other kinds of attractor nightmare scenarios.

You keep talking about your beef against these, yet these never seem to be brought up into the discussion. You keep talking about your beefs about the green movement, yet no one here represents any form of that green movement you are raging against. You often bring hyperboles into the discussion and explain why you distinctly hate those hyperboles, whilst I have absolutuly have no idea that these hyperboles even have existed in the first place or where considered in policy discussions. You mentoin something about enviromentalists having something to do with oil being so importnat in energy production and thus being closely tied to food problems, yet do not explain why this is, you just seem to rage. I can expect a venus style greenhouse theory to be mentoined in scientific circles as a "Final scenario", but it is only ever mentoined just because it's science, and it is interesting to know that sort of stuff, yet you shout it about like it's a commonly used thing and therefore topics such as these are worth all your rage.

As such, some of your arguments appear utterly alien to me.

[Aardwolf]

[projection]

...

Okay guys, when someone raises a challenge like this, failing to address it will just leave him thinking a) you don't have anything to back up your earlier claims, b) he's right, and c) you're a bunch of assholes. I know this, because we just did this back on page 3 when I asked "what's so bad about stagnation". Well no, I didn't seriously think "there is nothing wrong with stagnation", but that's not the point.

[/projection]

Idunno, Luis, I don't think "extremism" works that way. In a discussion of matters of fact, either something is true or it isn't. You can disagree with a lot of separate statements, and no single point of contention is what puts you over the line into "extreme". Extremism isn't necessarily having the most extreme possible opinion (e.g. "the snowball effect will cause earth to turn into Pluto II, and there is nothing we can do to stop it"), it's really a matter of being near one of the two extremes of common public discourse.

That said, it's not just opinions that can get someone labeled an "extremist". It's also things like rhetoric (e.g. that bit about "propagandaspeech"). And also... I don't know what to call it, but... the more you hear of "man causes global warming causes badness" the more you say "no"... and I wonder if you also convince yourself further every time you do this. (This is not an accusation, merely a call for introspection.)

So maybe that's what they were talking about.

[Luis Dias]

I don't think there's perfect symmetry there, though. If we assume there is no negative feedback loop, the payoff of being wrong is marginal. If we assume there's no positive feedback loop, well, the payoff of being wrong...

Yes, I think the assymetry works against us, and that's why dealing with global warming in a risk assessment objective manner is essential and urgent. But there's a difference between acknowledging the assymetry and working in solutions to edge the risks and engage in Pascal's Wager - like arguments that could basically justify anything (like, say, justify a preemptive strike against Iraq on the "unknown unknown" dangers). I think the media is too focused on treating extreme speculation as fact, focused in trying to scare people into accepting this problem as being "the big one" we have right now, and I don't like too much of what I see.

It's not just that science can become a target of hatred or scorn if projections don't come into fruition, it's more that science itself has become a medium of transmitting a particular ideology to the populace instead of being objective and impartial. I don't mind all the shenanigans I have seen for the past years in this field, it's only human after all, but I'm afraid people just take it for granted when they shouldn't.

You keep talking about your beef against these, yet these never seem to be brought up into the discussion. You keep talking about your beefs about the green movement, yet no one here represents any form of that green movement you are raging against. You often bring hyperboles into the discussion and explain why you distinctly hate those hyperboles, whilst I have absolutuly have no idea that these hyperboles even have existed in the first place or where considered in policy discussions.

You have brought yourself many points that do come from emotional sources, more concerned in scaring you into belief rather than actually inform you in an objective sense. So much so that I think I've refuted most of what you said in empirical terms up there. These exagerations (and yes, that oil price graph you shared is a misleading one, let's not dwell about the intentions of who did it...) do misinform any subsequent discussion we can have on the subject, turning everything into a binary "Pascal Wager" thing where either you do everything to save the planet or the planet dies in hellfire due to all the excesses of mankind.

You mentoin something about enviromentalists having something to do with oil being so importnat in energy production and thus being closely tied to food problems, yet do not explain why this is, you just seem to rage.

I am sorry, it is true. I didn't want to develop this point further. Corn ethanol was labeled as a green solution and had huge subsidies for it when I resarched it some years ago. I don't know what is going on now in 2014 but I would guess things are pretty much the same. Again, environmentalists forgot to measure side effects of their solutions, and once the industry caught on the practice and made it profitable and scaled, we did end up seeing the ghastly effects on food prices, especially on the brink of the big recession event in 2009.

I can expect a venus style greenhouse theory to be mentoined in scientific circles as a "Final scenario", but it is only ever mentoined just because it's science, and it is interesting to know that sort of stuff, yet you shout it about like it's a commonly used thing and therefore topics such as these are worth all your rage.

As such, some of your arguments appear utterly alien to me.

I admit I'm a bore at this and I apologize.

[Scotty]

Hey guys, while I appreciate that discussion has this far remained civil I notice an increase in paragraphs that feature the phrase "you said", "you mention", and the like.  Please remember to debate or discuss the points, not the people.

[Luis Dias]

Hey guys, while I appreciate that discussion has this far remained civil I notice an increase in paragraphs that feature the phrase "you said", "you mention", and the like.  Please remember to debate or discuss the points, not the people.

Just to note that you did precisely this above, and when challenged to produce evidence you didn't. I would also have preferred to convey this to you in private but for some reason you chose to block me so there.

[Scotty]

Heh.  That ignore had been on for...years?  I just click through it every time and honestly forgot that it blocks pms as well.  Should be fixed as soon as I remember where to change that particular option.

The reason I didn't pursue the tangent was because I also realized this.  If I could delete posts I would have for that one (editing doesn't quite work).  Plus, I could already feel the quote chain, and rethought what *would* have turned the entire thread on its head again continuing.

Attempting to be consistent sucks.

[AdmiralRalwood]

You have brought yourself many points that do come from emotional sources, more concerned in scaring you into belief rather than actually inform you in an objective sense. So much so that I think I've refuted most of what you said in empirical terms up there.

I think I've seen you make a lot of assertions without actually providing any evidence for any of your points. Even that graph you seemed to think was so important lacked any citation whatsoever, making it awfully hard for anyone to double-check...

[Grizzly]

an interesting side tangent in this whole discussion is perhaps the Amero Tragedy, the results of a government not taking heeds of various warnings made by scientists.