A copy of my last reply to the Moderator - for those who do not know I was banned for a week without any recourse. I was not even able to reply to the notice I was given that I was banned until the ban was lifted. I was given no warning. I was given no opportunity to defend myself against the accusations of those who "reported me". And yet Vargas can lie, insult, curse and abuse others with impunity it seems. His disgusting OFF-TOPIC posts have not been deleted. Why is that? Could it be because the principles of the Totalitarian State are alive and well right here on Skeptico. :)
PTEHA said: re being accused of "swearing"
Really? That's an opinion. Depending on the situation/context it can be the most rational thing in the world. But do you have a quote david?
Oh please .. Imagine I;m at a dinner party the rest of the guests who did not know me start making all kinds of assertions about me just because I say one should look at the scientific evidence on agw/cc for themselves????
I am not going to argue about it. believe whatever you wish. I have nothing to defend here, nothing.
MODERATORs reply:
I'd just like to point out that I used to assume CAGW was just a fact, and the world should be doing something about it. This is just as I used to take a totally materialist view of the world - possibly you did too.
My conversion on CAGW was gradual, and began when the famous emails were released from the Climate Research Unit. They lead me down a path that I won't describe again, but it is pretty clear to me that this isn't real science. I suspect you don't have a science background (that is not meant as an insult of any sort, and correct me if I am wrong) and it probably isn't worth prolonging the discussion. However, you might at least like to ponder why it is that you take the word of scientists on CAGW, but (I think) dismiss their views of psi and consciousness.
Anyway, if you avoid insulting anyone, you are welcome to contribute to our forum. David
[edited for grammar, typos, and clarity] Hi David.
RE "a totally materialist view of the world" ... if it matters I have never held a totally materialist view. But more to the point here I do not even accept your limiting semantics as used on the site about that. It's a misnomer that is being unjustifiably labeled onto all of "science" and every "scientist" as if it fits when it does not. It's banging on trying to shove a square peg into a round hole. It's a gross generalization that excludes the actual reality - all the specifics (and the individual people) that make up that reality - and then asserts it's the reality. It is not.
Neither Charles Darwin or Einstein nor anyone else worth their salt in science from biology to physics held to
"a totally materialist view of the world" - however when a science is focused upon the material aspects of this world they have no other choice available than to investigate, study and report on their research BUT from a materialist point of view.
If they didn't then it would not be called "science" in the first place.
Research into PSI and Consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with Climate science and the physical world - nothing. Absolutely NOTHING! (just wanted to be very clear here) - BOTH topics can quite adequately co-exist in the real world and in our minds and in our world views without one field of interest denying the other. Psychologists do not study climate science or astrophysics David. Like how obvious and easy is this truth to grasp? Humanity is capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time you know. Gosh I hope you know that. But if you and others cannot see this with clarity then it is no surprise to me why there is all this
bleeding of boundaries and category errors going on here about Climate Science and what it means and why it is very credible hard science that needs to be taken as such. I mentioned category errors yesterday for a reason - it fits the problems that beset those who continue to deny the validity and important of what THE SCIENCE is telling humanity about global warming and climate change and it's likely ongoing effects
if not addressed.
Knowledge is Power - to ignore and default to self-deluded beliefs is insane. The only species on this earth that becomes insane are the Human Beings. After 100,000 plus years you'd think we could learn from humanity's past dumb errors and not repeat them in 2016 - especially where Climate Science is concerned.
Now to AGW - For a start David it is not "CAGW", that is an hyperbolic emotive button pusher that does not represent the reality - it is sophist construction by the denier movement and is not something the climate scientists nor the evidence speaks about. They talk about "consequences" of the known facts - if this then that based on maths physics etc and past knowledge of change - at all kinds of levels and over different time frames and dependent all kinds of hard to track variables including "natural variation" which is unpredictable - the scientists say as much - and then David they the scientists and the since papers and the IPCC summaries of those Papers and latest "credible" knowledge always qualify those "comments" (which puts the data/facts into words the average person can understand easier ) of degrees in uncertainty, levels of confidence in the existing data, and then into graphs of ranges of probability.
The IPCC, the scientists, the scientific papers DO NOT do Prophesy David ... they have outputs based on the evidence and possible future but UNKNOWN scenarios - They do NOT offer guarantees - they do not swear under oath that their forecasts, or future scenarios will come true - these are their best estimates "all things being equal" but David in the complex world of global climate and the vagaries of known and unknown aspects of the dynamics of global and regional climates nothing is equal, nothing is fully known - and the climate scientists and the outputs NEVER say otherwise.
They call it "dangerous" - it's an issue about Risk and they say that from a
"hypothetical point of view" .....if...... what the science tells them becomes the reality.
The science knowledge also speaks to the as yet UNKNOWN POTENTIAL for runaway positive forcings that MIGHT kick in should the climate (regional or global) move past hypothetical "Tipping Points" which suggests irreversible instability of the climate centuries into the future. The scientists also say repeatedly that they just do not know when or what might come - they repeatedly say they cannot be certain given the their current knowledge.
How bad could it be? Well it could far worse than only being "catastrophic" - that word denotes sudden and unexpected - there is nothing sudden nor unexpected in the warnings being given about Climate Change. But for the people living in various locations at different times the effects might well be seen as "catastrophic" if they are flooded out for 3 months, hit by a Cat 6 cyclone, or their crops fail for 3 years in a row.
Now people should always remember that this "best available advice" has been specifically
asked for by every national government who signed up to the UNFCCC.
Rule #1 - if you think you might not like the answer, then do not ask the question!!! The climate scientists are not playing 'chicken littles' here making wild unjustifiable or delusional claims that the sky is falling.
In fact the IPCC reports are very CONSERVATIVE in their future scenarios - they do
NOT make predictions like a weather forecaster that it will be raining tomorrow. The IPCC provided all the evidence needed in the AR5 to see how the past IPCC future "scenarios" and "expectations" of xyz happening by a particular time were predominantly WRONG ........
In that almost EVERY POSSIBLE BAD THING HAS HAPPENED FAR SOONER and FAR WORSE THAN ANYONE IN SCIENCE EXPECTED WAS POSSIBLE back in 1990, or 2000, or even in 2005. The story that IPCC predictions have failed to materialize is
a total MYTH put out by deniers and "fruit cakes."
The evidence for this is everywhere in front of our eyes and not only in the scientific papers or IPCC reports or the never-ending media releases by various scientific bodies globally that have kept alerting the public what is really occurring right now.
If people actually paid heed to the actual facts and the words used in the tens of thousands of science papers and the IPCC reports they would already know this. Like the "97% of scientists...." mis-wording of that paper from "abstracts" into "scientists" - the details the words really matter in such complex and large overwhelming piles of reports and studies across multiple fields of science ... the details get lost in hyperbole poor memories and all too often "myopic dyslexia" - both the denier world and the greenie world do this - and then outlier scientists pro or con also do the same and MISREPRESENT what was actually produced in a paper and the conclusions the authors drew from that evidence.
Let's talk about "insults" - no I am not a practicing scientist and no your comment is not insulting nor offensive even if I was an active climate scientist. My ego does not depend on such things as that. However I do have the capability of understanding what the science is telling us - I can tell the difference between the credible words of scientists in their papers and public speaking and the NOT Credible conclusions and words used by "flaky scientists"
plus and more importantly I have the skills and experience to pick up on the "marketing, advertising, word games, psychology, misrepresentations, lying, distortions, sophistry, and the mythology" that goes on about climate science from BOTH of the extreme sides to this raging public "debate". I have a range of high quality skills and an attitude that affords me an edge when comes to spotlighting BS when I see it. I am very intelligent and if I wanted to I could have been a scientist in various fields. The details don't matter, the only thing that matters today is am I right or wrong when I point out the various errors and distortions made by less intelligent people, and when I point others to the credible and valid science on climate science that exists, or not. My status and my opinions and personal beliefs are totally irrelevant on those matters. People can make their own OBJECTIVE judgments about the information and material that point other to look at.
In an prior response you alluded to me being "overly emotional" - that's not true. I know I am not. I used to be somewhat passionate, frustrated and emotional about the issue of agw/cc and the politics of it but I dropped that years ago now. Frankly I do not care what is done nor do I engage in this topic for a couple of years now. I have stopped looking at bar the odd thing that floats past my eyes via the media now and then. I did my own work over 15 years looking at everything I had time to look at. There is not one "argument": or link to so called smoking guns that has been presented by the deniers on skeptico that I have not seen before many times, had already investigated for myself (in detail) and came to judgment about it. Then there is all the other matters that have NOT be raised that I also already know about and have already looked at. I am not going to apologise for being in a million people who have actually DONE THE WORK THEMSELVES ALREADY. I am not going to apologise for being intelligent or for knowing what I already know and can prove, have proven to myself adequately and beyond a reasonable doubt. That is NOT "certainty" either. But I am certain that people like Monckton, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, Bob Carter, David Icke, and many others like them are proven liars, proven manipulators, plum wrong, paid shills and utter incompetents when it comes to climate science. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind as there is no doubt in my mind that Clinton got a few hj from Lewinsky. I did not need to be there and see wiht my own eyes to now know it is true. Follow what I am saying here about a frame of mind and process that leads me to state what I state? I have done the work needed already. Facts are facts David, and people's beliefs about them are all irrelevant.
But if people insist to throwing mud at me, of insulting and belittling me based on nothing but their own delusions and lack of knowledge then I am going to defend myself and call a spade a spade. And when it comes to people like Hurmaneatar falsely accusing me of supporting some kind of "certainty" about climate science as if that's a major problem, when I have consistently QUALIFIED MY COMMENTS CAREFULLY that proves the opposite of his false claim - then I call that INSULTING and ABUSIVE RHETORIC and SOPHISTRY and I will not tolerate that from anyone. I do not get "upset about it, I do not take it personally, for the issue to me is his (and others) intentional DISINFORMATION he is selling to all the readers .. and this is AGW/CC Denial:101. This kid of BS is the basis for ALL AGW/CC Denierosphere -- pure sophistry and word games and under all that are rank LIES!
The foundation behind all of the Climate Science denial are Lies. Then people chose to believe in those Lies through use of really clever Marketing being conveyed to the public by fraudulent shills and egotistical narcissists and sociopaths.
There is nothing credible about climate science denial or the mythology of grand conspiracies being involved. It's all BS from start to finish. What is credible is the SCIENCE in and of itself. It doesn't need a guru or an apologist. It stands on it's own over decades of research and data collection. PSI and Conscious studies has nothing to do with it. Polcial view nothing. Capitalism and communism nothing. It's called SCIENCE David, and it stands or falls on it's own. And right now it is a tower of strength that is unassailable by ignorant people who do not know the facts and
constantly choose to not look at the facts with reason and common sense.
Climate science denial is NOT real skepticism - it is the complete opposite of genuine skepticism based on evidence. Climate science denial does not evidence - it uses manipulation lies distortions and word games that push people's emotional buttons - people who actual want their buttons pressed so that their beliefs and their worldviews are REINFORCED. That ain't smart David, it's just plain dumb. That is NOT an insult. It's a fact. If people "feel" insulted or offended then that is tough for them. Deal with it.
If I said "David you are just dumb" - then that would be an insult. If I said David you are a big shit!" then that would be an insult. But I DO NOT speak like that on skeptico - go check. I say X information is BULLSHIT. There's a difference and it is a rally big one. If people happen to believe in that bullshit, that is not my problem how they feel about it when I call a spade a spade. That's all their responsibility to deal with their own emotional buttons being pushed. I didn't push them the problem is that they are so INVESTED in their own emotions and buttons and beliefs that they offend themselves and take what I say as a personal insult - when it wasn't and never will be.
I know I am right here for many reasons. I have been on the other side and know what it feels like and WHY it happens. I have over 17 years experience arguing about politics and religion on internet forums. I have the scars to prove it. I am an expet in this field, in fact I was a early explorer into the cyber world of social media. I have learnt a lot and can see what goes on here and why, and what happens on WUWT and why, and all the garbage being spewed on newspaper comments sections. The topic is irrelevant, people's beliefs are irrelevant the outcome is the same -- the garbage that has been posted to skeptico because I stood and other have to argue against the MYTH of AGW/CC denial and all the BS unfounded untrue conspiracy theories about it.
Fact is most people cannot discuss in real life or online without getting their buttons pushed and then carrying on like right jackasses. I am not one of those people. I am here to TEACH and SHOW and TELL. That's it. The really wise will heed what I say and how I say it here .... and it will serve them well to learn from me. That's not me ego talking, it is just the way it is. I have confidence NOT arrogance. I know that for certain, because I know me, who I am and what I will and won't stand for. My principles are very sound. I am like George Carlin in the last interview he that I shared on the thread yesterday.
I am not playing this game, I am not invested in it, what happens with CC doesn't affect me, I am detached from all the emotional drams over it, and I have no investment in the outcome - what will be will be. I am simply a dispassionate observer. What I care about is only one thing .. sharing good and helpful ideas and practices that other people might benefit from. It's up to them to accept or reject that. Either way I am simply happy to share the few things I have learned in my life and what I know has worked for me IN GOOD FAITH.
So I am not the one who is emotionally bent out of shape over this issue, it is you, it is Alex, it is Hurmanetar, it is Vargas, it is Michael Harris, it is Michael Larkin, it is Trancestate, it is Vortex, and all there rest who cannot control their own emotional reactions over what I (and the others who are sensible about it too) state plainly and clearly on the thread started by Alex. This isn't some cheap opinion I have or that I am not qualified to judge, for it is a fact.
But how dare someone actually stand up and be willing to argue the point when
the Prevailing CONSENSUS of the MAJORITY of members on this site totally disagree? Amazing.
You did notice the word
"consensus" there?
I thought holding to a consensus was like, you know,
really bad David, and a clear sign of proof that there is no consensus
but instead a huge conspiracy going on? <big smile>
Thanks for the chat.
PS Climate Research Unit. It's all a storm in a tea cup - there is nothing to it, not one thing. The same assertions were made about NASA/GISS re manipulating the raw data. It's all total bullshit. Why are you so NOT skeptical David about what people have said to you about that issue? Why do you TRUST those who claim there was a conspiracy and lies going on? I did the work, I took an unbiased approach and looked at these "stories" and the purported evidence of a serious fraud crime, and frankly David it is just crap. But I am not asking you to just believe me either. More than that David I am not even going to discuss it let alone attempt to prove to you that you are wrong on this as well.
Why?
Because you cannot tell people things they do not want to know. :)