Jump to content

Sunday Topic - Ozone

grasshopper

By grasshopper
in General

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lilith
Hatchling Cockatrice

Lilith

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: izen
Most of the posters there are refugees from the UK Daily Telegraph comments section - a 'hotbed' of AGW theory rejectionists....


the second-worst UK newspaper that expects to be taken at all seriously

the worst also has a name starting in Daily
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

izen
Fledgling Fyora

izen

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Divine Prominence

—Alorael, who also found the postmodernist angle odd. While he'll admit that he finds postmodernism to be the last refuge of many literary scoundrels, it's not usually used in debates about science. Not even to tar and feather opponents. Points for creativity?


Its a reference, and possibly justifiable attack on Michael Hulme, the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the eye of the storm about the climategate emails.

He has said some odd things about AGW like-
“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilith
Hatchling Cockatrice

Lilith

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: izen
He has said some odd things about AGW like-
“The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”


all this is really saying when you translate it into plain English is "the fact that 'climate change' has emerged as a concept means that researchers can now discuss their research in terms of its relation to climate change", which i think is a statement that even people who don't believe in climate change would agree with (after all, just by saying "climate change isn't happening" or "climate change isn't caused by humans", you would be making a statement about climate change, which implies some common idea of what climate change is)

the last sentence is just one of those goofy professorial flourishes that academics sometimes like to use
Link to comment
Share on other sites
grasshopper
Garrulous Glaahk

grasshopper

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: izen
Most of the posters there are refugees from the UK Daily Telegraph comments section - a 'hotbed' of AGW theory rejectionists....


the second-worst UK newspaper that expects to be taken at all seriously

the worst also has a name starting in Daily


You can say what you want about the Daily Mirror, but don't you dare say a word about the Daily Star!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dantius
Easygoing Eyebeast

Dantius

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: izen
Most of the posters there are refugees from the UK Daily Telegraph comments section - a 'hotbed' of AGW theory rejectionists....


the second-worst UK newspaper that expects to be taken at all seriously

the worst also has a name starting in Daily

Is it the Daily Mail? Not exactly a keen reader of British journalism that's not The Economist...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dantius
Easygoing Eyebeast

Dantius

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: boggle
Originally Posted By: Dantius

Is it the Daily Mail? Not exactly a keen reader of British journalism that's not The Economist...


How awfully refined of you.


Well, I also only watch BBC America when I need cable news, but that doesn't exactly count, since there are no quality American alternatives...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mea Tulpa
Hatchling Cockatrice

Mea Tulpa

Posted
Posted

boggle: I didn't mean it to apply quite so specifically. The point of the comic is that it isn't necessary to argue everything into dust on the internet simply because you can. When you encounter someone who clearly has their beliefs set and isn't interested in a fair evaluation of the arguments on either side, and I'm inclined to agree with Alorael that that's what's going on here, why bother?

 

So no, I'm not peed off. Lilith on the other hand...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grasshopper
Garrulous Glaahk

grasshopper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Slarty,

 

I am not silly enough to start a flame war just for the sake of it. That is boring, and I have other things to do. Let me repost my earlier post:

 

Quote:
I posted the opening post on that Sunday, because like someone said, a little learning can be a dangerous thing; so I have two choices: to either completely forget everything I have learnt, or learn more. I'm very thankful to those who have responded to memory vault's posts so far, as it has given me more food for thought. And not just me, but also the hundreds of lurkers who read that website. If you can deal with the personal abuse, you will find a friend in Izen, and you will have the opportunity through your posts to let the lurker make up his own mind about who is right and who is wrong. Your reasoned answers have already given lots of people the chance to think about the ozone thing in more detail, which is very very valuable. So I thank you all again, not just on my behalf, but on the behalf of all of the thinking lurkers.

 

So, to explain, I saw a post that I liked, but doubted my liking, so came over here to ask your opinions, then out of interest, posted it back over there, and again the reply over here. Nothing cynical, nothing malicious, just pure interest in the issues.

 

That person has set opinions, you guys have set opinions, but people like me, our opinions are more formless, but we want to form them in those most intelligent manner possible. So, I gave you an option to shoot down this persons post, and also gave the option of coming over to that site and participating when ever you feel like it. Because, after looking at your answers, I realized that there is an opportunity here, as you all have a respectable, well better than mine at least, handle on the science. Now, how each person responds, in facts or attitude, is their own responsibility; and it is the responsibility of the many lurkers to make up his or her own mind as to who has put forward the most rational and coherent argument. If you want to come over, that is fine, and welcome, and Izen will welcome you too! If you'd rather stay in the comfort zone, well, who can blame you?

 

If you go back over my posts, you will see I personally have not insulted Lilith in any way whatsoever; and anyway, like you said, it is the internet!

 

Right, well that post was a bit longer than I was expecting; but like I said, my previous post to this one, was just an invitation to read something that has proved very popular today, there no room for debate, as it is a set piece. If you want to read it, here is the direct link to the writing, with no commenting facility, a book published this year in China, and yet to be fully translated in to English:

http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/rare-scribbling/locusts/low-carbon-plot/

 

And again, thank you all for helping me with this ozone layer issue, your replies have been fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alorael at Large
Hatchling Cockatrice

Alorael at Large

Posted
Posted

The problem with debating demagogues, and that's what our opposition at the formerly Daily Telegraph site looks like, is that there's no real debate. Offer a good point and it's ignored. But if there's any flaw in your argument, no matter how minor or irrelevant, and it will be seized, picked apart, and crowed over. You can't actually make progress doing that. It's debate in bad faith.

 

The other problem is, of course, that this is a scientific debate, and I don't think any of us are really qualified climatologists or atmospheric chemists. Spiderweb has a strong scientific bent, which helps, but while we're qualified to find holes in really bad arguments, we're not qualified to make really good ones. That has to be left to someone else, and then very well trained people have to read them and pick them apart.

 

At base, you can't argue with conspiracy theorists, and that's what "anti-warmists" amount to. Global warming would have to be an international scientific conspiracy on a breathtaking scale. Journalists and governments would have to be in on it. There's no way to prove that it's impossible, but it takes a very particular view of the world to find this more plausible than the simpler explanation: the scientific consensus is for human-caused global warming because the evidence all points there. No, not every piece of evidence is incontrovertible. But there are enough pieces, and they are all solid enough, that in aggregate the conclusion is quite clear.

 

And the translated piece? It makes some good points: suddenly giving up reliance on fossil fuels is a hard task for developed countries, and for the developing world it will require many breakthroughs. But fortunately, it's also the developing world that produces the most greenhouse gases. Beyond that, though, there's a key problem: one Chinese publication is not a massive expose of a conspiracy. Gore called his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" because global warming and its solutions really are a huge problem to deal with. The fact that they are difficult, even unevenly difficult, has no bearing whatsoever on scientific accuracy.

 

Also note that it isn't just the Chinese who have these things. Plenty of American and Europeans publish in opposition to global warming. But they're the fringe there, and I'd bet they're the fringe in China as well.

 

—Alorael, who can also see how China has a strong interest in denying global warming. After all, international pressure on China to go green is as inconvenient for China as it is for everyone else. Why should China be any different from the US Republican party? Let global warming be someone else's problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarachim
Well-Actually War Trall

Sarachim

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: boggle
I posted the opening post on that Sunday, because like someone said, a little learning can be a dangerous thing; so I have two choices: to either completely forget everything I have learnt, or learn more.

This is an excellent impulse, and the closer you get to the sources of what you want to learn, the better you're likely to do. Some of our more scientifically-inclined members can probably point you toward sources that will do a better job of teaching than they can themselves.

As for our reluctance to deal with your Daily Telegraph friends, nobody who denigrates a minority to make himself look big is worth the attention of intelligent people. I get all the abuse I need in real life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mea Tulpa
Hatchling Cockatrice

Mea Tulpa

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I definitely wasn't talking about you, Boggle.

 

I do disagree with one thing you just said, though:

Originally Posted By: boggle
That person has set opinions, you guys have set opinions, but people like me, our opinions are more formless, but we want to form them in those most intelligent manner possible

I'll grant that there's a difference between a "formless" or "unformed" opinion -- i.e., you deliberately refrain from judgement because you feel you lack information -- and having an actual opinion of X, Y, or Z. However, there's also a difference between having "opinions" that are based on the information you have, but open to revision, and having "set opinions" that you are not willing to re-examine. This is the distinction that Alorael got at above.

 

 

Finally, while the explanation of the "lesbian assassins" certainly helps, let me give that some context. Suppose that Spiderweb had a running joke about dark-skinned conspirators who assassinated the rich and powerful of the coastal elites. And suppose that I then made a new topic about a debated issue and, referencing that joke, called it:

 

Nietzsche, Niggers And Numinous Nomenclature

 

The fact that there is a pre-existing in-joke about members of the denigrated group assassinating people hardly makes me sound like less of a tool, and definitely won't make people take my post seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alorael at Large
Hatchling Cockatrice

Alorael at Large

Posted
Posted

On the one hand, there's no point in debating when you don't have a real debate partner. On the other hand, just giving up and going home means that arguing in bad faith works, and that it will sway hearts and minds! Are we letting down climate change here?

 

On a neutral and balanced board, maybe. But we're under no obligation to go into the lair of the climate change deniers and proselytize. It's better to just let it go rather than fruitlessly rail against them in an impossible fight. We're not going to see eye to eye.

 

Those with unformed opinions should know better than to draw their conclusions from a mostly one-sided, self-congratulatory, self-selected group. They should also know better than to rely on us here (we're also self-selected, although not intentionally for political or scientific views, and at times self-congratulatory). If you really want to get information from the internet, the way to do it is to read both sides. (Or ask both sides at once, as Boggle did. Nice trick there, Boggle!) Or you can turn to authorities, as there are plenty of articles, essays, books, interviews, and manifestos on most subjects.

 

—Alorael, who doesn't think there's any good way to arrive at the right conclusion reliably. After all, unless you are an atmospheric chemist, you don't know enough about the ozone to do more than nod at what the experts present. If the experts disagree, all you can do is go with the ones who present the most compelling case. Since the case is necessarily couched in layman's terms, you're not getting the real picture, and your selection is based on persuasion rather than persuasive evidence. There isn't any good way to find the capital-T Truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
grasshopper
Garrulous Glaahk

grasshopper

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Alorael, your last post is great. There is one thing that I'd like to draw your attention to: money. It is OK to talk about having faith in a group of people who say things you don't understand if they have no impact on your day to day life. This, however, is not the case here. Global warming, and the preventative measures to prevent/ameliorate it are going to hit the average Joe hard, and the poor harder than most, and in the case of for example, peak oil, where it hurts the most: food prices.

 

If people are struggling to get by, or they see those more disadvantaged than them struggling to get by owing to the placement of the conjectures of a consensus of scientists at the heart of government's policies, and they are upset, or outraged, these people are not crazy, they are not stupid, they just care about themselves and other people. Monetary costs of actions will at some level trickle down to create very real human costs. This is why some people may post about these issues with such anger, and also resort to personal attacks.

 

I care about these things for the exact same reason, I see people struggling, and it makes me stop and think. Does my grandmother, because some of the cost of new technologies is now hidden in her energy bill, choose between food and heating during the winter? I don't know, but I hope not.

 

You ask, are we letting climate change down, others are asking, are we letting the disadvantaged down. There is an election in Australia in 5 days time, and lots of people are thinking about these issues, do we vote for the party that will shut down coal mines and raise energy prices, for a better day after tomorrow, or do we try and create the best possible environment for today.

 

We do not understand the issues, and have no hope of ever fully understanding the issues, but we are asked to make choices that directly affect the people around us based on our relative ignorance of these issues.

 

I don't want to get in to a big debate about every single issue, because I am not in the slightest up to the task, I am a lurker, and there are many like me. I lurk because I don't understand, but feel it is vitally important that I do understand.

 

Slarty, if you go back to the first page you will notice that no perceived slurs on lesbians were posted on this board by me; I linked to the site for a reason. But I will make a slur now, I do not believe that lesbians, dykes, whatever name you wish to call them have ever historically been as disadvantaged as blacks, or if you wish, niggers. I understand the point you are trying to prove, but I think it was not a wise choice of example. Lesbians on the whole have even had an easier ride than gays. No pun intended. And also if you do not know how many men have fantasies about lesbians, you have been living under a rock. It was not an completely inappropriate post for what is pretty much, as far as we know, an all male audience.

 

Again, with all the interests in the world, why would people suddenly become interested in something as tedious and dense and unfathomable as climate science...

 

Are you letting climate change down...? Well I offered an invite nothing more nothing less. I'm sorry that you all got so offended in the process of me extending that invite, but it can't be helped now.

 

It is important to understand that in the fight about climate change, both sides are coming from completely different angles. Planet first, or people first? The science is just the battleground for the war.

 

Anyways, I will post no more, as I am already at the limits of my knowledge and understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dikiyoba
Magnificent Ornk

Dikiyoba

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Boggle
And also if you do not know how many men have fantasies about lesbians, you have been living under a rock. It was not an completely inappropriate post for what is pretty much, as far as we know, an all male audience.

Woo, sexism.

Quote:
Planet first, or people first?

All people, particularly the poorest people on the planet, depend directly on the environment. Destroy or degrade the environment, and you're ruining people's livelihoods.

Dikiyoba.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilith
Hatchling Cockatrice

Lilith

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: boggle
Lesbians on the whole have even had an easier ride than gays. No pun intended. And also if you do not know how many men have fantasies about lesbians, you have been living under a rock. It was not an completely inappropriate post for what is pretty much, as far as we know, an all male audience.


what the hell is wrong with you

get out
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dantius
Easygoing Eyebeast

Dantius

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Lilith
Originally Posted By: boggle
Lesbians on the whole have even had an easier ride than gays. No pun intended. And also if you do not know how many men have fantasies about lesbians, you have been living under a rock. It was not an completely inappropriate post for what is pretty much, as far as we know, an all male audience.


what the hell is wrong with you

get out

Ehhh, it was a point made in the most offensive, ignorant, and obtuse means humanly possible under the circumstances, but it is, nevertheless, a point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilith
Hatchling Cockatrice

Lilith

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Ehhh, it was a point made in the most offensive, ignorant, and obtuse means humanly possible under the circumstances, but it is, nevertheless, a point.


actually no it's 100% false, lesbians are more likely to experience employment discrimination and be victims of violence than gay men

and most gay rights groups pretty much exist solely for the benefit of middle-class white gay men
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dantius
Easygoing Eyebeast

Dantius

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Lilith
actually no it's 100% false, lesbians are more likely to experience employment discrimination and be victims of violence than gay men

and most gay rights groups pretty much exist solely for the benefit of middle-class white gay men


One hundred percent false? Really? So that means that there's never been a single occasion in all of history where gays have been more victimized than lesbians? Ever? Be more careful with those kinds of generalizations, Lilith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lilith
Hatchling Cockatrice

Lilith

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Dantius
Originally Posted By: Lilith
actually no it's 100% false, lesbians are more likely to experience employment discrimination and be victims of violence than gay men

and most gay rights groups pretty much exist solely for the benefit of middle-class white gay men


One hundred percent false? Really? So that means that there's never been a single occasion in all of history where gays have been more victimized than lesbians? Ever? Be more careful with those kinds of generalizations, Lilith.


oh my god shut up
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mea Tulpa
Hatchling Cockatrice

Mea Tulpa

Posted
Posted

First of all, again, I was not commenting on you boggle, I was commenting on the blog post you linked to. Yes, I am talking TO you because it's a conversation smile

 

Originally Posted By: boggle
Global warming, and the preventative measures to prevent/ameliorate it are going to hit the average Joe hard, and the poor harder than most, and in the case of for example, peak oil, where it hurts the most: food prices.

The poor are hit harder the most by just about any policy, because the poor have no cushioning. To the extent that you're saying "this is important so we shouldn't just trust what the authorities say" I agree completely, but that applies just as strongly to every other issue that impacts people.

 

Quote:
But I will make a slur now, I do not believe that lesbians, dykes, whatever name you wish to call them have ever historically been as disadvantaged as blacks, or if you wish, niggers. I understand the point you are trying to prove, but I think it was not a wise choice of example.

Oh boy... oh boy.

 

Lesbians (and gays) have been "historically" disadvantaged in very different ways than black Americans. They were affected in totally different arenas of disenfranchisement, and the chronology and the structures of repression were totally different... What they have in common is that they were (and in some cases, still are) on the receiving end of a whole lot of hatred from other groups. What the N-word and the D-word (and the F-word) have in common is that they are hate language. Their very use tends to conjure up this intense collective hatred, which is what makes them so loaded. The N-word and the D-word further have in common that they are often used in a reclamatory way. However, that reclamation is not all-purpose and none of those words are friendly enough to throw around in jokes or in posts that purport to be about science.

 

I take it from your reaction that you find hate language based on sexual orientation to be less of a big deal than hate language based on race. To me, at least, the relevant factor is the HATE...

 

Quote:
Lesbians on the whole have even had an easier ride than gays. No pun intended. And also if you do not know how many men have fantasies about lesbians, you have been living under a rock. It was not an completely inappropriate post for what is pretty much, as far as we know, an all male audience.

1) How have lesbians "had an easier ride" than gays? No, really, how?

2) How the heck are stereotypical straight male fantasies about lesbians a justification for ANYTHING?

3) You really don't think any women read that blog? I suppose they probably don't read it regularly, given content like that.

 

I dunno, these strike me as some pretty odd assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mea Tulpa
Hatchling Cockatrice

Mea Tulpa

Posted
Posted

I've been considering locking this topic, not because anyone has done anything wrong, but because there are some sensitive issues being discussed in ways that are not particularly sensitive and it is liable to turn ugly soon.

 

It hasn't gotten there yet, however. Instead, I am going to admonish everyone posting in this thread (myself included) to make sure you take the time to be thoughtful and respectful of others when you post. If we can't do that, then this thread will be locked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mea Tulpa
Hatchling Cockatrice

Mea Tulpa

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: Lilith
and most gay rights groups pretty much exist solely for the benefit of middle-class white gay men

Originally Posted By: Dantius
(quote from a gay rights group website)

Seriously, though, the site doesn't even say where those numbers come from. Although I would suspect there *are* more hate crimes against gay men simply because men are way more likely to commit hate crimes than women are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dantius
Easygoing Eyebeast

Dantius

Posted
Posted
Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES
Originally Posted By: Lilith
and most gay rights groups pretty much exist solely for the benefit of middle-class white gay men

Originally Posted By: Dantius
(quote from a gay rights group website)

Seriously, though, the site doesn't even say where those numbers come from. Although I would suspect there *are* more hate crimes against gay men simply because men are way more likely to commit hate crimes than women are.


It was the first result on Google. It's late, and I didn't really feel like searching for actual statistics. But since you insist, I scrolled down, and found that the FBI (should be reputable enough for you) has some hate crimes statistics from 2007 here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...