Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

Didn't the chocolate eggs leave out the word, "Easter"? Can that be understood as heresy?

Try to talk in a more respectful manner.

Well we all know the earth will be swallowed up by the sun in its Red Giant decline in a few billion years and that the odds of an asteroid impact, sufficient to threaten human life, long before that event are very high indeed. In addition, most of us here will likely die before the century is out. So what's a little warming ?

I still don't understand your strange assertion that it takes courage to embrace such a currently fashionable idea. The contrary appears to be the real case here. Courage is required to even question the unthinking convictions of a thoroughly propagandized population. The mere facts that the currently preferred, indeed mandated, alternative energy sources can't possibly solve the perceived problem without massive adverse effects on humanity; and that the same folks who see AGW as an imminent threat, also vehemently oppose the only available emission-free source of energy to that is sufficient make a real difference, nuclear power, should tell you that something here is seriously amiss.

This guy in the story, who falls from on high saying "so far so good", do you think of him as:

a) a courageous optimist,

b) a fool,

c) someone scared and trying to reassure himself?

Are you a representative of the U.S.A. hinterland culture, Foofie? I'm trying to figure out what it looks like.

I think the story is a drastic oversimplification of the issue and the "point" it illustrates is without meaning.

Why of course it's a simplification. You said you did not understand what courage there was in believing in climate change. I'm trying to explain it to you but this is the third or fourth post where I'm asked to explain again and again. So I'm on purpose trying to make it simple for you.

It's called a metaphor. By design, it illustrates a specific point and not the full complexity of an issue. In this case the point is that when deniers refer to the so-far limited consequences of GW on today's climate and minimize its future consequences, they are only trying to reassure themselves...

You repeatedly categorize "deniers" as lacking the "courage" to act on what you imply as an obviously urgent problem demanding a solution now. However you ignore the facts that (1) Current wind and solar applications are not a solution; (2) The EU's actions so far don't come close to making a significant difference -- Germany's premature shutdown of older nuclear plants wiped out most of the "gains" accomplished by its investment in subsidizing "renewables"; (3) the huge gains in availability of natural gas have eclipsed the CO2 reductions so far achieved by government subsidies and mandates - the only actions which it appears you consider as involving "courage".

Your metaphors don't replace facts and reason. Running with the crowd does not constitute courage.

I categorize deniers as cowards because they feel the need to attack the messenger and deny the message. That's what cowards do. And an overwhelming majority of that cowardly BS comes from your country, for some odd reason.

As for what we can do to mitigate and adapt to climate change, that's a different question. There's plenty that can be done. Like indeed the use of nuclear power, better building insulation, development of renewable energies, the banning of shale gas extraction, etc.

Here's a blunt review of the situation by a UK academic:


-- David Runciman, professor of politics and international studies at Cambridge University
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2017/04/is_britain_in_even_worse_shape_than_the_u_s.html

This is off topic on climate change but it fits the thread needs...
Check from 22.20 onwards if you want to skip the broader frame of the video.

There's a broad spectrum of opinion out there ranging from fanatic advocacy to equally fanatic denial: both extremes generally involve little merit, scientific or otherwise. Your appellation of "deniers" is, like mine of "advocates", more a reference to folks near those extremes. Both are gross oversimplifications of the various views of the (still unverifiable) projections of the future state held by informed people.

I don't care to know if you characterize me as a denier, but it may be worth noting that I have not "attacked" any of the messengers here, except to note some contradictions and illogical elements in their prescriptions for dealing with potential AGW, and I haven't termed any of the participants as "cowardly".

The United States has been viewed by Europeans as an ill-mannered, insufficiently grateful offshoot of its own follies for as long as we have existed - as confirmed in the literature of most European countries for the last two centuries ( see Ivan Bunin's "The Gentleman from San Francisco" and many others). Most Americans recognize that and shrug it off. We have also opposed, or at least stood off from, most European excesses from Napoleonic to Soviet and Nazi). A few Europeans have understood us well ( de Tocqueville for example). That doesn't mean that we are free of our own foibles and faults. I would say the cowardly BS quotients of the two continents are about the same, and find your self-righteousness a bit ..... European .

In most of the discourse on the AGW matter, illogical conclusions and demands abound. Apparently we agree on the illogic (and real harm) that results from the AGW advocates' opposition to nuclear power - a proven and safe technology ( being used ever more widely in India, China, Iran and Russia, and, except for France, oddly disappearing from advanced Western nations) .

I'll add another example of illogical conclusions -- your advocacy for the banning of shale gas extraction, above. As long as Europe and Russia produce and consume large quantities of coal ( and much of it rather low grade material - sub bituminous and lignite - with lower heating values and greater sulfur concentrations than the metallurgical grades found elsewhere ) there will be significant benefits, both economic and environmental, from its replacement with much cleaner natural gas. As we have found in this country, the replacement is easily and quickly done with low-cost compound cycle gas turbine plants, and the environmental benefits from this use of shale gas significantly and quickly outweigh all the environmental benefits achieved in decades of subsidies for wind and solar energy with a real cost 1/3rd that of the wind and solar sources, and about 20% less and half the CO2 emissions compared to coal.

Again, we don't really know how to accurately project the future state of the earth's atmosphere, however we also can't afford to take a chance on a variable shown to have adverse potential. Current "renewable" energy production and storage technologies are not sufficient to reverse the worst plausible projections for warming, and the economic cost of their wide spread forced application would do great harm to humanity. We need to exploit improvements and efficiencies where we can find them ( nuclear power is an example), and sustain incentives for the development of even better new technologies . Government mandates and subsidies for the use of conventional high cost "renewables" generally harm those incentives.

It would also be helpful to add more specific and technology based factual material to the discussion and less hyperbole & name-calling.

Polls from last showed that Brexit voters had a larger disbelief in manmade climate change than others, were also more likely to think media exaggerates agreement on climate science, distrust scientists and oppose windfarms. (Source

That is a lie. You did attack the science of climate change on this very thread.


You can look up the specifics whenever and wherever you feel like it. Why is it up to me to provide you with this material?

To call a lie a lie is not "name-calling". It is stating a FACT.

You are rather quick to accuse others of lying and appear to do so without any knowledge of the subjective elements of that accusation. There are words for such actions as well. What is the definition of the word "attack" as you are using it here?

I indicated specific errors on the parts of some advocates of catastrophic AGW and outlined rather clearly for you my own assessment of the issue. I don't consider those to be "attacks". As for your comments so far, ,apart from the matter of nuclear power, you have not engaged any of the specifics offered, and instead resorted to hand waving and totally unfounded accusations of deliberate and knowing deception. This does not constitute a rational discussion of this complex subject.

I'm a nuclear engineer with substantial advanced education, practical experience and interest in the physics and engineering applications associated with these issues, and I run an environmental engineering company that applies solutions for these issues on a daily basis. This stuff is real and concrete to me.

I defer to you for the definition of the word "attack". Between us you're the native English speaker after all.

I'm just doing a quick hit and run post here, not joining the conversation long term (I hope).

Saying someone lied is accusing them of being intentionally untruthful.

Often I get better results by just saying that "this claim is not true" without calling someone a liar.

Unless I actually believe that they are intentionally lying. But I've come to accept that most people actually believe the untrue things that they post.

I'm not taking sides about whether "whatever" is true or not true. It appears that you guys are discussing global warming? But I'm not going to read enough of the thread to figure out what you guys are specifically arguing about. I just peaked at the thread and saw there was a bit of controversy over accusations about lying and thought I'd offer some quick advice in that limited area.

Interesting point. Self appointed 'intellectual elites' often appear to be ready to believe that the unwashed, ignorant masses who may oppose their prescriptions for what is good for them, do so for the wrong reasons and do so across the board. Such correlations as those reported in the Guardian are likely comforting to them ( i.e. that wrong-headed Brexit advocates must also be opposed to the wisdom emanating from the bureaucracy about energy consumption and politically correct thinking.) .

At the same time elites over history have shown themselves to be just as susceptible to fashionable, but nonsensical, ideas about economics. politics and even science as are ordinary folk ( though they often pick different issues) , just as are ordinary folk generally pretty good at detecting nonsense from the elites that seek to rule them. Both are right and wrong with about the same relative frequency.

The guy says climate science is a religion, and then he says he never attacked climate science.... I call that a lie. How do you call that? Senility?

I represent no one, except my Ashkenazi genome. Have a happy Passover.