Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[JimMorrison]

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore.

[licker]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore.

*chuckle*

What's the point in arguing?

If you want to enjoy some quality flame time I can point you to any number of lightly moderated places where you can get off your jollies.

I would imagine that any responses to your pointless and baseless fearmongering wouldn't be appropriate here.

[JimMorrison]

There's not any actual "flaming" until you use terminology like "pointless and baseless fearmongering".

All you had to say was that you had no possible way to debate the point. That you agree that it would be a catastrophe beyond your reckoning if even 10% of the tropical/subtropical/coastal peoples of the world were displaced, and/or if any significant amount of the far northern land that is becoming arable, merely mirrors a similar amount of previously marginal land that becomes unusable.

It pains me every time I see a human being who is so shortsighted, that they don't think there is any potential set of circumstances that they themselves might help arrange, which could completely and irrevocably change the world that they live in. It is that level of ignorance that leaves us with a body public who are mainly divided among 2 camps - those who would jolly drive us off of a cliff because they refuse to admit it exists, and those who have become too timid and numb to actually stop it from happening before it's too late.

[SlipperyJim]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

I must not be fun to argue with on this subject, no one wants to argue the validity of my points anymore.

Since you seem to be curious, I don't bother to debate certain issues on Teh Internetz unless some circumstance forces my hand. Global Warmism (and environmentalism, generally) belongs on that list. Religion and politics are the other topics I don't usually discuss online.

For an example of why, I refer you back to the highly-OT Bible discussion thread a while ago. I think we had a good discussion. My chief purpose was to dismantle a few stereotypes that the media has created. I don't know how well I succeeded, but I believe that I encouraged at least a few people to think beyond the cliche of evangelical Christians as being toothless, ignorant bigots.

Still, that thread took a lot of my time. Hours per day. The effort wasn't sustainable in the long term, and I had to retire from the discussion. Also, while we did a good job of remaining civil, the thread was starting to devolve. Much longer, and I think we would have had a flame war going. Better to let the matter drop before that happens!

To recap, I don't debate Global Warmism online because:

1. It's too time-intensive, and
2. People get too hot about it, so the threads tend to degenerate into flaming.

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you.

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy , all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy , all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

The functioning of Maverni inside a closed system that is very easy to grasp and which has a significant effect on the way people play a game.

vs.

The functioning of climate change in an open system that career scientists spend their entire lives attempting to grasp and which guides policy decisions that have significant effects on culture, capital, and lifestyles.


Ok I see your point now. perfectly analogous.

consequently, I should mention the major salience of the debate has nothing to do with whether their is actually global warming, but rather it cleaves along lines of "americans need to change their lifestyles" vs. "the rest of the world needs to change theres, or no one need change at all." As evidence, I offer only the rhetoric in this thread. Notice the consistency of those who insist GW is a problem, versus the the movement between several arguments of those who do not think it is a problem. From the latter, we see everything from there is no GW, to the sun is causing GW (thus we can't stop it with our actions) to GW is happening but is a good thing. In all of these cases, also notice that the consequence of the "truth" about GW, or lack thereof, is always to allow _americans_ to retain their lifestyles and consumption patters; on top of that sometimes the rest of the world will be required to make a large change (such as Bangledesh farmers moving to Siberia). Whatever the argument chosen and its ultimate effect on policy, it is never the americans that need to make a change.

Think about it. or just think at least. I see very little of that actually happening.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.

Regardless of discussions like this, regardless of who is right. There is NO valid argument to further delay a switch to ecologically sustainable way of life.

Actually there is. Economic costs. Switching to ecologically sustainable way of life now, with our current technology, could be more expensive than waiting a few years for better research and retooling the entire world then. Say if we wait for fusion technology, or the next generation solar cells, it will all be better.

(I don't agree with it, but it is an argument).

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

(I agree with this one, so while I'm a total longhaired smelly hippy. I'm pro nuclear energy).

There you have it. To arguments against.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they strongly disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Edited

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Not often on these subjects, at least not on boards not about these subjects (of course I'm exaggerating a bit). Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea.