BajaNomad

Please Drop the Labels

Osprey - 2-26-2016 at 03:03 PM

Let me try again to get rid of the labelling. Doomsdayers versus Deniers. It has come to that. Short, catchy, compelling slogans have driven a huge wedge between really smart people who should be able to avoid linguistic traps. Smart people usually don’t bother to untangle buckets full of bits and pieces of facts and conjectures about anything so subjective as the weather/warming and its vicissitude’s.

I’m not one of the smart ones so I have no fear. Let’s see if we can agree on some things the two rivals have in common: both sides have seen reports, charts, graphs, videos, symposiums, presenting all sides of climate/warming controversies and paid proper attention to each of them as they had the time. Some of the information leaning toward nature, not man’s causation makes sense to even the most rabid Doomer while the same is true for Deniers; they dismiss some reports they don’t find convincing but they can’t really ague with some that show theory projections to be on target.

Each of the smart combatants have the latitude to choose to believe some areas of the hundreds of scientific specialty/division summaries and projections and they can also just as easily dismiss what doesn’t jell with other credible or empirical evidence they believe in.

THERE’S NO SLOGAN FOR THAT. The peanut gallery hasn’t studied anything, ever, but they scream the loudest in derision and shout the slogans over and over to stir the pot.

This is a universe more complex than doing the blindmen and the elephant thing here. Literally millions of people have studied the various forces of man and nature that are in question; that’s because there are so many systems in play, so many movements in an ever-changing puzzle. Some things seem to change in a wink while the keenest minds must strain to make sense of things that change when only measured by the passing of millions of years.

Are you so intractable that you would endorse and own every scientific study that upholds your view? Are you so dead set on being right about your opinions that nothing could change them? Do you like representing the label?

Maybe it’s the herd thing at work here; perhaps one on one over a couple of beers you might be less willing to argue every point.

Drop the labels. You both can’t be 100% right.



Udo - 2-26-2016 at 03:13 PM

I am seldom 100% right.

I am open to listening and will seldom contradict someone.

I feel good enough to know I am right, without having to prove someone wrong.


Thanks for the reminder, Jorge!

AKgringo - 2-26-2016 at 03:43 PM

I also have some opinions about the 'facts' that have been thrown back and forth over the many posts that this topic always generates. My opinions are not based on a formal education and research I have done, but on a lifetime of interest in, and observation of the various theory's put forth.

Due to my training in Avalanche control and rescue, I have an above average knowledge about how ice affects, and is affected by the climate, particularly in northern lattitudes. I have not contributed any of my observations and personal knowledge to these threads for two reasons;

1...Stirring the pot will not change any beliefs held by the readers here
2...It has nothing to do with sharing the enjoyment of Baja

Edit; Thanks Osprey for so eloquently stating what I have wanted to say for a while!

[Edited on 2-26-2016 by AKgringo]

Deniers, Doomsday and Delusions

MrBillM - 2-26-2016 at 03:58 PM

The problem with the (newly-created) popular definition of denier is that it already exists as a term for measuring fiber density. As in sheets.

More importantly, it is easily confused with Diener.

Leading one to assume you think that he's working in a Morgue.

[Edited on 2-27-2016 by MrBillM]

pauldavidmena - 2-26-2016 at 04:06 PM

I'm always right. Years ago, I thought I had made a mistake, but I was wrong.

4x4abc - 2-26-2016 at 04:20 PM

also Diener (German) = butler

sancho - 2-26-2016 at 04:33 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Osprey  










Are you so intractable that you would endorse and own every scientific study that upholds your view? Are you so dead set on being right about your opinions that nothing could change them?

















As you said, SCIENTIFIC study's, try as I might, it is hard to
get around virtually every group's findings, NOAA, NASA, CalTech,
Woods Hole, Scripps, that's enough for starters. Others like
to rely on their gut feelings, it generally has something to
do with the conservative political lean. I like having my mind
changed, I just never get a half way decent rebuttal. Example,
the most prolific poster here, wants to see a pier piling from
'50 to show the lack of sea level rise, this change happens in decades, not 2 yrs. That is how simplistic/ basic a
few here are. I'll stick with science. This topic has been
repeated WAY too much. Jorge this is beneath your usual
contribution, look forward to the next





[Edited on 2-26-2016 by sancho]

4x4abc - 2-26-2016 at 04:33 PM

why would one drop labels?

for example Democrats vs Republicans

both groups are presented with identical facts
and it still makes my head spin how the Dem or Rep followers argue for their decision by picking "their" facts

same thing about (man made) climate change, though a lot more complicated
some want to believe, we are killing our planet, others see changes but don't feel any responsibility

if I can not label the 2 parties - then what?

and Blondes? Can't call them blond any longer?

I think labels are just fine. As long as we keep talking to each other and behave as civil as possible. We may have to rediscover respect.

durrelllrobert - 2-26-2016 at 04:50 PM

"Each of the smart combatants have the latitude to choose to believe some areas of the hundreds of scientific specialty/division summaries and projections and they can also just as easily dismiss what doesn’t jell with other credible or empirical evidence they believe in.

THERE’S NO SLOGAN FOR THAT."
_________________________________________________________

My new slogan will be FMDIDGAF (as Reth Butler stated in Gone With the Wind, sorta)

bajabuddha - 2-26-2016 at 05:18 PM

I am unfortunately familiar with the thread you're referring to. I refuse to post even when I think I have a relevant contribution any more. I'll check in occasionally to see where the redundancy has devolved to. I just can't believe the OP would re-start such an a$$inine topic to begin with on BN. It creates its' own Global Warming with the amount of methane produced in it.
Takes the chill off my martini, and the flavor out of the olives. :no:

woody with a view - 2-27-2016 at 06:15 AM

their are always three sides to every point of view. yours, mine and reality!

mtgoat666 - 2-27-2016 at 08:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Osprey  
Let me try again to get rid of the labelling. Doomsdayers versus Deniers. It has come to that. Short, catchy, compelling slogans have driven a huge wedge between really smart people who should be able to avoid linguistic traps. Smart people usually don’t bother to untangle buckets full of bits and pieces of facts and conjectures about anything so subjective as the weather/warming and its vicissitude’s.

I’m not one of the smart ones so I have no fear. Let’s see if we can agree on some things the two rivals have in common: both sides have seen reports, charts, graphs, videos, symposiums, presenting all sides of climate/warming controversies and paid proper attention to each of them as they had the time. Some of the information leaning toward nature, not man’s causation makes sense to even the most rabid Doomer while the same is true for Deniers; they dismiss some reports they don’t find convincing but they can’t really ague with some that show theory projections to be on target.

Each of the smart combatants have the latitude to choose to believe some areas of the hundreds of scientific specialty/division summaries and projections and they can also just as easily dismiss what doesn’t jell with other credible or empirical evidence they believe in.

THERE’S NO SLOGAN FOR THAT. The peanut gallery hasn’t studied anything, ever, but they scream the loudest in derision and shout the slogans over and over to stir the pot.

This is a universe more complex than doing the blindmen and the elephant thing here. Literally millions of people have studied the various forces of man and nature that are in question; that’s because there are so many systems in play, so many movements in an ever-changing puzzle. Some things seem to change in a wink while the keenest minds must strain to make sense of things that change when only measured by the passing of millions of years.

Are you so intractable that you would endorse and own every scientific study that upholds your view? Are you so dead set on being right about your opinions that nothing could change them? Do you like representing the label?

Maybe it’s the herd thing at work here; perhaps one on one over a couple of beers you might be less willing to argue every point.

Drop the labels. You both can’t be 100% right.





You are a fool. The deniers have very little credibility, and grasp at straw to build the pathetic arguments they put forth.
Strong names and labels are perfect for describing the right wing in the USA - they are selfish bigots and nothing more.
The rest of the world understands the issues(s). Only the USA right wingnuts persist with their delusions and lies.

AKgringo - 2-27-2016 at 08:26 AM

'Labelers' are so judgmental, consider me a 'Dropper'!

bajacamper - 2-27-2016 at 09:37 AM

Quote: Originally posted by mtgoat666  
Quote: Originally posted by Osprey  
Let me try again to get rid of the labelling. Doomsdayers versus Deniers. It has come to that. Short, catchy, compelling slogans have driven a huge wedge between really smart people who should be able to avoid linguistic traps. Smart people usually don’t bother to untangle buckets full of bits and pieces of facts and conjectures about anything so subjective as the weather/warming and its vicissitude’s.

I’m not one of the smart ones so I have no fear. Let’s see if we can agree on some things the two rivals have in common: both sides have seen reports, charts, graphs, videos, symposiums, presenting all sides of climate/warming controversies and paid proper attention to each of them as they had the time. Some of the information leaning toward nature, not man’s causation makes sense to even the most rabid Doomer while the same is true for Deniers; they dismiss some reports they don’t find convincing but they can’t really ague with some that show theory projections to be on target.

Each of the smart combatants have the latitude to choose to believe some areas of the hundreds of scientific specialty/division summaries and projections and they can also just as easily dismiss what doesn’t jell with other credible or empirical evidence they believe in.

THERE’S NO SLOGAN FOR THAT. The peanut gallery hasn’t studied anything, ever, but they scream the loudest in derision and shout the slogans over and over to stir the pot.

This is a universe more complex than doing the blindmen and the elephant thing here. Literally millions of people have studied the various forces of man and nature that are in question; that’s because there are so many systems in play, so many movements in an ever-changing puzzle. Some things seem to change in a wink while the keenest minds must strain to make sense of things that change when only measured by the passing of millions of years.

Are you so intractable that you would endorse and own every scientific study that upholds your view? Are you so dead set on being right about your opinions that nothing could change them? Do you like representing the label?

Maybe it’s the herd thing at work here; perhaps one on one over a couple of beers you might be less willing to argue every point.

Drop the labels. You both can’t be 100% right.





You are a fool. The deniers have very little credibility, and grasp at straw to build the pathetic arguments they put forth.
Strong names and labels are perfect for describing the right wing in the USA - they are selfish bigots and nothing more.
The rest of the world understands the issues(s). Only the USA right wingnuts persist with their delusions and lies.


Who is more the fool, one willing to consider all aspects or one jumping immediately to name calling?

seaker236 - 2-27-2016 at 11:12 AM

I'm mostly a believer but I will examine other ideas, found this interesting, though probably the wrong place for it

http://www.eebmike.com/ice.pdf

4x4abc - 2-27-2016 at 12:55 PM

it seems like there is strong support for science here - at least verbally
but it also seems like nobody looks at the papers offered by various members
otherwise there would have been comments on the papers

instead the comments are personal
strange science

LABELS

MrBillM - 2-27-2016 at 01:21 PM

As Will once sagely said:

"A Turd by any other name would still smell the same ."

More or Less.

Whale-ista - 2-27-2016 at 02:34 PM

thanks Udo- nicely put.

People can disagree without being disagreeable.
Quote: Originally posted by Udo  
I am seldom 100% right.

I am open to listening and will seldom contradict someone.

I feel good enough to know I am right, without having to prove someone wrong.

Thanks for the reminder, Jorge!

woody with a view - 2-27-2016 at 03:03 PM

if 80% of the time you could be right or get 80% of what you wanted, wouldn't that be called a win?

think about it......

David K - 2-27-2016 at 03:52 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Udo  
I am seldom 100% right.

I am open to listening and will seldom contradict someone.

I feel good enough to know I am right, without having to prove someone wrong.


Thanks for the reminder, Jorge!


I am also with Udo on this!
Some people think I am for something or 'pushing' something (if it doesn't agree with their view) when I am often simply posting another side of the debate or what I see as evidence of the other side, and never saying anyone must believe what I believe.

I think that my 'opposing' replies cause extra angst with some because the evidence often so clearly refutes their beliefs. They post Point A and I reply with Point B. Now, instead of just leaving the two 'Points' alone... they come back and say I am wrong, Point B is wrong, or begin name calling!??

Of course, after they reply with Point A-2, then it usually gets me to reply with Point B-2... and the back and forth goes on. Neither the Point A folks or the Point B folks change each others' minds, so it seems?

It is good for Baja Nomad, however... as the more activity, the more chances someone will click a banner ad here and that supports keeping Baja Nomad online!

In the end, this is entertainment and can be educational!

Bajahowodd - 2-27-2016 at 05:02 PM

If bat .300 in MLB, you are a star.

BajaRat - 2-27-2016 at 07:37 PM

Thanks Jorge,
Unfortunately while we are busy clinging to our beliefs our planet and many of its inhabitants are being destroyed by greed and reckless behavior.
Man has and always will have an excuse for his actions :cool:

Assessing the Relative Balance

MrBillM - 2-27-2016 at 08:37 PM

When we look around the world and see lives being destroyed (primarily in the Third-World Cesspools), we need to ASK................

Whether those cessations are a plus or minus to an increasingly crowded environment where resources are a premium and prize to be claimed.

Yesterday (or ANY given day), in different locales, hundreds or thousands died of natural and unnatural causes and .............

NONE of us would have the slightest inkling that those deaths had occurred IF we didn't see or hear the news on our TVs and Computers.

Our lives would go on with our activities, pleasures and appetites unaffected and unconcerned.

Most importantly, our being concerned will, for the most part, not have ANY affect on the outcomes.

Relax and enjoy the fruits.

Let those elsewhere work it out among themselves and don't worry unless they come knocking with ill-intent.

As noted quite awhile back, "Today has enough troubles of its own. Tomorrow will take care of itself".

Or, something like that.

bajacamper - 2-29-2016 at 08:15 PM

You need to use caution with common sense. The ribbon wearers that care so much more than the rest of us might be greatly offended, even though they probably have not a clue to your thinking but they know they are opposed to it.