Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Maia »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:26 am
Maia wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:24 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:22 am

I'm not your mother. Grow a brain.
The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the sources of info are the very same organisations that promote climate change.
You stupid cow. Just go away.
You're not helping your case.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Maia wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:27 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:26 am
Maia wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:24 am

The point, which you seem to have missed, is that the sources of info are the very same organisations that promote climate change.
You stupid cow. Just go away.
You're not helping your case.
I wasn't aware that this was a courtroom. You are probably [redacted by iMod] on here at this time. You [redacted by iMod] to new heights.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Sculptor »

Walker wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:40 pm
Sculptor wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 4:39 pm Walker still puzzled by fishing magnets..Capture.JPG
Hey! How did you get that out of the family album?

:lol:
We are watching you.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6666
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Iwannaplato »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:39 am
Maia wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:27 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:26 am

You stupid cow. Just go away.
You're not helping your case.
I wasn't aware that this was a courtroom.
'Case' in English, both UK and US, can mean an argument.
case noun (ARGUMENT)
C2 [ S ]
arguments, facts, and reasons in support of or against something
That's from the Cambridge Dictionary.
If you are going to be a rude, sniping pedant, you could at least go off first and learn about the English language.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Walker »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:32 am
We are watching you.
You're one of them? :|
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8536
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Sculptor »

Walker wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:16 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 10:32 am
We are watching you.
You're one of them? :|
Mwahahahaha!!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by iambiguous »

Maia wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:10 pm
Maia wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 11:55 pm

The point about Dunwich, or indeed the Neolithic optimum, is that climate changes without the need for fossil fuel emissions. But the long term trend is definitely that the earth is cooling down, since its formation. If we can find a way of slowing this down, this is probably a good thing.
Okay, but...
Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now. Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases is estimated to potentially outweigh the orbital forcing of the Milankovitch cycles for hundreds of thousands of years. wiki

The next ice age almost certainly will reach its peak in about 80,000 years...
NYT
So, burning fossil fuels today might put off the next ice age...about 50,000 years in the future.

Meanwhile, burning them and, say, the next 50 years here on planet Earth?

And it is noted above that it wasn't climate change so much as weather erosion that sunk Dunwish.
Previous ice ages have come at fairly regular intervals, and last much longer than the inter-glacials, one of which we're in now. Right at the end of one, in fact, if we take the average previous durations. Their causes are too little understood to rely on Wikipedia.
So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crcucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the furture.
Maia wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pmBear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.
Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.
Maia wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pmDuring the Neolithic and early Bronze Age the climate was much warmer than today, and a great deal of land was under cultivation in the British Isles that even today is moorland and peat bog, unsuitable for agriculture. This very fact allows us to plot farm boundaries from that period, which have been preserved. This is definitely an example of climate change.
Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Maia »

iambiguous wrote: Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:41 pm
Maia wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pm
iambiguous wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:10 pm

Okay, but...





So, burning fossil fuels today might put off the next ice age...about 50,000 years in the future.

Meanwhile, burning them and, say, the next 50 years here on planet Earth?

And it is noted above that it wasn't climate change so much as weather erosion that sunk Dunwish.
Previous ice ages have come at fairly regular intervals, and last much longer than the inter-glacials, one of which we're in now. Right at the end of one, in fact, if we take the average previous durations. Their causes are too little understood to rely on Wikipedia.
So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crcucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the furture.
Maia wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pmBear in mind also that ice ages are only a recent phenomenon, compared to the age of the earth, and they're only going to get worse.
Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.
Maia wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 6:23 pmDuring the Neolithic and early Bronze Age the climate was much warmer than today, and a great deal of land was under cultivation in the British Isles that even today is moorland and peat bog, unsuitable for agriculture. This very fact allows us to plot farm boundaries from that period, which have been preserved. This is definitely an example of climate change.
Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.
+++So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crcucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the furture.+++

There may be scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry but there are far, far more paid by the climate change industry and these are the only ones whose voices are heard.

+++Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.+++

That's a bit short sighted.

+++Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.+++

Assuming that we're in any danger.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by iambiguous »

So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm There may be scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry but there are far, far more paid by the climate change industry and these are the only ones whose voices are heard.
The climate change industry? Okay, sure, if you are a scientist employed by a company that profits from solar or wind power energy sources, that might be the case.

But then this from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html

'The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

'Critics of a major United States climate report, including the president [Trump in 2018] and conservative pundits, have dismissed its findings with several inaccurate claims.'

'WHAT WAS SAID

'“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like.”

'— Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in remarks on CNN on Sunday

'“The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.”

'— Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas who was the former House majority leader, in remarks on CNN on Monday

'THE FACTS

'This lacks evidence.

'The federal government’s most recent climate change report, released last week, warned that global warming could cause substantial damage to the American economy, human health and the environment. The report has prompted some critics to dismiss climate scientists as corrupted by money, a common but baseless attack.

'“We were paid zero dollars to produce the national assessment,” Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report, said in an interview. “In fact, there was a reverse financial motive.”

'Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

'Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.'




Though I'm sure those who dismiss human involvement in climate change have their own assessments.

All we can do is to try to educate ourselves to the best of our ability and then take that existential leap to one or another set of political prejudices. In about fifty years [for those of us still around] we ought to know for sure one way or another. Or our children will.
Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm That's a bit short sighted.
How can pondering the climate tens of thousands of years into the future, based on what we are doing now, be shortsighted? I must be missing your point.
Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.
Assuming that we're in any danger.
Okay, we can all gamble on that. Or, rather, our children and then their children can gamble on that.

But common sense tells us that those corporations, theocratic dictatorships and thug regimes like Russia that "here and now" make tons and tons of money from the burning of fossil fuels are not likely to be the best source to go to in contemplating the extent to which climate change is or is not largely bullshit.
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Maia »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:43 pm
So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm There may be scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry but there are far, far more paid by the climate change industry and these are the only ones whose voices are heard.
The climate change industry? Okay, sure, if you are a scientist employed by a company that profits from solar or wind power energy sources, that might be the case.

But then this from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html

'The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

'Critics of a major United States climate report, including the president [Trump in 2018] and conservative pundits, have dismissed its findings with several inaccurate claims.'

'WHAT WAS SAID

'“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like.”

'— Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in remarks on CNN on Sunday

'“The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.”

'— Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas who was the former House majority leader, in remarks on CNN on Monday

'THE FACTS

'This lacks evidence.

'The federal government’s most recent climate change report, released last week, warned that global warming could cause substantial damage to the American economy, human health and the environment. The report has prompted some critics to dismiss climate scientists as corrupted by money, a common but baseless attack.

'“We were paid zero dollars to produce the national assessment,” Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report, said in an interview. “In fact, there was a reverse financial motive.”

'Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

'Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.'




Though I'm sure those who dismiss human involvement in climate change have their own assessments.

All we can do is to try to educate ourselves to the best of our ability and then take that existential leap to one or another set of political prejudices. In about fifty years [for those of us still around] we ought to know for sure one way or another. Or our children will.
Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm That's a bit short sighted.
How can pondering the climate tens of thousands of years into the future, based on what we are doing now, be shortsighted? I must be missing your point.
Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.
Assuming that we're in any danger.
Okay, we can all gamble on that. Or, rather, our children and then their children can gamble on that.

But common sense tells us that those corporations, theocratic dictatorships and thug regimes like Russia that "here and now" make tons and tons of money from the burning of fossil fuels are not likely to be the best source to go to in contemplating the extent to which climate change is or is not largely bullshit.
I don't base my opinion on information provided by corporations, dictatorships, nor indeed media outlets that promote the climate change agenda. I base it on my knowledge of history and prehistory.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:55 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:43 pm
So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm There may be scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry but there are far, far more paid by the climate change industry and these are the only ones whose voices are heard.
The climate change industry? Okay, sure, if you are a scientist employed by a company that profits from solar or wind power energy sources, that might be the case.

But then this from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html

'The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

'Critics of a major United States climate report, including the president [Trump in 2018] and conservative pundits, have dismissed its findings with several inaccurate claims.'

'WHAT WAS SAID

'“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like.”

'— Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in remarks on CNN on Sunday

'“The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.”

'— Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas who was the former House majority leader, in remarks on CNN on Monday

'THE FACTS

'This lacks evidence.

'The federal government’s most recent climate change report, released last week, warned that global warming could cause substantial damage to the American economy, human health and the environment. The report has prompted some critics to dismiss climate scientists as corrupted by money, a common but baseless attack.

'“We were paid zero dollars to produce the national assessment,” Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report, said in an interview. “In fact, there was a reverse financial motive.”

'Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

'Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.'




Though I'm sure those who dismiss human involvement in climate change have their own assessments.

All we can do is to try to educate ourselves to the best of our ability and then take that existential leap to one or another set of political prejudices. In about fifty years [for those of us still around] we ought to know for sure one way or another. Or our children will.
Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm That's a bit short sighted.
How can pondering the climate tens of thousands of years into the future, based on what we are doing now, be shortsighted? I must be missing your point.
Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.
Assuming that we're in any danger.
Okay, we can all gamble on that. Or, rather, our children and then their children can gamble on that.

But common sense tells us that those corporations, theocratic dictatorships and thug regimes like Russia that "here and now" make tons and tons of money from the burning of fossil fuels are not likely to be the best source to go to in contemplating the extent to which climate change is or is not largely bullshit.
I base it on my knowledge of history and prehistory.
Oh right, the same things you base your belief in magic on :lol:
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Maia »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:25 pm
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:55 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:43 pm



The climate change industry? Okay, sure, if you are a scientist employed by a company that profits from solar or wind power energy sources, that might be the case.

But then this from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html

'The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

'Critics of a major United States climate report, including the president [Trump in 2018] and conservative pundits, have dismissed its findings with several inaccurate claims.'

'WHAT WAS SAID

'“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like.”

'— Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in remarks on CNN on Sunday

'“The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.”

'— Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas who was the former House majority leader, in remarks on CNN on Monday

'THE FACTS

'This lacks evidence.

'The federal government’s most recent climate change report, released last week, warned that global warming could cause substantial damage to the American economy, human health and the environment. The report has prompted some critics to dismiss climate scientists as corrupted by money, a common but baseless attack.

'“We were paid zero dollars to produce the national assessment,” Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report, said in an interview. “In fact, there was a reverse financial motive.”

'Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

'Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.'




Though I'm sure those who dismiss human involvement in climate change have their own assessments.

All we can do is to try to educate ourselves to the best of our ability and then take that existential leap to one or another set of political prejudices. In about fifty years [for those of us still around] we ought to know for sure one way or another. Or our children will.





How can pondering the climate tens of thousands of years into the future, based on what we are doing now, be shortsighted? I must be missing your point.





Okay, we can all gamble on that. Or, rather, our children and then their children can gamble on that.

But common sense tells us that those corporations, theocratic dictatorships and thug regimes like Russia that "here and now" make tons and tons of money from the burning of fossil fuels are not likely to be the best source to go to in contemplating the extent to which climate change is or is not largely bullshit.
I base it on my knowledge of history and prehistory.
Oh right, the same things you base your belief in magic on :lol:
I can only speak from experience.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7219
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by iambiguous »

Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:55 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:43 pm
So, you are suggesting then that sources other than wikipedia can provide us with demonstratable arguments that the next ice age might be, what, right around the corner geologically? And this being the case, burning even more fossil fuels may be humanity's best bet here and now?

Again, many scientists who are not being paid by the fossil fuel industry to play down climate change are arguing that the next 50 years are crucial...not hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm There may be scientists paid by the fossil fuel industry but there are far, far more paid by the climate change industry and these are the only ones whose voices are heard.
The climate change industry? Okay, sure, if you are a scientist employed by a company that profits from solar or wind power energy sources, that might be the case.

But then this from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html

'The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

'Critics of a major United States climate report, including the president [Trump in 2018] and conservative pundits, have dismissed its findings with several inaccurate claims.'

'WHAT WAS SAID

'“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like.”

'— Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in remarks on CNN on Sunday

'“The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.”

'— Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas who was the former House majority leader, in remarks on CNN on Monday

'THE FACTS

'This lacks evidence.

'The federal government’s most recent climate change report, released last week, warned that global warming could cause substantial damage to the American economy, human health and the environment. The report has prompted some critics to dismiss climate scientists as corrupted by money, a common but baseless attack.

'“We were paid zero dollars to produce the national assessment,” Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report, said in an interview. “In fact, there was a reverse financial motive.”

'Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

'Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.'




Though I'm sure those who dismiss human involvement in climate change have their own assessments.

All we can do is to try to educate ourselves to the best of our ability and then take that existential leap to one or another set of political prejudices. In about fifty years [for those of us still around] we ought to know for sure one way or another. Or our children will.
Okay, but, again, that's still tens of thousands of years in the future. None of us are likely to be around then.
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 5:15 pm That's a bit short sighted.
How can pondering the climate tens of thousands of years into the future, based on what we are doing now, be shortsighted? I must be missing your point.
Okay, but five or six thousand years ago, there were far, far, far fewer of us around. The stakes for "humankind" now are considerably higher.
Assuming that we're in any danger.
Okay, we can all gamble on that. Or, rather, our children and then their children can gamble on that.

But common sense tells us that those corporations, theocratic dictatorships and thug regimes like Russia that "here and now" make tons and tons of money from the burning of fossil fuels are not likely to be the best source to go to in contemplating the extent to which climate change is or is not largely bullshit.
I don't base my opinion on information provided by corporations, dictatorships, nor indeed media outlets that promote the climate change agenda. I base it on my knowledge of history and prehistory.

Okay, but I don't see how that has much to do with the points I raise with you above.

And your knowledge of history and prehistory comes from the sources you choose to fall back on in examining and then in encompassing them. Just as those who believe the opposite of what you do can themselves maintain that they base their political prejudices on their own knowledge of history and prehistory.

The nature of political prejudices themselves in regard to value judgments derived existentially from dasein. The part here that we more or less overlap regarding and the part where we do not.

It's just that with this particular issue, it's still years before we will find out for sure who is closer to the actual reality of climate change.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:25 pm
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:55 pm
I base it on my knowledge of history and prehistory.
Oh right, the same things you base your belief in magic on :lol:
I can only speak from experience.
You never said why wicca 'wasn't for you'. Was wicca too 'wakky', even for you?
Maia
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2022 8:11 am
Location: UK

Re: Is magic related to electro-magnetism?

Post by Maia »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:02 pm
Maia wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:55 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 6:43 pm



The climate change industry? Okay, sure, if you are a scientist employed by a company that profits from solar or wind power energy sources, that might be the case.

But then this from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/p ... check.html

'The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

'Critics of a major United States climate report, including the president [Trump in 2018] and conservative pundits, have dismissed its findings with several inaccurate claims.'

'WHAT WAS SAID

'“The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive. And, of course, they don’t receive money from corporations and Exxon and the like.”

'— Rick Santorum, the former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, in remarks on CNN on Sunday

'“The report is nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.”

'— Tom DeLay, Republican of Texas who was the former House majority leader, in remarks on CNN on Monday

'THE FACTS

'This lacks evidence.

'The federal government’s most recent climate change report, released last week, warned that global warming could cause substantial damage to the American economy, human health and the environment. The report has prompted some critics to dismiss climate scientists as corrupted by money, a common but baseless attack.

'“We were paid zero dollars to produce the national assessment,” Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report, said in an interview. “In fact, there was a reverse financial motive.”

'Researchers working in climate change do not receive atypically large paychecks, nor do they strike it rich from grants. The claim also ignores that internal research from oil companies affirms the scientific consensus on climate change.

'Professors at public universities who teach earth sciences and environmental studies generally earn more than their peers in humanities and social sciences, but less than faculty in the economics, business and law departments, according to data from the Association of American Universities.'




Though I'm sure those who dismiss human involvement in climate change have their own assessments.

All we can do is to try to educate ourselves to the best of our ability and then take that existential leap to one or another set of political prejudices. In about fifty years [for those of us still around] we ought to know for sure one way or another. Or our children will.





How can pondering the climate tens of thousands of years into the future, based on what we are doing now, be shortsighted? I must be missing your point.





Okay, we can all gamble on that. Or, rather, our children and then their children can gamble on that.

But common sense tells us that those corporations, theocratic dictatorships and thug regimes like Russia that "here and now" make tons and tons of money from the burning of fossil fuels are not likely to be the best source to go to in contemplating the extent to which climate change is or is not largely bullshit.
I don't base my opinion on information provided by corporations, dictatorships, nor indeed media outlets that promote the climate change agenda. I base it on my knowledge of history and prehistory.

Okay, but I don't see how that has much to do with the points I raise with you above.

And your knowledge of history and prehistory comes from the sources you choose to fall back on in examining and then in encompassing them. Just as those who believe the opposite of what you do can themselves maintain that they base their political prejudices on their own knowledge of history and prehistory.

The nature of political prejudices themselves in regard to value judgments derived existentially from dasein. The part here that we more or less overlap regarding and the part where we do not.

It's just that with this particular issue, it's still years before we will find out for sure who is closer to the actual reality of climate change.
Yes, you're right. We can only form opinions based on what we experience, or learn from sources we trust.
Post Reply