Carbon Capture and Storage could remove 1 ton per day

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly.

M: I think I made it perfectly clear that I temper my herd mentality, that going with the consensus does not imply herd mentality at all. The fact that you seem to think it does is where I think your bias and preference for alternative explanations may lie. You may have some unconscious need to be different from the consensus our of some hidden contempt for people. Many are different for the sake of being different. Some are just different because they are different. But in no case do I deny that new information alters old opinion and I'm not attached to consensus for any other reason than it's our best guess science today. I see no reason to defend that position and every reason why you have the job of proving your novelty.

DSF: Moonbeam, if looking at various sides of an issue and thinking for myself is being a "freak"?then so be it. But dude?just in case you didn't know?you live in a glass house.

Hehe, we always emphasize the true part of our thinking when we defend wrong conclusions related to such truth. It is good to look at various sides of an issue and it is good to think for yourself. What becomes a problem is when thinking for yourself leads to conclusions that arise from hidden prejudices, such as conclusions that are different because of some personal need, or conclusions that deny responsibilities one may otherwise have.

And I don't just live in a glass house, I live in a house of mirrors.

I'd appreciate it if you would spare me the armchair psychoanalysis?please answer specifically, what wrong conclusion am I defending?

You go from:

"Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts

To:

"and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly."

You have created a true, but unnecessarily fervent, almost religious, appeal to the progressive aspect of the scientific method, and somehow erroneously heaped the intended purpose of that methodology, to arrive at understanding that are in the best judgment of the evidence, into some sort of piled up herd mentality. The fact that a herd mentality can form around any point of view does not mean that anybody who holds that view does so out of herd mentality. You show biased reasoning. You show some sort of predilection for what may only be novel as if you fear thinking like others. I see it as some sort of ego problem. But then again, you do not want the benefit of another kind of science applied to you, apparently. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that.

If I understand you correctly...the wrong conclusion I'm defending is the fact that I used the phrase "herd mentality" to describe those who form their opinions based on the "consensus" of others? So...this is what has your panties in a bunch?

LOL, I present you with facts (which you obviously can't refute) and all you have is a trivial objection to my choice of words to describe those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject, much less evaluate the potential validity of "nonconsensus" perspectives. Wow...that's all you got? Surely you have better things to get all worked up about.

BTW...you conclude your post saying "There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that." For the record, I agree with you and I never said there wasn't scientific consensus. I'm not sure why you would say this unless you're totally misunderstanding my comments.

And lastly...I see that you still can't restrain yourself from your desire to personally belittle me with your pathetic attempts to assess my motives and shortcomings. Perhaps you should consider reassessing your own personal motives and shortcomings before inflicting your sagely wisdom on others. Just a thought. Peace?

No it isn't the fact that you used the phrase 'herd mentality' that is problematic but what the use of that term implies about your thinking. Look at how you try to phony up the issue. You claim to apply it to folk who base their opinions on the consensus of others as if those other were of some relatively equal standing rather than the scientists expert in the field and go on to criticize these folk as defective because they aren't aware of some minority point of view. Again we see your ego, it seems to me, "those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject" You have no idea how well others are informed who go with consensus. 'How dare people ignore what I think is relevant', but, you see, the consensus of scientists don't see it as relevant at all. They have come to a different consensus and that is the expert opinion. That's the opinion people who educate themselves in the matter are looking for. Your heretical, minority, faith based opinion may be of no interest to them.


You say you presented me with facts. What facts were those may I ask? Was it the fact that scientific consensus is sometimes wrong?

Lastly, because you hate yourself you will feel belittled regardless of what happens. I didn't arrive at my capacity to know this about you without knowing about myself.

You asked what you were missing and I said quite a lot because what you claimed to be missing was fully covered by the links in the original thread and had you read them and understood what was said you could not have been mystified at all were they were coming from. You just didn't like their opinions so what you did was basically to belittle them, as if their concerns were invisible and meaningless. Now you discover I have the same attitude to your oh so important to you, alternate reality.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly.

M: I think I made it perfectly clear that I temper my herd mentality, that going with the consensus does not imply herd mentality at all. The fact that you seem to think it does is where I think your bias and preference for alternative explanations may lie. You may have some unconscious need to be different from the consensus our of some hidden contempt for people. Many are different for the sake of being different. Some are just different because they are different. But in no case do I deny that new information alters old opinion and I'm not attached to consensus for any other reason than it's our best guess science today. I see no reason to defend that position and every reason why you have the job of proving your novelty.

DSF: Moonbeam, if looking at various sides of an issue and thinking for myself is being a "freak"?then so be it. But dude?just in case you didn't know?you live in a glass house.

Hehe, we always emphasize the true part of our thinking when we defend wrong conclusions related to such truth. It is good to look at various sides of an issue and it is good to think for yourself. What becomes a problem is when thinking for yourself leads to conclusions that arise from hidden prejudices, such as conclusions that are different because of some personal need, or conclusions that deny responsibilities one may otherwise have.

And I don't just live in a glass house, I live in a house of mirrors.

I'd appreciate it if you would spare me the armchair psychoanalysis?please answer specifically, what wrong conclusion am I defending?

You go from:

"Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts

To:

"and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly."

You have created a true, but unnecessarily fervent, almost religious, appeal to the progressive aspect of the scientific method, and somehow erroneously heaped the intended purpose of that methodology, to arrive at understanding that are in the best judgment of the evidence, into some sort of piled up herd mentality. The fact that a herd mentality can form around any point of view does not mean that anybody who holds that view does so out of herd mentality. You show biased reasoning. You show some sort of predilection for what may only be novel as if you fear thinking like others. I see it as some sort of ego problem. But then again, you do not want the benefit of another kind of science applied to you, apparently. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that.

If I understand you correctly...the wrong conclusion I'm defending is the fact that I used the phrase "herd mentality" to describe those who form their opinions based on the "consensus" of others? So...this is what has your panties in a bunch?

LOL, I present you with facts (which you obviously can't refute) and all you have is a trivial objection to my choice of words to describe those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject, much less evaluate the potential validity of "nonconsensus" perspectives. Wow...that's all you got? Surely you have better things to get all worked up about.

BTW...you conclude your post saying "There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that." For the record, I agree with you and I never said there wasn't scientific consensus. I'm not sure why you would say this unless you're totally misunderstanding my comments.

And lastly...I see that you still can't restrain yourself from your desire to personally belittle me with your pathetic attempts to assess my motives and shortcomings. Perhaps you should consider reassessing your own personal motives and shortcomings before inflicting your sagely wisdom on others. Just a thought. Peace?

No it isn't the fact that you used the phrase 'herd mentality' that is problematic but what the use of that term implies about your thinking. Look at how you try to phony up the issue. You claim to apply it to folk who base their opinions on the consensus of others as if those other were of some relatively equal standing rather than the scientists expert in the field and go on to criticize these folk as defective because they aren't aware of some minority point of view. Again we see your ego, it seems to me, "those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject" You have no idea how well others are informed who go with consensus. 'How dare people ignore what I think is relevant', but, you see, the consensus of scientists don't see it as relevant at all. They have come to a different consensus and that is the expert opinion. That's the opinion people who educate themselves in the matter are looking for. Your heretical, minority, faith based opinion may be of no interest to them.


You say you presented me with facts. What facts were those may I ask? Was it the fact that scientific consensus is sometimes wrong?

Lastly, because you hate yourself you will feel belittled regardless of what happens. I didn't arrive at my capacity to know this about you without knowing about myself.

You asked what you were missing and I said quite a lot because what you claimed to be missing was fully covered by the links in the original thread and had you read them and understood what was said you could not have been mystified at all were they were coming from. You just didn't like their opinions so what you did was basically to belittle them, as if their concerns were invisible and meaningless. Now you discover I have the same attitude to your oh so important to you, alternate reality.

There are well informed people on both sides of this issue. In previous posts I was talking about the 'herd mentality' laymen who are content to use "scientific consensus" as a hammer to criticize those who don't share the consensus viewpoint. My beef is with the herd who criticize MMGW skeptics solely on this basis without having made the slightest effort to understand the subject and the issues. Yes?I will criticize these people at every opportunity?does that somehow offend you?

And lastly, I have a homework assignment for you that involves a little introspection?honestly, what compels you to persist in interjecting your psycho-babble into every discussion? Do you think your "special insight" gives you the ability to imagine the innermost motives of others and a license and duty to enumerate their "perceived" failures as human beings?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
DSF: Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly.

M: I think I made it perfectly clear that I temper my herd mentality, that going with the consensus does not imply herd mentality at all. The fact that you seem to think it does is where I think your bias and preference for alternative explanations may lie. You may have some unconscious need to be different from the consensus our of some hidden contempt for people. Many are different for the sake of being different. Some are just different because they are different. But in no case do I deny that new information alters old opinion and I'm not attached to consensus for any other reason than it's our best guess science today. I see no reason to defend that position and every reason why you have the job of proving your novelty.

DSF: Moonbeam, if looking at various sides of an issue and thinking for myself is being a "freak"?then so be it. But dude?just in case you didn't know?you live in a glass house.

Hehe, we always emphasize the true part of our thinking when we defend wrong conclusions related to such truth. It is good to look at various sides of an issue and it is good to think for yourself. What becomes a problem is when thinking for yourself leads to conclusions that arise from hidden prejudices, such as conclusions that are different because of some personal need, or conclusions that deny responsibilities one may otherwise have.

And I don't just live in a glass house, I live in a house of mirrors.

I'd appreciate it if you would spare me the armchair psychoanalysis?please answer specifically, what wrong conclusion am I defending?

You go from:

"Look?I don't know if MMGW is fact or not?no one knows. The Sun and cosmic rays may potentially have a very significant impact on global temperatures?in past posts I've linked several peered reviewed studies on this subject along with info regarding current research underway at CERN. I would think a rational person would acknowledge the potential significance of ongoing scientific efforts

To:

"and temper their herd mentality opinions accordingly."

You have created a true, but unnecessarily fervent, almost religious, appeal to the progressive aspect of the scientific method, and somehow erroneously heaped the intended purpose of that methodology, to arrive at understanding that are in the best judgment of the evidence, into some sort of piled up herd mentality. The fact that a herd mentality can form around any point of view does not mean that anybody who holds that view does so out of herd mentality. You show biased reasoning. You show some sort of predilection for what may only be novel as if you fear thinking like others. I see it as some sort of ego problem. But then again, you do not want the benefit of another kind of science applied to you, apparently. There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that.

If I understand you correctly...the wrong conclusion I'm defending is the fact that I used the phrase "herd mentality" to describe those who form their opinions based on the "consensus" of others? So...this is what has your panties in a bunch?

LOL, I present you with facts (which you obviously can't refute) and all you have is a trivial objection to my choice of words to describe those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject, much less evaluate the potential validity of "nonconsensus" perspectives. Wow...that's all you got? Surely you have better things to get all worked up about.

BTW...you conclude your post saying "There is a scientific consensus on global warming and that is that." For the record, I agree with you and I never said there wasn't scientific consensus. I'm not sure why you would say this unless you're totally misunderstanding my comments.

And lastly...I see that you still can't restrain yourself from your desire to personally belittle me with your pathetic attempts to assess my motives and shortcomings. Perhaps you should consider reassessing your own personal motives and shortcomings before inflicting your sagely wisdom on others. Just a thought. Peace?

No it isn't the fact that you used the phrase 'herd mentality' that is problematic but what the use of that term implies about your thinking. Look at how you try to phony up the issue. You claim to apply it to folk who base their opinions on the consensus of others as if those other were of some relatively equal standing rather than the scientists expert in the field and go on to criticize these folk as defective because they aren't aware of some minority point of view. Again we see your ego, it seems to me, "those who've obviously haven't make the slightest effort to inform themselves on the subject" You have no idea how well others are informed who go with consensus. 'How dare people ignore what I think is relevant', but, you see, the consensus of scientists don't see it as relevant at all. They have come to a different consensus and that is the expert opinion. That's the opinion people who educate themselves in the matter are looking for. Your heretical, minority, faith based opinion may be of no interest to them.


You say you presented me with facts. What facts were those may I ask? Was it the fact that scientific consensus is sometimes wrong?

Lastly, because you hate yourself you will feel belittled regardless of what happens. I didn't arrive at my capacity to know this about you without knowing about myself.

You asked what you were missing and I said quite a lot because what you claimed to be missing was fully covered by the links in the original thread and had you read them and understood what was said you could not have been mystified at all were they were coming from. You just didn't like their opinions so what you did was basically to belittle them, as if their concerns were invisible and meaningless. Now you discover I have the same attitude to your oh so important to you, alternate reality.

There are well informed people on both sides of this issue. In previous posts I was talking about the 'herd mentality' laymen who are content to use "scientific consensus" as a hammer to criticize those who don't share the consensus viewpoint. My beef is with the herd who criticize MMGW skeptics solely on this basis without having made the slightest effort to understand the subject and the issues. Yes?I will criticize these people at every opportunity?does that somehow offend you?

And lastly, I have a homework assignment for you that involves a little introspection?honestly, what compels you to persist in interjecting your psycho-babble into every discussion? Do you think your "special insight" gives you the ability to imagine the innermost motives of others and a license and duty to enumerate their "perceived" failures as human beings?

Ah but you see it isn't just a matter that these so called informed non consensus experts are simply touting some alternate expert view, it that many of them have suspicious motivations, as for example doing research with money from oil and coal companies, etc, and that their minority opinions are used by another herd, perhaps composed of individuals like yourself, who enter conversations about GW to distract away from the theme, or even with pure motivations, a similar thing happens with that herd.

Fluoride, you know, will rot the brain and make the country go communist. One can never be too careful. So I have grown quite suspicious.

So when defensive people like yourself enter a fray and get their egos involved in some perspective and try to subvert majority scientific opinion and the obvious implications it may have for political action because that action may not be in their interest, or imagined interest, I don't get offended, I just speak up and identify them as voices of a non-consensus minority. They are outside the pail of current scientific best thinking. Does that offend you?

I find it interesting that my psychological babble seems to perturb you. A little honesty might be applied to that, no?

I might mention that if you feel like the worst in the world, even though in actual fact it's a lie, you will feel it is true and an anybody pointing out that you do actually feel that way will be perceived, via unconscious motivation to deny, as, say a psychobabbler or other derogative terms, and as somebody bent on pointing out you're a failure.

The sad fact is, you can't go up in a capsized boat and have to swim down. You have to go in the direction of your fears. The road to heaven is through hell. I say what I see. What you do with it is up to you. From where I stand your situation is hopeless and that's because that's exactly what we feel. I am a nobody who can't reach you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Ah but you see it isn't just a matter that these so called informed non consensus experts are simply touting some alternate expert view, it that many of them have suspicious motivations, as for example doing research with money from oil and coal companies, etc, and that their minority opinions are used by another herd, perhaps composed of individuals like yourself, who enter conversations about GW to distract away from the theme, or even with pure motivations, a similar thing happens with that herd.

Yes?I agree...there are herd mentalities on both sides of this issue. However?here's a question...is it not fair to say that some of the "so called informed non consensus experts" as well as some of the "consensus experts" may both have suspicious motivations? The operative word being "some" as this is the word you chose. Or do you have difficulty imagining that distinct possibility? To paint one side and ignore the other appears to suggest your personal bias. No? Perhaps this is also a good time for you to acknowledge the fact that many of the "so called informed non consensus experts" have no ties to the energy industry...instead of perpetuating this common herd mentality talking point.

Look?I've studied this highly complex subject for years?and I definitely won't pretend to even come close to understanding it all in it's complex glory?but I do understand concepts fairly well. Personally, I actually enjoy looking at both sides of technical issues and arriving at my own opinion. If you view this as "herd mentality" then you either don't understand the term or wish to twist it into something other that what was intended.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Fluoride, you know, will rot the brain and make the country go communist. One can never be too careful. So I have grown quite suspicious.

Fail.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So when defensive people like yourself enter a fray and get their egos involved in some perspective and try to subvert majority scientific opinion and the obvious implications it may have for political action because that action may not be in their interest, or imagined interest, I don't get offended, I just speak up and identify them as voices of a non-consensus minority. They are outside the pail of current scientific best thinking. Does that offend you?

Lol?so now I'm subverting majority scientific opinion. So what do you propose?that I keep my opinions to myself?or should I wave my hand in the air and identify myself as a voice of the non-consensus minority (with highly suspicious motives) so that you don't have to trouble yourself with the arduous task of identifying and stereotyping those who dare to voice opinions "outside the pail of current scientific best thinking"? Will that somehow make you feel better?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I find it interesting that my psychological babble seems to perturb you. A little honesty might be applied to that, no?

I find your psychological babble annoying as I'm sure most people do in these forums. I have not the slightest difficulty saying this to you and am mystified why you might think otherwise as implied by your question.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I might mention that if you feel like the worst in the world, even though in actual fact it's a lie, you will feel it is true and an anybody pointing out that you do actually feel that way will be perceived, via unconscious motivation to deny, as, say a psychobabbler or other derogative terms, and as somebody bent on pointing out you're a failure.

Blah?blah?blah. I asked you a direct question and you can't muster an honest response.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The sad fact is, you can't go up in a capsized boat and have to swim down. You have to go in the direction of your fears. The road to heaven is through hell. I say what I see. What you do with it is up to you. From where I stand your situation is hopeless and that's because that's exactly what we feel. I am a nobody who can't reach you.

Then perhaps you should give up...no?

 

[Moonbeam]

DSF: Look?I've studied this highly complex subject for years?and I definitely won't pretend to even come close to understanding it all in it's complex glory?but I do understand concepts fairly well. Personally, I actually enjoy looking at both sides of technical issues and arriving at my own opinion. If you view this as "herd mentality" then you either don't understand the term or wish to twist it into something other that what was intended.

M: I don't see why. I have studied it for years also and thoroughly enjoy it too. What I don't and haven't done is look a the evidence come to my own conclusions regarding any of it. I don't have the required expertise. I am open on the issue and accept the consensus as just that the consensus. I consider that coming to a conclusion myself would be irrational.

DSF: Fail.

M: Perhaps another of your minority opinions.

DSF: Lol?so now I'm subverting majority scientific opinion. So what do you propose?that I keep my opinions to myself?or should I wave my hand in the air and identify myself as a voice of the non-consensus minority (with highly suspicious motives) so that you don't have to trouble yourself with the arduous task of identifying and stereotyping those who dare to voice opinions "outside the pail of current scientific best thinking"? Will that somehow make you feel better?

M: No such acrobatics will be needed. I know the consensus opinion and can identify personal opinions not in line with it easily enough.

DSF: I find your psychological babble annoying as I'm sure most people do in these forums. I have not the slightest difficulty saying this to you and am mystified why you might think otherwise as implied by your question.

M: Nothing I said implied any conclusion I have that I would be mystified by your reaction about you finding it easy to speak. On the contrary I'm not mystified at all. I think I know perfectly well what is going on and you don't. That's why I asked for the honesty.

DSF: Blah?blah?blah. I asked you a direct question and you can't muster an honest response.

M: I see things about your question that tell me more than you realize. 1. Because a person asks a question does not mean they are open to an answer. 2. All questions contain the limitations of thinking adherent in the asker. 3. Questions are not neutral. They contain hidden motivations. They are not innocent as the asker will often pretend. 4. Questions often function as irrelevant diversions. 5. The answer to a question, while it may answer the question, may not answer the emotional need driving the question. This leads to cascading questions. 6. A question may answer itself.

DSF: Then perhaps you should give up...no?

M: Or perhaps I speak to a wall when I want a door to hear.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Or perhaps what you want is very thing you cannot give. I'm done. Peace.