Game of Thrones and Climate Change

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The imminent climate change faced by the continent of Westeros is a long period of very cold weather (and various scary things associated with it, like the White Walkers). "Winter is Coming," as the family motto of the noble House Stark in the north puts it. The defenders against the scary things are "The Night's Watch." The various factions who represent different parts of the country are too busy fighting for power to pay any attention to warnings about climate change and its grim consequences. Oh wait, maybe that's America.

On Earth, the imminent climate change we face is a long period of increasingly hot weather. "Global warming is coming" as we've been warned for decades by the noble house of climate scientists, who generally get ignored, bullied, and even slaughtered at weddings. Oh wait, that's the Starks. Maybe the scientists are more like the Night's Watch, stoically defending against the climate science deniers and disinformers, whose undead talking points are almost almost impossible to kill.

Link to read more.

 

[Lone Clone]

The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely natural and has happened before.

 

[BubsFinn]

It is only comparable if the Starks had said "Winter is coming, no wait, summer. Summer is coming. Well, not really summer. More like Fall and Spring over and over again, with lots of tornados and hurricanes. Well, not "lots" of them. But the ones we will have will be more intense."

 

[naturalmwa]

We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

 

[HallofFame]

Does that make Al Gore the fat one who bangs the retard?

 

[Aegon_Targaryen]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely natural and has happened before.

And you could also say that maybe winter is needed......considering all the madness that happens despite it not being here just yet.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by Aegon_Targaryen:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely natural and has happened before.

And you could also say that maybe winter is needed......considering all the madness that happens despite it not being here just yet.

It's all those dragon farts.

 

[YellowSnow51]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

The debate to me has never been "is CC real or happening". The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not. So far, I'm winning that one.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

The debate to me has never been "is CC real or happening". The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not. So far, I'm winning that one.

That would be a welcome change in the debate around here.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

The debate to me has never been "is CC real or happening". The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not. So far, I'm winning that one.

I'm not going to challenge you on whether or not that really reflects the positions you've taken over the years. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. But it's clear that we are already seeing some of or cons (and others) shifting ground to make their previous denial seem less stupid.

But what do you mean by "The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not"? Who is "stealing" money from you and who are these people getting your stolen money who have nothing to do with the debate?

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

The debate to me has never been "is CC real or happening". The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not. So far, I'm winning that one.

I'm not going to challenge you on whether or not that really reflects the positions you've taken over the years. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. But it's clear that we are already seeing some of or cons (and others) shifting ground to make their previous denial seem less stupid.

But what do you mean by "The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not"? Who is "stealing" money from you and who are these people getting your stolen money who have nothing to do with the debate?

Whose position has changed? Mine hasn't changed on anything substantive related to the issue of climate change since I read Dixie Lee Ray's book 25 years ago. There's been no reason to change it, one way or the other.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

The debate to me has never been "is CC real or happening". The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not. So far, I'm winning that one.

I'm not going to challenge you on whether or not that really reflects the positions you've taken over the years. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. But it's clear that we are already seeing some of or cons (and others) shifting ground to make their previous denial seem less stupid.

But what do you mean by "The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not"? Who is "stealing" money from you and who are these people getting your stolen money who have nothing to do with the debate?

Whose position has changed? Mine hasn't changed on anything substantive related to the issue of climate change since I read Dixie Lee Ray's book 25 years ago. There's been no reason to change it, one way or the other.

Well, you are still off base. But you have toned down your resistance quite a bit in just the last couple of years. Facts have a way of having that effect, eventually.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:

Originally posted by YellowSnow51:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:
We already won this debate, they gave up.

"The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it's true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists"

The debate to me has never been "is CC real or happening". The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not. So far, I'm winning that one.

I'm not going to challenge you on whether or not that really reflects the positions you've taken over the years. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. But it's clear that we are already seeing some of or cons (and others) shifting ground to make their previous denial seem less stupid.

But what do you mean by "The debate is whether or not stealing money from me to give it away to people who have nothing to do with the debate helps solve CC or not"? Who is "stealing" money from you and who are these people getting your stolen money who have nothing to do with the debate?

Whose position has changed? Mine hasn't changed on anything substantive related to the issue of climate change since I read Dixie Lee Ray's book 25 years ago. There's been no reason to change it, one way or the other.

Well, you are still off base. But you have toned down your resistance quite a bit in just the last couple of years. Facts have a way of having that effect, eventually.

You have me confused with some other poster.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

Ouch, that's going to leave a mark.

 

[BubsFinn]

And what truth is that? Are you suggesting that climate change is not natural and hasn't happened before? The Great Lakes might disagree with that idea.
I'm afraid no amount of science can definitively prove exactly how much man is or is not contributing to climate change.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

Of course I believe it. Are you taking the position that humans are not part of nature? Are you really so married to being argumentative that you can't think?

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

Of course I believe it. Are you taking the position that humans are not part of nature? Are you really so married to being argumentative that you can't think?

Humans, eating and shitting are part of nature.

THIS isn't "entirely natural", and a 2nd grader can figure that out.

Dude, grow up. Aren't you like 75 years old? Join the rest of the adults at the big kid table where logic and evidence go ahead of political motivations.

 

[txhawk I]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

Of course I believe it. Are you taking the position that humans are not part of nature? Are you really so married to being argumentative that you can't think?

Humans, eating and shitting are part of nature.

THIS isn't "entirely natural", and a 2nd grader can figure that out.

Dude, grow up. Aren't you like 75 years old? Join the rest of the adults at the big kid table where logic and evidence go ahead of political motivations.

Oh look....another cut and paste job by slieb. And what's with the name calling and personal attacks?

You must be the smartest man on here!

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by txhawk I:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

Of course I believe it. Are you taking the position that humans are not part of nature? Are you really so married to being argumentative that you can't think?

Humans, eating and shitting are part of nature.

THIS isn't "entirely natural", and a 2nd grader can figure that out.

Dude, grow up. Aren't you like 75 years old? Join the rest of the adults at the big kid table where logic and evidence go ahead of political motivations.

Oh look....another cut and paste job by slieb. And what's with the name calling and personal attacks?

You must be the smartest man on here!

Are you really so stupid that you can't differentiate between posting a picture and cutting and pasting?

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by BubsFinn:
And what truth is that? Are you suggesting that climate change is not natural and hasn't happened before? The Great Lakes might disagree with that idea.
I'm afraid no amount of science can definitively prove exactly how much man is or is not contributing to climate change.

I'm sorry to inform you that your team has abandoned you on this issue. The science is settled, it's time to start talking about solutions.

 

[txhawk I]

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by BubsFinn:
And what truth is that? Are you suggesting that climate change is not natural and hasn't happened before? The Great Lakes might disagree with that idea.
I'm afraid no amount of science can definitively prove exactly how much man is or is not contributing to climate change.

I'm sorry to inform you that your team has abandoned you on this issue. The science is settled, it's time to start talking about solutions. You really mean "the science has been bought and paid for" don't you?

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
The parallels are indeed eerie. In GOT, as in the real world, the climate change is entirely[/B] natural and has happened before.

Surely you don't really believe this, right? Are you really that married to your politics that you can't face truth?

Of course I believe it. Are you taking the position that humans are not part of nature? Are you really so married to being argumentative that you can't think?

Humans, eating and shitting are part of nature.

THIS isn't "entirely natural", and a 2nd grader can figure that out.

Dude, grow up. Aren't you like 75 years old? Join the rest of the adults at the big kid table where logic and evidence go ahead of political motivations.

I will cut you slack, because (a) you are late to the party, so you do now know what I and Parser have said on this subject in the past, and (2) as an aspiring lawyer, you are honing your obnoxicity and snarkiness for professional reasons.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

I will cut you slack, because (a) you are late to the party, so you do now know what I and Parser have said on this subject in the past, and (2) as an aspiring lawyer, you are honing your obnoxicity and snarkiness for professional reasons.

Look. All you have to do is speak intelligently, and I wouldn't say a word. I only call you out when you're so outlandish that literally no one can believe what is coming out of your mouth.

Let's start here.

Do you honestly believe that the gases we've released have absolutely no effect on our climate? If you want to make the argument that others make about costs, who is driving this, the effects being overstated... I'll listen. If you want to say that we've done nothing to change the climate, I'm afraid I'll have to call a spade a spade.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

I will cut you slack, because (a) you are late to the party, so you do now know what I and Parser have said on this subject in the past, and (2) as an aspiring lawyer, you are honing your obnoxicity and snarkiness for professional reasons.

Look. All you have to do is speak intelligently, and I wouldn't say a word. I only call you out when you're so outlandish that literally no one can believe what is coming out of your mouth.

Let's start here.

Do you honestly believe that the gases we've released have absolutely no effect on our climate? If you want to make the argument that others make about costs, who is driving this, the effects being overstated... I'll listen. If you want to say that we've done nothing to change the climate, I'm afraid I'll have to call a spade a spade.

No, I wouldn't be surprised if human activity has had an effect. It certainly has created "hot spots" where people gather in large numbers and cover the ground with concrete. That's why nobody with any common sense would take temperature measurements there and extrapolate them to the rest of the world.

You seem to be taking exception to my characterization of human activity as a natural cause. I can understand that.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by txhawk I:

Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by BubsFinn:
And what truth is that? Are you suggesting that climate change is not natural and hasn't happened before? The Great Lakes might disagree with that idea.
I'm afraid no amount of science can definitively prove exactly how much man is or is not contributing to climate change.

I'm sorry to inform you that your team has abandoned you on this issue. The science is settled, it's time to start talking about solutions. You really mean "the science has been bought and paid for" don't you?

Sure, if you want to claim your side sold out, I'll take it and call that a win.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

You seem to be taking exception to my characterization of human activity as a natural cause. I can understand that.

The English language would take exception to that characterization.

I'll move on, because if that's all you were trying to say, I guess I'll chalk it up to a senior moment.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

You seem to be taking exception to my characterization of human activity as a natural cause. I can understand that.

The English language would take exception to that characterization.

I'll move on, because if that's all you were trying to say, I guess I'll chalk it up to a senior moment.

OK.

I dunno, though....if "natural" isn't right, maybe what I should have said is "inevitable" or "predictable" or something like that.

 

[txhawk I]

Aspiring Attorney... now I understand where your sense of entitlement and arrogance comes from.

So when do you think you'll be ready to chase ambliances?

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by txhawk I:
Aspiring Attorney... now I understand where your sense of entitlement and arrogance comes from.

So when do you think you'll be ready to chase ambliances?

Lol.

Well, I'm sure if I ever do decide to chase ambulances, I won't have to worry about any competition from you, since you can't even spell the word.

 

[slieb85]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

You seem to be taking exception to my characterization of human activity as a natural cause. I can understand that.

The English language would take exception to that characterization.

I'll move on, because if that's all you were trying to say, I guess I'll chalk it up to a senior moment.

OK.

I dunno, though....if "natural" isn't right, maybe what I should have said is "inevitable" or "predictable" or something like that.

Well that's kinda interesting.

So, you're saying that it's inevitable or predictable that the climate would change due to how we treat it, using your examples of "hot zones of concrete", but you're unwilling to even entertain that the climate would change due to how we treat it, using the more common example of carbon emissions?

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by slieb85:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

You seem to be taking exception to my characterization of human activity as a natural cause. I can understand that.

The English language would take exception to that characterization.

I'll move on, because if that's all you were trying to say, I guess I'll chalk it up to a senior moment.

OK.

I dunno, though....if "natural" isn't right, maybe what I should have said is "inevitable" or "predictable" or something like that.

Well that's kinda interesting.

So, you're saying that it's inevitable or predictable that the climate would change due to how we treat it, using your examples of "hot zones of concrete", but you're unwilling to even entertain that the climate would change due to how we treat it, using the more common example of carbon emissions?

I am not unwilling to entertain virtually any theory.

I have said on many occasions that I lack the education and training to make an informed judgment on the science. For all I know, the most extreme AGW theories may be correct. My skepticism comes from the behavior of the warmists, many of whom seem to have more in common with snake oil salesmen than scientists.

For instance, what would you say is the common example of carbon emissions? It's changed dramatically since the temperatures didn't match what the computer models predicted. And I think I recall reading that studies of glacial ice show that increases in carbon dioxide followed, not preceded, other warming periods.

One aspect of the AGW cult that makes me skeptical is the way it reacts to realities that don't meet predictions. I would think a scientist would go back to see where he erred in constructing his theory. These guys, on the other hand, go to great lengths to get the new data to fit the old theory.

When Algore's movie came out, it was treated like holy writ. Educators used it as a teaching tool. He shared in a Nobel prize. When it turned out that a great deal of it was baloney, what was the reaction? On this board, he was dismissed as "not a real scientist" as if nobody ever paid any attention to him.

Bottom line, do I think it's good to pump a bunch of crap into the air? No. And I think if these things really are going to happen, what we ought to be doing is preparing for them, not spending all our time, energy and resources trying to modify a lifestyle that probably can't be modified enough to make any difference, anyway. Especially since the biggest producers of the crap aren't on board. But that doesn't fit the political agenda of the people pushing the subject.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Never mind that the true elephant in the room is ocean acidification, not GW...........and that's completely on humans.

 

[Lone Clone]

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
Never mind that the true elephant in the room is ocean acidification, not GW...........and that's completely on humans.

The sun is going to burn out sometime. That's not our fault.

 

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
Never mind that the true elephant in the room is ocean acidification, not GW...........and that's completely on humans.

The sun is going to burn out sometime. That's not our fault.

Ted Cruz probably disagrees.