The new oceanfront property could be in... Arkansas and Pennsylvania. With the Gulf of Mexico expanded, there would be even more warm water flowing into the Atlantic as the Gulf Stream.

As for Michigan having a Mediterranean climate while California turns into a desert... people seem to love San Francisco -- but not Fresno.

Sure, we would get economic activity by building new coastal cities, but they would probably all look like Dallas or Seoul.

Originally Posted by pbrower

building new coastal cities, but they would probably all look like Dallas or Seoul

Seoul got no soul!!! :

Originally Posted by Odin

Now you are sounding like the Reddit Atheist Brigade with their rampant naive Scientism and tendency to insult people who disagree with them.

I don't spend any time on Reddit; but, your description sure seems not at all subjective and opinion based.

Scientism? If you can't defend your claims why not resort to accusing your opponents of something that appears to be bad.

As an unashamed Panpsychist I welcome you accusing me of "New Age Pablum", too.

Good lord. That was a waste of my time to read. Mind exists either because it "just does" or because emergence of mind is impossible "just because."

That was a prime example of why most philosophy is useless in the real world.

I hope you don't act like this towards your students.

I hope you stop beating your spouse.

See, two can play at that game.

Originally Posted by Odin

Your problem is that you're unconsciously using criticizing Eric's ignorance and strong tendency towards confirmation bias and wishful thinking as a platform with you can start attacking anything that contradicts naive scientism in general.

Naive scientism? Care to define? Oh, and also show that my criticisms of Eric's nonsense actually fit your definition? Or should we all just assume you know what the hell you are blabbering about?

Originally Posted by B Butler

[special effects, "Slips on Darth Varder Helmet. Raspy life support sounds begin."]

Feel the Anger flowing through you. Feel the Hate. Feel the Strength it gives you. Feel the Power of the Dark Side of the Force. Your puny scientific arguments are as nothing without them.

But be aware. Anger brings power. Power brings anger. They are additive, they shall aid you, but if you do not fully embrace them, you may not achieve your Destiny.

[/special effects]

Hmm... Not sure I should type in the middle of the night.

Feel the acting going on. Notice that he explicitly stated that the anger in the posts is used for a purpose and is not really personal anger.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With all due respect -- I have been able to disagree with Eric on astrology without getting into a heated argument, which is more than I can say with Holocaust deniers, Believe-It-or-Burn-in-Hell religious fundamentalists (the most fervent creationists are in this category), homophobes, True Believers in political personality cults, sexual sadists, ultra-nationalists, and deniers of global warming -- or a few years ago, those who denied the link between smoking and pathologies of health. Nobody is perfectly rational, and in view of the inadequacy of pure reason in creating a humane social order (there were people who could rationally plan the Holodomor and the Holocaust) we have a need for some irrational conscience. Just to have some enjoyment in life, one can't reject not-so-rational esthetics and love -- lest one rationally contemplate a Valium-and-vodka cocktail as youth vanishes and pains of arthritis take some of the fun out of life.

Yes, but did Eric actually engage your arguments and modify his claims based on your counter points or did he just keep repeating his original claim while feigning that he addressed your points?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Eric may be many things but he's no climate change denier. Where on earth did you get the idea he was?

Read my post again. I think you missed something.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That's possible, but nothing we can confirm.

It's perfectly possible to argue politely with the unscientific. I do it myself often. When I see someone doing this, I admire the effort as an attempt to educate.

Yeah, because you and Eric are here to learn about science! Sorry, as my forum handle indicates, I wasn't born yesterday.

When I see someone engaging in personal attacks against people who present ignorant views, I see someone attempting to silence rather than educate.

Yes, your persecution complex is a large part of your inflated ego.

And when I see someone engaged in personal attacks against people who present views contradicting the attacker's own ignorant and faith-based positions,

"Projection , jection . . ."

I see someone mimicking the behavior of hard-line fundamentalists, protecting their sacred truths against defilement by the infidel.

When your own position has been shown to be unsupported by evidence accuse your opponents of being the same. Standard creationist/denier operating procedure.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

"Projection , jection . . ."

queue up, "Conjunction, juntion . . ."
Odd. Video required.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

That was a prime example of why most philosophy is useless in the real world.

Yep, this sounds exactly like an edgy Reddit Atheist who ends up in /r/badphilosophy. You're own beliefs are based on ontological and epistemological foundations (logical positivism) you just assume to be true, and when others question your unconscious assumptions underlying your beliefs you lash out at them and call philosophy stupid. It's the smart person's version of classic American anti-intellectualism.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The new oceanfront property could be in... Arkansas and Pennsylvania. With the Gulf of Mexico expanded, there would be even more warm water flowing into the Atlantic as the Gulf Stream.

As for Michigan having a Mediterranean climate while California turns into a desert... people seem to love San Francisco -- but not Fresno.

Sure, we would get economic activity by building new coastal cities, but they would probably all look like Dallas or Seoul.

Michigan will probably be Humid Subtropical, similar to Memphis, TN. Mediterranean climates require being on the west coast of continents and have to get most of their rain in the colder half of the year.

This thread over in the Bad Religion Sub-Reddit does a good job making fun of people like our deal Vandal:

TIL Theology is the same as astrology and that empiricism is the only way to what is true.

Well, I have to say that in any disagreement between Vandal and Eric, I'm somewhat more likely to agree with Vandal. Like I said, Eric really does make a lot of mistakes when it comes to science. But he's a much nicer person.

This is kind of off-topic but I consider the topic to have been well and truly settled among thinking people, and the only remaining serious question is what we should do about it. We're likely past the point where reversing the input of carbon into the biosphere can prevent disaster. We should have been working on that decades ago. As it is, we may need to consider geo-engineering of some kind.

Anyway -- mechanistic materialism isn't a religion (good or bad), but it's a faith-based belief system and, like all faith-based belief systems, leads to irrationality. And quite often to unpleasant behavior in service to that irrationality.

Spring like weather in Seattle today, sunny and mild. According to the weather people on TV, we aren't supposed to have that kind of weather till April.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Eric, you should strive to be scientifically correct in your language. Technically, he can't be counted as a species unless he only reproduces with himself.

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

I dunno; folks like Vandal seem to have reproduced themselves in some abundance. I know, not by the normal methods. I'm not that scientifically ignorant

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

With all due respect -- I have been able to disagree with Eric on astrology without getting into a heated argument, which is more than I can say with Holocaust deniers, Believe-It-or-Burn-in-Hell religious fundamentalists (the most fervent creationists are in this category), homophobes, True Believers in political personality cults, sexual sadists, ultra-nationalists, and deniers of global warming -- or a few years ago, those who denied the link between smoking and pathologies of health. Nobody is perfectly rational, and in view of the inadequacy of pure reason in creating a humane social order (there were people who could rationally plan the Holodomor and the Holocaust) we have a need for some irrational conscience. Just to have some enjoyment in life, one can't reject not-so-rational esthetics and love -- lest one rationally contemplate a Valium-and-vodka cocktail as youth vanishes and pains of arthritis take some of the fun out of life.

I was thinking about this today too. You can't really escape the divine, even in the form of love or special experiences of beauty. I tend to think that people are consistent, but that is not true. Someone with Vandal's philosophy, were he consistent, could find no place for anything of value except scientific research and experiments; no love, no enjoyment of life just for the sake of it, no freedom in a world where everything is explained and caused by some force. But, I would wager that even Vandal can relax and have fun once in a while, and partake of the things that can't be explained; what we might call the irrational. Not that he wouldn't claim to be able to explain them, but most folks know that they can't be. And he does have some concern for real life issues besides scientific purity as he sees it. Consistency is something that eludes most people, contrary to what I or others might think. You can't put people in a box, after all, and the divine resides even within those who deny and ignore it or haven't the slightest conscious inkling of it. You might as well deny the wallpaper that you don't remember to observe while going about your business in your room or office.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, I have to say that in any disagreement between Vandal and Eric, I'm somewhat more likely to agree with Vandal. Like I said, Eric really does make a lot of mistakes when it comes to science. But he's a much nicer person.

From what I've seen, I think both of them provide a good presence on this board, even if the viewpoints are quite opposite. I don't have a problem with either of them. Well, I do have a problem with Vandal's username, but that's a lighter and unrelated issue.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

This is kind of off-topic but I consider the topic to have been well and truly settled among thinking people, and the only remaining serious question is what we should do about it. We're likely past the point where reversing the input of carbon into the biosphere can prevent disaster. We should have been working on that decades ago. As it is, we may need to consider geo-engineering of some kind.

Well, I think that's why the GOP and the right have been trying to make the existence of AGW an unsettled issue. They don't want anything done about it, because it would make their ideology unfeasible and threaten their core political base. So it's perfectly logical that they have pursued that agenda--even though it's an agenda that imperils the well-being of life on this planet.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Well, I think that's why the GOP and the right have been trying to make the existence of AGW an unsettled issue. They don't want anything done about it, because it would make their ideology unfeasible and threaten their core political base. So it's perfectly logical that they have pursued that agenda--even though it's an agenda that imperils the well-being of life on this planet.

Perfectly logical if they are thinking purely in the short term. One perspective is that the current heads of the GOP figure to be out of power before the backlash really hits, but can best maintain their current power clinging to old values.

The other perspective is that they are incapable of accepting new perspectives. They have been thinking and acting one way for so long that it is their only way. They cannot conceive of changing, or of change being beneficial.

Originally Posted by Odin

Michigan will probably be Humid Subtropical, similar to Memphis, TN. Mediterranean climates require being on the west coast of continents and have to get most of their rain in the colder half of the year.

I figure that the summer precipitation of the northern middle latitudes (like Michigan) would be yanked northward to areas around the Arctic Circle that would get their own fire-and-ice climates due to intense heating around the summer solstice although getting intensely cold around the winter solstice. As it is the long summer days in polar regions get about the same amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation -- not to be confused with insulation) as the tropics year round. Once the arctic ice vanishes the insolation warms the northernmost waters and lands around the summer solstice instead of melting ice -- just imagine how rainy such areas would be. The real middle latitudes would still get winter precipitation. Even without being on the west coast (think of parts of the former Soviet Central Asia near the Chinese border) get the Mediterranean pattern of rainfall even without a coast.

But even with shorter winters and a longer summer with slightly higher temperatures, soil moisture is greatly reduced and the ground parches. Higher temperatures imply more need for precipitation to maintain soil moisture. Tucson gets about as much rainfall as San Diego (which has mild summers), and San Diego is rather verdant. Tucson, whose summers are intensely hot, is desert.

Global warming will be bad for Michigan agriculture.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Perfectly logical if they are thinking purely in the short term. One perspective is that the current heads of the GOP figure to be out of power before the backlash really hits, but can best maintain their current power clinging to old values.

The other perspective is that they are incapable of accepting new perspectives. They have been thinking and acting one way for so long that it is their only way. They cannot conceive of changing, or of change being beneficial.

At my most cynical, I see the GOP as a well oiled machine that has no inherent philosophy other than winning. So, dramatic reversal of perspective is perfectly acceptable, if it leads to further success.

When AGW is fully accepted, the GOP will be leading the charge to shift energy use and mitigate the damage already done through government funded programs run by the same clique they support today.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I figure that the summer precipitation of the northern middle latitudes (like Michigan) would be yanked northward to areas around the Arctic Circle that would get their own fire-and-ice climates due to intense heating around the summer solstice although getting intensely cold around the winter solstice. As it is the long summer days in polar regions get about the same amount of insolation (incoming solar radiation -- not to be confused with insulation) as the tropics year round. Once the arctic ice vanishes the insolation warms the northernmost waters and lands around the summer solstice instead of melting ice -- just imagine how rainy such areas would be. The real middle latitudes would still get winter precipitation. Even without being on the west coast (think of parts of the former Soviet Central Asia near the Chinese border) get the Mediterranean pattern of rainfall even without a coast.

But even with shorter winters and a longer summer with slightly higher temperatures, soil moisture is greatly reduced and the ground parches. Higher temperatures imply more need for precipitation to maintain soil moisture. Tucson gets about as much rainfall as San Diego (which has mild summers), and San Diego is rather verdant. Tucson, whose summers are intensely hot, is desert.

Global warming will be bad for Michigan agriculture.

Forests will be the most impacted, because trees grow slowly and most trees grow in limited climate ranges. I assume hardwoods will be the most impacted.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At my most cynical, I see the GOP as a well oiled machine that has no inherent philosophy other than winning. So, dramatic reversal of perspective is perfectly acceptable, if it leads to further success.

When AGW is fully accepted, the GOP will be leading the charge to shift energy use and mitigate the damage already done through government funded programs run by the same clique they support today.

I don't think parties can depart easily from the ideologies, attitudes and values of their base supporters. So, it won't switch unless the people who support them switch. The other party already represents the other philosophy. In my opinion, generally-speaking the GOP will not support government programs in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by Odin

As an unashamed Panpsychist I welcome you accusing me of "New Age Pablum", too.

You are a panpsychist? Are you sure you want to get that close to me philosophically?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't think parties can depart easily from the ideologies, attitudes and values of their base supporters. So, it won't switch unless the people who support them switch. The other party already represents the other philosophy. In my opinion, generally-speaking the GOP will not support government programs in the foreseeable future.

In the political arena, philosophy is highly overrated. Both parties have morphed over the last few decades. Let's use the Republicans as the example here.

The GOP was the pacifist party. Then it was the paranoid, America First party. Then it was the Globalist party. Now, it's starting back towards the America First state again. Skipping the 180 they did on race in the Nixon years, I'll move on to the party of business that favored tariffs ... until it didn't. Then it went from the small-business party to the servants of great wealth. If Eisenhower was an agnostic (or maybe an atheist), trace your way through the solid-Protestant to evangelical shift since then.

During all of this, the most loyal Republicans never blinked an eye. It was always, "Hooray for our team". Nothing else mattered then or now. If asked, the GOP stands for whatever the party loyalist says it does, even though it may in fact campaign on the exact opposite platform. The Dems are similar, though a bit less dramatic.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

In the political arena, philosophy is highly overrated. Both parties have morphed over the last few decades. Let's use the Republicans as the example here.

The GOP was the pacifist party. Then it was the paranoid, America First party. Then it was the Globalist party. Now, it's starting back towards the America First state again. Skipping the 180 they did on race in the Nixon years, I'll move on to the party of business that favored tariffs ... until it didn't. Then it went from the small-business party to the servants of great wealth. If Eisenhower was an agnostic (or maybe an atheist), trace your way through the solid-Protestant to evangelical shift since then.

At a time when the public is stalemated by an ideological divide, the parties have come to represent them. The philosophy of parties is not set in stone, but they find a spot where they can represent some faction or another. Now the teams are set by the divisions of the people. In the 4T, nothing is flexible anymore. The struggle is set and the two sides have dug in. One side must win.

During all of this, the most loyal Republicans never blinked an eye. It was always, "Hooray for our team". Nothing else mattered then or now. If asked, the GOP stands for whatever the party loyalist says it does, even though it may in fact campaign on the exact opposite platform. The Dems are similar, though a bit less dramatic.

The people shift their loyalties gradually, according to which faction the party decides to represent. Very few people vote for a party just because it's a party. Ultimately, the people decide, not the politicians; the latter just go which way the weather vane points. Formerly loyal Republicans have blinked, and many have switched parties; same with Democrats. Things are lined up for the fight. It's a 4T. People are going to have to put their fortunes and their sacred honor on the line.