OT: What denial stage are you in?

It is too late because it cannot be reversed. Mankind will be extinct in 10 years. Accept it.

Paralyzing fear and neurosis are always with us. Well, most of us.

Are you wallowing in grief over AGW? Sure sounds like it. I'm blinking colorful LEDs and thinking about lunch. Designing makes a boy hungry.

I'm in information gathering mode, not all concerned about it one way or the other.

You missed #7: Kill all the leftists and enjoy the "weather" >:-}

(I notice the recent postings stats... very low response ratios for lonmkusch and bloggs ;-)

Keep those killfiles going. ...Jim Thompson

Don't kill them, laugh at them. If you can't find them, look under the bed.

The right would be hilarious if they weren't so historically pathologically violent and sociopathic. It makes more sense to think of them and treat them as dangerous predators than a legitimate political affiliation.

Looks like most people have kill filed you and your dumb hotair posts.

Yeah, that's a problem. We really shouldn't kill file those we disagree with. Rather we should kill file those with whom we agree. We already know what they advocate. Repetition is boring. Eliminating these would save considerable reading time that could best be used arguing with those we disagree with. Besides, I like to keep an eye on the competition, and not waste time on supporters, who are predictable and usually trustworthy.

Yours is obviously not working.

Anyway, for those keeping track of stats, thanks for boosting mine.

You said it, not me.

I think you're confusing the 5 stages of grief. Regardless, ignoring small problems rarely makes them go away, they often get worse, I thought you should know.

You, sir, are refreshingly level-headed. Others could learn from you.

Getting terrified and hysterical about AGW, or carping about it on SED, won't Save The Earth either.

Man up, dude. Fear is for wusses.

t here on SED:

saster!)

t to acceptance)

ng wrong)

_of_grief

John Larkin goes in for pig-ignorance, and touts it as better approach. I don't think that anybody who accepts the reality of anthropogenic climate change is paralysed by fear or neurosis. Doing something about it is a lar ge job, and wouldn't be happening fast even if everybody was convinced (as most rational people are, though the ones that are going to lose money beca use they can't dig up as much fossil carbon as they expected are loath to a dmit it).

Only to John Larkin. The existence of AGW is unfortunate, but Fred Bloggs i dea that is going to cause the end of our world - or a t least human existe nce - is a trifle unrealistic. It's certainly changing our world - Harvey i s an example of one of the less desirable changes - but the degree of destr uction involved is adjustable.

John Larkin has this childish delusion that what he does constitutes design .

It might be charming in a five-year-old but it's downright creepy in somebo dy of mature years.

Killfile everything related to electronic design.

ight here on SED:

disaster!)

ount to acceptance)

being wrong)

ges_of_grief

all problems rarely makes them go away, they often get worse, I thought you should know.

Getting terrified and hysterical is never a good idea. There isn't actually any evidence that anybody here is either. Accepting that anthropogenic cli mate change is real, and campaigning to reduce it is constructive, and may help save the earth (or at least let us adapt to the coming changes).

Not really. Getting disabled by fear is not a good idea, but a realistic ap preciation that the current situation is bad and getting worse is a necessa ry component in getting motivated to make the situation less worse.

The people who claim "fear is for wusses" are advocating foolhardiness - wh ich does seem to be John Larkin's chosen attitude. Fear can be real and val uable - it may take courage to do the right thing despite being afraid, but the fear does motivate you to minimise the risks you run in the process.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is advocating the ostrich solution. Keep you head in the sand, but leave you bottom sticking up where everybody can kick it.

Nobody needs to respond to lonmkusch and bloggs - they get the story right, and don't need correcting.

Agree that kill filing those who agree with us is reasonable. But it is al so reasonable to kill file those that use the same arguments over and over while disagreeing. In other words I agree that repetition is boring , reg ardless of whether they agree or disagree.

Dan

John Larkin get his comedy from denialist web-site, though he doesn't seem to realise quite how comic this tendency is. "This is the kind of lie that John Larkin finds convincing" ...

That's where John Larkin would look for things to get worried about. Adults tend to be more realistic.

The ostrich and other flightless birds (ratites) evolved from the dinosaurs and have been around for roughly 65 million years. Modern humans (h*mo obnoxious) staggered out of Africa around 2 million years ago. Because of their longevity, ostriches apparently know something about long term survival that humans fail to appreciate. Since we're scheduled for extinction in 10 years (according to Bloggs), perhaps it might be useful to emulate the ostrich?

Yep, that's a problem and things are not as they seem. I've notice that whenever I, or someone equally astute, posts something original, of great importance, or highly profound, nobody responds or comments. It took me a while to understand that when someone actually does a proper job of argumentation by presenting irrefutable logic and properly substantiates claims with references, there's not much that anyone can do to respond other than agree. I try to emulate this style (with a highly variable degree of success) and find my brilliant postings attracting no attention. It's rather discouraging, especially since providing the necessary detail requires considerable time and effort.

When you read a long discussion on some topic, that has attracted the attention of even the reclusive lurkers, you can be fairly certain that the original topic was trivial or that the discussion has drifted into banality. Similarly, when you read a discussion that abruptly ends, the last comment in the thread is likely to be truly brilliant and well worth reading.

The lack of response to postings by lonmkusch and bloggs is indicative of the problem. Because few readers bother to respond, lonmkusch and bloggs assume that everyone must agree with their point of view and that their comments and logic must be truly brilliant.

Bottoms up please.