OT: What denial stage are you in?

You're the only one talking fear. And you, who proclaims to be a problem solver, has apparently decided the only thing to do it be "terrified" or stick your head in the sand.

See my #4.

Reply to
lonmkusch
Loading thread data ...

Ostriches actually don't do this. The "head in the sand" thing is simply an expression.

The last four topics I created have an average of 104 replies each. So I don't think lack is the right word, for anyone who's keeping track.

Reply to
lonmkusch

Except that the ostrich - in reality - never buries it's head in the sand. If you think about it, it is a pretty stupid thing to do, like kill-filing people. There are posters whose posts I hardly ever read, but I don't advertise the fact, and I do check even them from time to time.

Lonmkusch and bloggs are - in fact - pretty brilliant, so I rarely respond to their posts, any more than I do to yours, and for exactly the same reason.

You do good work, and I hope that you keep on doing it, even if I don't feel the need to say so all that often. My main motivation is to go after nonsense, and you don't seem to post any of that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

I do deny that you can solve it... if indeed it needs "solving."

And likely you can't design any serious electronics, either.

--
John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
picosecond timing   precision measurement  
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
John Larkin

a fool in denial asks what stage of denial everyone else's in.

Reply to
tabbypurr

Photos of ostrich with head in the sand: "WHY IT'S NOT TRUE: Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand they wouldn't be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!

That means either the original topic was trivial, nobody agrees with you, or the topic drifted sufficiently to make it safe to comment.

My last few postings attracted one or two inane comments, mostly by "Fred Bloggs". That suggests that they were brilliantly argued and that no contradictory argument was possible or worth formulating.

Drivel: [1913 Titanic] All the experts say that the ship is unsinkable. Some of the peasants think otherwise, but what do they know? [2107 AGW] All the experts say that the good ship Earth is going to sink. Some of the peasants think otherwise, but what do they know that the experts don't know better? Kinda interesting how positions have been reversed.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Those stages are based on Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's work on death and dying. They're probably just as applicable to any decision making process intent on convincing someone that the though processes necessary to fight one's way through the first 4 stages, would be best avoided by simply accepting the inevitable 4th stage, presumably by abandoning all reason and logic. That might be a suitable for someone who is obviously dying from some terminal illness where no cures, solutions or alternatives are available, but not to an environmental issue, where there are cures, solutions, and alternatives. At best, the promoters behind the Yale film prize have fatalistically given up on solving the problem, endorsed the concept of the inevitable demise of humanity as we now know it, and short circuited any attempt to do something about the problem other than accept disaster as inevitable. For those planning to continue living on this planet for some time, the 5 step process should be something more like this:

  1. Define the problem. What is broken and why is it a problem?
  2. Understand the mechanism behind the problem. How does it work, what makes it happen, what can break it, and are there provable models?
  3. Accumulate possible solutions. What can be done, what does it cost, how many does it benefit, what are the side effects, and what needs to happen to make it work?
  4. Make a plan. Divide the solution in easily digestible pieces that can be implemented independently. If one part fails, it doesn't cause the entire program to collapse.
  5. Develop a schedule, select a fearless leader, and make it happen.

None of this has any of Kubler-Ross's fatalistic acceptance of eventual doom and disaster included. However, if you've decided that the planet is doomed and humanity will end no matter what we do, then perhaps her method might be easier for everyone. Instead of fighting the environmental problems to the bitter end, we can just roll over and quietly die, content in the knowledge that we followed a program recommended by a UK film maker.

--
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com 
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jeff Liebermann

Since John Larkin knows very little about anthropogenic global warming, his opinion that it "can't be solved" is worth just as much as his opinion "that it doesn't need solving".

Quite why the fat-head needs to post his ill-informed opinions escapes me, but he does seem to be too full of himself to realise quite how ill-informed he is.

Nor John Larkin either. Again, he thinks that what he cobbles together is "serious", but that just the reflects the fact that he doesn't know that much.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Not exactly comparable propositions. The Titanic got sunk because the ice-b erg it ran into scraped along the side of the boat, and opened up enough of the separate hull compartments (that were supposed to make her unsinkable) to let her sink.

Anthropogenic global warming is a very different kind of proposition. The e arth isn't going to sink. It's changing - as it always does - but rather fa ster than usual. We may not find the changes manageable, but they'll happen a lot more slowly than the changes that sank the Titanic.

And the experts are crawling all over the earth right now, keeping track of what is going on, which didn't happen on the Titanic. The people who curre ntly think they know better than the experts don't seem to be putting much effort into finding out what is going on - they concentrate of telling ever ybody that the measurements don't mean what the people who are making them think they mean, which isn't all that credible.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Ok let me get this straight. First you claimed there was a lack of respons es to my postings because few agree with me (or rather, because I errantly assume everyone agrees with me):

"Because few readers bother to respond, lonmkusch and bloggs assume that ev eryone must agree with their point of view and that their comments and logi c must be truly brilliant."

Now you're claiming one reason for the large number of responses is because , get ready for it, because nobody agrees with me!!!

"That means either the original topic was trivial, nobody agrees with you, or the topic drifted sufficiently to make it safe to comment."

HA HA that's funny. Truly brilliant.

Or that nobody cared. I don't know, you pick. You contradict yourself any way.

Kinda interesting how AGW hasn't been definitively disproven by any reputab le institution in over a century, since some of the first AGW research by A

Sure, we have amateur climatologists/meteorologists/etc on SED who are conv inced they have found major fault with over a century of research by actual , real scientists. But this is, subjectively speaking, complete arrogance on the denier's part. If they have something worthwhile to contribute, the n send it to the real researchers and prove your point.

There's a million excuses as to why we shouldn't believe real research on t his and most all are ridiculous and easy to disprove. But the majority of the deniers are either idiots who don't trust science, or they see this iss ue as political and correlated to their political beliefs.

Reply to
lonmkusch

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.