The Evils of Climate Enthusiasm

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

longview said:
Actually you have not quoted what Hansen may or may not have said, other than a comment he made
year later stating what he thought the question was.

First of all, your calling people liars and have cited NOTHING, a goose egg, you're making completely baseless accusations against several people then demanding I prove your baseless, evidence-free accusations wrong. That is BS.

Second, the ONLY two people who can "quote what Hansen may or may not have said" are 1) Hansen, and 2) Reiss. The link I gave you has both of them saying the prediction was based on 40 years and doubling. I'll quote it. This is Hansen speaking.

Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to
speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount. Michaels
has it as 20 years, not 40 years, with no mention of doubled CO2. Reiss verified this fact to me, but he later sent the
message: "I went back to my book and re-read the interview I had with you. I am embarrassed to say that although
the book text is correct, in remembering our original conversation, during a casual phone interview with a Salon
magazine reporter in 2001 I was off in years. What I asked you originally at your office window was for a prediction
of what Broadway would look like in 40 years, not 20. But when I spoke to the Salon reporter 10 years later -
probably because I'd been watching the predictions come true, I remembered it as a 20 year question." So give
Michaels a pass on this one -- assume that he reads Salon, but he did not check the original source, Reiss' book.

This is Reiss quoted by Skeptical Science:

Bob Reiss reports the conversation as follows:

"When I interviewe**d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I'd been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn't asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn't an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio**n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm."

Do you have ANY evidence Hansen, Reiss, or Skeptical Science is lying here? If you do, present it. If not, asserting someone's a liar without evidence is pathetic and intellectually cowardly. That's especially true when you have cited NOTHING.

If the speculation was a combination event, 2028 and CO2 levels doubled, then there
should be his answer to that speculated scenario.
The reality is the Hansen showed Congress several CO2 scenarios,
none of which included the amount of warming necessary to flood the west side highway by 2100.

He's written a paper I referred to earlier. If you have issues with his scientific conclusions, present them. Otherwise, you're just pulling assertions from your rear backed by nothing.

longview · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
First of all, your calling people liars and have cited NOTHING, a goose egg, you're making completely baseless accusations against several people then demanding I prove your baseless, evidence-free accusations wrong. That is BS.

Second, the ONLY two people who can "quote what Hansen may or may not have said" are 1) Hansen, and 2) Reiss. The link I gave you has both of them saying the prediction was based on 40 years and doubling. I'll quote it. This is Hansen speaking.

This is Reiss quoted by Skeptical Science:

Do you have ANY evidence Hansen, Reiss, or Skeptical Science is lying here? If you do, present it. If not, asserting someone's a liar without evidence is pathetic and intellectually cowardly. That's especially true when you have cited NOTHING.

He's written a paper I referred to earlier. If you have issues with his scientific conclusions, present them. Otherwise, you're just pulling assertions from your rear backed by nothing.

So where did I call anyone a liar?
You have stated that Reiss had the correct comment in his book, you have not produced what the actual comment is.
If Hansen made a speculative prediction to Reiss, we have to know what the prediction actually was to
comment about it. Skeptical Science is no more a valid source that Watts.

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

longview said:
So where did I call anyone a liar?

You're at least calling Hansen a liar because I linked to him making a claim about the hypothetical prediction. You're calling the Skeptical Science author a liar for making up a quote by Reiss, or Reiss a liar for sending that email to Skeptical Science. At least two sources, Hansen, and Skeptical Science quoting Reiss, say the prediction was 40 years, doubling. So, yes, you're calling at least TWO people liars with no evidence.

You have stated that Reiss had the correct comment in his book, you have not produced what the actual comment is.

What you're saying is I haven't directly quoted the book, just the author of the book and the man who made the prediction. Got it.

And, again, and this is key, from you.....NOTHING.

If Hansen made a speculative prediction to Reiss, we have to know what the prediction actually was to
comment about it. Skeptical Science is no more a valid source that Watts.

The two parties to the prediction say 40 years, doubling of CO2. And you can ignore Skeptical Science and just rely on Hansen's account, he's a primary source given he's the one who made the hypothetical prediction. :shrug:

bubbabgone · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
I don't really understand what that means. Hansen made a prediction based on a hypothetical doubling of the CO2, and 40 years. We don't actually know that his prediction is wrong because we're nowhere near 560ppm, which is one key part of the hypothetical.

And I don't click on climate threads because people here are defending this mischaracterization of Hansen's prediction, like you're doing. Jack and longview accuse both parties to the prediction of being liars, but they can cite no evidence of them lying. Others are ignoring Hansen's actually peer reviewed research on sea levels as recently as 2016 in favor of an off the cuff hypothetical from 1988, with a key condition of that prediction likely decades away from HERE. All across the board this discussion is intellectual garbage - creating then beating the crap out of straw men instead of discussing the actual science.

I don't believe Hansen actually made his 30 year prediction dependent on doubling of CO2 but rather CO2 growth continuing at the rate it was back in 1988.
At least according to his Congressional testimony.
In any event, in that testimony to Congress he was wrong about his prediction because observed temperatures were lower than all 3 of his scenarios starting in 2000.
They should ask him about that now.

longview · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
I've cited Hansen's statement - he's a primary source given he's one of two parties to the prediction. You're asserting that two people are liars, based on nothing. It's BS.

If you believe both Hansen and Reiss are liars, show me YOUR evidence. I've cited a primary source - you've cited nothing.

Just as an aside, do you really think Reiss and Hansen are lying about what is in a book? Why would someone be so stupid as to make a claim that is so easily proved false (and which no one has done yet, despite asserting Reiss and Hansen are liars)? Doesn't it make more sense that they're NOT liars and that the only error made about this prediction was Reiss' in a phone interview about his book?

You sort of cited Hansen's statement to a court, not related to Reiss's book.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110126_RatcliffeTestimony.pdf
If you want to discuss the actual science of AGW I am willing.
Let's look at a few of Hansens comments to see how they stack up to the observed data.

If the amount of CO2 in the air were doubled it would reduce infrared emission to space by 4 W/m2.

The direct forcing due to orbit changes is negligible, the annual mean perturbation of the Earth‟s
energy balance never exceeding 0.2 W/m 2averaged over the planet. But the ice-albedo and GHG
feedbacks each cause(approximately equal) perturbations of several W/m2(Fig. 2B).
Together these two feedbacks fully account for the global temperature swings from glacial to interglacial
conditions (Fig. 2C), with a climate sensitivity of 3/4°C per W/m2of forcing, or 3°C for doubled
CO2 forcing. This empirical climate sensitivity confirms the climate sensitivity estimated by
most climate models (5).

In addition his reference note 5 comment.

5 This empirical sensitivity, as opposed to the model result, has the advantage that it surely includes all physical
mechanisms, because it is based on real world data.

Wow .75 C per Wm-2
Since 2011 we now actually have some peer reviewed published data to look at.
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
So does the empirical climate sensitivity confirm the models?
.2 Wm-2 measured increase while CO2 increased from 369 to 392 ppm.
Hansen says the direct forcing from 2XCO2 would reduce the infrared emissions to space by 4 Wm-2.
.2/ ln(392/369) will give us the doubling curve multiplier, or 3.307, so 3.307 X ln(560/280)= 2.29 Wm-2.
So, no the empirical measurements do not confirm the modeled input.
Also remember Hansen's note 5,

This empirical sensitivity, as opposed to the model result, has the advantage that it surely includes all physical
mechanisms, because it is based on real world data.

If it includes all the physical mechanisms, then AGW is not much of a concern, and the models are not accurate.
James Hansen himself said in sworn testimony that the measured data is better then the modeled data.

longview · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
You're at least calling Hansen a liar because I linked to him making a claim about the hypothetical prediction. You're calling the Skeptical Science author a liar for making up a quote by Reiss, or Reiss a liar for sending that email to Skeptical Science. At least two sources, Hansen, and Skeptical Science quoting Reiss, say the prediction was 40 years, doubling. So, yes, you're calling at least TWO people liars with no evidence.

What you're saying is I haven't directly quoted the book, just the author of the book and the man who made the prediction. Got it.

And, again, and this is key, from you.....NOTHING.

The two parties to the prediction say 40 years, doubling of CO2. And you can ignore Skeptical Science and just rely on Hansen's account, he's a primary source given he's the one who made the hypothetical prediction. :shrug:

SO if CO2 levels continue at their current pace, and 40 year have elapsed do you think the west side highway will be underwater?
I say it is alarmist hyperbole.

Deuce · Sep 25, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Yes, and it's the mundane noun, as I explained.

I'm not calling Jack Hays a murderer, I'm just talking about how his behavior causes the mundane noun of murder.

The evils of climate enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is a thing that people have. The implication is that those people are taking action of some kind and the result is evil.

Jack Hays · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
I see, so the way it works in denier land is you baselessly accuse multiple people of being liars, and then shift the burden to others to prove you wrong?

FWIW, I didn't call you a name, but I did rightfully call out an argument that calls out multiple people as liars with NO evidence at all as pathetic, and intellectually cowardly. You would not tolerate if from me, so why do you think it works in this case? Here I cited a primary source (Hansen) referring to a quote by another primary source (Ress), and together that includes both parties to the prediction. If you don't believe Hansen and believe that he fabricated a quote from Reiss, then it's your burden to prove them liars.

Nice try, but wrong. The one statement that is verifiable is Reiss's account in the 2001 Salon.com interview. Later (much later) when the words he had attributed to Hansen became an embarrassment, he said his 2001 account was mistaken. He further claimed he had it right in his 2001 book (40 years vs 20 years) but provided no quote from the book. That is both curious and suspicious, because that simple quote would have ended the question. It is reasonable to conclude that no such quote was produced because no such quote exists.

So what do we have? An on-the-record account of Hansen's words (2001 interview) that is laughably off the mark and embarrassing. Then we have claims from Hansen and his admiring interviewer Reiss that he (Reiss) erred in his 2001 interview, and Hansen said something more defensible. And how do we substantiate those claims? Well, it seems, we can't, at least not beyond a vague statement that the narrative in Reiss's 2001 book is "correct." An uncharitable reader might suspect too-carefully-parsed language to give an impression of substantiation where there is none. And again, a simple quote from the book showing Hansen referring to a 40-year timeline would make this all go away.

So yes, Hansen and Reiss lied in an attempt to salvage Hansen's reputation and spare him ridicule. In a courtroom the lawyer against Hansen and Reiss would easily reduce the jury to uncontrollable laughter as he worked through their defense, which amounts only to a variation on "the dog ate my homework." I await the homework.

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

bubbabgone said:
I don't believe Hansen actually made his 30 year prediction dependent on doubling of CO2 but rather CO2 growth continuing at the rate it was back in 1988.
At least according to his Congressional testimony.

So you're calling Hansen and Reiss and Skeptical Science liars. What's YOUR evidence they're all lying? I've cited my sources, let's see yours. For example, I've never heard of Hansen's Congressional testimony predicting NY under water by 2028. But that's public record - care to cite it?

In any event, in that testimony to Congress he was wrong about his prediction because observed temperatures were lower than all 3 of his scenarios starting in 2000.
They should ask him about that now.

That's fine but you're moving the goal posts.

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

longview said:
SO if CO2 levels continue at their current pace, and 40 year have elapsed do you think the west side highway will be underwater?
I say it is alarmist hyperbole.

That's not the prediction - continue at their "current pace" - which is itself hopelessly vague. The prediction assumes a doubling - to 560.

As to what I think, I am like you an ignoramus on this topic, so why would I make a guess about a scientific topic in a field in which I'm not an expert? As I said, Hansen did write a peer reviewed article with 18 coauthors talking about the risk of meters of sea level change within the next 50-150 years. If you have some concerns with the SCIENTIFIC conclusions or their basis for them, be our guest to take on his actual arguments.

Jack Hays · Sep 25, 2017

Deuce said:
I'm not calling Jack Hays a murderer, I'm just talking about how his behavior causes the mundane noun of murder.

The evils of climate enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is a thing that people have. The implication is that those people are taking action of some kind and the result is evil.

You apparently wish to add illiteracy to the list of your shortcomings.

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Nice try, but wrong. The one statement that is verifiable is Reiss's account in the 2001 Salon.com interview.

That's a lie, false. The other verifiable statement is Hansen's own words, and Hansen happens to be a primary source, given he's a party to the prediction and is the person actually responding to the hypothetical.

Furthermore, I've quoted an email from Reiss to Skeptical Science. Why would you place more weight on the phone interview with Salon than on the email quoted in Skeptical Science?

Later (much later) when the words he had attributed to Hansen became an embarrassment, he said his 2001 account was mistaken. He further claimed he had it right in his 2001 book (40 years vs 20 years) but provided no quote from the book. That is both curious and suspicious, because that simple quote would have ended the question. It is reasonable to conclude that no such quote was produced because no such quote exists.

So you're alleging two people are liars, but you ignore primary sources, direct quotes from both parties to the prediction. You also assume, stupidly, that two guys like Reiss and Hansen, who wrote or have copies of the book, will both fabricate a lie that anyone with the book will quickly conclude is a lie.

And how do we substantiate those claims? Well, it seems, we can't, at least not beyond a vague statement that the narrative in Reiss's 2001 book is "correct."

The claim that the statements are vague is a lie. Here's Hansen:

Michaels also has the facts wrong about a 1988 interview of me by Bob Reiss, in which Reiss asked me to
speculate on changes that might happen in New York City in 40 years assuming CO2 doubled in amount

Here's Reiss:

"When I interviewe**d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2.

Crystal clear, as they say.

Why are you lying?

longview · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
That's not the prediction - continue at their "current pace" - which is itself hopelessly vague. The prediction assumes a doubling - to 560.

As to what I think, I am like you an ignoramus on this topic, so why would I make a guess about a scientific topic in a field in which I'm not an expert? As I said, Hansen did write a peer reviewed article with 18 coauthors talking about the risk of meters of sea level change within the next 50-150 years. If you have some concerns with the SCIENTIFIC conclusions or their basis for them, be our guest to take on his actual arguments.

If you read any of those papers about sea level raise, they are all predicated on the higher level of
CO2 sensitivity being accurate, yet the empirical data shows the higher levels used in the models
are almost double the levels actually measured.
We (Humans) have an energy problem, We simply do not have enough fossil fuels to allow the entire
current population to live a 1st world lifestyle.
Compared to that CO2 is a minor issue.

Jack Hays · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
That's a lie, false. The other verifiable statement is Hansen's own words, and Hansen happens to be a primary source, given he's a party to the prediction and is the person actually responding to the hypothetical.

Furthermore, I've quoted an email from Reiss to Skeptical Science. Why would you place more weight on the phone interview with Salon than on the email quoted in Skeptical Science?

So you're alleging two people are liars, but you ignore primary sources, direct quotes from both parties to the prediction. You also assume, stupidly, that two guys like Reiss and Hansen, who wrote or have copies of the book, will both fabricate a lie that anyone with the book will quickly conclude is a lie.

The claim that the statements are vague is a lie. Here's Hansen:

Here's Reiss:

Crystal clear, as they say.

Why are you lying?

Without contemporary documentation the claims of neither Hansen nor Reiss can be considered primary sources in verifying their own statements. Both had motive to lie and have produced no substantiation for their claims. A simple quote from Reiss's book would suffice. In all these years no such quote has appeared.

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

longview said:
If you read any of those papers about sea level raise, they are all predicated on the higher level of
CO2 sensitivity being accurate, yet the empirical data shows the higher levels used in the models
are almost double the levels actually measured.
We (Humans) have an energy problem, We simply do not have enough fossil fuels to allow the entire
current population to live a 1st world lifestyle.
Compared to that CO2 is a minor issue.

Right, I get it. You know more than 19 authors in Hansen's peer reviewed paper, and you know more than the reviewers of that paper. Understood. Why do we need scientists who have spent a career in the field when we can just listen to anonymous people on a debate forum? Or read cherry picked articles in WUWT?

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Without contemporary documentation the claims of neither Hansen nor Reiss can be considered primary sources in verifying their own statements. Both had motive to lie and have produced no substantiation for their claims. A simple quote from Reiss's book would suffice. In all these years no such quote has appeared.

LMMFAO. If that's true, then the book isn't a primary source either, because all it does is purport to reproduce a conversation from 12 years earlier. What evidence do you have beyond the word of Reiss and Hansen, who you reject as liars, that the book accurately recounts Hansen's prediction? If a quote from the book suffices as proof, when the word of both parties to that quote does not, you've got one stupid way of evaluating claims.

BTW - "have produced no substantiation for their claims" is just hilarious coming from you. Seems to me a small burden before calling someone a liar is to get the book and prove it. And yet, "in all these years no such quote has appeared."

longview · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
Right, I get it. You know more than 19 authors in Hansen's peer reviewed paper, and you know more than the reviewers of that paper. Understood. Why do we need scientists who have spent a career in the field when we can just listen to anonymous people on a debate forum? Or read cherry picked articles in WUWT?

It is not a question of them being wrong, but that their findings are a collection of "what If" predictions,
based on assumptions of climate sensitivity.
If the assumptions are wrong, then the predictions based on those assumptions are inaccurate.

Feldman's paper cam out in 2015, and it is a peer reviewed publication.
but as Hansen himself stated,

This empirical sensitivity, as opposed to the model result, has the advantage that it surely includes all physical
mechanisms, because it is based on real world data.

Do we believe the models, or the data that we can measure?
I tend to favor the data that we can measure.

Jack Hays · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
LMMFAO. If that's true, then the book isn't a primary source either, because all it does is purport to reproduce a conversation from 12 years earlier. What evidence do you have beyond the word of Reiss and Hansen, who you reject as liars, that the book accurately recounts Hansen's prediction? If a quote from the book suffices as proof, when the word of both parties to that quote does not, you've got one stupid way of evaluating claims.

BTW - "have produced no substantiation for their claims" is just hilarious coming from you. Seems to me a small burden before calling someone a liar is to get the book and prove it. And yet, "in all these years no such quote has appeared."

It was you who introduced the book into the discussion and you made a good point. If Reiss really had in the 2001 book a reference to the claimed 40-year timeline then he and Hansen obviously did not conceive the 40-year timeline as a lie years later. If no such reference is in it then . . . .

I have just ordered the book on Amazon. We shall see.

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

Jack Hays said:
It was you who introduced the book into the discussion and you made a good point. If Reiss really had in the 2001 book a reference to the claimed 40-year timeline then he and Hansen obviously did not conceive the 40-year timeline as a lie years later. If no such reference is in it then . . . .

I have just ordered the book on Amazon. We shall see.

That's great. I look forward to seeing the quote. I tried to look it up with Google books. From what I can tell it's around page 29-31, but I could not locate the actual question because it would only quote a single line at a time, often without the key word in the quoted part. And there's no ebook I could find...

bubbabgone · Sep 25, 2017

JasperL said:
So you're calling Hansen and Reiss and Skeptical Science liars. What's YOUR evidence they're all lying? I've cited my sources, let's see yours. For example, I've never heard of Hansen's Congressional testimony predicting NY under water by 2028. But that's public record - care to cite it?

That's fine but you're moving the goal posts.

Hansen's lousy prediction is fine?

And, is John Cook a liar? Signs point to YES.

As for Hansen, probably for now the safest thing would be to say he was wrong and is going to be wrong whether he predicted the West Side Highway would be under water in 20, 30, or 40 years since he was wrong about what would have caused it.

To call him a liar we'd probably need more than a series of errors, as bad as they were.
Hell, even Comey said he couldn't prove intent.

Jack Hays · Sep 25, 2017

Energy
Reasons For Optimism About Climate Hysteria

From Manhattan Contrarian September 22, 2017/ Francis Menton Large numbers of my friends and acquaintances are climate skeptics, and many of them spend a good deal of their time feeling down in the dumps about the subject. Their reasoning goes something like this: Here we have something that should immediately be identified as baloney by…

Large numbers of my friends and acquaintances are climate skeptics, and many of them spend a good deal of their time feeling down in the dumps about the subject. Their reasoning goes something like this: Here we have something that should immediately be identified as baloney by any thinking person. And yet thousands and millions of people seem to have fallen for it. And not just random people, but people seemingly among the elites of society — academics and journalists and government bureaucrats. Most of the media function as propaganda bullhorns to spread the idiocy. The forces of hysteria have commandeered tens of billions of annual dollars of government funding to pay for their program and spread their message, drowning out and suppressing any opposition. Their program calls for taking away everyone’s freedom and impoverishing the populace with higher costs for energy. And yet the program seems to be getting adopted everywhere!
How could a sane person not get depressed about this? Easy! Over on the other side of this issue, we have a secret weapon. The secret weapon is that the supposedly carbon-free energy sources — or, at least, those supposedly carbon-free energy sources that are acceptable to environmentalists (meaning wind and solar and definitely not nuclear and hydro) — don’t work. Even worse, wind and solar are not even carbon-free, because it takes large amounts of carbon-based energy to make the turbines or panels or whatever. Put these two problems together, and governments that try to reduce their carbon emissions by heavily subsidizing wind and solar quickly hit a wall where energy prices for the masses soar through the roof even as the carbon emissions don’t go down. You won’t find the New York Times or Washington Post reporting on this, but it’s getting harder and harder not to notice. . . . .

JasperL · Sep 25, 2017

bubbabgone said:
Hansen's lousy prediction is fine?

Not sure his prediction is "lousy" given we are nowhere near 560.

And, is John Cook a liar? Signs point to YES.

As for Hansen, probably for now the safest thing would be to say he was wrong and is going to be wrong whether he predicted the West Side Highway would be under water in 20, 30, or 40 years since he was wrong about what would have caused it.

To call him a liar we'd probably need more than a series of errors, as bad as they were.
Hell, even Comey said he couldn't prove intent.

Ok, not here to argue science because I'm not a climate scientist and can't make claims about technical subjects in which I'm functionally ignorant, like 99.9% of us.

Deuce · Sep 25, 2017

Jack Hays said:
You apparently wish to add illiteracy to the list of your shortcomings.

Evil is a specifically human concept. You can't have evil without a human being. Describing evil is therefore always describing a human being in some form. You can't call a person's actions evil without suggesting that person is evil.

But hey, go with some more personal attacks. I'm sure that will make you feel better.

Jack Hays · Sep 25, 2017

Deuce said:
Evil is a specifically human concept. You can't have evil without a human being. Describing evil is therefore always describing a human being in some form. You can't call a person's actions evil without suggesting that person is evil.

Both false and uninformed.

Evils dictionary definition | evils defined - YourDictionary

www.yourdictionary.com › Dictionary Definitions › evils

Noun. plural form of evil; (slang) the evil eye. Don't go giving me evils! English Wiktionary. Available under CC-BY-SA license.

SENTENCE EXAMPLES

I only know two very real evils in life: remorse and illness.
Chiefly because of these evils the constitution of 1821 required the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature to pass an act creating a corporation.
Circ. 1500) succeeded in bringing the scattered Anabaptist communities into a species of association; he discouraged the earlier apocalyptic hopes, inculcated non-resistance, denounced the evils of State control over religious matters, and emphasized personal conversion, and adult baptism as its appropriate seal.
The list serves as an excellent summary of the evils of the papal monarchy as recognized by the unimpeachably orthodox.
After proving that the secular rulers were free and in duty bound to correct the evils of the Church, Luther sketches a plan for preventing money from going to Italy, for reducing the number of idle, begging monks, harmful pilgrimages and excessive holidays.

Read more at Evils dictionary definition | evils defined

Deuce · Sep 25, 2017

Jack Hays said:
Both false and uninformed.

Evils dictionary definition | evils defined - YourDictionary

www.yourdictionary.com › Dictionary Definitions › evils

Noun. plural form of evil; (slang) the evil eye. Don't go giving me evils! English Wiktionary. Available under CC-BY-SA license.

[FONT=&]

SENTENCE EXAMPLES

[/FONT][FONT=&]

I only know two very real evils in life: remorse and illness.

Chiefly because of these evils the constitution of 1821 required the assent of two-thirds of the members elected to each house of the legislature to pass an act creating a corporation.

Circ. 1500) succeeded in bringing the scattered Anabaptist communities into a species of association; he discouraged the earlier apocalyptic hopes, inculcated non-resistance, denounced the evils of State control over religious matters, and emphasized personal conversion, and adult baptism as its appropriate seal.

The list serves as an excellent summary of the evils of the papal monarchy as recognized by the unimpeachably orthodox.

After proving that the secular rulers were free and in duty bound to correct the evils of the Church, Luther sketches a plan for preventing money from going to Italy, for reducing the number of idle, begging monks, harmful pilgrimages and excessive holidays.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&]
Read more at Evils dictionary definition | evils defined[/FONT]

Oh look a bunch of things involving people.

Unless you are arguing that enthusiasm is some force of nature that doesn't involve humans, you're attacking a straw man with semantics. Double whammy.

The Evils of Climate Enthusiasm

JasperL

longview

JasperL

bubbabgone

longview

longview

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Jack Hays

Traveler

JasperL

JasperL

Jack Hays

Traveler

JasperL

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

JasperL

JasperL

longview

Jack Hays

Traveler

JasperL

bubbabgone

Jack Hays

Traveler

JasperL

Deuce

Outer space potato man

Jack Hays

Traveler

Deuce

Outer space potato man