Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Global warming: a new religion

Global warming: a new religion (Page 2)
Thread Tools
dcmacdaddy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2007, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
8 hours a day of very heavy involvement in politics.
This is what you base your theories on? involvement in politics? HA HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!


How exactly is "very heavy involvement in politics" going to provide you sufficient background to discuss the merits of the science that attempt to explain the causes of global warming? And that--the merits of the science--is what we are hear to discuss, not whether or not it is a phenomena that is even occuring. (Remember, even President Bush has acknowledged that Global Warming is happening, he just disagrees with the scientists on the possible causes.) So, how does "very heavy involvement in politics" provide you with the necessary intellectuals tools to analyze and debate the merits of the ideas put forth by scientists who claim Global Warming in caused by humans? What is it within the political process that provides for a discussion of the various theories of the causes of Global Warming?
One should never stop striving for clarity of thought and precision of expression.
I would prefer my humanity sullied with the tarnish of science rather than the gloss of religion.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2007, 04:15 PM
 
Man, there is sooooo much wisdom and truth to the whole Stephen Colbert "gut feeling" thing. I think it is right, therefore it must be!
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Yeah, come to Europe and check with the GW worriers here. The vast majority of them are rabid car haters.
Uh, OK. Come over here and check out the people who are worried about global warming. They're not. One of the big liberal movements over here is for hybrid and cleaner gas-burning cars, rather than getting rid of cars altogether. Clearly the two things are not really linked. They just happen to occur together where you are. It's not a good reason to dismiss solid evidence out-of-hand.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2007, 07:14 PM
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss

Looks like some more of those "lefties" are going to do so more research, so I'd better start putting in lots of those heavy 8 hour days politicking, so I can dispute them.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2007, 07:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy View Post
How exactly is "very heavy involvement in politics" going to provide you sufficient background to discuss the merits of the science that attempt to explain the causes of global warming?
You get to know how governments control things if you look at it for long enough. You think your opinion on this subject isn't being controlled by a bunch of people - the "puppet masters"? Think again.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 25, 2007, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by KarlG View Post
I don't have to show you "hard fact (sic)." As I've stated before, and will probably state again, despite blind zealots like you, the vast majority of the peer-reviewed science (which means that other scientists have reviewed it, which is different than science that has been bought by the likes of Mobil Exxon, which is not peer-reviewed) has formed a consensus that global warming is real and is a threat. Most people, except blind zealots such as yourself, don't have too much difficulty in believing that six billion people, consuming the resources they do, do indeed have an effect on the planet's ability to sustain itself. There's a reason that asthma rates are skyrocketing in the U. S. There's a reason that people have to wear masks in major cities in China. There's a reason that major rivers in India are full of filth, including human fecal matter. This happens because resources are finite, which is hard for arrogant people to comprehend, as it directly confronts their belief that world exists simply for them, to do with as they wish, without regard for the future, or for any of the consequences that others may suffer.
Show me the peer reviewed papers saying that global warming is a conclusive cause for the problems you just mentioned. Show me the peer reviewed journals that say cutting emissions will solve the problem. Show me the peer reviewed journals that say my consumption of resources will end the world. Show me those!!! You still have failed to prove your point!!!!! I'm not arguing global warming is a myth I'm arguing that you don't have the solution for it, and that you haven't proven what the effects will be. Until you provide me those things I'm not going to give up my lifestyle. Thats the hard fact I'm looking for, which between myself and others has been asked of you at least nine or ten times over multiple threads. YOU STILL HAVE SHOWN NONE.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 01:59 AM
 
Uhhh...he didn't say global warming is responsible for asthma and pollution, he said those are the effects of 6 billion people operating in an unsustainable way. Which we are. Global warming is just another one of those effects.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 08:28 AM
 
List of things to do;

- Help out at the food pantry
- counsel men w/ addictions
- attend church service, fellowship with the like-minded and most charitable
- donate to those helping the mentally afflicted
- provide shelter and food for the poor, the single mother, and the orphan.
- Help fund mentorship for the fatherless
- help fund and participate in prison ministry
- counsel on sexual indiscretion and the skyrocketing rates of STDs
- maintain my own family unit including working 45+ hours a week.
- build care-packages for troops overseas
- coach softball
- buy roses for wife
- do dishes
- use restroom
- write congressman about huge potholes eating small hybrids
- shop for Jeep Wrangler
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- global warming?

Hmm, there are pressing issues right now. These are a little more tangible and apparent today, but it's a lot easier and more fun to peruse the college campus looking for the like-minded student on daddy's dime. Maybe have a venti latte at Starbucks and talk about the evil polluting conservatives driving SUVs or how the schleps working behind the counter there never get your order right. After all, the cups are recycled. You sleep well at night knowing that tomorrow you get to see an "expert" speak on Global Warming who travelled there via personal jet to preach to you how important it is we stop driving SUVs and pay emissions taxes to those who can't manage to fill potholes.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 11:46 AM
 
Oooooooo, a classic sidestep of the argument at hand in favour of totally irrelevant ad hominem attacks!

If Kevin didn't only do his "logical fallacy" posts against non-Conservatives, we could be graced with a lovely little one-liner pointing this out. Sigh. I just have to take up the slack I suppose.

Gotta love the "more pressing and tangible issues" argument, though. Real nice. "I need to coach softball and do the dishes and help needy people; global warming isn't affecting me so why should I care?" So sound. So logical.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
List of things to do;

- Help out at the food pantry
- counsel men w/ addictions
- attend church service, fellowship with the like-minded and most charitable
- donate to those helping the mentally afflicted
- provide shelter and food for the poor, the single mother, and the orphan.
- Help fund mentorship for the fatherless
- help fund and participate in prison ministry
- counsel on sexual indiscretion and the skyrocketing rates of STDs
- maintain my own family unit including working 45+ hours a week.
- build care-packages for troops overseas
- coach softball
- buy roses for wife
- do dishes
- use restroom
- write congressman about huge potholes eating small hybrids
- shop for Jeep Wrangler
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- global warming?

Hmm, there are pressing issues right now. These are a little more tangible and apparent today, but it's a lot easier and more fun to peruse the college campus looking for the like-minded student on daddy's dime.
Considering your list basically amounts to "I care more about my social life than the lives of millions of others or the future of the planet," it's strange that you're accusing others of taking the "easier and more fun" route.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
List of things to do;

- global warming
...so our kids will grow up in a clean earth
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 03:16 PM
 
Is it just me or should CO2 reductionists be targeting bigger fish? I don't see as big a potential gain by encourageing people to upgrade to hybrid cars as I see from for example eliminating the space program. If a hybrid car gets 2x better mileage than the 12-year-old car I got for free (and looking at the numbers I think that's generous), and at the same time we pay the significant environmental costs of disposing of my old car and manufacturing a new one, I wonder how many of those transactions would be balanced by taking 1 fewer launches in the Space Shuttle, or even a standard satellite or deep space exploration mission.

I know, space exploration is important on a "basic science" level. But here we have scientists begging the average person (who I might add, pays their salary in taxes so they should be a little more gracious) to make personal daily sacrifices, meanwhile other scientists are doing just about the worst thing possible as far as climate change, by launching science toys into space for questionable gain. I say the scientific community should lead by example, when it comes to CO2 reduction.

I can see certain sacrifices making a lot of sense. A return to the 55 mph speed limit, and a serious reduction in the amount of air travel (let's try half what we have now), or increasing the price (since I doubt anyone is even making a profit on it already, maybe we can just stop funding it with taxes). But replacing perfectly good vehicles with nominally more efficient vehicles seems like a step in the wrong direction. Especially if it's done before more obvious measures like the space program.

BTW, can someone please find some numbers about how total emissions compare between car, air and space travel? I can't make google dance today.
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 03:49 PM
 
Lets all ignore the facts!

#1 user of electricity? (Which also, I believe, is the primary source of CO2)

Pumping and heating water.

Do that less.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Considering your list basically amounts to "I care more about my social life than the lives of millions of others or the future of the planet," it's strange that you're accusing others of taking the "easier and more fun" route.
We aren't the ones talking about affecting anyone!!!!! you are!!!!!!! without any evidence whatsoever that these efforts will help in the least bit!!!
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
Lets all ignore the facts!

#1 user of electricity? (Which also, I believe, is the primary source of CO2)

Pumping and heating water.

Do that less.
ok so is there a new and clean way to make energy? we are in the future btw

and is it so bad that we control pollution? take LA for examplewith the smog

is it a religious thing? or just political?
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 11:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Is it just me or should CO2 reductionists be targeting bigger fish? I don't see as big a potential gain by encourageing people to upgrade to hybrid cars as I see from for example eliminating the space program. If a hybrid car gets 2x better mileage than the 12-year-old car I got for free (and looking at the numbers I think that's generous), and at the same time we pay the significant environmental costs of disposing of my old car and manufacturing a new one, I wonder how many of those transactions would be balanced by taking 1 fewer launches in the Space Shuttle, or even a standard satellite or deep space exploration mission.

I know, space exploration is important on a "basic science" level. But here we have scientists begging the average person (who I might add, pays their salary in taxes so they should be a little more gracious) to make personal daily sacrifices, meanwhile other scientists are doing just about the worst thing possible as far as climate change, by launching science toys into space for questionable gain. I say the scientific community should lead by example, when it comes to CO2 reduction.

I can see certain sacrifices making a lot of sense. A return to the 55 mph speed limit, and a serious reduction in the amount of air travel (let's try half what we have now), or increasing the price (since I doubt anyone is even making a profit on it already, maybe we can just stop funding it with taxes). But replacing perfectly good vehicles with nominally more efficient vehicles seems like a step in the wrong direction. Especially if it's done before more obvious measures like the space program.

BTW, can someone please find some numbers about how total emissions compare between car, air and space travel? I can't make google dance today.
Say what? First of all, most of the space program has nothing to do with science. Second of all, you yourself admit you don't have any numbers, and that's probably because the numbers are (relatively) tiny. But third of all, why should those scientists studying earthworm reproduction in zero-gravity environments care more about global warming than you do? I don't get it. I say people with "Uncle" in their names should lead by example, when it comes to CO2 reduction.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 26, 2007, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
We aren't the ones talking about affecting anyone!!!!! you are!!!!!!! without any evidence whatsoever that these efforts will help in the least bit!!!
Yes you are, and there is tons of evidence that you are hurting a lot of people. Stop. Now.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 12:23 AM
 
Thats not what I argued Tie.

The damage is done. You don't know how to fix it...Thats my point. I'm not going to give into your philosiphies just because. Find a solution then maybe you will have merit.

Right now you don't have one.
     
dillerX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pit Slab #35
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 02:07 AM
 
I have stayed out of this for good reason. I love how everyone claims to know what the hell they are talking about because they watched a movie, or read an article. Climate is so much larger than that, and can't be summed up in a few hundred years of data.

When they can tell me how much snow we are supposed to get, and actually be right, within 4 hours of the actual event, I will believe they know what the hell they are talking about. Until then, I don't think anyone in this field knows much more than I do.

They can say all they want. They can claim to have data. They can scare people into believing what ever it is they want us to think, because they claim they know what the data means.

I will believe it, when we can record an accurate temperature in every region of the world, with complete accuracy for more than a few hundred years. I watch plenty of these "shows" and read plenty of these "articles" to believe (key word) one thing. No one knows anything, they just think they do.
I tried to sig-spam the forums.
ADVANTAGE Motorsports Marketing, Inc. • speedXdesign, Inc.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 02:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by dillerX View Post
When they can tell me how much snow we are supposed to get, and actually be right, within 4 hours of the actual event, I will believe they know what the hell they are talking about. Until then, I don't think anyone in this field knows much more than I do.
And this illustrates your complete lack of knowledge about the subject, right here. Thanks you coming out. Try reading a book; education is Great®. Good day.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 02:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
First of all, most of the space program has nothing to do with science.
Most? No.

Second of all, you yourself admit you don't have any numbers, and that's probably because the numbers are (relatively) tiny.
No. The space shuttle's energy usage is not "relatively tiny" compared with mine. If you want to prove me wrong, I've invited you to find the numbers, but common sense says otherwise.

But third of all, why should those scientists studying earthworm reproduction in zero-gravity environments care more about global warming than you do? I don't get it.
No, you do get it. Why should I care more about global warming than the scientists studying earthworm reproduction in zero-gravity? That's exactly the issue. If they're not giving up their fossil fuels, why should I? They use a million times more of it than I do, so why should I make sacrifices before them?

I say people with "Uncle" in their names should lead by example, when it comes to CO2 reduction.
Ok then, no one should have to make sacrifices. Is that what you want?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 02:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
And this illustrates your complete lack of knowledge about the subject, right here. Thanks you coming out. Try reading a book; education is Great®. Good day.

greg
What's your motivation, greg? Do you want people to change their behavior, or do you just want them to be annoyed with you and reject global warming just to spite you?
     
dillerX
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pit Slab #35
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 03:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
And this illustrates your complete lack of knowledge about the subject, right here. Thanks you coming out. Try reading a book; education is Great®. Good day.

greg
I admit I don't know much about it. The fact is, I don't think many do. Just because you can read a book on a subject does not make you an expert in the field. That's my point. Everyone thinks they know everything about global warming, when in fact, I don't think many, including those that are supposed to be "experts" in the field do.

Face it, those of us that think global warming is nothing more than a scientific euphorian wet dream, don't believe long range data from a group of individuals that can't even predict what is going on outside without actually looking outside.

Global warming doesn't scare me. The fact that people believe some of the spew that is coming out of the mouths of those that think they are educated does.
I tried to sig-spam the forums.
ADVANTAGE Motorsports Marketing, Inc. • speedXdesign, Inc.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 03:44 AM
 
Even if Global Warming weren't an issue, would it hurt to be considerate of the environment, after centuries of not knowing and lately not caring? Don't you think that if you treat something-- anything-- like trash it'll have a negative impact on that thing, even something as big as a planet, after hundreds of years of such treatment?

The fact is that to the best of our current knowledge Global Warming is very real and should have been taken very seriously decades ago, and much more so today. But arguments against taking care of the environment just plain don't make sense, with or without Global Warming. They are purely emotional and denial arguments created to rationalize an existing non-sustainable lifestyle (which most of us here share, but some at least some of us are trying to change for the better and at least most of us won't go the length of actually denying a truth staring us in the face).

Are there fanatics out there who take things too far? Sure. Just like there are religious fanatics or whatnot, but that doesn't change the truth one bit, no matter how much you want it to.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Most? No.

No. The space shuttle's energy usage is not "relatively tiny" compared with mine. If you want to prove me wrong, I've invited you to find the numbers, but common sense says otherwise.

No, you do get it. Why should I care more about global warming than the scientists studying earthworm reproduction in zero-gravity? That's exactly the issue. If they're not giving up their fossil fuels, why should I? They use a million times more of it than I do, so why should I make sacrifices before them?

Ok then, no one should have to make sacrifices. Is that what you want?
Drum roll please, an amazing revelation is coming...

Everyone should have to make sacrifices.

...Waits for Uncle's mind to stop boggling.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 07:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Gotta love the "more pressing and tangible issues" argument, though. Real nice. "I need to coach softball and do the dishes and help needy people; global warming isn't affecting me so why should I care?" So sound. So logical.



greg
Sounds logical to me. Glad I could help.
ebuddy
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Drum roll please, an amazing revelation is coming...

Everyone should have to make sacrifices.

...Waits for Uncle's mind to stop boggling.
Ok then, smart guy, what sacrifices have scientists made in the field of space exploration due to global warming?
     
OldManMac
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 12:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by dillerX View Post
I admit I don't know much about it. The fact is, I don't think many do. Just because you can read a book on a subject does not make you an expert in the field. That's my point. Everyone thinks they know everything about global warming, when in fact, I don't think many, including those that are supposed to be "experts" in the field do.

Face it, those of us that think global warming is nothing more than a scientific euphorian wet dream, don't believe long range data from a group of individuals that can't even predict what is going on outside without actually looking outside.

Global warming doesn't scare me. The fact that people believe some of the spew that is coming out of the mouths of those that think they are educated does.
If you're basing your argument on comparing day-to-day weather forecasting versus long term scientific research, then little more needs to be said, except that you obviously don't understand the difference between long term trends and looking out the hole in the cave.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 12:44 PM
 
You guys are only going to give yourself ulcers trying to argue with Doofy. Just put him on ignore and be done with it.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The damage is done. You don't know how to fix it...Thats my point. I'm not going to give into your philosiphies just because. Find a solution then maybe you will have merit.
First you argue that it's not happening. Then you argue it's already happened and it's too late for anyone to do anything.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 01:36 PM
 
ole,
it's your side that is arguing for action, and your side that is arguing from authority. The other side is just saying "why should I?" The answer to this has to have two parts. 1, there is a problem, and 2, how can we fix it. These two parts must both be demonstrated, and both be consistent with each other, in order to justify your opponent taking any action you prescribe.

If you make your case for part 1 by saying "man contributes to some significant degree" but you fail to make your case for what degree that is, then your answer to solving it can't be simply "stop contributing," at least not without independent evidence that this action will actually stop the problem (if we're contributing only half, then simply stopping our contribution won't stop the problem). In other words, your scientific finding that man contributes to global warming is not as decisive to this argument as you seem to think it is.

Furthermore, if you make your case for part 1 that man contributes by cars and by planes and by space program rockets and by livestock emissions and by breathing and by farting, then your case for part 2 can't be simply "reduce driving cars" for the same reason, it's not enough to stop the problem. It doesn't matter if the justification for "why should I" is because there's no problem to start with or because the proposed action won't help, the response is still justified.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
What's your motivation, greg? Do you want people to change their behavior, or do you just want them to be annoyed with you and reject global warming just to spite you?
Probably a bit of both. As I've noted before, for some reason a large number of people have taken what seems to be an ideological stance against global warming. Hence, you've got all the laypeople in here pontificating how global warming doesn't exist, or he didn't cause it, or we can't do anything about it – when it seems with only a couple exceptions that most of them know absolutely nothing about it. (There's also a select few, which I count you as one, who take a more logical dissenting approach to the debate.)

I mean, dillerX comes in with the absolutely mind-boggling statement to the effect that we can't even predict today's weather accurately, which seems to be a well-quoted idea amongst the haters. What?! First, as anyone who's looked into meteorology knows, our current weather predictions are incredibly accurate; secondly, local weather is based on a complex series of individual events that change from minute to minute, and as such long-term prediction beyond this time-frame is very risky. Thirdly, local weather has almost nothing to do with long-term climate, which is based on a 30-year normal. As I've noted before, that's simply taking a highly-variable, individual event and applying the result to a long-term trend. What, because we might not be very accurate in predicting the number of heads in a 4-time coin toss means that we won't be any more accurate over a thousand tosses? The lack of logic boggles my mind.

Anyways, as I've said, it's this ideological/political bent to global warming that really gets my goat. I don't run into genetics threads when I don't know any genetics, do I? I don't jump into the processor threads and pontificate about the merits of Intel's new speedster without knowing anything about it, do I? I don't jump into Doofy's Jeep thread and opine about the new chassis without having a clue what I'm talking about, do I?

That's why it annoys me when the obviously clueless run into the global warming threads and take hardline stances on complex issues, without having so much as read anything beyond a local newspaper article about the subject.

Anyways, off to work I go, I go.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 02:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Anyways, as I've said, it's this ideological/political bent to global warming that really gets my goat.
But it's petty squabbling and name-calling (like that often offered by you) that make the issue ideological/political, rather than scientific. Wouldn't you agree?

That's why it annoys me when the obviously clueless run into the global warming threads and take hardline stances on complex issues, without having so much as read anything beyond a local newspaper article about the subject.
But the clueless people who only know the issue through local newspaper articles are the very people you would want to change their behavior to solve the problem. I would say the battleground of climate change isn't about climate at all, it's about those clueless people you despise, their daily behavoir, and their choice to change that behavoir or not. Since they themselves are the battleground, they have every right to enter a topic on "your" subject.

If you'll allow me to analyze your (posting) personality for a moment, you'd like the lowly underclass to defer to your expert knowledge, and let you dictate instructions for "the general good" from on high, without dirtying your hands by considering their problems or *gasp* their opinions. That's not how it works. Like it or not, their opinions are as important as yours, and if you want them to agree with you you'll have to actually convince them, not just insult their intelligence. Or simply put, be nice.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Anyways, as I've said, it's this ideological/political bent to global warming that really gets my goat.
Well here ya go:

The British government is currently attempting to pass a law which will require that every car is tracked (via an in-vehicle black box) to see where and how far the driver goes. The driver will then be presented with a bill to pay depending on where/how he's driven.

This is being presented as a green policy - you know, save us from the global warming and stuff.

However. If it isn't about control and monitoring and really is about saving the planet, why not just put more tax on fuel? This would have the same effect with regards to cutting people's driving habits down (i.e. saving the planet) whilst being easier and cheaper to implement - the mechanism's already in place.

Global warming has become a good, solid excuse for governments to spy on the population, remove civil liberties and trample on our freedoms. That's a fact, and it's where the political bent comes in.


Oh, and P.S.. I've still got a lower CO2 footprint than just about anyone here. Log in your own eye before you try to remove the Jeep from mine, my friends.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Orion27
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Safe House
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 04:24 PM
 
Why was China exempted from the Kyoto Treaty?

According to CNN, the World Bank recently examined 20 of the most severely polluted cities in the world. Sixteen of these cities are located in China, and Linfen City, in Shanxi Province, was cited as the world's most polluted city.

Apple Daily reported that factories in Linfen continuously release waste gas and sewage. The whole city smells and is covered in smoke. The trees around the factories are all withered. The polluted water is like thick oil, and the polluted rivers have caused a higher incidence of cancer among citizens living in the area.

One environmental expert said, "If you have a grudge against someone, let this guy become a permanent citizen of Linfen! Why? For punishment!"

The problem of air pollution in China's cities remains serious. In 2005, 39.7 percent of the 522 cities surveyed were either moderately or seriously polluted
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 04:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
ole,
it's your side that is arguing for action, and your side that is arguing from authority. The other side is just saying "why should I?" The answer to this has to have two parts. 1, there is a problem, and 2, how can we fix it. These two parts must both be demonstrated, and both be consistent with each other, in order to justify your opponent taking any action you prescribe.

If you make your case for part 1 by saying "man contributes to some significant degree" but you fail to make your case for what degree that is, then your answer to solving it can't be simply "stop contributing," at least not without independent evidence that this action will actually stop the problem (if we're contributing only half, then simply stopping our contribution won't stop the problem). In other words, your scientific finding that man contributes to global warming is not as decisive to this argument as you seem to think it is.
I thought we went over this inbalance issue in the other thread. At least, you seemed to imply we had when you said, "That's what the last 13 pages have been about [imbalance of CO2]. I think everyone who's gotten this far is already aware of this."

CO2 emissions by humans and livestock are balanced by crops. Each a very short-term process. There have been greenhouse gases forever, and contributes to the reason that the earth is habitable to life in the first place.

Burning fossil fuels is not balanced by any short-term process. Rather, it requires millions of years to equilibrate. Burning fossil fuels is not a natural process, rather a human practice.

It stands to reason that the imbalance in CO2 must be man-made. No one has been able to come up with any natural sources for this CO2 spike.

This is where the logic in your argument falls apart.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Furthermore, if you make your case for part 1 that man contributes by cars and by planes and by space program rockets and by livestock emissions and by breathing and by farting, then your case for part 2 can't be simply "reduce driving cars" for the same reason, it's not enough to stop the problem. It doesn't matter if the justification for "why should I" is because there's no problem to start with or because the proposed action won't help, the response is still justified.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Well here ya go:

The British government is currently attempting to pass a law which will require that every car is tracked (via an in-vehicle black box) to see where and how far the driver goes. The driver will then be presented with a bill to pay depending on where/how he's driven.
They tried to do something like this in Houston. It's a solution looking for a problem. And is an asinine idea.

Taxes on fuel make more sense when the taxes are being put towards road repair. The heavier the vehicle, the more impact it will have on the roads, and generally, the more fuel it uses (+taxes). The smaller the vehicle, the less impact it has on the roads. Generally, lighter vehicles will use less gas. Same applies for the frequency of driving, etc.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 04:53 PM
 
You have a real knack for totally missing the point. In this case, the point is that simply showing a (probable) causality is not enough; you have to also show that your solution would be effective.

Originally Posted by Warren Pease View Post
I thought we went over this inbalance issue in the other thread. At least, you seemed to imply we had when you said, "That's what the last 13 pages have been about [imbalance of CO2]. I think everyone who's gotten this far is already aware of this."
And after 13 pages it hadn't been settled

CO2 emissions by humans and livestock are balanced by crops.
...
Each a very short-term process.
That doesn't mean they're balanced.

There have been greenhouse gases forever, and contributes to the reason that the earth is habitable to life in the first place.
And there have been insane temperature changes "forever." Just because we are accelerating the problem doesn't mean we can stop the problem merely by stopping our acceleration of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 05:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gamoe View Post
Even if Global Warming weren't an issue, would it hurt to be considerate of the environment, after centuries of not knowing and lately not caring? Don't you think that if you treat something-- anything-- like trash it'll have a negative impact on that thing, even something as big as a planet, after hundreds of years of such treatment?

The fact is that to the best of our current knowledge Global Warming is very real and should have been taken very seriously decades ago, and much more so today. But arguments against taking care of the environment just plain don't make sense, with or without Global Warming. They are purely emotional and denial arguments created to rationalize an existing non-sustainable lifestyle (which most of us here share, but some at least some of us are trying to change for the better and at least most of us won't go the length of actually denying a truth staring us in the face).

Are there fanatics out there who take things too far? Sure. Just like there are religious fanatics or whatnot, but that doesn't change the truth one bit, no matter how much you want it to.
The sacrifices proposed affect some more then others.

Climageddon is far from truth. Apparently we have thousands of years of data to "prove" global warming. But 30 years ago we were all supposed to build an igloo for the summer.

Diller is right....until these experts can predict weather for the next 24 hours how the hell can they be absolute in truth predicting climate (weather on a much much larger scale) for the next couple idecades. I don't buy it.

Even supposing that man made CO2 emissions are causing global warming...

you still have no evidence for an effective solution. Something that all you GW/climageddon alarmists seem to keep overlooking.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 06:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Ok then, smart guy, what sacrifices have scientists made in the field of space exploration due to global warming?
OK, then smart guy -- what sacrifices have you made due to global warming?

I get it. You don't care about the anybody else. You admit there's a problem, but want everyone else but you to have to do something about it. Next you'll say that the US shouldn't even begin to reduce emissions until China and India are both forced to make drastic cuts. Same old arguments.

The idea of a carbon emissions tax is that everyone will have to pay for their own externalities. This balances the cost fairly across everyone (including the space explorers you are so fixated on). But I guess you'd only support an emissions tax on everyone else.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
Warren Pease
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 06:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Climageddon is far from truth. Apparently we have thousands of years of data to "prove" global warming. But 30 years ago we were all supposed to build an igloo for the summer.
Scientists have done no new research since the 1970's? One article sure has gone a long way in shaping your world view. My greatest fear is that you might read another one someday.

I wonder why you give more credence to an article in a news magazine based on two years of data than 30 years of research conducted by hundreds of scientists since then.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Diller is right....until these experts can predict weather for the next 24 hours how the hell can they be absolute in truth predicting climate (weather on a much much larger scale) for the next couple idecades. I don't buy it.
greg dealt with this issue very well. Reread his last post, but basically, climate is weather averaged out.
( Last edited by Warren Pease; Feb 27, 2007 at 06:19 PM. )
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 06:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
The idea of a carbon emissions tax is that everyone will have to pay for their own externalities. This balances the cost fairly across everyone (including the space explorers you are so fixated on). But I guess you'd only support an emissions tax on everyone else.
Do I get money back for planting a shedload of trees?


No, thought not.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
OK, then smart guy -- what sacrifices have you made due to global warming?

I get it. You don't care about the anybody else. You admit there's a problem, but want everyone else but you to have to do something about it.
No, I just don't see how you expect me to go first. I can see many reasons to expect you to go first. And scientists (even other than climate scientists) to go first. This is your cause; why on earth would you expect someone else to lead the way?
( Last edited by Uncle Skeleton; Feb 27, 2007 at 06:49 PM. )
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
No, I just don't see how you expect me to go first. I can see many reasons to expect you to go first. And scientists (even other than climate scientists) to go first. This is your cause; why on earth would you expect someone else to lead the way?


And since we're expecting those who're actually whining about global warming to lead the way, we'll start with Al Gore.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 08:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
The sacrifices proposed affect some more then others.

Climageddon is far from truth. Apparently we have thousands of years of data to "prove" global warming. But 30 years ago we were all supposed to build an igloo for the summer.
Science is a process, where there is always a margin of error, sometimes bigger than others, however, that doesn't suddenly invalidate our current findings which are supported by a large body of evidence.

By the same token you cannot "prove" that Global Warming is not occurring, and most evidence and models created from decades of experience seem to indicate otherwise, so which is more logical to believe?

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Diller is right....until these experts can predict weather for the next 24 hours how the hell can they be absolute in truth predicting climate (weather on a much much larger scale) for the next couple idecades. I don't buy it.
That's a strange arbitrary criteria to set. As has been said before, the science of prediction sees rather different on a long-term versus short-term basis. These are general predictions, which means that they are easier to calculate than day-to-day predictions. Why would you think otherwise?

How is it that I can predict the general weather next season, but not tomorrows?

If I say that winter will be cold compared to this summer, would you use the same logic to question my prediction? I cannot tell you how the weather will be tomorrow or even later today and yet I can predict how the general weather will be months from now. How? Because of certain established long-term weather patterns on Earth.

Now, if you take a larger sample of data, across thousands of years it's not difficult to see that there might be a larger pattern at work and that something has changed during the last few hundred years, which when corroborated with human activity supports the theory that we are at least partly to blame especially when we know that CO2 and other emissions can cause a runaway greenhouse effect (for which we even have Venus as an extreme example).

But that doesn't matter because science is not infallible...

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Even supposing that man made CO2 emissions are causing global warming...

you still have no evidence for an effective solution. Something that all you GW/climageddon alarmists seem to keep overlooking.
Yes we do. The first step is to actually recognize the issue. For the moment, we can reduce the harm we cause by taking steps to minimize our gasoline and power usage produced via polluting means (turning off unneeded equipment, using more fuel-efficient cars, combining drives, etc).

For the long term, new "Earth-friendly" technologies should replace old polluting technologies and new "Earth-friendly" policies should be instituted. And yes, ultimately, all this requires a lifestyle change, which is more balanced and respectful to the Earth, and I think that's where the major resistance to change is coming from.
     
King Bob On The Cob
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Gamoe View Post
Yes we do. The first step is to actually recognize the issue. For the moment, we can reduce the harm we cause by taking steps to minimize our gasoline and power usage produced via polluting means (turning off unneeded equipment, using more fuel-efficient cars, combining drives, etc).

For the long term, new "Earth-friendly" technologies should replace old polluting technologies and new "Earth-friendly" policies should be instituted. And yes, ultimately, all this requires a lifestyle change, which is more balanced and respectful to the Earth, and I think that's where the major resistance to change is coming from.
Please hit yourself upside the head.

Most people are not hippies. Learn this right now, and it'll make your life a lot easier. To sell Earth friendly crap, you have to make it more attractive than the alternative. This is pretty easy, as most earth friendly things use less energy, and using less energy means saving money, and money talks. Going the socialist route and saying "I don't like what you're doing, so you can't do it. You must change your life style because it's easy and I did it." is just asinine.

You can go back to being an elitist asshole that looks down on everyone else now.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 27, 2007, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
Please hit yourself upside the head.

Most people are not hippies. Learn this right now, and it'll make your life a lot easier. To sell Earth friendly crap, you have to make it more attractive than the alternative. This is pretty easy, as most earth friendly things use less energy, and using less energy means saving money, and money talks. Going the socialist route and saying "I don't like what you're doing, so you can't do it. You must change your life style because it's easy and I did it." is just asinine.

You can go back to being an elitist asshole that looks down on everyone else now.

I agree, but I also think that it probably isn't bad to get all preachy to the wealthy, as they can stimulate this industry sector so that these options become increasingly viable to the poor and middle class.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2007, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
Please hit yourself upside the head.

Most people are not hippies. Learn this right now, and it'll make your life a lot easier. To sell Earth friendly crap, you have to make it more attractive than the alternative. This is pretty easy, as most earth friendly things use less energy, and using less energy means saving money, and money talks. Going the socialist route and saying "I don't like what you're doing, so you can't do it. You must change your life style because it's easy and I did it." is just asinine.

You can go back to being an elitist asshole that looks down on everyone else now.
Thank you.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2007, 01:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Well here ya go:

The British government is currently attempting to pass a law which will require that every car is tracked (via an in-vehicle black box) to see where and how far the driver goes. The driver will then be presented with a bill to pay depending on where/how he's driven.

This is being presented as a green policy - you know, save us from the global warming and stuff.
Ahhhh, see but this isn't arguing about global warming. This is a completely different argument, and one which Uncle has seized on – whether changing current human activities will have a realistic "reversing" trend on our historical global warming impacts. Totally different argument, and an entirely valid one. If I might dare to opine though, it has little to do with your history of global-warming dissent on this forum.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
But it's petty squabbling and name-calling (like that often offered by you) that make the issue ideological/political, rather than scientific. Wouldn't you agree?
...
If you'll allow me to analyze your (posting) personality for a moment, you'd like the lowly underclass to defer to your expert knowledge, and let you dictate instructions for "the general good" from on high, without dirtying your hands by considering their problems or *gasp* their opinions. That's not how it works. Like it or not, their opinions are as important as yours, and if you want them to agree with you you'll have to actually convince them, not just insult their intelligence. Or simply put, be nice.
No, I don't think this is it. I don't think convincing the dissenters on this forum is possible. I've been discussing the issue on here for as long as I can remember, and to be honest I can't think of a single dissenter who has changed their opinion on the matter in that time. The exact same arguments come up every single time, only to be discounted, only to be brought up again the next time the subject pops up.

For example,
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Diller is right....until these experts can predict weather for the next 24 hours how the hell can they be absolute in truth predicting climate (weather on a much much larger scale) for the next couple idecades. I don't buy it.
which I have already shown time and time again to be a fantastically illogical statement, and did so again on this very page. It doesn't make any sense in the context of climate change or climate modeling. And yet it gets repeated in every thread, by people such as Snow-i who have already read my irrefutable rebuttal multiple times.

Personally, I think we'll continue working towards an acceptable solution to climate change as these people slowly die out, and a younger generation that has been educated on the subject comes of age. It's not exactly politically correct, but there it is.

*shrug*

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2007, 02:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Diller is right....until these experts can predict weather for the next 24 hours how the hell can they be absolute in truth predicting climate (weather on a much much larger scale) for the next couple idecades. I don't buy it.
Proof: If you want warm weather, would you more likely move to Alaska or Costa Rica? You could easily answer this question — even though you're incapable of predicting tomorrow's precise weather in either of these places — because the climate is controlled by much more constant and well-known variables.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Gamoe
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 28, 2007, 03:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
Please hit yourself upside the head.

Most people are not hippies. Learn this right now, and it'll make your life a lot easier. To sell Earth friendly crap, you have to make it more attractive than the alternative.
The alternative is a very trashed and polluted Earth with crazy weather patterns, stronger and/or more frequent hurricanes, rising ocean levels and less habitable land, thick air pollution in cities and increased cancer rates to name a few. Preventing that kind of thing sounds much more attractive to me.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
This is pretty easy, as most earth friendly things use less energy, and using less energy means saving money, and money talks. Going the socialist route and saying "I don't like what you're doing, so you can't do it. You must change your life style because it's easy and I did it." is just asinine.
Trying to reduce one's environmental impact is socialist? It's not a matter of not liking what people are doing or of taking away individual's personal liberties or spying on them (like the British car-tracking project mentioned which is abysmal and unacceptable).

It's a matter of securing some kind of future where we (and our kids and our kids' kids and so on) won't all have to suffer terrible consequences for the damage we've done and are doing. Government does have a role here, but mainly with big business, in my view.

I've never even alluded to mandating anything to anyone. That's quite an erroneous leap on your part. But you have a very low opinion of your fellow man if you think everybody does anything and everything for money.

I think most people would actually like to do something positive for the environment, for its sake, but they don't for lack of education or (affordable) options (which is where the government comes in with big business). So, I agree with making "Earth-friendly" options more attractive and affordable. I've never said otherwise, but it certainly isn't the best or only reason to be "earth-friendly".

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob View Post
You can go back to being an elitist asshole that looks down on everyone else now.
Wow. First I'm a hippy, then an "elitist asshole" and I look down on everyone else. Seems like you're the one making the judgments around here. I'm not sure where your anger stems from: guilt, fear, or hatred for opposing viewpoints, but there's absolutely no reason not to be civil about it. And funny, this coming from an "elite" Mac user.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Thank you.
For wild assumptions and vulgar name calling? Sad.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:38 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,