[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

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.

What is the dividing line between socialism and promoting the well-being of your society? Are laws against littering over the line? Vandalism? Rape?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

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.

People who change their mind after arguing on the internet usually don't come back to announce it. They just don't come back.

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.

You can see this as an opportunity to refine your arguments against them. Trim the fat, make them more concise, more understandable, and more relatable. Sometimes the internet is just practice for the real world. And don't forget that you might discover now and then that you've been wrong about something and end up changing your mind. You might see that your opponents are ahead of you in the game of making their argument relatable (like dissing the local weather girl's predictive powers, for example). And just as a tip, adding technical definitions, jargon, and arguing from authority are steps in the wrong direction.

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.

Yes, that sentiment is attributed to Max Planck some 100 years ago. But as I understand your case, you don't have time to wait for that, no?

[typoon]

Greenhouse sceptics to congregate - National - theage.com.au

Greenhouse sceptics to congregate
Katharine Murphy and Brendan Nicholson, Canberra and Richard Baker
February 28, 2007

HARD-CORE global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion.

Former mining executive Arvi Parbo will launch Ray Evans' new publication, Nine Facts About Climate Change, at a function at Parliament House.

The book claims climate change is nothing new and declares Howard Government investments in solar power and in cleaning up coal a "complete waste of taxpayers' money".

"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication.

"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says.

"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."

The function is organised by the Lavoisier Group, founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and former mining executive Hugh Morgan to test claims that global warming is the result of human activity.

Mr Evans is a longstanding friend and colleague of Mr Morgan and a committed activist on issues such as workplace reform through the HR Nicholls Society, which he founded with federal Treasurer Peter Costello.

Former Labor minister Peter Walsh also will attend today's function, and the group will hold a dinner to be addressed by climate-change sceptic Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at Auckland University.

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has organised the function on behalf of the Lavoisier Group and expects about 50 people to attend the dinner.

Dr Jensen, a nuclear physicist, has said he is not convinced that human activity is responsible for global warming.

In an interview with The Age last month, Mr Evans acknowledged that last September's visit by former US vice-president Al Gore to promote his Oscar-winning global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth had helped generate a lot of publicity on climate change.

But he described Mr Gore's film as "bullshit from beginning to end".

"The science from the anthropology point of view has collapsed. The carbon-dioxide link is increasingly recognised as irrelevant," Mr Evans said.

"But the Government's frightened.

"Cabinet, from what I understand, is by and large still sceptical of climate change, but it is scared of the drought and worried about how Labor will make use of it."

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by typoon 

Former mining executive Arvi Parbo will launch Ray Evans' new publication, Nine Facts About Climate Change, at a function at Parliament House.

The function is organised by the Lavoisier Group, founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and former mining executive Hugh Morgan to test claims that global warming is the result of human activity.

Dr Jensen, a nuclear physicist, has said he is not convinced that human activity is responsible for global warming.

Multiple-thread post-quotes? How lame.

Of course, an anti-global-warming organization founded by the mining industry probably seems like a perfectly legitimate source of information to you, right?

greg

[Orion27]

Here's more fat to chew on>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

As prosperity increased around the world in recent decades, the number of people eating meat (and the amount one eats every year) has risen steadily. Between 1970 and 2002, annual per capita meat consumption in developing countries rose from 11 kilograms (24 lbs.) to 29 kilograms (64 lbs.), according to the FAO. (In developed countries, the comparable figures were 65 kilos and 80 kilos.) As population increased, total meat consumption in the developing world grew nearly five-fold over that period.

Beyond that, annual global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tons at the beginning of the decade to 465 million tons in 2050. This makes livestock the fastest growing sector of global agriculture.

Animal-rights activists and those advocating vegetarianism have been quick to pick up on the implications of the FAO report.

"Arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products," writes Noam Mohr in a report for EarthSave International.

Changing one's diet can lower greenhouse gas emissions quicker than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies, Mr. Mohr writes, because the turnover rate for farm animals is shorter than that for cars and power plants.

"Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today," he writes. "Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth."

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

HARD-CORE global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion.

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to preserve their own wealth and power, even at the cost of the world if need be. They don't care about anything else so long as they continue to thrive economically and have power. This is the extreme selfishness that has caused so much suffering in the world, even beyond the environmentalist aspect. Power and wealth is their religion.

Moral superiority? No. How about just trying to be a decent human being?

[RAILhead]

"At the cost of the world..." You people are awesome. But yeah, I thought I lived in a free country, so I'll do whatever I want -- and screw everyone else. You may not like it, but that's freedom.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

"I thought I lived in a free country, so I'll do whatever I want -- and screw everyone else. You may not like it, but that's freedom.

But you can't do anything you want and screw everyone else. See: laws

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

But you can't do anything you want and screw everyone else. See: laws

Please.

When the Socialists and Commies decide to try and keep me from driving the vehilcle I want, I'm being screwed with. OH WAIT!!! It's okay for THEM to decide for me, so it's okay....

[Orion27]

What Consensus? Here's a list of scientists with a different opinion. I believe you can link to their papers a well. Available quotes from most as well.
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Please.

When the Socialists and Commies decide to try and keep me from driving the vehilcle I want, I'm being screwed with. OH WAIT!!! It's okay for THEM to decide for me, so it's okay....

You can't drive tanks or monster trucks on the road, so I guess you're being screwed with.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You can't drive tanks or monster trucks on the road, so I guess you're being screwed with.

Where did I say anything about tanks of monster trucks?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Where did I say anything about tanks of monster trucks?

They're 'vehicles'.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to preserve their own wealth and power, even at the cost of the world if need be. They don't care about anything else so long as they continue to thrive economically and have power. This is the extreme selfishness that has caused so much suffering in the world, even beyond the environmentalist aspect. Power and wealth is their religion.

Moral superiority? No. How about just trying to be a decent human being?

What you mean is you can't believe that not everyone buys into your bullshit, and wants to lay down their livlihood just because you say so.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What you mean is you can't believe that not everyone buys into your bullshit, and wants to lay down their livlihood just because you say so.

Do you think Gabriel and I make money off the idea of global warming somehow?

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Do you think Gabriel and I make money off the idea of global warming somehow?

When the UN asks for Carbon Taxes, who is going to buy and who is going to sell? I think the North Koreans will be sellers, and Kim Jung Il will make sure of it. Take a look at the environmentalists wet dream here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

It's amazing the lengths that people will go to to preserve their own wealth and power, even at the cost of the world if need be. They don't care about anything else so long as they continue to thrive economically and have power. This is the extreme selfishness that has caused so much suffering in the world, even beyond the environmentalist aspect. Power and wealth is their religion.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

What you mean is you can't believe that not everyone buys into your bullshit, and wants to lay down their livlihood just because you say so.

I think that essentially he is right, people do and will go to great lengths to hang on to the things they have accumulated.

The problem is that those whose opinion he supports in regards to global warming are doing the exact same thing. They aren't making any sacrifices.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The problem is that those whose opinion he supports in regards to global warming are doing the exact same thing. They aren't making any sacrifices.

Perhaps, but that's immaterial to whether man is causing global warming or whether sacrifices should be made.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Perhaps, but that's immaterial to whether man is causing global warming or whether sacrifices should be made.

It is?

Seems to me that when those who are telling US that we need to make sacrifices aren't making any themselves that it is a legitimate concern.

You have no problem with following hypocrites?

If those who are perpetuating this movement don't see it as enough of a threat to make their own sacrifices why should we?

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

When the UN asks for Carbon Taxes, who is going to buy and who is going to sell? I think the North Koreans will be sellers, and Kim Jung Il will make sure of it. Take a look at the environmentalists wet dream here:North Korea might now have The Bomb, but it doesn't have much electricity | the Daily Mail

Perhaps. But how does this political agenda change the fundamental issue? It doesn't.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

"At the cost of the world..." You people are awesome. But yeah, I thought I lived in a free country, so I'll do whatever I want -- and screw everyone else. You may not like it, but that's freedom.

There is a line between personal freedom and social justice. When your right to freedom starts trumping another individual's or a neighborhood's or a world's right then you are not entitled to it, just as they are not entitled to trump your basic freedoms.

This is a basic philosophical principle which either you have not learned, are confusing or are using to sidetrack the main issue.

I'm not advocating that your truck be taken away or that they not be sold. I do advocate that the way future trucks' engines work be redone so that it is not nearly as polluting or ideally, completely non-polluting.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Perhaps, but that's immaterial to whether man is causing global warming or whether sacrifices should be made.

Precisely. Politicians and others may align themselves with a good cause solely for political reasons, without making the necessary sacrifices. They do it all the time with all sorts of issues. But that doesn't negate the cause.

Anyway there seems little point in continuing this discussion. There is too much ego, fear and anger to reach any kind of agreement or respectful disagreement.

Most here are not interested in discussion. The openness (which can only come from mutual respect) which is required for different sides to consider each other is disgracefully missing here.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

Most here are not interested in discussion. The openness (which can only come from mutual respect) which is required for different sides to consider each other is disgracefully missing here.

In the meantime, my CO2 footprint is *still* lower than yours.

Oh, and if you're going to bang on about saving the planet, maybe it'd be a good idea to change your sig to something which doesn't say "my computer is on all the time".

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Orion27 

What Consensus? Here's a list of scientists with a different opinion. I believe you can link to their papers a well. Available quotes from most as well.
Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That list has come up on these forums before, and has already been discredited. It includes Robert Carter and Fred Singer, for God's sakes.

Plus, it's what, 17 people long? Wake me up when you can't find a worldwide issue that has 17 dissenters. Thanks for coming out.

greg

[JoshuaZ]

Sigh..... no matter how you look at it, whats wrong with cutting down on the amount of pollution being pumped into our air, our water, and our ground? Even if we`re not causing global climate change we`re still putting a lot of bad stuff into the air. I don`t like the fact that when I visit China my skin feels super dity and my lungs turn black. Or the fact that I can`t see the next island over because of the thick smog from the factories in city here in Japan (a view which was once highly spoken of in my area). That and the river next to my apartment is the source of many jokes in the community because of its horrible color.

No one wants to live with that kind of stuff. We`re in an advanced technological society, shouldn`t we start acting like it?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Please.

When the Socialists and Commies decide to try and keep me from driving the vehilcle I want, I'm being screwed with. OH WAIT!!! It's okay for THEM to decide for me, so it's okay....

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

You can't drive tanks or monster trucks on the road, so I guess you're being screwed with.

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

Where did I say anything about tanks of monster trucks?

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

They're 'vehicles'.

Railhead,
You made a point that some groups might try and prevent you from "driving the vehicle [you] want" and Dakar replied indicating that there already IS a group doing just that : the government. No-one can drive just any vehicle they want on the roads and highways of the United States. It just so happens that the type of vehicle you currently want to drive is allowed. But for someone else, the type of vehicle they want to drive is not allowed. This goes to show there is already a group preventing people from driving the types of vehicles they want. So, it's not like the "Socialists and Commies" you think are out to get you really are out to get you.


PS: Do the Interstate highways where you live in Texas have a prohibition against "self-propelled vehicles, farm machinery, and mopeds"? Because almost every interstate I have ever been on has a sign like that somewhere on an on-ramp to that interstate. If you have some kind of similar prohibition on the interstate highways in Texas then there is your proof that some group is already preventing individuals from "driving the vehicle [they] want".

[Doofy]

You guys are all veggie, right?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I only eat soylent green.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

It is?

Seems to me that when those who are telling US that we need to make sacrifices aren't making any themselves that it is a legitimate concern.

You have no problem with following hypocrites?

I have no problem with doing the right thing even if some hypocrites are supporting me for the wrong reasons.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If those who are perpetuating this movement don't see it as enough of a threat to make their own sacrifices why should we?

I don't believe a cause is made wrong or right by the sincerity of some people who espouse it. If a high-placed member of an anti-pedophilia group is found to be molesting children, does that make child molestation all right in your eyes? Are you going to say, "Well, if he won't refrain from molesting children, why should I?"

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

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.

Most of those are not really linked to GW. NOAA made several steps back on it's "GW caused Katrina to be as massive as it is" stance, oceans may actually recede if we mess with the ocean currents and stop warm water from making it's trip north. Cancer rates are not at all linked with GW. Don't be mistaken I'm not against reducing pollution, I just think that GW is more FUD than anything.

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

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).

No, you're right, but many of the laws that are being called for by GW advocates are hugely socialist, designed mainly, it seems, to remove just about any status symbols out there, rather than addressing the bigger pollution (Case and point: ask your average joe american what's the primary reason for GW, and they'll say SUVs, while the primary creator of CO2 is actually water pumping and water heating.)

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

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.

There's money to be made in earth friendly, you always seem to avoid that issue. Big Business can be the GW advocates best friend, if you don't keep trying to pick a fight with it. I personally don't want to give our children a country where only the richest can afford livable amounts of energy (Tax the crap outta gas, then only the rich can afford to drive).

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

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.

You said that people must change their quality of life. I'm pretty sure they won't do that willingly, so the only other way is forcing the issue.

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

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.



For wild assumptions and vulgar name calling? Sad.

Hippies are elitist assholes, and I KNOW I'm an elitist asshole.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I don't believe a cause is made wrong or right by the sincerity of some people who espouse it. If a high-placed member of an anti-pedophilia group is found to be molesting children, does that make child molestation all right in your eyes? Are you going to say, "Well, if he won't refrain from molesting children, why should I?"

That's not a fair comparison. Are you equating child molestation with CO₂ output/global warming?

My point isn't that the hypocrisy invalidates the "cause", it's that when those who lead are not credible it can cast suspicion on the "cause" in the eyes of those you would wish to win over.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Cancer rates are not at all linked with GW.

But cancers are certainly related to other atmospheric environmental issues, such as the ozone hole. When you've got insane skin cancer and cataract rates in the past couple decades in South America...hmmmmmmmmm. And yet, a few years ago a lot of the same people who are currently anti-global warming on this board were just as virulently opposed to the "ozone hole" theory. What a surprising correlation, I'm sure.

greg

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's not a fair comparison. Are you equating child molestation with CO₂ output/global warming?

Ahhhhahahahahaha!

Seriously Kevin, come on here buddy. Where's the logical fallacy posts? If this silence keeps up we're gonna start to think you're biased or something.......

greg

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Ahhhhahahahahaha!

Seriously Kevin, come on here buddy. Where's the logical fallacy posts? If this silence keeps up we're gonna start to think you're biased or something.......

greg

He can go right ahead. Unlike egoists like you, I'm not trying to "win" anything or make myself appear superior.

I fail to see how his molestation example is compatible with the discussion at hand. Care to explain it? I'm a little thick today.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Something can be right or wrong regardless of who says it.

[Gamoe]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In the meantime, my CO2 footprint is *still* lower than yours.

In case you missed it, there's that ego again! I've never claimed to be better, or do better than anyone else. I am receptive to the cause of cutting down on the harm we're doing to the planet and trying to avoid the major ramifications of Glabal Warming. I do some small things, but that does not make me better than anyone else. However, this defensive(/offensive) attitude does no one any good

As far as your CO2 footprint, I congratulate you for being contientious, but I am not judging you and I expect you not to judge me. Apart from that you have no way of knowing how high or low my "Eco footprint" is, so you have no way to compare.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Oh, and if you're going to bang on about saving the planet, maybe it'd be a good idea to change your sig to something which doesn't say "my computer is on all the time".

I believe in the environmentalist cause and actr accordingly, but that doesn't mean I'm a fanatic or that suddenly all my priorities lie with that. I'm not a fanatic. I believe in taking care of myself and being healthy as well, but that doesn't mean I won't take a risk and go outside or eat a pizza now and then. It's merely that the risks must be either negligable or worth the potential gain.

We could eliminate the issues of pollution entirely if we gave up our modern technologies and lived as people did hundreds of years ago without factories, computers or cars. But I don't belive that's the answer. We should progress, even if that means expereincing growing pains.

I belive we can continue to use and produce advanced techology and acheive a proper balance with nature, but that does require increased awareness, consideration and effort on our part, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to progress in other areas even if it requires pollution in the mean-time. It's all a balance.

I happen to vehemently belive in the progress of science and medicine for the good of humanity, which is why I contribute to Einstein, SETI and Folding@home, in spite of the increased power usage they require. If I didn't belive in these projects, I would have my computers sleep, but I believe it to be a worthwhile endeaver. Instead, I try to cut down on other unnecessary and overindulgent activities as best I can. Again, I stress balance.

It's not issue of X is good, but Y is bad. It's not an issue of everything being an end to the enviornmentalist cause. Instead, taking care of our world is merely a means towards being able to progress and better ourselves. I'm not saying realistically that we should have 0% pollution. It'd be ideal, but probably not realistic anytime soon. But that's not necessary.

We've seen that the Earth can absorb certain levels of pollution. For example, the space program alone (taking a previous example) won't do enough damage to the Earth to cause Global Warming and major enviornmental catastrophies. But millions of factories, cars and other CO2 producing machines in the world is. Therefore, we must priorize. And I think this can be done in a way that all but the most self-serving people can be satisfied.

Originally Posted by JoshuaZ 

Sigh..... no matter how you look at it, whats wrong with cutting down on the amount of pollution being pumped into our air, our water, and our ground?

Because appartently our personal freedoms to trash the place are more important.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Most of those are not really linked to GW. NOAA made several steps back on it's "GW caused Katrina to be as massive as it is" stance, oceans may actually recede if we mess with the ocean currents and stop warm water from making it's trip north. Cancer rates are not at all linked with GW. Don't be mistaken I'm not against reducing pollution, I just think that GW is more FUD than anything.

I realize that. I was talking about environmental issues in general. I do think there are some people who exaggrate either unintentiaonally or for other agendas, which is not cool.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

No, you're right, but many of the laws that are being called for by GW advocates are hugely socialist, designed mainly, it seems, to remove just about any status symbols out there, rather than addressing the bigger pollution (Case and point: ask your average joe american what's the primary reason for GW, and they'll say SUVs, while the primary creator of CO2 is actually water pumping and water heating.)

Materialism is another issue, though it does overlap with enviornmental issues (the unnecessary overuse of resources), but I think the honest environmentalist will stick to the issue at hand. There's nothing wrong with having a "status symbol" as long as it doesn't cause unnecessay environmental damage.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

There's money to be made in earth friendly, you always seem to avoid that issue. Big Business can be the GW advocates best friend, if you don't keep trying to pick a fight with it. I personally don't want to give our children a country where only the richest can afford livable amounts of energy (Tax the crap outta gas, then only the rich can afford to drive).

I totally agree. The government can give businesses incentives to produce more environmentally-friendly solutions, and businesses can cash in on selling more efficient and less (long-term) costly products, but something must also be done about this rampant pollution going on in so around the world (as you mention) including developed and developing countries. I think a multi-pronged strategy is in order for this issue.

Sometimes big businesses must be forced to comply for a lack of ethical standards and because the businesses which do have some standards can't hope to successfully compete if it isn't a level playing field, which must sometimes be set by the government. But incentives should be present too and just as prevalent.

As for gasoline specifically, I think we need to move on completely to another fuel source which is sustainable, non-polluting, renewable and cheaper as a consequence. It is the rich who benefit most from hanging on to oil as a primary fuel source.

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

You said that people must change their quality of life. I'm pretty sure they won't do that willingly, so the only other way is forcing the issue.

We must all eventually change our lifestyles, but that doesn't mean a decrease in quality of life. In fact, I think the point is increasing the quality of life. I belive in voluntary measures wherever possible, but certainly some laws and policies are necessary for change to occur. Since when is there a major change worldwide without laws being changed or passed?

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

Hippies are elitist assholes, and I KNOW I'm an elitist asshole.

Okay...

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

But cancers are certainly related to other atmospheric environmental issues, such as the ozone hole. When you've got insane skin cancer and cataract rates in the past couple decades in South America...hmmmmmmmmm. And yet, a few years ago a lot of the same people who are currently anti-global warming on this board were just as virulently opposed to the "ozone hole" theory. What a surprising correlation, I'm sure.

greg

Just FYI, the lab scientists at the time said that CFCs couldn't break down in the atmosphere. This brought doubt to it at that time. These are the same people who are telling us how CO2 works in the atmosphere, BTW.



Cancer rates were up in Australia as well, you want to know why?

Panic caused by the ozone hole had caused people to slather sunscreen on when they went outside, they always wore long sleeved clothing, and hats. This caused them to not get enough sun, dropping their vitamin D levels far enough that they started developing forms of cancer such as breast cancer. I am just using this anecdote to point out that you must be careful when you put the public in a panic. Don't replace something bad with something worse.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

That's not a fair comparison. Are you equating child molestation with CO₂ output/global warming?

I'm stating a universal principle that applies to child molestation as well as global warming. You should not refuse to oppose something bad just because you dislike other people who oppose it. That's a horrible reason for supporting something.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I'm stating a universal principle that applies to child molestation as well as global warming. You should not refuse to oppose something bad just because you dislike other people who oppose it. That's a horrible reason for supporting something.

It's an oversimplification. I agree in principle.

Those who we must rely upon to implement the "fixes" are those very same hypocrites. Wealthy politicians who put have their own interests…namely retaining/increasing their power and wealth…over those of their country or the world.

If there was the same conflict of interest with the solutions for child molestation I would say the same thing. Would you want a government and its advisors/experts run by child molesters to be the ones creating policy on child molesting?

[pyrite]

this might have been covered already, but the irony is amazing!....

Al Gore's been brought back to reality:
Al Gore�s Personal Energy Use Is His Own �Inconvenient Truth�

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Gamoe 

In case you missed it, there's that ego again! I've never claimed to be better, or do better than anyone else. I am receptive to the cause of cutting down on the harm we're doing to the planet and trying to avoid the major ramifications of Glabal Warming. I do some small things, but that does not make me better than anyone else. However, this defensive(/offensive) attitude does no one any good

The problem is that while you have a somewhat sensible take on it, most of the other GW fans are complete assholes who want to ban things. They don't see this balance you talk about. For example, they look down at me for driving a V8, whilst not realising that (1) I'm veggie (so therefore my food doesn't produce CO2), (2) I work from home so have no commute and (3) I have hundreds of trees on my property (and am planting more). Not to mention the fact that I don't fly. Because they don't engage in these CO2 lowering activities, they expect that nobody else does them either - thus they assume that the only way of lowering CO2 is for me to use a different car (and therefore try to ban pretty much my *only* CO2 producing activity - driving something which I actually like being in). Creates a defensive attitude.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem is that while you have a somewhat sensible take on it, most of the other GW fans are complete assholes who want to ban things. They don't see this balance you talk about. For example, they look down at me for driving a V8, whilst not realising that (1) I'm veggie (so therefore my food doesn't produce CO2), (2) I work from home so have no commute and (3) I have hundreds of trees on my property (and am planting more). Not to mention the fact that I don't fly. Because they don't engage in these CO2 lowering activities, they expect that nobody else does them either - thus they assume that the only way of lowering CO2 is for me to use a different car (and therefore try to ban pretty much my *only* CO2 producing activity - driving something which I actually like being in). Creates a defensive attitude.

And this argument (which usually seems to be your main one) is something I don't get, because you're not arguing against global warming here. You're simply annoyed because you actually have low emissions, but since you use one popular emitting technology people stereotype you.

Well, that's all and good, but of course it's not an anti-global–warming argument.

I fail to see how his molestation example is compatible with the discussion at hand. Care to explain it? I'm a little thick today.

The example isn't compatible with global warming; it's an analogy for the purposes of relating an argument. When someone makes an analogy in an argument, if their opponent immediately yells "oh so you think X is related to Y now??" then they have lost Argument Points®. No one wants to lose those.

greg

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem is that while you have a somewhat sensible take on it, most of the other GW fans are complete assholes who want to ban things. They don't see this balance you talk about. For example, they look down at me for driving a V8, whilst not realising that (1) I'm veggie (so therefore my food doesn't produce CO2), (2) I work from home so have no commute and (3) I have hundreds of trees on my property (and am planting more). Not to mention the fact that I don't fly. Because they don't engage in these CO2 lowering activities, they expect that nobody else does them either - thus they assume that the only way of lowering CO2 is for me to use a different car (and therefore try to ban pretty much my *only* CO2 producing activity - driving something which I actually like being in). Creates a defensive attitude.

The environmentalists my be focusing on the wrong gas. Methane, is 23 times more potent than co2 as a green house gas. If the warming trend is a natural fluctuation, the release of methane from the arctic tundra may be influential as is natural releases from other sources. The point is, the carbon tax proposals and carbon neutral arguments could be irrelevant to the problem.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

And this argument (which usually seems to be your main one) is something I don't get, because you're not arguing against global warming here. You're simply annoyed because you actually have low emissions, but since you use one popular emitting technology people stereotype you.

Yep, that's about it. But I'm not simply annoyed - I'm downright effin' raging about it.

The mindset I'm talking about is becoming completely pervasive over here. Seriously, you take a small car (i.e. a Suzuki Swift) and the hippies have no problem with it. You stick a 4x4 badge to the exact same car and they all go nuts, spitting at you and such like.

And this is my main problem - it's all been politicised to the point where the general public haven't got a clue other than "4x4 bad, m'kay". Why? Because the powers that be (at the moment) have always hated 4x4s (status symbol) and are using GW as an excuse to tax them off the road and use social pressure to do the same.

Figure this: Some folks want to ban 4x4s from town/city centres (thus requiring a farmer or suchlike to have two cars - one for work, one for shopping). But then these same people also start banging on about folks with more than one car (blindly forgetting that you can only actually drive one of them at a time: 300 cars with one available driver puts out the same CO2 as one car with one driver). You can't get any sense out of these folks and unfortunately they tend to be the gobbiest assholes who also manage to get into councils.

So, instead of making me actually care about the environment (which I always have done anyways, being a country boy), these assholes who're going at it with the global warming are actually making me think "who gives a toss?".

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well, that's all and good, but of course it's not an anti-global–warming argument.

No, it's an anti-global-warming-as-political-religion argument. You really can't divorce it from politics.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The problem is that while you have a somewhat sensible take on it, most of the other GW fans are complete assholes who want to ban things.

Go check out the various Al Gore threads, and see all the posters who think Gore shouldn't be allowed to use electricity, even though he offsets all his carbon emissions. There are idiots on both sides. More education is clearly needed.

Another way which might have worked is if governments had moved faster on the problem. But the US stopped that. Now there is a lot of pressure to do something, often from people who don't really know much about the issue, and I think I agree with you that this could cause some stupid solutions to be implemented. However, there is a huge problem, and it does need to be solved.

Your expectations are too high. You expect people who are worried about global warming to know about the science, to understand various tradeoffs, and to implement economically rational policies. However, again, just look at the pro-warming crowd in this forum -- almost none of them has the faintest idea of what science even is. Realistically, assuming a fairly even distribution of stupid people, the same has to be true of the anti-warming crowd.

Your arguments at the moment are just going to be counterproductive. You'd be better off standing behind the scientists and economists who are making reasonable predictions (not "we'll all be under 20 feet of water in 20 years") and proposing sound solutions (carbon emissions taxes). The longer solutions are put off, the more drastic they will have to be. Also, the more radical the support will be if some of the movement continues to be driven by Hollywood instead of co-opted into mainstream governance -- meaning that solutions will be less reasonable.

[Doofy]

I agree with what you've just said, but...

Originally Posted by tie 

Your arguments at the moment are just going to be counterproductive. You'd be better off standing behind the scientists and economists who are making reasonable predictions (not "we'll all be under 20 feet of water in 20 years") and proposing sound solutions (carbon emissions taxes).

...I can't stand behind that at all. Because those carbon emissions taxes will not be fair - they'll be politicised to favour whatever the current administration loves or hates. Not to mention used to further our loss of liberties and privacy.

If they can do it without bias and without loss of liberty or privacy, then I'll stand behind it. But since it's logically impossible to achieve both (you can't figure my CO2 print without coming and counting the trees on my property or checking what I'm eating, which would result in a loss of privacy), it's going to be a long wait.

So, my continued stance on this is: What comes comes. We're human, we'll adapt.

[Snow-i]

Your arguments at the moment are just going to be counterproductive. You'd be better off standing behind the scientists and economists who are making reasonable predictions (not "we'll all be under 20 feet of water in 20 years") and proposing sound solutions (carbon emissions taxes). The longer solutions are put off, the more drastic they will have to be. Also, the more radical the support will be if some of the movement continues to be driven by Hollywood instead of co-opted into mainstream governance -- meaning that solutions will be less reasonable.

Its that sort of blind zealousy that has brought about all the corruption we see today. The survival on us as a people requires that we educate ourselves and keep those who we've elected into power in check, by making our own decisions and not taking everyone's word for it.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Its that sort of blind zealousy that has brought about all the corruption we see today. The survival on us as a people requires that we educate ourselves and keep those who we've elected into power in check, by making our own decisions and not taking everyone's word for it.

People should also avoid sticking their heads in the sand when they don't want to agree with the evidence.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I agree with what you've just said, but...

...I can't stand behind that at all. Because those carbon emissions taxes will not be fair - they'll be politicised to favour whatever the current administration loves or hates. Not to mention used to further our loss of liberties and privacy.

If they can do it without bias and without loss of liberty or privacy, then I'll stand behind it. But since it's logically impossible to achieve both (you can't figure my CO2 print without coming and counting the trees on my property or checking what I'm eating, which would result in a loss of privacy), it's going to be a long wait.

So, my continued stance on this is: What comes comes. We're human, we'll adapt.

It isn't easy to count the trees on your property, but it is certainly easy to tax the food you buy at the supermarket. (Either the producers, the supermarket, or you would pay it.)

Anyway, I still think you're digging your own grave. What's coming is a solution. The longer you try to put it off, the harder it will be.

We're human and we'll adapt -- but at much more expense than if we had avoided the problem in the first place. And much of the rest of the world won't adapt. Coral reefs will suffer from ocean acidification, etc. I'm a diver, so I care about this stuff.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Its that sort of blind zealousy that has brought about all the corruption we see today. The survival on us as a people requires that we educate ourselves and keep those who we've elected into power in check, by making our own decisions and not taking everyone's word for it.

I don't agree. This isn't Iraq where we were supposed to trust a tiny group of people, who it turns out were lying through their teeth. There are thousands of scientists with an open process. Anybody who wants to can dig into it as much as they want. If they disagree or find problems, they can easily publish their thoughts. I trust the scientific process much more than I do Bush's corrupt administration, or politics in general.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't agree. This isn't Iraq where we were supposed to trust a tiny group of people, who it turns out were lying through their teeth. There are thousands of scientists with an open process. Anybody who wants to can dig into it as much as they want. If they disagree or find problems, they can easily publish their thoughts. I trust the scientific process much more than I do Bush's corrupt administration, or politics in general.

The process you trust has not even identified a cause of this warming trend. It could be an entirely natural fluctuation. I don't know why you insist you think you know the cause or a solution because no one does.