User Tag List

First 4567816 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 192

  1. #51
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    If we didn't act on our assumptions from the apparently best knowledge available, we'd never accomplish anything. One might as well attempt to cure diseases with doves and such... After all, we only think that doesn't work, and that our current medical practices do. But hey, tomorrow the scientific world could be turned upside down, and all of our white dove specialists will scoff at the naive days of antibiotics. The only reason I have to believe this won't happen is a mountain of scientific evidence, but since that doesn't validate global warming at all, I feel comfortable investing in white dove futures.
    I'm saying we need to understand our limitations.

    Our models are too primitive at this point to give us any more than an educated guess that humans are actually causing global warming.

    Meanwhile, you're asking for a sh!tload of expensive change and real sacrifice on the basis of that guess.

    For example... let's say we replace all the cars on US roads with SmartCars and Tata Nanos. Based on the crashworthiness of those vehicles, we can reliably estimate that such a move will cost us X number of additional highway deaths every year, even as it saves us Y amount of gasoline and Z amount of air pollution.

    How much Y and Z does there have to be to justify a given quantity of X?

    If you're not prepared to answer this question, you're not prepared to make a policy change.

  2. #52
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    I'm saying we need to understand our limitations.

    Our models are too primitive at this point to give us any more than an educated guess that humans are actually causing global warming.

    Meanwhile, you're asking for a sh!tload of expensive change and real sacrifice on the basis of that guess.

    For example... let's say we replace all the cars on US roads with SmartCars and Tata Nanos. Based on the crashworthiness of those vehicles, we can reliably estimate that such a move will cost us X number of additional highway deaths every year, even as it saves us Y amount of gasoline and Z amount of air pollution.

    How much Y and Z does there have to be to justify a given quantity of X?

    If you're not prepared to answer this question, you're not prepared to make a policy change.
    How are you measuring the primitiveness of our current knowledge exactly? It gets better everday, and I think it indicates something that the issue of the environment has ever been growing more important to the scientific community, rather than less.

    There are right ways and wrong ways to do everything. The smart car isn't very impressive, and doesn't solve much. We don't need tiny cars using less gas as much as we need normal cars simply using something other than gas, as well as things like more public transit usage. What's interesting is how many of the solutions to the environmental problem are solutions to other problems, like the energy crisis, inefficient infrastructure, and so on.

    There's something John McCain said frequently on the campaign trail a lot that I agreed with (and reminded me why I use to like him). He said, if we change and we're wrong about the environment, all we'll have done is spent some money to make changes that weren't necessary, but still beneficial anyway. If we don't change and we were right about the environment, the human race won't have a future. The decision appears rather obvious in that light.

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    And you guys call me alarmist/apocalyptic? I'm not going around saying everyone's going to die in a fiery flood (yes, both, at the same time) of death...
    After 100 years of the effect plus acceleration, and given the ecological chain reactions, it could be pretty bad. Now, I doubt that many people will actually be dead by 2109 on account of climate change, but keep in mind that there are sovereign nations being swallowed by the ocean right now, rapid desertification in the equator, integral species dying off, etc... There will be serious sacrifices.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #53
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    There's something John McCain said frequently on the campaign trail a lot that I agreed with (and reminded me why I use to like him). He said, if we change and we're wrong about the environment, all we'll have done is spent some money to make changes that weren't necessary, but still beneficial anyway. If we don't change and we were right about the environment, the human race won't have a future. The decision appears rather obvious in that light.
    Why are you quoting a politician on this point, rather than a scientist? Doesn't that sound any alarm bells in your head?

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    After 100 years of the effect plus acceleration, and given the ecological chain reactions, it could be pretty bad.
    ...assuming your guess is correct, and there's anything humankind can do about it at all...

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Now, I doubt that many people will actually be dead by 2109 on account of climate change, but keep in mind that there are sovereign nations being swallowed by the ocean right now, rapid desertification in the equator, integral species dying off, etc... There will be serious sacrifices.
    ...which may well have happened if we had remained hunter-gatherers.

    Islands are being built up and torn down all the time. Land forms; land erodes away. The ocean rises; the ocean falls. You want to throw that heavy green yoke on me, buddy boy, you'd better convince me first.

  4. #54
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Why are you quoting a politician on this point, rather than a scientist? Doesn't that sound any alarm bells in your head?
    No. There's no reason it should. His statement is perfectly valid in terms of explaining the value judgements we're making about the environment. I wasn't using it for some kind of scientific proof. His statement as are mine is based on the information given by scientists.

    I'm not spending time chucking that evidence around because much has already been posted in the slew of environmental threads on this forum, not to mention that you could easily go scanning for it right now online. Why are you asking me for that information when scientific sources are pouring this information all over the place? It's like you're asking me to explain to you things that are in a book right in front of you.

    The scientific evidence is heavily in my favor, and the sources themselves explain it better than I ever could. I'm more interested with the very nature of your apparent avoidance and/or cherry-picking of that evidence, as well as whatever other reasoning you use in this debate... Reasoning like the following.

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    ...assuming your guess is correct, and there's anything humankind can do about it at all...



    ...which may well have happened if we had remained hunter-gatherers.

    Islands are being built up and torn down all the time. Land forms; land erodes away. The ocean rises; the ocean falls. You want to throw that heavy green yoke on me, buddy boy, you'd better convince me first.
    Again, there's evidence for this out there that you could easily get yourself. But I'd like to make another point, without that evidence. Supposing this climate change were natural, would that mean we should just role over and let it kick our ass? I don't think so. Even if it were natural, it's still a threat to us, and I sure as hell think we can do something about it. Look at what the human race has done so far. It's odd that we can harness nuclear energy, and land on the moon, and set-up massive satelite communication networks, etc... and yet we somehow can't change the environment. I don't buy it.

    By the way, I'd be interested if you could actually respond to the first part of my last post. As I said, the trend of science has been continually, for decades, increasingly validating environmental concerns, not going down or ever stagnating. How do you know that it's too primitive to trust?
    Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 05-02-2009 at 12:13 PM.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #55
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Look, sponge...

    You're using circular reasoning. You start with the assumptions that A) humans are causing the warming of the planet and that B) humans can therefore prevent the warming of the planet, then you take me to task for not seeing "the obvious."

    It's a game I'm not willing to play.

  6. #56
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Look, sponge...

    You're using circular reasoning. You start with the assumptions that A) humans are causing the warming of the planet and that B) humans can therefore prevent the warming of the planet, then you take me to task for not seeing "the obvious."

    It's a game I'm not willing to play.
    No. I am starting with assumptions based on evidence which I feel there's no point in me even making available on this forum, when it is so available and better written else-where. Secondly, I proposed no "therefore" relationship between us creating and being able to stop globing warming. In fact, I was specifically saying that even if we didn't cause global warming we could still probably stop it, since we have an incredible capacity for developing technology/harnassing power/altering the environment around us(which you have to admit we do, with or without global warming).

    It's like you didn't even read what I said.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #57
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    No. I am starting with assumptions based on evidence which I feel there's no point in me even making available on this forum, when it is so available and better written else-where. Secondly, I proposed no "therefore" relationship between us creating and being able to stop globing warming. In fact, I was specifically saying that even if we didn't cause global warming we could still probably stop it, since we have an incredible capacity for developing technology/harnassing power/altering the environment around us(which you have to admit we do, with or without global warming).
    We alter the environment, but it remains to be shown that we have the power to alter the entire climate. Do you really have any idea what kind of scale we're talking about?

    With regard to "evidence," we can both find evidence for and against, then we can bicker about bias and credibility.

    Do you really want to go there?

    I'd just as soon not, if it's all the same to you.

  8. #58
    ish red no longer *sad* nightning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INfj
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    You don't need to alter the entire climate. All you need to do is to tip the balance. Once you rolled the ball over the little bump, it's going to go tumbling down the other side.

    I have no scientific proof for this, but everything seems to operate on some sort of equilibrium. Actually scratch that, all chemical reactions ARE equilibriums. Kind of like stability of a trimmed aircraft. When perturbed, it'll oscillate back to its set point. The greater the perturbation, the longer it takes for the oscillations to die down. The current thread of wacked out weather? Snowing in April? Increase intensity of tropical storms? Abnormally warm winters? I take those as signs the equilibrium is knocked quite far off its set point. Knock it around some more and you might just kick it out of the buffering point. A new set point will be reached... whatever that might be.
    My stuff (design & other junk) lives here: http://nnbox.ca

  9. #59
    Gotta catch you all! Blackmail!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post

    Where the movement loses me is when they blame humans for climate change. It reminds me of the ancient pagans practicing their Yule rituals to convince the sun to return.
    Well my dear Oberon,


    Within the scientific community, there's a wide consensus of opinion to recognize the anthropogenic origin of Global warming. It's a no-debate.

    You may quote the few loners that have alternative opinions on that subject, but well, it's a bit like quoting creationist scientists versus darwinian ones.

    Because what I've noticed, is that opponents to this thesis (like you) are doing it almost always for political or ideological reasons.

    First, they tell there's no Global warming. But when they realize such claim is ridiculous, they start making concessions... And now they just pretend that while Global warming may be real, it's not sure that men are responsible for it. The next step is recognizing that AGW may be real after all, but that we can do nothing against it.

    And so on...

    Predictable!

    ---

    Frankly, it's childish. Why are you fighting such obvious evidences?
    Again, it's a no-debate. It's very easy to measure the effect of greenhouse gases in troposphere thanks to satellites. Or when you measure the amount of heat reflected by the surface of Earth. Take the Aura mission, for instance (-> http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/pu...ureGeo2008.pdf!
    And it's as easy to make solid comparisons with what the situation was a few decades ago, and why (that has already been done in 2001, with the ADEOS satellite and the Nimbus mission, 27 years ago -> Imperial College London - First, direct observational evidence of a change in the Earth's greenhouse effect between 1970 and 1997).

    I could also show you hundred of graphs, but I'm sure it's pointless because for you, the debate is not scientific (besides the fact you have no competence to determine the validity of scientific evidences).

    ---

    Was it you that were talking of "circular reasoning"?
    Well, you are a conservative, republican christian: hence it's logical that you would be reluctant to admit AGW. For you it's an ideological question, don't deny it, so please stop wasting our time, you would be nice.
    "A man who only drinks water has a secret to hide from his fellow-men" -Baudelaire

    7w8 SCUxI

  10. #60
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackmail! View Post
    Within the scientific community, there's a wide consensus of opinion to recognize anthropogenic origin of Global warming. It's a no-debate.
    Sorry, blackie... I didn't read past this lie.

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Socialism posts (moved from Global Warming.)
    By Anonymous in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
  3. Global warming explained
    By Virtual ghost in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:30 AM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO