User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 205

  1. #41
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Pollution is a negative, and the presence of pollution in our environment represents a risk. As such, our willingness to accept a given degree or kind of pollution is governed by our calculation of risk vs. reward. For example:

    Collectively, our society has decided (with some individual exceptions) that the risk of emitting fossil fuel exhaust into the atmosphere is worth the reward of being able to drive to work. I think we all agree that the risk of emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is worth the reward of continued breathing, though there may be some who have disagreed and committed suicide rather than continue to pollute.

    Yes, pollution is a negative, but it is literally impossible to live a life of absolute intolerance to pollution at any cost.
    That argument is a strawman, since obviously survival is different than driving to work. Anyway, I'm not some hardcore environmentalist, I remember reading that when nowadays environmental sciences talk about "pollution" already mean "emissions that could be avoided given our technology level".
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

  2. #42
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I remember reading that when nowadays environmental sciences talk about "pollution" already mean "emissions that could be avoided given our technology level".
    By that criteria, water vapor is the most horrible dastardly pollutant of them all...

  3. #43
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    That argument is a strawman, since obviously survival is different than driving to work.
    Obviously. You'll give up anything for survival, right? But on the other hand, a lot of people have been driving to work for a good long time now, and mankind seems to be at no particular risk of extinction from carbon monoxide poisoning any time soon.

    Here's my point: The human race will generate a certain amount of pollution... call it quantity A. Also, the planet will tolerate a certain amount of pollution, breaking it down through natural processes that leave the environment safe for its organisms.... call it quantity B. Our job is not to totally eliminate pollution, which is patently impossible, but rather to ensure that A never exceeds B, and preferably that A is maintained as a very small fraction of B.

    I'm not interested in your judgment on my "argument," as I'm not arguing anything. Rather, I'm telling you how I see the matter. If you disagree, that's fine, but please understand that this is not a game I'm playing for points.

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I'm not some hardcore environmentalist, I remember reading that when nowadays environmental sciences talk about "pollution" already mean "emissions that could be avoided given our technology level".
    That definition still isn't rigorous enough. The limiting factor on our reduction of pollution emissions isn't technology... it's how much we're willing to give up in exchange for an emissions reduction.

    For example, we could eliminate the burning of coal in US power plants, if we're all willing to give up continuous utility power service. Is the benefit worth the cost?

    I think what your definition is really getting at is more like "emissions that could be avoided consistent with the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed, given our current technology level."

  4. #44
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    did it ever occur to people that the cause of global warming might not be because of CO2 emissions(at least on the whole)? But this is the foundation that your authorities have laid out to tax everyone who does emit a lot of CO2. I'm not saying global warming is not real, because yes our planet's temperatures are rising, but so are all the other planets in our solar system... if you want to know why, look it up yourself. Other causes may actually be responsible, did you know that laying out the concrete and asphalt to build our modern day roads and structures creates a giant heat soaking mechanism and the temperatures of the area immediately increases dramatically after such construction work is done in the area?

    Also from what I hear there was a previous warming era in medieval times, and our temperatures are not even as high as then, 20-30 years ago scientists were predicting an ice age would occur during the times we live in now, what the heck do they know?

    I suppose people think petroleum comes from rotting dinosaur bodies and such from prehistoric times as well, if you are gullible enough to believe that nonsense from disneyland then you probably were gullible enough to eat up what al gore has been selling you.
    The Straight Dope: Did oil really come from dinosaurs?

  5. #45
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    did it ever occur to people that the cause of global warming might not be because of CO2 emissions(at least on the whole)? But this is the foundation that your authorities have laid out to tax everyone who does emit a lot of CO2. I'm not saying global warming is not real, because yes our planet's temperatures are rising, but so are all the other planets in our solar system... if you want to know why, look it up yourself. Other causes may actually be responsible, did you know that laying out the concrete and asphalt to build our modern day roads and structures creates a giant heat soaking mechanism and the temperatures of the area immediately increases dramatically after such construction work is done in the area?

    Also from what I hear there was a previous warming era in medieval times, and our temperatures are not even as high as then, 20-30 years ago scientists were predicting an ice age would occur during the times we live in now, what the heck do they know?

    I suppose people think petroleum comes from rotting dinosaur bodies and such from prehistoric times as well, if you are gullible enough to believe that nonsense from disneyland then you probably were gullible enough to eat up what al gore has been selling you.
    The Straight Dope: Did oil really come from dinosaurs?
    I think I man-love you :P .

  6. #46
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    I think I man-love you :P .
    lol man love it will be then.
    I'm straight though, just for the record.

  7. #47
    Senior Member htb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Posts
    1,506

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    did it ever occur to people that the cause of global warming might not be because of CO2 emissions
    It occurs to me regularly that man's understanding of climate and meteorological phenomena is rudimentary, that available data is limited, and that science is founded on the production of evidence rather than the emphasis of speculation.

  8. #48
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Science relies heavily on making predictions and determining predictable patterns, neither of which succeeding when it comes to predicting climate (and often the weather).

  9. #49
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJ123 View Post
    did it ever occur to people that the cause of global warming might not be because of CO2 emissions
    What do you think about the greenhouse effect?

  10. #50
    HAHHAHHAH! INTJ123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Socionics
    ESFP
    Posts
    777

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajblaise View Post
    What do you think about the greenhouse effect?
    If you are going to quote me, then quote my ENTIRE post, because when you section out the part that says (AT LEAST ON THE WHOLE). You are omitting key details to my argument. I never said CO2 doesn't add to the problem of global warming, I was just saying that CO2 seems to be the only focus of government concerns with global warming.

    So if you can stop being a smart ass trying to make others look bad, you might be able to focus on the real problems facing humanity.

Similar Threads

  1. What is some viable proof of Global Warming?
    By Blackout in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 05-25-2016, 09:40 PM
  2. Data on Global Warming is being Faked!!!!!!!!!
    By Mal12345 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 09-28-2015, 11:41 AM
  3. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  4. Conspiracy theories cluster - global warming hoax is among them.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-11-2012, 06:42 AM
  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