Global Warming [Archive] - The Galactic Senate

Master Magnus

02-26-2007, 03:52 PM

In the 1970's the social religious fanatics preached the "The Ice Age" is coming.
Elaborate.

Now it's Global Warming and it's marketing is getting bigger on a daily basis. Worth billions of dollars. It is now one of the largest recipients of government research money in the world.
It doesn't appear as if you don't fully understand how science works. I'd also like you to back up the claims you're making here.

A good environmental scare needs two ingredients. The first is impending catastrophe. The second is a suitable culprit to blame. In the second case, the ice age fails and global warming is gloriously successful. However a new ice age, unlike global warming would be a certain calamity.
Back up your claims regarding the ice age rhetoric.

But the environmentalist bullies will surely win out. I mean the Evolution bullies did.
What?! Global warming and evolution are two different sciences.

Junk science, basically.
According to whom?

Explain to me what the U.N knows about anything?
It's the evil U.N. again, uh? Seriously, hundreds of scientists from allover the world have worked on the latest report. You need to read up on how the U.N. works.

The IPCC who is in this too is not a scientific institution.
According to whom and what evidence are there to support that?

And Al Gore is no expert either.
True, but he didn't create the movie by himself either.

If Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology the planet is doomed.
More political rhetoric. You've made many serious allegations and claims, but you've done nothing to provide any evidence to support them. If you want to open a debate thread, fine, but be prepared to back it up.

Master Magnus

02-26-2007, 03:54 PM

"You don't believe in global warming?!? You must be an idiot!" That's just something I don't like. It should stand on it's own. I think listening to all sides is also a plus. I recently saw that a lady from the weather channel make a comment that if any meteorologist does not believe in global warming, then they should have their certification revoked!

Does that sound like listening to both sides or does it sound like someone/group pushing their agenda on everyone?
There's no certification involved to become a meteorologist and meteorology is a different science from climatology.

Master Cephus

02-26-2007, 04:04 PM

There's no certification involved to become a meteorologist and meteorology is a different science from climatology.

http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert/

AMS Certification (American Meteorological Society) certification. I also know there is a difference between climatology and meteorology... Heidi Cullen, from the weather channel made the comments.

No offense MM, but you come off a little smug with your comebacks.

Master Magnus

02-26-2007, 04:12 PM

http://www.ametsoc.org/amscert/

AMS Certification (American Meteorological Society) certification. I also know there is a difference between climatology and meteorology... Heidi Cullen, from the weather channel made the comments.
You misunderstood me, I was meaning in an academic sense, not a professional sense. And most meteorologists don't work with broadcasting.

No offense MM, but you come off a little smug with your comebacks.
None taken. The point is that when one starts a debate and makes a claim, one has to use supporting evidence. And I agree, there have been a lot of alarmism recently with talk of sudden, drastic changes, but that is mostly the products of the media, not scientists.

Oh, and for the record, I think more research is needed to establish:
* The rate of global warming
* Studies over longer periods of time to see trends, variations over time etc.
* Variations in the past (in the timescale of millions of years)
* What effects global warming is going to have over a short and a long term period.

But what can one expect to happen when we've released various greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel (which has been locked in geological deposits for millions of years), CFCs etc. out in the atmosphere?

Master Magnus

02-26-2007, 05:23 PM

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

It's a 'Time Magazine' article from 1974. A passage:
Yes, jumping ahead, the point I wanted to arrive to was this: It was established in the early 1960's that the level of CO2 was increasing in the the atmosphere and that it would increase the greenhouse effect. It's true that the period between 1940 to 1970 was somewhat cooler (about -0.2°C), but that was still much warmer than earlier decades and who was it that declared that there would be another ice age? Was it peer reviewed scientific journals? No. Was it the media? Yes. The TIME article which you linked to is a perfect example. In the 70's, there wasn't a consensus on what was the more important to focus on, global warming (due to increased levels of greenhouse gases) or global cooling (due to increased levels of particle emissions).

This article sounds like so many articles written today. People remark that we've had 'a lot of hurricanes this year' or a 'mild winter' or a 'severe winter' and the call goes up for the latest global catastrophe alarum. It's funny, but if you look up 'ice age' on Wikipedia, they list one of the possible causes to be a variance in the Sun's radiation output!
Yes, and that is quite frankly ridiculous and have been disproved by among others the Max Planck Society (PDF here (http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/genPDF.pdf)).

Honestly, I'm a conservationist at heart. I hike, I bike, I kayak, I camp out, and I take the Boy Scout value of 'tread lightly and pack your trash out' to heart. I'm not anti-environment by any means -- I just don't like it when people try to scare me into action.

I won't lie and say that Al Gore is best spokesperson for reaching to someone like me, but why is this such a Leftist issue?
I'm not exactly a socialist either and I don't believe in the green philosophy, but this is an issue which concerns all of us regardless of nationality or political beliefs. Science is, as we've discussed earlier, based on objective, empirical evidence. It's important to step out from the political beliefs, otherwise one is a poor scientist. It's also important to look for bias.

Javen isn't always eloquent, true, but I share his view of the United Nations -- it's a f***ing joke. They're a joke. Any nation can be a member, even tyrants.
Yes, and that is necessary to uphold international law.

So I'm no fan of the UN, thank you very much. Their blue-helmeted saviors routinely had traded sex for food to the very people they are charged with rescuing.
That sort of behavior isn't exclusive to UN peace keeping operations, thank you very much. I'm from a nation who is proud of our contributions to the United Nations peace keeping (as well as other) operations. I can remember a whole lot of incidents where American soldiers have been involved...

The UN is also responsible for the single largest case of fraud in human history -- The U.N. Oil-for-Food Scandal. Maybe the people who chanted 'No Blood for Oil!' should do their homework about the United Nations?
I agree that it's silly to claim that the U.S. was "after the oil", but it was set up as a humanitarian program.

Javen

02-26-2007, 06:37 PM

One of Master Magnus' questions with some evidence to back up they are going hog wild spending on a myth. The world is in fear over this. Not only that but it is all based on opinion, rather than any kind of facts to back up any kind of Global Warming. Where is the data? Where is the analysis? What a waste of resources to fight a non existing issue when there is so much that needs to be done in our planet.

In that case what is causing the melting of the polar ice cap on Mars?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30energy.html?ex=1319864400&en=3fe47b61ce91a7c1&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&

In the United States (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/unitedstates/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), annual federal spending for all energy research and development — not just the research aimed at climate-friendly technologies — is less than half what it was a quarter-century ago. It has sunk to $3 billion a year in the current budget from an inflation-adjusted peak of $7.7 billion in 1979, according to several different studies.

Britain, for one, has sounded a loud alarm about the need for prompt action on the climate issue, including more research. [A report commissioned by the British government and scheduled to be released today calls for spending to be doubled worldwide on research into low-carbon technologies; without it, the report says, coastal flooding and a shortage of drinking water could turn 200 million people into refugees.]

(And Master Magnus do not tell me how and when and why I should start a thread. What kind of remark was that?)

kopernikuz

02-26-2007, 08:27 PM

but it was set up as a humanitarian program.
Different thread probably... but how it was set up is moot, intentions are only as good as their follow through... it's how it was managed that is despicable... if anyone has oil blood on their hands, its those involved at the U.N.

Relating to global warming... I don't argue something shouldn't be done, I don't argue we need to conserve, recycle, etc... I just argue that the alarmism is a bit trying. Perfectly legitimate scientists have attributed global warming to any number of things from the ozone layer depletion due to human intervention to the naturally occurring increasing vocanic activity in massive quantitiy on the ocean floor. One is cause for change... one we cannot change at all. There were no humans around to cause the first ice age, yet it happened. Climate change has gone on for billions of years and while I believe we should take care of our earth... I'm not convinced we're approaching end times threats either. And there are changes the Earth is going to make that we cannot control at all.

It's not the cause that bothers me... or the spokesman... it's the alarmism that is debatable for me. That said, I'd still buy a hybrid if it seated 8 and I could afford it. I still recycle our newspapers and cans and stuff. I am for toxic pollution decreasing legislation, etc...

Kommandant Felix

02-26-2007, 09:51 PM

I agree with Javen point of view. There isn't a lot of data out there, and the data that is out there is most likely bias in favor of global warming. People hear the phrase "Global Warming" and they panic, thinking that the world is doomed within days, or possibly months. This is an environmental scare that is completely blown out of proportion. I might agree that global warming may exist, and humans may be responsible for an increase in global warming. However, I do not believe that we will be under the catastrophe that Gore predicted in his documentary. (Frankly, I thought his documentary was a bunch of hogwash, and it had too much political bias in it). I think the issue is being blown out of proportion to get the people's and the politicians attention. Remember, even in a documentary like An Inconvienient Truth, you have to filter it and recheck the facts (even documentaries have a bias).

Sargoth

02-27-2007, 01:18 AM

I think the issue is being blown out of proportion to get the people's and the politicians attention.

Ice shelves that have stood for 10,000 years are disintegrating before our eyes. Fish species that have been the staple of the American diet such as the Atlantic Cod have been harvested to extinction. And oceanographers predict that, should trends continue unabated, our oceans will be depleted of edible fish in about 50 years.

When yoosa tinkin' weeesa be in trouble???

Master Magnus

02-27-2007, 01:25 AM

I haven't got much time (I'm on my way to work), but I wanted to reply to this:
(And Master Magnus do not tell me how and when and why I should start a thread. What kind of remark was that?)
When did I ever say such things? I said that if you want to open a debate thread, you should provide evidence which supports your claims and accusations. That is certainly not a rule, but rather the way a debate is conducted.

Virus

02-27-2007, 01:35 AM

nobody is for global warming and of course it is a smart thing to back up because its better to be safe than sorry. It doesn't matter if it is global warmnig or global cooling, but everyone should make an effort to help out in one way or another. Its called being respectful even if what you do doesnt matter. However what drives me nuts is the politics behind it and how weak and spineless politicians like Al Gore jump on this bandwagon just like he did with the internet claim. Funny how he didn't make this part of his campaign 6 years ago. Bravo Al

kopernikuz

02-27-2007, 09:36 AM

Fish species that have been the staple of the American diet such as the Atlantic Cod have been harvested to extinction. And oceanographers predict that, should trends continue unabated, our oceans will be depleted of edible fish in about 50 years.
This is not Global Warming... right? This is us killing off species... different, yet valid, issue altogether. See, I totally agree with environmental concerns... but I also recognize that the Earth has been changing for billions of years and without any help from humans. I just think GW concerns are important without being alarmist about it... but it's the alarmism that if marketed correctly spurs action... remember Y2K? It's a shame we have to pretend the end of the world is nigh in order to affect change, that's all.

That said, endangered species, rainforest deforestation in order to build resorts, etc... sad state of affairs... entirely pressing.

Jedi Master Harrison

02-27-2007, 10:07 AM

Ice shelves that have stood for 10,000 years are disintegrating before our eyes.
When yoosa tinkin' weeesa be in trouble???

Exactly - they've only been there 10,000 years, proving that climate change is a (taking into account the age of the Earth) regular occurence on our planet. I do love that quote though! That kind of sums up the issue - some people (Jar Jar) believe the hype about how severe change could be, others are far more realistic in their view as to what changes may occur (Jedi) - and of course what is effecting the change. Perhaps the actual answer is somewhere in between the two.

The world is getting hotter, but this is not solely down to human intervention in the Earth's natural systems. While we should all do our bit to try and reduce the ill effects we are undoubtedly creating, those that advocate not being scared by the severity of the political alarmism are spot on. If it was that serious an issue then the worldwide community would be doing a lot more to reverse the effects than they are. Not even a dictator would want to create however many million refugees!

Regardless of whatever actions we take, we will never be able to control mother nature and like life forms have been for thousands of years, we will just have to adapt to whatever she deals us.

Master Cephus

02-27-2007, 10:13 AM

Want to know why I don't like Al Gore?

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Here are some numbers to give you an idea of the champion of conservation:

Nashville Electric Service/Gore House

2006

High 22619 kWh Aug – Sept
Low 12541 kWh Jan - Feb
Average: 18,414 kWh per month

2005

High 20532 Sept - October
Low 12955 Feb - March
Average: 16,200 kWh per month

Bill amounts

2006 – $895.60 (low) $1738.52 (high) $1359 (average)
2005 – $853.91 (low) $1461 (high)

Nashville Gas Company

Main House
2006 – $990(high) $170 (low) $536 (average)
2005 – $1080 (high) $200 (low) $640 (average)

Guest House/Pool House

2006 – $820 (high) $70 (low) $544 (average)
2005 – $1025 (high) $25 (low) $525 (average)

To give you an idea, the average house uses 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Now, don't get me wrong, if Gore has the money and chooses to use that much energy, more power to him. However, don't tell me that I am a terrible person because I don't conserve....

Sargoth

02-27-2007, 10:45 AM

remember Y2K?

Bad example. As someone who's spent the last 9 years in the IT field, I know first-hand that Y2K *could* have been catastrophic. The reason that it came and went with a fizzle is that corporations and governments alike spent billions of dollars parsing through 30-year old software, line-by-line, to make sure that any two-digit date fields were expanded and refactored to accomodate four.

We have another similar event coming up next month that companies are not nearly as prepared for. I expect to see some gremlins pop up the morning of March 11.

kopernikuz

02-27-2007, 11:48 AM

Bad example. As someone who's spent the last 9 years in the IT field, I know first-hand that Y2K *could* have been catastrophic. The reason that it came and went with a fizzle is that corporations and governments alike spent billions of dollars parsing through 30-year old software, line-by-line, to make sure that any two-digit date fields were expanded and refactored to accomodate four.
But the hype created by the media was far too enflamed considering the fact that it was a fixable problem and not worth the drama. People built shelters, stockpiled water, and planned for a meltdown. Are you aware of the significant amount of money spent by consumers on Y2K related books and survival products? It's marketing... yes, it was a problem... as is Global warming... but it is not as alarming a problem as we're led to believe, simply because there are so many factors, and the Earth is constantly in flux with or without human intervention. With Y2K, action was needed and was being taken... and the world was not going to end. But a lot of people spent New Years eve tensing for global disaster, which was simply unwarranted... just manufactured by marketers and media. (fyi: I too was working closely with the IT field at the time)

But if I can make a mint selling people on the idea the world is going to end, so be it. Again, it's not the focus on the environment I disagree with... I think it's great in fact... but I don't like the idea of manufacturing more danger than is necessary simply because it does two things: 1) polarizes politics and 2) makes money. And that is exactly what I believe the hype is doing. It's making money and it's polarizing politics and it's doing so because we are over-exagerrating the danger. Again, not that the danger is not real, just as in Y2K... it is just not on the verge of world destruction as we're led to believe by the hype.

Action should be taken, but unless we pretend the world is going to end... many people won't take that action... or won't follow that political movement... or won't spend the proper amount of money on certain research, etc.

Master Magnus

02-27-2007, 03:43 PM

See, you're making an emotional appeal veiled as a rational one. "The world is going to end, we don't have time for bickering!" From what I've read the fact of global warming (or cooling!) isn't a certainty, and the cause of the warming (or cooling we experienced) is not necessarily caused by human activity. So as a conservationist I say to you all, "This is no time for politically motivated environmental hysteria!"
Krog, if you had actually read my posts, you would've noticed that I'm not a fan of the alarmism which the media spawns. You also asked why this was a leftist issue and I'm telling you it's only a left/right issue if you're making it such. And neither of us are in a position to verify or reject global warming on a scientific basis.

Let's take a stroll down 'Global Alarum Memory Lane':

AIDs -- we were told that everyone would have AIDs, that it was an epidemic ravaging not just homosexuals and intravenous drug-users who shared needles. As it turns out it tends to strike the promiscuous, homosexuals and IV drugs users with a far, far greater frequency than heterosexuals. Again, that's still a problem -- I don't think we should shrug our shoulders at AIDs because some people are at a greater risk than others, but I am mistrustful of the media and the Left who cast AIDs as a mainstream scourge, when really it was not. By the way, my uncle contracted AIDs (he was gay) long before it was even diagnosed as AIDS -- so I will label as a homophobe anyone who challenges my argument. I'm a victim after all. ;)
You're making it easy for yourself by saying that AIDS tends to strikes the promiscuous and homosexuals more frequent than heterosexuals. There are socioeconomic factors etc. which must also be considered. It speaks for itself that people of all sexualities who are promiscuous, doesn't use their better judgment and doesn't use protection puts themselves at a larger risk than others. And to stress an important thing: Homosexual doesn't equal being promiscuous.
And to point out another interesting fact: In 1999, the rate of HIV infection among heterosexual was higher than among homosexual men in the U.K. Source 1 (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=9173)

Agreed. But I see a lot more bias than you do. Would that make me a finer scientist than you Magnus?
Neither of us are in a position to peer review scientific papers regarding global warming so that is moot. However, I do agree that there's bias, see below.

I see people changing the facts or misrepresenting them for political gain in the past (with great success) and now I sense they are doing it again.
That's one of the reasons as to why peer review is so important (and the reason why I keep emphasizing that).

Another example from the AID 'epidemic' of the 1980s, which continues to this day. AIDs fighters in Africa are opposed to Bush's plan to support African community groups that espouse not condoms, but abstinence. So let me ask you Magnus, as a scientist, which method is more likely to reduce the chance that you'll contract the AIDs virus; abstinence and monogamy until marriage, or a condom? Which will statistically reduce the number of AIDs infections?
My answer to that would be sexual education and information combined with condoms. The belief in pre-marital abstinence only is naïve and doesn't take factors such as cultural patterns, spousal infidelity and even human nature into account. On a side note, the abstinence-only programs have been failures in the U.S. This is from a study which evaluated (http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm) the abstinence only program:

Summary of Results

Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time. A description follows of short- and long-term impacts, by indicator.
Likewise, it's naïve to believe that condoms alone will perform miracles. There are also religious obstacles to condoms (which is quite unbelieveable IMHO).

DblDwn

02-27-2007, 06:56 PM

The world is in fear over this.

Let's be fair here. Myself, as a member of the world, am not living in fear, by definition, of global warming. I'm living in fear of random acts of terrorism that could strike me or my loved ones while we are at the grocery store. I'm living in fear of suffering a long and agonizing death by cancer. I'm living in fear of having a long history of heart disease on my father's side of the family and knowing that I am at risk because I quit smoking and gained 50 lbs in the process. I'm living in fear of not being a good enough father to my unborn child.

I'm living in fear of a lot of things and not one of them is global warming. It's an issue, that much is certain, but it isn't as if The Day After Tomorrow is going to happen, quite literally, the day after tomorrow. We're years away from serious consequences because of CFC's and other air pollutants, as well as other ways that we as people have contributed to the instability of our planet, so it isn't really something that is going to effect any of us in our lifetimes. Not mine. Not yours. Not any of us.

But it may one day be a much greater and much more pressing issue for our decendants. That is why we should care about it today. That is why we should at least be able to acknowledge the possibility of it being a threat. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not the day after tomorrow. But it will one day be a threat. Just because none of us will be around for that day doesn't mean that we should blow it off as political rhetoric or paranoia through propaganda.

Not only that but it is all based on opinion, rather than any kind of facts to back up any kind of Global Warming. Where is the data? Where is the analysis? What a waste of resources to fight a non existing issue when there is so much that needs to be done in our planet.

Just because something is not a pressing issue today doesn't mean that something can be done to prevent it. Let's use an easier example to follow. You call global warming a "non existing issue." Ok. 20-30 years ago when the CIA was training people like Bin Laden and Noriega they were "non existing issues." They were two people that we trained and equipped to do our dirty work for us. But then there was a day when they both became very existing issues. My point is, just because something is not currently a pressing issue in of all things your opinion, that doesn't mean that that will always be the case. It's much better to stop something before it begins.

Wouldn't you agree?

Virus

02-27-2007, 07:53 PM

The Marbleman

02-27-2007, 08:30 PM

I too get the feeling that there are some people taking advantage of guilt and credulity at the expense of scientific facts. However just as it would be foolish to join in "hysteria" it would also be imprudent not to consider all the evidence (And preemptively pronouncing global warming a myth, circumventing the need for scientific peer review and reevalutions, and digging in.). If we have a way of positively influencing the situation by our actions, we need to consider our options.

Is there anyone here who will clearly lay out the main lines of reasoning for the idea of anthropogenic global warming?

Javen

02-27-2007, 09:39 PM

See it's articles like this that ticks me off. Talk about fearmonging.

Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012--Does That Have Your Attention?

Ronald Bailey (http://www.reason.com/staff/hitandrun/133.html) | January 9, 2007, 10:46am
"Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012" reads the actual headline (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html) in The Canadian, self-described as "Canada's new socially progressive and cross-cultural national newspaper." Basically, the article is an amped up version of the so-called methane hydrate hypothesis in which rising global temperatures lead to massive releases of methane trapped in permafrost and ocean bottoms. Each molecule of methane has 20 times the global warming potential of a molecule of carbon dioxide.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117782.html

DblDwn

02-27-2007, 10:08 PM

What I don't get Javen is if you don't want to accept that global warming is a very real issue that will one day, whether it be next week or the next millenium, effect our planet and our species that is fine. That is your right. But why do you choose to draw attention to the issue by creating a thread regarding the very issue you say is over-analyzed and over talked about? Why do you create discussion for something that you are sick and tired of hearing being discussed about?

You could have posed your lack of faith in the scientific research in any number of threads about the world or each individual continent. Or you could have stated in a political thread how very little of Bush's Presidency has been devoted to the environment and that, in your opinion, he is at least practical about what is important.

But you didn't. You created a thread devoted to the very thing you don't even believe is a real issue. You are lending credence to the argument by creating a place for people to discuss it within the confines of this site. A pseudo-Senate Subcommitee if you will.

You ask about "more politicized marketing?" I say that you have marketed the discussion quite well while not even trying.

Master Magnus

02-28-2007, 01:25 AM

Sargoth

02-28-2007, 03:00 AM

Want to know why I don't like Al Gore?

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

Here are some numbers to give you an idea of the champion of conservation:

Just to give the benifit-of-the-doubt...

The amount of energy consumed isn't so much the issue as where it comes from. If he's getting his power from renewable sources - hydroelectric, geothermal, etc, then more power to him. If it comes from a coal plant, then yeah, he needs to eat more of his own dog food.

Master Cephus

02-28-2007, 01:07 PM

Just to give the benifit-of-the-doubt...

The amount of energy consumed isn't so much the issue as where it comes from. If he's getting his power from renewable sources - hydroelectric, geothermal, etc, then more power to him. If it comes from a coal plant, then yeah, he needs to eat more of his own dog food.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

From the article:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.

Right on Gore!

Of course this might have changed, but for the record, how long has his Oscar movie been out and he has been preaching, and he hasn't did the thing he has told people they should be doing. This article was written in December, so he might be doing it now, but I bet only because he was caught.

Master Cephus

02-28-2007, 03:53 PM

There really might be some truth to anthropogenic global warming. How many global warming acolytes would be willing to admit that their conclusions could be exaggerated, or even plain wrong?

Or admit that we aren't going to fix the problem tomorrow and that it will take years (decades even) to change over to another form of fuel that will not leave us in an economic crunch.

This is something that we can't say "Tomorrow we flip the switch!" and we start doing things more environmentally friendly. Our economy is built on crude. I agree that it needs changing, but we need a reliable, affordable choice to move to before we change.

Javen

02-28-2007, 08:40 PM

Kommandant Felix

02-28-2007, 10:19 PM

Ice shelves that have stood for 10,000 years are disintegrating before our eyes. Fish species that have been the staple of the American diet such as the Atlantic Cod have been harvested to extinction. And oceanographers predict that, should trends continue unabated, our oceans will be depleted of edible fish in about 50 years.

When yoosa tinkin' weeesa be in trouble???
Perhaps...or perhaps not. Predictions are notoriously unreliable (for example, in the 1960's there was that whole global cooling debate). Besides, the world was not always full of glaciers. For example, during the Mesozoic era, temperatures and CO2 levels were also high...the world wasn't destroyed as a result of that. On the other hand, it is just my opinion, but the fish that are able to adapt will survive, and the rest will perish. Sad, but mass extinction isn't always the result of human hands.

Sargoth

02-28-2007, 11:55 PM

Perhaps...or perhaps not. Predictions are notoriously unreliable (for example, in the 1960's there was that whole global cooling debate). Besides, the world was not always full of glaciers. For example, during the Mesozoic era, temperatures and CO2 levels were also high...the world wasn't destroyed as a result of that.

No, the earth survived and adapted - as it will throughout this crisis. To quote George Carlin:

The Earth isn't going anywhere...

...we are!

On the other hand, it is just my opinion, but the fish that are able to adapt will survive, and the rest will perish. Sad, but mass extinction isn't always the result of human hands.In the case of the ocean's stockpiles, it is 100% the result of human (in)action. It's simple math, KF, if you take faster than nature can replace, you will have extinction. The worldwide demand for fish is growing exponentially as the ocean's ability to replenish the supply is shrinking.

You mention 'adapting for survival'. There certainly isn't time for that. There isn't any evolutionary advantage nature can give a fish (aside from a mouth made for cutting through nets and fishing cages - or frikkin lasers on their heads) that can give them a chance against us in the time frames we're talking about.

Sargoth

03-01-2007, 12:09 AM

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Riposte!

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1594368,00.html

The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued a statement saying Gore was not doing enough to reduce his own electricity consumption. The group disputes that global warming is a serious problem.

But (Nashville Electric) company spokeswoman Laurie Parker said the utility never got a request from the policy center and never gave it any information.

( Gore spokeswoman Kalee) Kreider said Gore purchases enough energy from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and methane gas to balance 100 percent of his electricity costs.
So, the two we have attacking gore are an Anti-Global Warming 'Think Tank', and a right-wing pundit and author. Hardly bastions of neutrality in journalism. Wouldn't you say?

Seriously, if Al Franken suddenly went public with Rush Limbaugh's Jefferson Starship album collection, would you believe it?

DblDwn

03-01-2007, 12:32 AM

:rolleyes:

C'mon Jave. I rolled my eyes at you in the 2nd post. At least make an effort to be somewhat creative instead of recycling that which I have already done to you.

Master Cephus

03-01-2007, 10:07 AM

So, the two we have attacking gore are an Anti-Global Warming 'Think Tank', and a right-wing pundit and author. Hardly bastions of neutrality in journalism. Wouldn't you say?

Seriously, if Al Franken suddenly went public with Rush Limbaugh's Jefferson Starship album collection, would you believe it?hmmm...One credible source against another....we shall see who the victor is...and I promise it will not be the mooninites!

:)

Master Magnus

03-01-2007, 12:19 PM

Yes, I am saying that people who engage in 'riskier' sexual acts, with greater frequency are at greater risk of contracting the AIDS virus. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying -- which should satisfy your scientific frame of mind. People who engage in any sexual intercourse in which bleeding may occur are more likely to contract AIDS, period. People who abstain from sex of any kind are demonstrably less likely to contract AIDS, or any STD for that matter. Despite this very obvious scientific fact, you cannot admit it.
No, because the world isn't black and white. It speaks for itself that a person who jumps from one bed to another without using proper judgment (in selection of sexual partners, the use of condoms etc.) puts themselves at a larger risk to contract STDs than a promiscuous person (and who defines that?) who uses condoms and thinks beforehand. Also, a study (http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Global_study_dispels_some_myths_about_sexual_behav iour) (the original article requires registration) published in the Lancet last year showed that there's no firm correlation between promiscuity and STDs.

A sexual orientation doesn't 'equal' any adjective term, ever. Not all homosexuals are promiscuous. But do they tend to have more partners (on average) than the average heterosexual? That's an interesting question, Magnus. Is there a scientist willing to sacrifice their career trying to find an answer? Probably not. Again, politics trumps science and reason.
Yes, that is indeed an interesting question. Personally, I don't think that the sexual habits of consenting adults is of anyone else's business and I cant think of any research that has been done off the top of my head (and it's not my area either).

It was a simple question, Magnus. I'll rephrase it:

Which behavior is statistically more likely to result in the contraction of the AIDS virus; abstinence or having sex with a condom?
Krog, that's a false dilemma. As I've explained, there are complexities and this isn't an "either-or" issue.

I'll review the source today and get back to you Magnus. I'm curious to see if the abstinence program received federal funding, as 'Condomania' celebrations replete with a jumpsuited 'Condom Man' mascot running around, did receive federal support.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against telling people about condoms, or how AIDS is contracted, etc. I just think that support of abstinence should be part of anti-AIDS program. But since that idea smacks of religious sentiment it has to be smacked down by the Left, it seems.[/quote]
The world isn't black or white and issues are more complex than left or right.

To relate it back to the main topic (is anthropogenic global warming a pre-packaged liberal alarum?), the casting of AIDS as a major 'mainstream' threat was another example of how the Left has marketed problems in ways that exaggerate or outright lie about the facts in order to win political and economic support.
Krog, understand that the world is more than just the United States. This isn't something which is being discussed and researched in the United States alone and the effects of global warming aren't limited to the United States. I think that people should go to the primary sources, ask actual scientists instead of reading the alarmist claims in the media. Likewise, don't take the words of politicians as truth. A few months ago, Tony Blair cited a British government report which had been made about the effects of global warming. What did Blair cite? Yes, the worst-case scenarios.

EDIT:
I agree. And I think you and I both agree, Magnus, that abstinence should be an integral part of any sexual curriculum, and that it should be stressed.
Yes, I agree to the point that young teens should be dissuaded not to have sex and that they should be taught the dangers of unprotected sex.

I'm not against teaching children about condoms, but I am troubled by the raucous boogie-down attitude attributed to condoms. Condoms used to be sold in pharmacies, on a secret back shelf. Asking for a pack of them required a certain derring-do. But not today:
I certainly don't think that derring-do should be required when buying condoms. That would just lead teens to have sex anyway and that could lead to personal tragedies.

Why is condom use aggrandized by the Left? Well, they do it because it falls in line with their continuing plan to morally debase American culture and society.
Yes, I'm sure that the evil left (and I as a non-American) are out to destroy the American culture, society, moral norms and ways of life in general. :rolleyes: The fact of the matter is that the sexual behavior in the United States isn't any different from other Western nations (see the link I posted earlier).

Hence, characters like the one seen above. There's a weird juxtaposition of values here -- 'abstain and be safe' or 'take one of our sexual parachutes and take a chance'. Can we make an 'Abstinence Man' mascot, please? Could he wear cool-looking shades like 'Condom Man'? Maybe he could wear a chastity belt that shoots lasers, or is made of adamantium? How about 'Waiting-Until-Marriage-Woman' as a mascot? Think that's going to happen Magnus?
If not, why don't you create such a character yourself? And wait until marriage? Not all people wants to get married but chooses to live together as partners. And abstinence alone doesn't work.

Master Magnus

03-01-2007, 05:22 PM

That's your response? 'The World Isn't Black and White?' Pretty weak response I think, especially from an espoused rationalist -- are the various laws of physics black or white, Magnus? The statement I made was simple -- and is acknowledged by your own source! -- abstinence is the single best way to prevent the spread of STDs. I asked you whether abstinence is the best way to prevent the spread of STDs, versus having sex with condoms, and you responded by saying, 'the world isn't black and white'. It's not a complicated question, Magnus -- even the 'Advocates for Youth' admitted that if abstinence 'is the single best method'.
The point I've tried to explain is that even with pre-marital abstinence, there are factors such as marital infidelity etc. which puts people at risk. Pre-marital abstinence only is also an unrealistic concept, just as condoms only. Rather than abstinence only, it's important to stress abstinence together with fidelity and condoms. I do agree with you that young people should be encouraged to delay their debut.

Now, if you want to claim that it's impractical to expect children to heed the call for abstinence, that would a more rational claim -- but rather cynical.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I wouldn't say it's cynical though.

I think that's probably a biased report, but let's assume that promsicuity (the frequency of sexual partners) has no effect on the number of new STD infections, then what you'd really be saying is that condoms are close to 100% effective in preventing the transmission of STDs. Well... not even the condom manufacturing companies will make that claim. So what we're now saying is that the margin of error (STD is transmitted) is low enough for us to withstand. That doesn't sound like a responsible position. A very small number of people will contract STDs (including possibly AIDS) but that's acceptable because the bulk of the people will still be able to be promiscuous if they choose.
The Lancet is a peer reviewed journal, so there's a high standard for the reports published there. However, as I can't read the article without registering (and that I'm not qualified in the field), I can't judge the bias.

It's a question that won't ever be answered because I don't think it's a question that can asked in today's political climate. Also, I find it ironic that you feel a person's sexual activities should be private -- considering that, at the time, the 'AIDS Epidemic' was cause for very public concern. If the government is going to provide universal healthcare and therefore bear the burden of the negative consequence of the sexual decisions of private individuals, shouldn't the government be able to regulate sexual behavior in order to reduce costs and improve the health of citizens?
The government (or individuals) have nothing to do with what's a private matter. The best (and only) things the government can do is to provide sex-ed through schools, information campaigns for the use of condoms and similar things. As for universal health care, I'm sorry, I haven't been following the discussion in the U.S., are there any new suggestions as to how such a system may look like? As you probably know, we have a universal health care system, but that doesn't mean that everything is free or payed through taxes. You still have to pay for doctor's appointments, but not more than 900 Swedish kronor (or about $130) over a period of twelve months, hospital stays, medication, but not more than 1,800 Swedish kronor (or about $260) for prescription drugs over a twelve months period. I shan't go into further details here as we're off-topic, but just to give a general idea.

There's no dilemma here, Magnus. It's a simple thought experiment. Two people each make a different choice. One person does not have sex. The other person does have sex, but chooses to use a condom.
And again, this isn't realistic.

knowing that, please compare the chances that each person will contract an STD. Yes, I know the world is a complex place, filled with all sorts of nuanced things. But this is a straightforward experiment. Which of the two people is more likely to contract an STD. I'll give you a hint:

:eh:

Ok, fine, don't answer.

My point is, politics plays a role in these various alarums, and that's why I'm so skeptical of the left when it bleats about 'Global Warming'.
I certainly don't see this as a left or right issue and it isn't regarded as such in general over here either (heck, even the conservative morning papers here have a climate column). This is an issue which could lead to serious consequences for the world economy, mass extinctions of animals etc. What should be discussed and further researched is the rate and effects of global warming.

Just because everyone believes something still doesn't make it any more or less true. But I share your skepticism.
Of course not (however, the scientific consensus is telling). Global warming isn't a new understanding. One of the first to identify the effects of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere was the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius who in 1896 published a paper called On the Influence of Carbonic Acid [as carbon dioxide was known as at the time] in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Arrhenius calculated that the temperature would increase by 5.7°C if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doubled. He also calculated that it would take three thousand years to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at the (then) current rate of release (it's also worth mentioning that Arrhenius saw the warming as positive). Today, the amount of CO2 has risen by thirty percent since that paper was published and it'll be doubled by 2100. I'm not sure what everybody expects when one is burning carbon, which have been locked beneath the ground for millions of years. Yes, I'm a skeptic when it comes to the alarmist reports, the human effects on global warming, the exact effect of CO2 and how certain groups are using GW for political gain, but I'm not a skeptic when it comes to global warming as a phenomena.

Javen

03-01-2007, 09:03 PM

C'mon Jave. I rolled my eyes at you in the 2nd post. At least make an effort to be somewhat creative instead of recycling that which I have already done to you.
:scratchchin::sleeping:

Jedi Master Harrison

03-01-2007, 09:15 PM

I think that's probably a biased report, but let's assume that promsicuity (the frequency of sexual partners) has no effect on the number of new STD infections, then what you'd really be saying is that condoms are close to 100% effective in preventing the transmission of STDs. Well... not even the condom manufacturing companies will make that claim. So what we're now saying is that the margin of error (STD is transmitted) is low enough for us to withstand. That doesn't sound like a responsible position. A very small number of people will contract STDs (including possibly AIDS) but that's acceptable because the bulk of the people will still be able to be promiscuous if they choose.

It's a question that won't ever be answered because I don't think it's a question that can asked in today's political climate. Also, I find it ironic that you feel a person's sexual activities should be private -- considering that, at the time, the 'AIDS Epidemic' was cause for very public concern. If the government is going to provide universal healthcare and therefore bear the burden of the negative consequence of the sexual decisions of private individuals, shouldn't the government be able to regulate sexual behavior in order to reduce costs and improve the health of citizens?

If used correctly condoms are 99% effective at ensuring you don't catch an STD. So, if one considers that 99% is close to 100%...............

Interesting re the government regulating sexual behaviour. I'm sure in another thread you argue that everyone should have free choice and that the government shouldn't be involved at any level in such choices. :scratchchin:

DblDwn

03-01-2007, 09:18 PM

:scratchchin::sleeping:

React how you want but just know that everyone reading this knows that I was right.

And, deep down, so do you.

Javen

03-01-2007, 09:36 PM

uh huh....whatever

Just be paitent, evolution will take care of global warming. Remember natural selection and survival of the fittest? Don't worry. Mother nature will provide you with web feet for the water and an asbestos suit for the heat.

Just have faith in evolution. Which is of faith and by no means scientific.

Master Magnus

03-02-2007, 01:12 AM

[mod hat on]Alright, now we've all started to come way off topic. If any of you want to discuss evolution, pre-marital abstinence etc. please do so in other threads. Let's use this one to discuss global warming. There's also a climate thread (http://galacticsenate.com/showthread.php?t=8049) where the climate in general can be discussed.[/mod hat off]

Javen

03-02-2007, 08:54 AM

They are pretty connected actually. Maybe Global warming is some evolution going on. I mean you cannot say it isn't.

Javen

03-02-2007, 08:56 AM

They could be connected actually. Maybe Global warming is some evolution going on. I mean you cannot prove otherwise.

Javen

03-02-2007, 08:57 AM

They could be connected actually. Maybe Global warming is some evolution going on. I mean you cannot prove otherwise.

Master Cephus

03-02-2007, 10:14 AM

If used correctly condoms are 99% effective at ensuring you don't catch an STD. So, if one considers that 99% is close to 100%...............

If you know anything about Six Sigma, you know that when dealing with huge numbers, 99% isn't that great...

If you are just 99.4% (Four Sigma) correct, then:

107 incorrect medical procedures a day take place
200,000 incorrect drug prescriptions a year happen
18,322 pieces of mishandled mail an hour happen
2,000,000 documents are lost by IRS a yearIf you just think about the number of people having sex using a condom a year, we probably don't want to know how many people contract an STD by using a condom.

Javen

03-02-2007, 05:00 PM

The polar caps are melting on Mars too. No human has set foot there so...not global warming.

Master Magnus

03-02-2007, 06:54 PM

The polar caps are melting on Mars too. No human has set foot there so...not global warming.
That is the opinion of a single scientist who, for the record, doesn't dispute global warming but the causes. His paper wouldn't pass a peer review and as a climate scientist points out, his claims aren't supported by observations. It's also quite ridiculous that a scientist tries to directly compare the Earth and Mars (for some of the reasons stated in the article).

Javen

03-03-2007, 09:48 AM

But there is an actual explanation for it. The polar cap is receding because the springtime sun is shining on it.

DblDwn

03-03-2007, 12:14 PM

The same thing, more or less, happens on our planet. It snows and freezes in the winter and then the sun comes back out in the spring and summer months and melts the snow and ice away.

The difference about this natural occurrance on our planet is the amount of sun that comes in based on ozone depletion due to an overabundance of CFC's and other harmful emmissions that have contributed, over the years, to the reduction in ozone and atmospheric blockage of the suns harmful UV rays.

But, then again, you probably don't believe that overexposure to the sun is harmful to humans either. That's all just a myth in order to sell more SPF 30. Right?

Javen

03-03-2007, 12:40 PM

But, then again, you probably don't believe that overexposure to the sun is harmful to humans either. That's all just a myth in order to sell more SPF 30. Right?
If you say so smart ass.

Master Magnus

03-03-2007, 02:25 PM

Alright. If people can't discuss without baiting and insulting each other, this thread will be locked. Don't be disrespectful and discuss the arguments.

DblDwn

03-03-2007, 11:11 PM

To be honest, within the context of his own admittance that he is skeptical of anything and everything to do with the topic, my question was more than fair.

However, I do apologize that he felt the need to resort to name calling in an attempt to save face.

Please Javen, let's keep it humane. After all you're the one that opened up this discussion so you should expect, from time to time, to defend that which you claim.

Justin

03-04-2007, 12:19 AM

The Marbleman

03-04-2007, 03:37 AM

It's funny, I see all these so-called "conservatives" making a huge deal out of howglobal warming, saying it's all fear-mongering and a conspiracy, etc. just like their so-called "conservative" role models are doing.

However, when I hear people talk about global warming who believe the environment is a real issue, they are reasoned, thoughtful, calm and express a positive hope that we can make things work out. So I don't understand where this horrible "left-wing conspiracy" idea is coming from and what the motivation could possibly be for it in the first place.

Justin raises an excellent point. I think this "conservative" response to environmentalism has deep roots in the idea of the unique place of humans in nature, as "stewards" (set apart rather than a part of nature). But to me that is irrelevant - this is not an environmental issue so much as a consideration of the future of humanity (not assuming we would all prefer a future where humans are still living and thriving).

Consider that it was not until after Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 struck Jupiter that the concept of defense against objects from outer space was taken seriously. Similarly, shouldn't climate be calmly discussed and monit. . . Hold up, wait! Guys, the comet thing. . . that was Jupiter, not. . . seriously don't panic!

?

*MM throws up his hands in mute resignation as hundreds of screaming senators duck for cover from the comets and tidal waves, although for some reason a few appear to be arguing about why chimps should (or shouldn't) wear condoms.*

There is a widely held environmental frame of mind which is all about brainstorming for the sake of prevention, not alarming for the sake of anti-corporate/anti-globalization interests. I will agree that this is not something that can be dealt with overnight, but it is something that should be talked about and considered from every possible angle as a Real Issue. As opposed to, you know, being completely and casually dismissed as a Huge Liberal Lie (as well as many unproven, godless theories in cosmology, paleontology, physics, psychology, biology, cosmology, etc. etc. etc. ad naseum)

Liberal friends of mine consider conservative treatment of environmental concerns as almost entirely economically driven. But I object to that. What economically motivated ideologies would be concerned with trivializing projections of the future based on reasonable (though possibly incomplete) evidence. . . not any good economic plan!

What ideologies would invariably mock those with genuine reasons for concern. . . and continually caricature environmental awareness as hippie behavior or highlight the more bizzare elements of environmentalism rather than the facts we do have (again, however incomplete)? Perhaps those for whom the future is already known. . . or written (http://www.amazon.com/Longing-End-History-Millennialism-Civilization/dp/0312238347/ref=sr_1_1/103-7407155-1966213?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1172993781&sr=8-1)? Why are environmental prophets of doom any more hysterical than religious ones? I urge "some conservatives" here to consider their own preconceptions as they (to their credit) point out the preconceptions of others.

Javen

03-04-2007, 08:28 AM

Talcy

03-04-2007, 09:22 AM

Thank you, Marbleman.

Justin

03-05-2007, 02:13 AM

It's funnny, but it isn't"conservatives" at all. It's lots of people from all walks of life. Nice labeling there, Justin.
No, the people who are making a big deal about how global warming is fiction are overwhelmingly on the right. Those are the only ones whom I ever hear get emotional about it.

kopernikuz

03-05-2007, 08:23 AM

Those are the only ones whom I ever hear get emotional about it.
Could you point to some emotionally charged responses you're referring to? Not disagreeing, just not seeing all the fuss either, maybe I'm missing it.

DblDwn

03-05-2007, 10:47 AM

To be fair, it wasn't that great of a movie to begin with.

kopernikuz

03-05-2007, 01:33 PM

There. I cited a French socialist.
Forget Global Warming... the true sign of the apocalypse... Krogenar cites a French socialist.

Getting into my bunker now... later. :P

Justin

03-05-2007, 07:14 PM

http://www.rubinville.com/dailydave/uploaded_images/day%20after%20tomorrow-765950.jpg

Where will I be? Apparently I'll be fighting with polar bears for food in Times Square.

Sure glad no one is getting 'emotional' about global warming -- or cooling, depending on who you talk to.
Yeah, I know, it's a Hollywood movie. But they made a movie about something like this with the understanding that it could be possible. Hollywood is well-known for embellishing the truth (lying), and we all know that Hollywood has always been staunchly conservative. The concept of an anthropogenic environmental apocalypse is a Leftist meme, and here we can see them imagining it fully, to the delight of other Leftist moviegoers.
You say "they" as if this movie was the brainchild of all the backroom Hollywood types who run everything. The guys who made this movie thought the idea of global climate change would make for an exciting film, and made a movie about it.

I highly doubt they were thinking "I'm so fed up by all this global warming denial that I'm going to make a movie about it and "hopefully it will change everyone's minds!!"

kopernikuz

03-06-2007, 01:55 AM

Jeffery Godsick, spokesman for the film's distributor, Twentieth Century Fox, has been quoted saying that "the real power of the movie is to raise consciousness on the issue [of global warming]."
And the movie's producer, Mark Gordon, publicly agreed that "anything we can do to raise consciousness about the environment is a good thing. It's part of the reason we made this movie."
Even if the producers intent was not to raise global warming awareness (though here it is from their own mouths that it was part of it... besides making a mint as is any film company's main goal, who can blame em?) they worked with MoveOn.org and Al Gore was the frontman promoting the film throughout the months prior to its final opening. The marketing with Al Gore practically was saying if you don't watch this film, you'll die because you won't be prepared for it, lol. The Guardian newspaper was in MARCH predicting a win for John Kerry because of the film and it's subsequent marketing campaign backlash against Bush policies.

No question there was political motivation in making the film and particularly in marketing it. Not that it matters, that's fine. But there it is.

Sargoth

03-06-2007, 08:23 PM

What economically motivated ideologies would be concerned with trivializing projections of the future based on reasonable (though possibly incomplete) evidence. . . not any good economic plan!

As someone whose career has spanned a fair number of the Fortune 500, I can say that many corporate decisions are made only with the next quarter's SEC filings in mind. I've seen many MANY great long-term initiatives scrapped simply because the numbers didn't fit into the '3rd quarter spreadsheet'. C'est la vie!

If you look at it from a pure short-term numbers perspective, it's currently more financially expediant to pollute than it is to conserve. To implement a sound environmental policy will involve the development of many disruptive (and expensive) technologies. It is cheaper for Exxon-Mobile to fund a 'study' dismissing global warming as a 'myth' (especially when they own politicians that ensure a status quo energy policy), than it is to fund a solution to the problem.

Master Cephus

03-07-2007, 10:02 AM

It is cheaper for Exxon-Mobile to fund a 'study' dismissing global warming as a 'myth' (especially when they own politicians that ensure a status quo energy policy), than it is to fund a solution to the problem.

To fund a 'study' that has been reviewed by a 'peer group' as Magnus would want? Seriously, if anything is to be done about this, people on both sides have to come to some understanding that both sides have valid points. Sorry to pick on you Sargoth, but the above epitomizes what's wrong with the whole subject.

One one side, you have the zealots: "Global warming will kill us all in 50 years...buy a hybrid!"

The on the other side you have people think it's a myth: "This world has been here for a really long time and has already survived an ice age...we as humans have no effect."

then you have the stragglers who say: "You know I really don't know. I bet we have some type of detrimental effect, but I just don't know how much.
---
So where to start? How about start slowly. Some items that are economically feasible for the short term. Lay out a long term plan to cut down on carbon emissions (cut down, but lowering it without such a drastic hit to industry economically). We have to remember that these changes, while probably a good thing has to be sparked in such a way that will no impact on our economy.

That's my .02 cents...

Sargoth

03-08-2007, 02:30 AM

To fund a 'study' that has been reviewed by a 'peer group' as Magnus would want? Seriously, if anything is to be done about this, people on both sides have to come to some understanding that both sides have valid points. Sorry to pick on you Sargoth, but the above epitomizes what's wrong with the whole subject.

Tell me MC, that in the quest for the almighty dollar, humans haven't hunted or otherwise displaced hundreds of species to extinction.

Tell me that, prior to the Clean Water act, industries didn't pollute our lakes and rivers to the point where the Cuyahoga river in Ohio actually caught on fire.

Tell me, with a straight face, that the energy industry doesn't buy politicians to ensure that America remains hogtied to petrolium.

So where to start? How about start slowly.
It's been going slowly for the past 40 years. Let's try to up the tempo a notch or two...

Some items that are economically feasible for the short term. Lay out a long term plan to cut down on carbon emissions (cut down, but lowering it without such a drastic hit to industry economically). We have to remember that these changes, while probably a good thing has to be sparked in such a way that will no impact on our economy.
That's a red herring. When Big Oil tells you "we can't do this because it'll slow down the economy", what they really mean is "we won't do this because it'll hurt our bottom-line." If you spend $10 on energy, that money still flows through the economy regardless if you spend it on oil or wind power.

As a conservative, I honestly don't see why you aren't pushing for alternate energy with all your might. Seriously, which of these sounds better to you:

1) We develop home grown power: Ethanol which pours money into our farms in the heartland. Solar power which pushes money not only into research, but in to the fabrication, and manufacturing industries. To kick start adoptation, we offer tax breaks to companies and entrepreneurs for pushing this agenda forward until the price of production and distribution is low enough to saturate the market with a limitless supply of cheap, clean, homegrown fuel.

-or-

2) We remain attached-at-the hip to BIG OIL, and continue to kiss the asses of such charming individuals as King Abdullah and Hugo Chavez.

Master Cephus

03-08-2007, 10:03 AM

Tell me MC, that in the quest for the almighty dollar, humans haven't hunted or otherwise displaced hundreds of species to extinction.

Tell me that, prior to the Clean Water act, industries didn't pollute our lakes and rivers to the point where the Cuyahoga river in Ohio actually caught on fire.

Tell me, with a straight face, that the energy industry doesn't buy politicians to ensure that America remains hogtied to petrolium.Can you have a conversation without being dramatic Sargoth? Seriously "To your face? Do I have to drive to Pheonix (I think that's where you live right?)? Can I not just type it here and you read it from your face (read: Eyes)?

Sargoth, you have children right? Do you have to train and teach child to be selfish? To lie? To be mean to their siblings? I bet you don't. I bet you have to teach them to be unselfish, to play with others well. I bet you have to work with your kid to not tell stories and be honest.

My point here is that humans by nature are sinful creatures and we usually do things for all the wrong reasons.

So to answer all the questions you asked to your face, I would say yes by nature, people do bad things. It doesn't make it right.

That's a red herring. When Big Oil tells you "we can't do this because it'll slow down the economy", what they really mean is "we won't do this because it'll hurt our bottom-line." If you spend $10 on energy, that money still flows through the economy regardless if you spend it on oil or wind power.

As a conservative, I honestly don't see why you aren't pushing for alternate energy with all your might. Seriously, which of these sounds better to you:

1) We develop home grown power: Ethanol which pours money into our farms in the heartland. Solar power which pushes money not only into research, but in to the fabrication, and manufacturing industries. To kick start adoptation, we offer tax breaks to companies and entrepreneurs for pushing this agenda forward until the price of production and distribution is low enough to saturate the market with a limitless supply of cheap, clean, homegrown fuel.

-or-

2) We remain attached-at-the hip to BIG OIL, and continue to kiss the asses of such charming individuals as King Abdullah and Hugo Chavez.What makes you think I don't want that? I would love to remove our dependence from middle east oil. But I am realistic and I realize that it's not something we can do overnight.

What about nuclear power Sargoth? Why not build more reactors? Why not build huge wind farms off the coast of Nantucket....oh yeah (cheap shot!).

You think because I say "think about the economy" you automatically picture me in the one knee stance puckered up. I appreciate your fight the working man. My point is that I think we have to have a long term plan that doesn't cripple our economy, in fact, it could bolster our economy.

How awesome would it be if harnessed all of the possible alternative energy that we could and we even pumped our own oil from our coasts and Alaska to the point where we really weren't dependent on anyone else for energy. The working man would definitely save money and corporations wouldn't take a hit.

Think about it without the dramatics.

Sargoth

03-08-2007, 12:19 PM

Can you have a conversation without being dramatic Sargoth? Seriously "To your face? Do I have to drive to Pheonix (I think that's where you live right?)? Can I not just type it here and you read it from your face (read: Eyes)?

Ehh? I never said 'to my face'. I said 'with a straight face'. However, should you like to come down and discuss this over some Sushi and Sakke Bombers, I'll gladly pick up the first round. :D

Sargoth, you have children right? Do you have to train and teach child to be selfish? To lie? To be mean to their siblings? I bet you don't. I bet you have to teach them to be unselfish, to play with others well. I bet you have to work with your kid to not tell stories and be honest.

My point here is that humans by nature are sinful creatures and we usually do things for all the wrong reasons.

So to answer all the questions you asked to your face, I would say yes by nature, people do bad things. It doesn't make it right.
That's actually part of my point. I, of course, don't reward my kids for being selfish. However, in the current state of affairs, many companies that pollute, or take resources without thought of how long those resources can be sustained are rewarded for their short term, selfish vision. Politicians who enable them are rewarded with huge war chests that fund their never-ending campaigns.

This will continue unabated until we demand that it stop - through our dollars, and through our votes. The guilty parties know this, so they invest millions of dollars into ad campaigns and "research" to tell us that there's nothing to worry about. The earth's changing, but hey! It ain't our fault! So keep consuming like you always do! This sentiment will, of course, be echoed through the politicians that they own, and through their well-oiled, right-wing punditry.

What makes you think I don't want that? I would love to remove our dependence from middle east oil. But I am realistic and I realize that it's not something we can do overnight.
Overnight? No. Faster than we're doing it now? I think so.

What about nuclear power Sargoth? Why not build more reactors?
As long as we put effort into finding a solution for what to do with the waste product, I'm all for it.

You think because I say "think about the economy" you automatically picture me in the one knee stance puckered up.
Not at all. But I do disagree with the meme that you support that the economy will be damaged if we take immediate action. If anything, I think it will create entrepreneurial opportunities, encourage job growth, and make us more secure (and respected) as a nation.

If anything, the long term impact of us not acting on this are far, far, more dangerous than any temporary wobbles the market feels.

My point is that I think we have to have a long term plan that doesn't cripple our economy, in fact, it could bolster our economy.
Agreed. Let's just kick it up to a higher gear. The market will correct itself.

Justin

03-09-2007, 02:44 AM

Pursuing alternate energy and other environmental solutions will actually create jobs (for Americans, no less!) and be better for the economy.

BTW MC, we don't have to completely end our reliance on foreign oil (in fact drilling in Alaska is something we should NOT be doing), but we can reduce it to the point where we get all our oil from Canada, where we already get most of it.

Master Cephus

03-09-2007, 08:45 AM

in fact drilling in Alaska is something we should NOT be doing)

Why not? Only 8% of ANWR Would Be Considered for Exploration Only the 1.5 million acre or 8% on the northern coast of ANWR is being considered for development. The remaining 17.5 million acres or 92% of ANWR will remain permanently closed to any kind of development. If oil is discovered, less than 2000 acres of the over 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain would be affected. That's less than half of one percent of ANWR that would be affected by production activity.

DblDwn

03-09-2007, 12:24 PM

Master Cephus

03-09-2007, 03:51 PM

But you said yourself before that humans, by nature, do things for the wrong reasons. Using your own conclusions anyone can see that human nature will lead us to, over time, tap into the other 92% out of nothing more than greed.

I said that you must train to do good. Sure there will be people that would want to drill more, but it can be stopped.

DblDwn

03-10-2007, 12:55 AM

This is a prime example of how negatively socialists view human nature.

Perhaps I have a negative view of human nature because I view the negative aspects of human nature on a daily basis. I see it at work. I see it on the road. I see it at the grocery store. I see it everywhere I go and everywhere I look. So do you. So does everyone else here. It's the "me me me" attitude that people display wherever they go. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of us, as humans, have grown to care not about the planet or others but only of ourselves. It's that degree of manifested ego and that degree of exuberant greed that is the basis for what I said. I apologize of the truth hurts to the point that you feel the need to classify me as a socialist because, to me, that just means that I pay more attention than the next person because they are too busy focusing on themselves.

No one decries the 'badness' of gravity, how it drags people underwater, or off cliffs. No one declares that gravity is 'flawed' or 'evil' or will lead us to perform evil deeds. Why should human needs and desires (forces just as primal and universal as gravity) be disparaged? Why can't we look at the basic human desire to have more in a similarly dispassionate way?

You're killing me Smalls. Now you want to compare the negative aspects of human nature, from the standpoint of greed, to something as natural as gravity. Why don't we just start blaming the rattlesnake that strikes and kills the human? Not because it is defending itself but rather because it is more afraid of us than we are of it. Why don't we start blaming the shark that kills the surfer not because it wants to attack humans but because it mistakes the surfer for its natural prey? Why don't we blame Mother Nature because of Hurricane Katrina? Why don't we blame oxygen for not being excessible to those who drown? Seriously. Blame gravity for people falling off cliffs? Give me a break.

But no, it seems that the Left calls human desire by one name only: greed.

Human desire is not defined by greed but rather by selfishness. Look around. Take the blinders off. I don't have to prove this point because the people we encounter on a daily basis prove it themselves.

I think this attitude is held by them because they're either envious of others' success, or they feel fashionably guilty about their own success, or they want to champion the fool's errand called 'fairness.'

Once again it has to be about the profane words "Right" and "Left." It always has to be politically motivated. It cannot be about human interaction or human behavior. Why is that? Why do you feel the need to make everything a political argument? This is why America is becoming a zit on the face of the world.

There's a normative range of human desire; it goes from 'greed' to 'self-interest'. It's not wrong to act out of self-interest. It's rather normal.

Perhaps normal in your life. My life on the other hand allows me to yield the right of way. It allows me to let someone with fewer groceries to go ahead of me in line. It allows me to hold the door open for the eldery couple. It allows me to say "excuse me" when I cut in front of someone. Those things are rather normal. Greed and self-interest are nothing more than the sins of man.

And I'm not even one of the religious ones around here. Yet I choose to lead a good life which not only prospers myself and my family but also those that I encounter on a daily basis. That's being selfless. That's called being a human being.

If you cannot see that then all I can say is that I applaud the fact that I don't have to encounter yourself, or others that feel as you do, on a daily basis.

DblDwn

03-10-2007, 12:57 AM

Sure there will be people that would want to drill more, but it can be stopped.

Who's going to stop it? Greenpeace? Please. The only ones who have the power to stop it are the politicians and they are too busy counting the money they get kicked back from the energy companies to give two $hits about uninhabited land in Alaska.

kopernikuz

03-10-2007, 12:49 PM

You're killing me Smalls.
I'm sure you have an interesting argument in there, but you got me cracking up with this one. I say this all the time! ROTFL... Sandlot RULES!

Okay, back to the thread :bye:

Master Magnus

03-11-2007, 05:27 AM

Alright people, stop labeling each other. Be civil.

Also, politics aren't black or white. All people on the left don't agree on every issue and people on the right don't agree on every issue. Don't presume that a person is left or right just because of his or hers opinion on issues and again, stop using opinions as labels.

Master Magnus

03-11-2007, 08:10 AM

CNN: Report outlines global warming's effects (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

Jedi Master Harrison

03-11-2007, 10:35 AM

So here's a cunning idea, collect the water from the flooded areas and transport it to the areas where there is severe drought, where treatment plants can be built in advance. Or the politicians could just sit there and endlessly debate the problem instead. :giveup:

Master Magnus

03-13-2007, 02:23 AM

I don't think I was being uncivil by pointing out that DblDwn's attitudes towards human nature seem unnecessarily negative, and then pointing out that this seems to be an attitude seen most frequently among more left-leaning individuals.
Don't characterize people simply because of their political beliefs, whether they hold them or not.

That's absolutely true. For example, there probably is a Republican who supports on-demand, government-subsidized abortion without parental notification, supports a socialized healthcare system, massive income redistribution, believes all firearms should be banned, and thinks America should become a lot more like Europe, with strict rules governing just about everything. I'm sure Republicans who hold those beliefs exist. Just as quadriplegic black female midgets who play the oboe, and hydrophobic male synchronized swimmers also could exist. I think that's an undeniable fact, Magnus.

And I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
That's ridiculous and you know it. However, I know that there are indeed Republicans who for example are against firearms. Also, don't make unsubstantiated and offensive remarks about other countries and/or continents. And in case you didn't know, Europe isn't a single entity.

Discuss the arguments, not the posters and stay on topic.

DblDwn

03-13-2007, 05:42 AM

Krog, if all you got out of my comments were that people have the right to consume then you completely missed the point. I have no problem with consumerism and people's need to feed themselves and their families. And, in hindsight, perhaps the inclusion of the grocery store was a bit off in my analysis. Not completely. But slightly. The biggest example is on the road. That is where true human indecency comes out and flourishes everywhere we go.

Jedi Master Harrison

03-13-2007, 07:51 AM

There was a BBC programme on exactly the title of this thread last night. Unfortunately I missed it, but will see if I can catch it on one of the 'repeat' channels. Did anyone else from the UK see it?

DblDwn

03-13-2007, 12:59 PM

No need to do that. I was simply reaffirming your statement that, at the grocery store, put are there to exercise consumerism. I then stated that the grocery store was a less than stellar example of the point I was making. I was, more or less, agreeing with you as far as that aspect goes.

However, as has been my experience with you in past months, I would imagine that the reason you are choosing to leave me alone is because you are out of responses that don't resort to someone's interpretation of labeling or name calling. If I am wrong then I do apologize but, after all, I have to call it how I see it.

As far as the topic goes, yes let's get back to that, I noticed that An Inconvenient Truth premiered on Showtime over the weekend. I may have to watch that just so that I can form my own opinions of the information provided.

kopernikuz

03-13-2007, 02:52 PM

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/16887788.htm

Unintentionally funny:
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment."They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."Agreed. And also convenient for the argument. "What about blah blah blah..." "Hey, it's unpredictable." All you have to do when something doesn't line up with the science is point to that unpredictability. That sounds more like a "convenient" truth. ;)

But we'll turn right around and hear Gore share stats and predictions from 20 years from now like they're gospel. Again, alarmism... unnecessary... we can make changes, but we don't have to wear "The End Is Near" placards. Some scientists are at least willing to admit that though our influences do appear to have some effect on the environment, climate change at its very nature is unpredictable...

DblDwn

03-13-2007, 07:28 PM

This is why America is becoming a zit on the face of the world.

Krog, if you don't like my simple choice of words then too bad. Would you have prefered a boil on the @$$ of the world? Or perhaps something that doesn't refer to the body. How about the Korbel in the champagne aisle that is planet Earth? Either way, it doesn't matter.

The long story short is that if you want to pretend that our country is not falling increasingly into the abyss then that is your right. But don't expect me to sit back and act as if we are still the great nation that we once thought ourselves to be. Because that ship has long since sailed my friend.

Javen

03-13-2007, 11:32 PM

Someone's been taking their bitter pills.

Justin

03-13-2007, 11:44 PM

So, how does everyone feel about acid rain?

Master Magnus

03-14-2007, 02:15 AM

So, how does everyone feel about acid rain?
We had a terrible problem with acid rain here in Sweden in the '80s, mainly because of pollution from the U.K. and countries in Central Europe which had a very negative impact on several lakes and forests. The situation has improved considerably, but we still have it. To reverse the effects of acid rain in lakes, we've used lime to neutralize the acid (the Swedish programme for using lime is the most extensive in the world).

Krogenar

03-14-2007, 10:01 AM

"Who is John Galt?"

DblDwn

03-14-2007, 01:29 PM

And that very point, the politicizing of everything from global warming to filling out our tournament brackets, is the exact reason why we are proving ourselves to be a failing nation. We got too big far too fast and now we think that our $hit doesn't stink and we are mucking up our foreign relations and we are mucking up our own citizens. We've gotten to the point where we are engaged in another Civil War. Not with guns and bombs but with policies and agendas. Not the North vs the South but the Left vs the Right. We've allowed our government to become, more or less, the very thing that our founding fathers were looking to escape from when they broke from England. All this in only 230 years. How sad.

Krogenar

03-14-2007, 04:16 PM

"Who is John Galt?"

DblDwn

03-14-2007, 04:24 PM

You're over-reactionary sarcasm, as always, is beginning to get redundant. The global warming issue doesn't say that the world is going to melt in a matter of hours or even days. So you're comments about cancelling plans for the weekend aren't even remotely comical within the category of sarcasm because they aren't even remotely close to being an accurate interpretation of the science.

As far as your "thought experiment" goes, there is very little about the current state of American politics that makes me hopeful. The Domino Effect has already been set in motion and our government, in my opinion, will continue to errode into a wolrdwide "don't-let-this-happen-to-your-country" before it is all said and done.

If anyone is hopeful about any aspect of our political infrastructure then I would appreciate your dealers number so I can get the good stuff too.

Krogenar

03-15-2007, 11:09 AM

"Who is John Galt?"

DblDwn

03-15-2007, 12:40 PM

As if you have never used sarcasm to make a point.

Krogenar

03-15-2007, 01:11 PM

"Who is John Galt?"

DblDwn

03-15-2007, 01:19 PM

No I honestly feel that if you believe there is hope for our political system then you must live in the middle of a meth lab. :rolleyes:

Let's try to get back on topic though.

Krogenar

03-15-2007, 04:22 PM

"Who is John Galt?"

Krogenar

03-22-2007, 12:46 PM

"Who is John Galt?"

DblDwn

03-22-2007, 03:53 PM

Krogenar

03-22-2007, 04:34 PM

"Who is John Galt?"

kopernikuz

03-22-2007, 05:45 PM

You have a problem with things that are beyond your control don't you? That is why you make everything into a joke. It just makes it easier to accept and/or deal with if it is all tied into a grand punchline.

I feel sorry for people like you. I really do.
I don't have a problem with people using humor to make a point... look at Bill Maher, Dennis Leary, Lewis Black, John Stewart, or Stephen Colbert... they all employ the same tactics with impunity... and I applaud them, even when their humor supports an opinion I disagree with... there's nothing wrong with that. Shows like SNL and MADtv make their entire advertising budget off that very thing. This is not to say that humor is for everyone... but it certainly is not "wrong" in some way. It's quite natural and widely accepted... though peoples senses of humor are widely varied.

I prefer to find humorous ways to counter the argument... as it stands, you didn't do that. You chose to complain about his method... you don't see the humor (or actually you do, because you recognized it was a "joke") because you do not agree with his stances. But it's easier to call someone's methods pitiable than address the issue he brings up. You may think the issue he brings up isn't a valid example... if so, why not say that and why?

I mean this just misses the point all together: "You have a problem with things that are beyond your control..." But isn't that the point of the GW argument... that it is NOT beyond our control and that we should act? You virtually made his point for him.

Krog's silly example is real science about uncontrollable natural phenomena that he's blowing out of proportion to create a panic. It's analagous of what many beleive is an agenda behind GW.. something that is a concern, yes... but not entirely unnatural.

Krogenar

03-23-2007, 11:52 AM

"Who is John Galt?"

Master Magnus

03-23-2007, 06:46 PM

Krog, how about making some useful contributions to the discussion instead of derailing it?

Oh, and you mentioned Volvo... Since 1988, Volvo awards the Volvo Environment Prize to acknowledge people who through research have helped to understand or are actively protecting the environment. You can read about one of the recipients here (http://www.whrc.org/test/pressroom/press_releases/PR-2001-10-00-volvo-woodwell.htm) which has relevance for this discussion. Heck, Volvo's position has been clear for a long time and on its English site (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkkQcUwRGbsUAi1hXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB2OWM1MXQ 5BGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZAM-/SIG=143gtpn4n/EXP=1174774940/**http%3a//www.volvocars.com/corporation/NewsEvents/News/news.htm%3fitem=%7bFF59DADC-CB16-4D56-ADE6-D66704BC478C%7d) it says:
Global warming, attributed to society’s emissions of greenhouse gases, is becoming one of the biggest environmental concerns of our time. For this reason, reducing emissions of carbon dioxide – a major greenhouse gas – is the biggest environmental challenge now facing the automotive industry.I don't care much for their cars, but I'm impressed by the proactive stance the company has maintained.

Siamese Sith

03-24-2007, 12:23 AM

Keep ignoring the signs folks! The end is Nigh!
Just remember poor Jor El...
No one listened to poor Jor El
And then it was too late

Krogenar

03-24-2007, 11:54 AM

Krog, how about making some useful contributions to the discussion instead of derailing it?

Satire is of no relevance? The whole point of the thread, Magnus, is whether or not global wamring is 'politicized marketing'. My satire of the global warming alarmists speaks directly to that question, and is therefore incredibly relevant. You claim I've 'derailed' the discussion, even as my satire has made the following points:

1. Global warming may be a naturally occurring phenomena.
2. Global warming oracles like Al Gore often exaggerate their facts. (as I expressed continental drift's effects not in centimeters, but in Astronomical Units).
3. I pointed out that the global warming crowd have thinly-veiled commercial interests, as their websites often allow you to calculate the 'harm' you are doing to the Earth, and then quickly provide you with a way to assuage your guilt -- through a *ahem* small contribution.
4. I also used humor to show how the Hollywood supporters of The Church of Global Warming have overdramatized the effects of global warming, by using the naturally occurring phenomena of 'subduction', and using a melting Nazi from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' to graphically portray the results of subduction. This is similar to Hollywood's 'The Day After Tomorrow' in which NYC is quickly covered by permafrost about 500 feet in thickness overnight.

And finally (and most importantly) I've proven that the people who support the alarmism have no senses of humor whatsoever. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't trust people who can't laugh at themselves, or are unable to parse humor, as though it were in some programming language they can't decode! It is sad when I am forced to 'explain' a joke in order to prove it's worth and value to this thread. Isn't providing a bit of levity (related directly to the topic at hand) of value?

Tovor

03-24-2007, 12:26 PM

Keep ignoring the signs folks! The end is Nigh!
Just remember poor Jor El...
No one listened to poor Jor El
And then it was too late
Are you comparing Jor El to Gore Al?

Siamese Sith

03-24-2007, 08:58 PM

I most certainly am good sir!
All the others ignored Jor El's alarmism, and look what happened to the Kryptonian folk.
Their planet blowed up!
We must begin building giant Christmas decorations for each human being (and 1 pet of choice) to escape Erf's destruction!!!

Master Magnus

03-25-2007, 05:00 AM

Satire is of no relevance? The whole point of the thread, Magnus, is whether or not global wamring is 'politicized marketing'. My satire of the global warming alarmists speaks directly to that question, and is therefore incredibly relevant.
I'm not in favor of the alarmists which tend to be the media, some environmental groups and politicians rather than the actual scientists themselves (as I've already discussed). So, your satire is misguided and aimed at the wrong people.

You claim I've 'derailed' the discussion, even as my satire has made the following points:
Alright, let's take a look at your points then.

1. Global warming may be a naturally occurring phenomena.
Yes, that global warming is a fact is undisputed, even among those scientists who are questioning the anthropogenic effects on the phenomena.

2. Global warming oracles like Al Gore often exaggerate their facts. (as I expressed continental drift's effects not in centimeters, but in Astronomical Units).
Yes, that's true. However, Al Gore doesn't exaggerate as many other groups and politicians do and his claims are built on a sound scientific basis and that is also the opinion of scientists in the field (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700780.html) (you know, scientists who are qualified to speak on the issue rather than the economists and others the global warming deniers are fond of citing).

3. I pointed out that the global warming crowd have thinly-veiled commercial interests, as their websites often allow you to calculate the 'harm' you are doing to the Earth, and then quickly provide you with a way to assuage your guilt -- through a *ahem* small contribution.
I see absolutely nothing strange with sites asking for a 'contribution' and if you believe that's something unique for sites which deals with climate issues, then your experience with the Internet must be extremely limited. Some sites also offers people to buy a carbon offset (the benefits of which could be discussed). There are also plenty of sites which allows you to calculate your CO2 emissions without asking for any contributions etc. (such as this site (http://www.resurgence.org/carboncalculator/)).

4. I also used humor to show how the Hollywood supporters of The Church of Global Warming have overdramatized the effects of global warming, by using the naturally occurring phenomena of 'subduction', and using a melting Nazi from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' to graphically portray the results of subduction. This is similar to Hollywood's 'The Day After Tomorrow' in which NYC is quickly covered by permafrost about 500 feet in thickness overnight.
Um, you do know that 'The Day After Tomorrow' is just a movie, right? And please refrain from using epithets such as The Church of Global Warming

And finally (and most importantly) I've proven that the people who support the alarmism have no senses of humor whatsoever. And I don't know about you guys, but I don't trust people who can't laugh at themselves, or are unable to parse humor, as though it were in some programming language they can't decode! It is sad when I am forced to 'explain' a joke in order to prove it's worth and value to this thread. Isn't providing a bit of levity (related directly to the topic at hand) of value?
I agree, people should be able to laugh at themselves (I certainly wasn't offended), but there must also be a point of the joke.
And for the record, I haven't seen much in terms of actual arguments against global warming/the anthropogenic effect. So far, all that have been said is "OMG! The Church of Global Warming/Al Gore/alarmists are exaggerating". While there are people who are using the issue for their own purpose together with other mixed elements (well, nutjobs), but tell me which issue where such people can't be found?

Krogenar

03-25-2007, 10:20 AM

"Who is John Galt?"

Krogenar

03-25-2007, 10:23 AM

"Who is John Galt?"

The Marbleman

03-25-2007, 05:32 PM

We are to be extolled if we use our own minds in this matter, but Krogenar's point here is important. We rely primarily on specialists who by and large agree to some extent with AGW, but not all specialists agree. And those who disagree are not insignificant yokels with no credentials. These are the hard facts, and if we are completely honest, we can all acknowedge that this is the case.

Given these circumstances, wouldn't it be prudent to avoid taking a "stance" or "leaning" at all? The way some people talk, it appears as if the issue of AGW is settled one way or another (I agree that GW itself is a settled matter). What would be interesting is if we didn't listen to facts from politicians or pundits at all - but gave credence to all specialist opinion. Just as AGW doubters are not all economically driven or imbeciles, AGW supporters are not all economically driven or alarmists. Basically, if we focus on characters and charlatans and death-threats, this thread goes nowhere as far as giving people a better understanding of the issue.

Maybe the real message you're trying to get across here to me is: 'shut up.' -- then why not just say that? Abandon the rational discourse and just demand that I stop typing. Every time I type 'Church of Global Warming' it drives home my point: the global warming movement is taking on characteristics of a religious belief: unreasoning, dangerous to 'heretics', has defined 'sin', has a proper apocalyptic vision, has methods for the elimination or 'forgiveness' of beforementioned 'sin' by the buying of indulgences. I've made those points in plain English elsewhere in the thread. The phrase 'The Church of Global Warming' sums that entire argument up quite nicely for me.I agree a movement like this exists, though I don't think it is "driving the bus" of the discourse so much as "causing a traffic jam." For instance, Al Gore's flexibile use of the facts (along w/ his personality and his entire AGW quasi-religious certainty) has only helped divide the discourse into two incompatible camps* which have nothing to do with scientific inquiry. However I have heard pundits declare by fiat that GW is a complete myth and the issue is settled. Truly, these modes of thinking are startlingly unsophisticated compared to the rigorous testing and retesting and constant skepticism of science. Truly, this sort of "scientific certainty" (an oxymoron there) and hubris needs to be recognized and ridiculed. And this sort of passionate jumping-the-gun on science is very familiar.

Where have I heard this sort of a priori reasoning work to dilute science before?

The more I think about it, the more Krogenar's Church of Global Warming (whose heretics, I would add, are seldom better than their orthodoxy) makes sense. Faith, while an excellent tool in personal growth and enlightment, has, definitionally, no place in the field of science. It seems we should all work to point out "faith and certainty" intrusions where we see them in science, in all their myriad manifestations.

*Namely those two prestigious and cutting-edge positions of "I-like-and-agree-with-Al-Gore--and-together-we-can-save-the-Earth-from-those-administration-*******s" and its nemesis "I-dislike-and-disagree-with-Al-Gore-and-by-the-way-he-and-his-hippie-friends-are-all-hypocrites")