Topic: So it's global warming is it ?

[Gordon]

There is no absolute proof that either extreme is correct.  There is, therefore, no proof that the answer lies in between the extremes either.  So, all you have left is personal conjecture, based on your own value of self importance.
 

Because there is no proof, there is no proof.  Thanks for clearing that up!

[mlinder]

I covered a lot of this in the other threads, Gordon.

That's great, but I neither read nor commit to memory everything you type about this subject.  If there's something specific you wish me to know about, then you need to either type or quote it in this thread, not just link to the various threads where this has been discussed.  Otherwise just assume that I don't recall you previously covering it.

Just because you MAY have cancer, does that mean you SHOULD do a crapton of chemo and radiation?

 

Of course it doesn't, but it would probably be a good idea if you at least stopped smoking.
 

That's a bad analogy, Gordon.

What's 'good' for the environment is 'bad' for commerce, unless you business happens to be making the world 'green.' Those people happen to be making a lot of money right now. They happen to be giving a lot of that money on scientific research by 'experts' in the field.

It'd be easy enough to throw us all back into the dark ages (and by 'us', I mean everyone who is not eco-ruling-class) to 'save the planet'.

[mlinder]

I covered a lot of this in the other threads, Gordon.

That's great, but I neither read nor commit to memory everything you type about this subject.  If there's something specific you wish me to know about, then you need to either type or quote it in this thread, not just link to the various threads where this has been discussed.  Otherwise just assume that I don't recall you previously covering it.

I'm hurt.

[Gordon]

That's a bad analogy, Gordon.

Not at all.  It's actually a very fitting analogy. 

[Gordon]

I'm hurt.

I know you're just kidding, but please don't think I meant anything negative by that comment.  It was just a statement of fact.  I wouldn't expect you to remember anything I said, either.

[Inigo Montoya]

Alright, another debate!
Do I believe in global warming? not really. Do I believe in climate change? Absolutely. Climate change can be proven a number of different ways, ice core samples being a popular one.
Are humans influencing climate change? Maybe, it would be hard to make the claim that we are having no impact whatsoever.
I believe that humans should become more efficient. Not just in fuel but all areas. I do not really want to see vast wind farms or solar ranges. I do not believe battery tech in cars is viable. ICE does very well so the work should be done in making them more efficient while keeping usable power. I would kinda like to see incandescent bulbs go in favor of led light panels.
It would be nice to get back to products lasting longer than a couple of years but I do not think that can or even should happen. My reason is that if all products lasted for decades, then less would be needed thus reducing the need for a work force and given the number of people, that MAY mean a lot of people not working. This is just something I thought of. There is probably no way of saying what exactly would happen.

Do we all need to go super green? No. Many "green" things have proven to not save resources at all.

[Gordon]

Do we all need to go super green? No. Many "green" things have proven to not save resources at all.

But-but... I thought it was an "all or nothing" kind of decision.

[mlinder]

That's a bad analogy, Gordon.

Not at all.  It's actually a very fitting analogy.  

No, it isn't, Gordon.

The ramifications on governments and cultures and economies worldwide could be grievous if we bow to our green-oligarchy-regime. The steps required to reduce our 'carbon footprint' to, say, half of what they are now, would reduce most of the worlds economies to shambles, people would starve (even more than they do now), jobs would be cut in huge amounts across the world, and a large percentage of the worlds population could be required to farm vegetables (cows cause too much greenhouse gasses, we'd have to get rid of those... no more meat for you!) in order to eat...
This just isn't something that can be forced in a short amount of time without doing, probably, irreparable damage to human society as we know it.

Now, not all of us think that's a terrible idea... but, get ready for the chaos, anarchy, starvation, war, and collapse of our current civilization if you try to force this crap through on an unproven theory pushed forward by aspiring aristocrats that are making serious money off of your feer and guilt about destroying the planet.

[paulages]

Whereas there are some people standing to gain a lot from green technology, I think it's safe to say that most concerned about environmental degradation are concerned for personal reasons, however meaningless. That said, the global warming denier crowd in america is largely funded by VERY big business, like coal and oil. I'm all for critical thinking, but I'm just sayin...

That said, if you look out your window, let alone look at a global deforestation map over the last 100 years, it's not too difficult to see the impact human overpopulation has had on the planet. Ecosystems are very delicate... remove a tiny piece of a puzzle and great changes can happen. Massively deforest the planet and pump poison into the air? I'm sorry, you are a total idiot if you think that we are not impacting the planet.

I find that most people who appear to be critical thinkers are ususally just smart people who can argue well for what they already want to believe.

[mlinder]

Whereas there are some people standing to gain a lot from green technology, I think it's safe to say that most concerned about environmental degradation are concerned for personal reasons, however meaningless. That said, the global warming denier crowd in america is largely funded by VERY big business, like coal and oil. I'm all for critical thinking, but I'm just sayin...

That said, if you look out your window, let alone look at a global deforestation map over the last 100 years, it's not too difficult to see the impact human overpopulation has had on the planet. Ecosystems are very delicate... remove a tiny piece of a puzzle and great changes can happen. Massively deforest the planet and pump poison into the air? I'm sorry, you are a total idiot if you think that we are not impacting the planet.

I find that most people who appear to be critical thinkers are ususally just smart people who can argue well for what they already want to believe.

Are you calling me an idiot, Paul? 

I've never said we weren't having an impact. I've only said it's doubtful we are affecting climate change.

The only way for this other crap to slow down is to reduce the worlds population by a very significant percentage.

[my78k]

"The only way for this other crap to slow down is to reduce the worlds population by a very significant percentage."

 - Insert George Bush joke here -

Dennis

[paulages]

Whereas there are some people standing to gain a lot from green technology, I think it's safe to say that most concerned about environmental degradation are concerned for personal reasons, however meaningless. That said, the global warming denier crowd in america is largely funded by VERY big business, like coal and oil. I'm all for critical thinking, but I'm just sayin...

That said, if you look out your window, let alone look at a global deforestation map over the last 100 years, it's not too difficult to see the impact human overpopulation has had on the planet. Ecosystems are very delicate... remove a tiny piece of a puzzle and great changes can happen. Massively deforest the planet and pump poison into the air? I'm sorry, you are a total idiot if you think that we are not impacting the planet.

I find that most people who appear to be critical thinkers are ususally just smart people who can argue well for what they already want to believe.

Are you calling me an idiot, Paul? 

I've never said we weren't having an impact. I've only said it's doubtful we are affecting climate change.

The only way for this other crap to slow down is to reduce the worlds population by a very significant percentage.

Well, in away I guess I was mark.. but knowing you personally, I know you're actually very smart so maybe it's saying it a little wrong. That said, I can't really change my wording for it's intended purpose. Maybe I should say it's incredibly silly to pretend we are not causing a massive impact to the planet. This is not to say it's neccesarily any more morally "wrong" than if yellowstone blows and blankets the planet in sulfur ash, but to deny the effects of humans on the planet is just plain silly. I'm simply saying that it doesn't take much to guess how massive deforestation, massive pollution, etc at the very least COULD have such an effect on the atmosphere.. not that one needs to "guess."

Yes, it would take massive de-population to change anything, which (almost) noone would actually advocate. Just because a problem has no obvious or easy solution doesn't mean one should just pretend it doesn't exist. I like driving a car and riding my motorcycle and enjoying cheap food and energy, all allowed by this lifestyle, but I can admit that I create pollution that causes myself to have asthma at the very least.

I don't care to argue about it at all...convincing someone that there's a raincloud above them isn't gonna keep it from raining. I'm just stating my opinion on the motives of most "skeptics." Most people want to believe that they and their lifestyle are 'OK.'

[TwoTired]

There is no absolute proof that either extreme is correct.  There is, therefore, no proof that the answer lies in between the extremes either.  So, all you have left is personal conjecture, based on your own value of self importance.
 

Because there is no proof, there is no proof.  Thanks for clearing that up!

Because there is no proof, your offer of "compromise between the extremes" is entirely self serving, so that you'll sound "reasonable" when, in fact, you are one of the extremists proposing a change that has no basis.  How much will your compromise cost me?  Why should I even negotiate for your proposed change?

[mlinder]

I wouldn't even pretend to say that I will not have personally left a metric crap ton of toxic, terrible crap behind me after I die.

I just can't see a way around it without going and living in a cave somewhere, eating rabbits, berries and roots.

Projected population for 2050 is something like 30% from what it is now. To make up for the amount of crap I've already caused, and make room for a new person to create their waste by 2050, and come out 'even', I'd have to reduce my current consumption and waste by about 60%.

I do what I can. I plant vegetables, I've reduced my trash output to where it's about 1/5th of what most people throw away (I have my roommate Shauna to thank for help with that), recycle everything, find new uses for old things, build what I can, compost, etc. And it just isn't enough.

I was doing some research on solar panels last month, and I was kind of blown away by the amount of waste, toxic and otherwise, is immense.

For each ton of polysilicon produced, the process generates at least four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste.

To power the Portland metro area, we'd need three and a half million square feet of solar panels. This assumes it's sunny most of the time.

I don't know how many tons of polysilicon that would require..

It's just SUCH a mind-numbing issue.

[my78k]

Did you just use "Portland" and "sunny most of the time" in the same sentence?!?!?

[mlinder]

Did you just use "Portland" and "sunny most of the time" in the same sentence?!?!?

Yeah.

I guess my issue is that the whole global climate change thing, without any real evidence of our impact on it, has taken precedence over everything else that we have quantifiable evidence of.
Such as waste management. Holy crap. If we spent the amount of resources and time we do on global climate change, on waste management, we'd have less waste, less pollution, and a crapton more jobs.
We'd see real progress against a problem that is measurable, and exists undeniably.

[mlinder]

Actually, I'm annoyed now, Paul.

I let you derail the thread and throw a bone to the 'global warming' guys by bringing up a true issue that had little to do with the subject at hand, global warming.

Saying that we have a large impact on the world is undeniable. Saying that the impact includes global warming is questionable at best, and disingenuous at worst.

[Terry in Australia]

Ha ha, I just love that the folk who advocate the existance of "Global Climate Change" label anyone who question the GCC theory "Deny-ers", or "skeptics", (or "idiots"...........) like being skeptical of an unproven theory is a bad thing?

It reminds me of a story an old German guy told me about a confrontation that he had with some local Nazi's when he refused to attend one of Hitler's rallies in Nuremberg in the late 1930's. When a young Thomas told them that he didn't agree with most of Hitler's theories about racial superiority, nation building through ethnic cleansing etc, he was labelled an "idiot" and given a beating for his trouble. When he turned up for work the next day he was fired, after the same Nazi's had a quiet word with his boss, who admitted to Thomas that he didn't believe in Nazism either, but didn't want any trouble.

I look at some of the big protest rallies currently held around the world (most notably at the recent Copenhagen climate change summit) and I'm reminded of the early 1930's Nazi rallies, and I wonder how long it will be before we have government approved "Eco-Nazis" patrolling our streets and invading our homes to inspect our recycling efforts, checking the operation of our solar hot water systems and confirming that we don't leave any appliances left on "stand by", while carting away our gas guzzling "idiot mobiles" for mandatory recycling into batteries for our more eco-friendly modes of transportation.............    

[mlinder]

Eh, I don't think he was calling people who don't believe in global warming idiots, I think it had more to do with people who think we don't have any real impact on the world around us in a negative fashion.

Like I said though, it was a less than completely relevant connection, and is pretty much the epitome of a strawman argument. And I fell for it.


/edit: it's ok though, I'll just go down to the shop and argue with him in person about it.

[TwoTired]

... I wonder how long it will be before we have government approved "Eco-Nazis" patrolling our streets and invading our homes to inspect our recycling efforts...

Here in Kalifornia, we have "spare the air days' declared by some government appointee.
On such days, it is illegal to burn wood in your fireplace.  The onus is on the individual to know about these spare the air days, because even if you aren't aware of the declaration, you can get a stiff fine ($400).  So far, if you rely on wood as the only source of heat for your home, you are exempt.  But, that exemption status can be removed with the stroke of a bureaucrat's pen (slight of hand) in the future.

[mlinder]

I just feel dumb for falling for a strawman argument.

[Retro Rocket]

Man there are some really stupid remarks in this thread, to think we are having no impact on the planet is naive and just plain ignorant, and geeze sometimes i think some people would have to be hit in the face with some things before you would even see them. I don't mean that in a personally derogatory way either. I understand some of the things that you are all saying but there are changes happening to our climate whether we caused it helped it or not and to think what we are doing has no impact is just plain stupid and feeds the Skeptical theories of the large businesses that profit from polluting, and there are people in high places that have absolutely no care for what they do in their pursuit of the mighty dollar. To think we can't make significant changes to what we do for the sake of ourselves and our childrens future is just plain stupid, or just to use "best practise" instead of "oh well, we'll clean it up later" which is the way we have done it for years. There's profit to be made on both sides of the argument so we really need to find a happy medium and all work together to find an acceptable solution, all the hype on both sides is just turning everyone against each other and making it harder to achieve anything. And Mlinder, Antarctica is loosing massive record amounts of ice, some of which has been visable from NZ and some almost reached the West Australian coast only recently. I am glad someone brought Cancer up in this thread, there are so many "life style" cancers around its absolutely scary and if we had been more careful in the pursuit of the mighty dollar this issue as well would be a lot better than it currently is. At the end of the day, the thing that worries me is, if we are having a serious impact with what we are doing and i believe we definitely are not helping, then how far is too far?, it could be too late now and we may not know this for a while to come so shouldn't we er on the side of caution knowing that what we have already done couldn't have helped..... This is a hard subject and even if there is only cyclic warming as has happened for ever, shouldn't we clean up our ways to set an example for others on our over crowded future on this planet?  To do nothing would be criminal....

Mick

[mlinder]

Man there are some really stupid remarks in this thread, to think we are having no impact on the planet is naive and just plain ignorant,

No one said that, sorry, try again.

and geeze sometimes i think some people would have to be hit in the face with some things before you would even see them. I don't mean that in a personally derogatory way either. I understand some of the things that you are all saying but there are changes happening to our climate whether we caused it helped it or not and to think

So you are saying that hey, maybe we AREN'T affecting global climate?

what we are doing has no impact is just plain stupid and feeds the Skeptical theories of the large businesses that profit from polluting,

No one said we aren't having impact on the planet, only that our impact on the climate is questionable.

There's a difference between real, quantifiable scientific evidence and the crap spewed by BOTH propaganda machines.

and there are people in high places that have absolutely no care for what they do in their pursuit of the mighty dollar.

On both sides, absolutely.

To think we can't make significant changes to what we do for the sake of ourselves and our childrens future is just plain stupid, or just to use "best practise" instead of "oh well, we'll clean it up later" which is the way we have done it for years.

I do as much as I can, reasonably, to reduce my footprint. I'm don't have enough money to go all 'green'.
There's profit to be made on both sides of the argument so we really need to find a happy medium and all work together to find an acceptable solution, all the hype on both sides is just turning everyone against each other and making it harder to achieve anything. And Mlinder, Antarctica is loosing massive record amounts of ice, some of which has been visable from NZ and some almost reached the West Australian coast only recently. I am glad someone brought Cancer up in this thread, there are so many "life style" cancers around its absolutely scary and if we had been more careful in the pursuit of the mighty dollar this issue as well would be a lot better than it currently is. At the end of the day, the thing that worries me is, if we are having a serious impact with what we are doing and i believe we definitely are not helping, then how far is too far?, it could be too late now and we may not know this for a while to come so shouldn't we er on the side of caution knowing that what we have already done couldn't have helped..... This is a hard subject and even if there is only cyclic warming as has happened for ever, shouldn't we clean up our ways to set an example for others on our over crowded future on this planet?  To do nothing would be criminal....

Mick
[/quote]

To do the wrong thing in a knee jerk reaction would be more criminal.

[Retro Rocket]

To do the wrong thing in a knee jerk reaction would be more criminal.

Not if it is safer for everyone, although i do not advocate " knee jerk reactions".

Mick

[mlinder]

To do the wrong thing in a knee jerk reaction would be more criminal.

Not if it is safer for everyone, although i do not advocate " knee jerk reactions".

Mick

Define 'safer'.