Fun With Global Warming! - CLOSED
Message boards :
Politics :
Fun With Global Warming! - CLOSED
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 . . . 35 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
Dark Angel  Send message Joined: 26 Aug 01 Posts: 432 Credit: 2,673,754 RAC: 0 
|
An article on Greenland ice melting in the online edition of the NYTimes is really scary. Cannot link to it because you have to register. I don't think for a second that Climate change was started by humans; however it certainly has been advanced at a much greater rate over a much shorter period of time because of humans. I think the world is missing the point if they think that the process began with humans. As BillHyland stated above it's an continuing cycle, however we have deviated from the normal cycle and the normal balance of things has been upset because of this deviation.   
ID: 505350 ·  |
 Rush  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0 
|
Except that you don't. You offer nothing better than "It can't possibly be so". Which, again, is utterly wrong. I have said no such thing. Quote me if you will. As far as Mr. Lindzen, you should have no problem then refuting what he said in the article at the beginning. Something. Anything. Global Warming is measurably and visibly happening, and far far faster than anything this planet has ever seen since life walked here. Atmospheric CO2 is measurably increasing, and the increase closely follows Human industrialization. CO2 is undisputedly a "greenhouse" gas that traps the sun's heat. Man continues to add a very large CO2 imbalance that is accumulating in the atmosphere. There is almost TOTAL scientific consensus for those facts. There is remarkably clear consensus considering that the nature of science is to actively disagree to then argue out all the failed hypotheses until one remains that survives all the tests. Martin, you are doing yourself and your position a disservice. At no point have I ever denied that the world is warming. Either you cannot read, you cannot understand what I have said, or you are deliberately ignoring what I have said. I have said repeatedly that while warming may be true, Kyoto did not fix anything. I have said that the U.S. would be stupid to bear the brunt of the costs for so-called fixes that are speculative at best, regardless of what you think it should do. Note that science is not omnipotent. However, the threatened consequences will not permit us to be 100% certain with hindsight. I'll accept 99% confidence for the sake of buying more time for taking action NOW so as to avoid the worst. Well, of course you would. This action is consistent with your ideology: it’s OK for you to force others to do stuff that they don’t want to do because you agree with it. I will not accept your confidence and I won't pay for it and it does not buy you any time. Now what is your obvious and proven alternative hypothesis that shows the rest of World Science is completely wrong? Again, this comes from your inability to read and refute what I have said. I never said the rest of the world was completely wrong. I did say that following lemmings is not a rational basis for public policy. I did say that the U.S. is unlikely to bankrupt itself so that China, India, and Russia can have an economic field day. I did ask you a number of times what your strategy to save the planet was in face of the U.S. refusal and in face of China quickly outdistancing every other emitter on earth. Note all the 'negatives' and 'uncertainty' in that quote. Climate Science and faith healing are a world apart and cannot be compared. That's all just plain simple mud slinging for a good FUD attack. Let’s say that for the sake of argument that’s true. In that case you two would then both be peas in a pod. You would both be saying absolutely nothing. Your own "blind fatalism," is readily apparent: if the U.S. doesn't sign a piece of paper, we're all going to die. One article of Mr. Lindzen sits at the top of this thread. Take the points he makes and refute them. Can you read "Diplomacy"? Diplomacy failed, i.e. Kyoto. And sure, sometimes there are problems that require worldwide cooperation, i.e. World War II. But that’s only true in this case if one accepts your position. What you “see†means very little. 1000th time: the U.S. will not wreck its economy while other emitters are exempt. While you may not like that idea, you have yet to present an argument that could have convinced Clinton or will convince Dubya. Furthermore, even if the U.S. signed Kyoto, it would have missed its targets just like everyone else did. Net gain? Zero. More accurately? A loss. Even more surprising is that some of your own states are going to court to bully the Oil-blinded Bush to get real about the climate and your early and large contribution to the global blame. And what happens when that fails? What do you do then? How many resources can you waste on failed political solutions? Alternatively, what happens if those states win, yet emissions still aren't cut? ...To put it another way, if the ship is still going down, any costs spent are a waste. Ummmm, China outpaces the U.S. in emissions in 2009. So, in order to “buy time to continue to get the rest of the leaks fixed,†you need total emissions to drop. To get that drop, you need the U.S. to cut emissions significantly in about 24 months. And you need China, Russia, and India to slow down as well. Good luck. I wouldn’t hold your breath. Is it more a case of your own fatalism or futilism or just simple blind short term destructive greed? I have no idea what this means. I’ve said repeatedly that you had better come up with an economically effective solution. If you do, all is well. If you don’t, your worst fears may come true. Regardless of what the U.S. does. Those economic solutions are already being imposed. So far in small measure but the precedent has now been set. “Economic solutions†are being “imposed.†Heh. That’s really funny. And it shows the extent of your ideology: A) Economic solutions aren’t “imposed.†B) Kyoto actually was given force of law and the targets were self-“imposed†by the countries that wanted to sign it. And they still failed. More law won’t change that. It may make everyone who feels as you do feel better about themselves, but that doesn’t cut emissions either. This is where you, and many others, all need to lobby your politicians to speed up the efforts to save our only planet from our CO2 pollution. I do lobby my politicians. I have written letters that contain much of what I have said in this thread. I write them to both sides of the aisle. Like here, I do not deny that the earth may be warming. I do however point out the futility of wasting what could be hundreds of billions for zero net effect. On a few trash and junk sites perhaps... The news and scientific journals show a predominance of Global Warming articles as detailed earlier in this thread. In contrast, is there any peer reviewed and respected research that convincingly shows that we can continue to pollute on an industrial scale and have no adverse environmental effect? Ah, another straw man. You attack a position I haven’t taken. I should go back and count how many times I have stated my position, and how many times you have misstated it. I’ve never said “that we can continue to pollute on an industrial scale and have no adverse environmental effect,†no responsible person would say that and I doubt anyone does. What they have said is that Kyoto, et al, is structurally flawed. At this point, that has become self-evident, e.g. no one met their targets. Not necessarily so. That is where you lobby your politicians to rein in the corporate "excesses" and save the planet for your retirement and for your children. Heh, that’s funny again. And more ideology. You would have to explain how using force to “rein in the corporate ‘excesses’†results in lower costs. Your computer is one example of “corporate excess,†yet you wanted it. Now, can you contribute anything other than just overwhelming glib negativity? I have offered an alternative. I’ve said you better develop economically feasible solutions because otherwise you will fail. As far as the “negative side,†well, again, we come down to epistemology. If you cannot address the logical flaws in your position, it doesn’t matter whether Clinton, Dubya, I, or some inbred points them out to you. If a position is logically flawed it doesn’t matter whether Exxon/Mobile or the Cato Institute or Greenfarce or DirtFirst! point them out. I am not glib because of "sez you." Heh heh. The other readers of this thread can decide for themselves what of substance I have offered. I am of the opinion that gov’t force will not save you. It has not so far. I believe that with enough awareness and enough political push, we can avoid death by CO2 pollution AND gain a better level of living and still include "high tech". We’re waiting. You see, if that were true, you wouldn’t need “political push.†Your ideas would be embraced because they would make economic sense. They don’t. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... 
ID: 505998 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
No need for any fancy transport or any fancy "hybrid" cars. More empty rhetoric. The last time I look at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. cars have an average efficiency of about 20 mpg. So, that would mean that Chinese cars (many of which are made by U.S. manufacturers) would average 40 mpg. And European cars (many also made by U.S. manufacturers) would average 80 mpg. Even hybrids don't come anywhere near those numbers. Unless there are a bunch of secret ubercars around somewhere that the Chinese and Europeans can buy... Worse still, the USA clocks up the greatest mileages... The U.S. is significantly larger that most any European country and has significantly less population density, about 30 per square mile compared to 100 - 300 in Europe. Of course they drive farther. (In other words, the USA can easily and cheaply and quickly reduce one large bubble of CO2 pollution. It would even likely pay back in lower costs!) Which, of course, is simply wrong. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506007 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
What disturbs me is that I would expect open minded people here which are rather interested in what's really happening instead of dogmatic discussions where both sides just try to defend their positions. I really think the issue is too important, especially if you have children. That's only true if you believe that something can be done about it. Cutting emissions by gov't fiat won't happen--as it didn't. Even if the GW is hyped (but people need to be fair and also take into consideration that both sides use that approach to achieve their goals) that does not mean that there is no danger. And even if GW wouldn't be an issue the question is if in the long run alternative energy wouldn't be the better solution anyways. Do it. Get you and Martin together and do it. Sell solar panels for homes that are economically priced. Actually sell cars that get 80 miles to the gallon for less than the costs of their present counterparts. No one is stopping you. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506010 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
It is everyones right to put their head in the sand when it comes it this issue. For people who do this, all I can say to them is.....we can't go spewing stuff into the atmosphere for over 100 years without something going wrong. We've seen already what happens when we spew stuff into waterways, it just takes longer to see an apparent change with the atmosphere as it is soo much bigger. Carbon dioxide is at levels that the earth has not seen in over 600,000 years! With it increasing significantly above a rolling average in the past century. Surely you can't sit there and tell me that we can spew stuff into the atmosphere at increasing amounts with no adverse reactions taking place! Sheesh. No one in this thread has made that case. That's just another straw man. The ad hoc evidence should really be enough for people to start altering their behaviour now! Nope. Your opinion isn't enough. But if they did want to do so--they should shut down BOINC. Yet they don't. See the dilemma? Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506020 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
We can't emit into the atmosphere 15,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 without something going wrong! Are people so short sighted as to not understand this? No Paul. What they are saying in this thread, is that regardless of what is being emitted the net total emissions does not fall. If net total emissions do not fall, then spending what will amount to trillions of total dollars won't mean anything anyway. The kid thing is specious. I could just as easily ask if you want to I own up your kids and say that you wasted the price of their college education and it was meaningless and had no effect whatsoever? Think your kids would appreciate that? Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506057 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
First of all, your initial statement "So I guess you are going with the cow flatulence theory huh?" should be put to the scientists at climatepredition.net and bbc.cpdn.com, the BOINC Climate Change crunchers, since it is their assertion that there is no evidence. I have to go by what the scientists say, and that doesn't mean accepting everything a crackpot scientist puts into a journal. Just to illustrate a point here. On the micro level, did it ever cross your mind that continually reposting the entire conversation instead of just the points you are replying to is part of the problem? Or the people that constantly repost pictures that have been posted in order to reply to them? Or Last Person, post-for-the-sake-of-posting threads? Virtual diners? The principle is the same: it's wasteful. You are choosing to use resources to make your life better. You repost the entire discussion to make it easier to follow. Same with the pics. You participate in post-for-the-sake-of-posting threads to enjoy other's company. However, that's what everyone on earth does--they use resources to make their lives better. They simply won't cut their emissions because you said they must. However much rhetoric they post here, they still post here. They still run BOINC. And I still heat and cool my home. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506064 · |
|
Dark Angel Send message Joined: 26 Aug 01 Posts: 432 Credit: 2,673,754 RAC: 0
|
So you're saying what exactly...reduce global waming by limiting computer posts...well we can start with the above perfect example of what not to do.
ID: 506077 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
The key word here is "economist." Or perhaps you'd like to quote one of the scientists that have been receiving direct contributions from the oil industry as proof in your rebuttals? I'd suggest that you chose your sources a little more carefully and be prepared to back them up. Using an economist directly employeed by a major automoblie manufacturing company who's products are a major source of pollution and green house gases is laughable at best if not downright hysterical. Once again, of course the key word is "economist." If economists agreed that the costs to humanity to solve global warming would be $0.50, there would be no discussion, as I would already have paid it. I could just as easily say: Or perhaps you'd like to quote one of the scientists that have been receiving direct contributions from the environmentalist movement as proof in your rebuttals? I'd suggest that you chose your sources a little more carefully and be prepared to back them up. Using an economist directly employed by an ideologically-biased concern who has a major interest in promoting their ideology is laughable at best if not downright hysterical. Again: we address the arguments presented instead of the person/concern presenting them because their is bias on both sides. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506103 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
So you're saying what exactly...reduce global waming by limiting computer posts...well we can start with the above perfect example of what not to do. No, I'm commenting on the principle. Wasting resources is wasting resources. That is symptomatic of the point I've made repeatedly. If you understand why there is more value to you in running BOINC or posting on these boards then on shutting your computer down, you can understand why other people want their home a couple of degrees warmer or colder. Or want a bigger or different car than you would choose for them. Or want to visit relatives. Or give their children a better/bigger home. They value those things more than the cost of the resources used. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506105 · |
|
Darth Dogbytes™ Send message Joined: 30 Jul 03 Posts: 7512 Credit: 2,021,148 RAC: 0
|
Let's just distill this arguement to its' basic component...the earth is going to hell in a hand basket and with the over population of the human species there is no way of stopping it. At its' very best, the human race can only slow down the its' march to extinction. The why's and what for are just hot air. Account frozen... ID: 506111 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
Most illuminating and quite amusing! Which still doesn't address what can be done to stop it. Kyoto won't. And then I see the FUD squirmings to throw in random buckshot of every jargon shrapnel that can be quickly grasped at to then create a silly ignorant smoke-screen. No. The discussion of what you will do without someone to save you is quite humorous. Certainly not my kind of fun. There are going to be wars over this. A good question is whether the USA will go nuclear over it... Reducing the population is certainly one fun method... Yeah, that's it. The U.S. will nuke Germany for failing to meet some BS numbers. How rational. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506116 · |
|
MAC Send message Joined: 12 Feb 01 Posts: 203 Credit: 58,346 RAC: 0 
|
Let's just distill this arguement to its' basic component...the earth is going to hell in a hand basket and with the over population of the human species there is no way of stopping it. At its' very best, the human race can only slow down the its' march to extinction. The why's and what for are just hot air. The sad truth :( Umm, Rush - so what do you suggest? I have the feeling that you don't get what I suggest anyways. It's about keeping the high life standard we actually have, but using improved tech and creating new jobs that way. But the average worker will have to earn at least enough to be able to afford it - meanwhile in the US they earn 1/411th of their bosses income, yay! Houses will be build / improved to save energy -> more jobs. Cars will be fuled by alternative energy -> more jobs. Alternative energy production has to be build up -> more jobs. Industry develops more efficient and less polluting production methods and exports -> more jobs. ID: 506121 · |
|
Dark Angel Send message Joined: 26 Aug 01 Posts: 432 Credit: 2,673,754 RAC: 0
|
So you're saying what exactly...reduce global waming by limiting computer posts...well we can start with the above perfect example of what not to do. People don't understand or realize what resources are used to make the products and/or the comforts that they have...or covet. Which is the same short sighted aproach that they use to make their choices. Further corporations capitalize on the consumers not making an informed choice. Ask most people in a urban setting where food comes form and they will likely tell you a grocery store or supermarket, and won't point to the fields or people who grow the products. Which is why the american farmer lost out in the end. In the rush to capitalized profits corporations cause vast amounts of damage to the environment and people look the other way. People don't look past the manufacturer of the end product to see where the raw materials really come from or even how it gets produced. So here I sit in a small apartment in a dark room. The only room in my apartment that I actively heat. Furthermore that heat is produced by non other then the heat from my computer. It's a perfect example of conservation and utilizing the byproduct of my computer's data crunching to produce a comfort for me. In the summer instead of using an air-conditioner I utilize the efficiency of my windows and open them at night to lower the temperature and then close them first thing in the morning to trap the cold air which slowly heats up during the day at which point the process starts all over again that night. Again saving energy, money, and resources there by lowering my environmental footprint on the world. Granted that not all people can do this as not everyone lives in a temperate environment. I too have lived where the winter temperatures are closer to the arctic and heat is necessary for survival and not just ones comfort alone.
ID: 506126 · |
|
Dark Angel Send message Joined: 26 Aug 01 Posts: 432 Credit: 2,673,754 RAC: 0
|
I earned 1/532 of what my bosses "bonus" was last year let alone his salary!
ID: 506132 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
Umm, Rush - so what do you suggest? What do you mean? Presently? Next generation breeder reactors with fuel recycling. I have the feeling that you don't get what I suggest anyways. It's about keeping the high life standard we actually have, but using improved tech and creating new jobs that way. But the average worker will have to earn at least enough to be able to afford it - meanwhile in the US they earn 1/411th of their bosses income, yay! This means nothing. I agree that improved technology will help the situation. But the ratio of incomes between janitor and CEO means nothing. Why does it matter that Oprah makes 411 times what the guy that sweeps her studio makes? Houses will be build / improved to save energy -> more jobs. Eh, that's just an opinion call. Drive the costs of these things up, houses, cars, et cetera, and demand drops. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506155 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
People don't understand or realize what resources are used to make the products and/or the comforts that they have...or covet. Which is the same short sighted aproach that they use to make their choices. Further corporations capitalize on the consumers not making an informed choice. Ask most people in a urban setting where food comes form and they will likely tell you a grocery store or supermarket, and won't point to the fields or people who grow the products. Which is why the american farmer lost out in the end. In the rush to capitalized profits corporations cause vast amounts of damage to the environment and people look the other way. People don't look past the manufacturer of the end product to see where the raw materials really come from or even how it gets produced. So what? We live in free societies where people are generally allowed the freedom to think and believe as they wish. They don't need to know the millions upon millions of steps that brought them their computer or their frozen pizza. They only need to decide for themselves whether it is worth more to them than the money in their pocket. The same goes for you. You can't possibly know all of the trillions of steps that go into providing you with the lifestyle you choose to maintain. It's simply impossible for you to make "an informed choice" like that. So here I sit in a small apartment in a dark room. The only room in my apartment that I actively heat. Furthermore that heat is produced by non other then the heat from my computer. It's a perfect example of conservation and utilizing the byproduct of my computer's data crunching to produce a comfort for me. In the summer instead of using an air-conditioner I utilize the efficiency of my windows and open them at night to lower the temperature and then close them first thing in the morning to trap the cold air which slowly heats up during the day at which point the process starts all over again that night. Again saving energy, money, and resources there by lowering my environmental footprint on the world. Granted that not all people can do this as not everyone lives in a temperate environment. I too have lived where the winter temperatures are closer to the arctic and heat is necessary for survival and not just ones comfort alone. Good for you, I'm glad you have the freedom to make these choices. But I'm going to lobby the gov't to take your computer away from you, because I think you use too much energy. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506159 · |
|
Rush Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 3131 Credit: 302,569 RAC: 0
|
I earned 1/532 of what my bosses "bonus" was last year let alone his salary! Wow, you mean you were both free to contract with the company to work for them? And you both agreed to work for different amounts? If you can understand why you try to get employers to pay you as much as possible (just like everyone else does) you can understand why your boss does the same thing. Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...
ID: 506160 · |
|
Dark Angel Send message Joined: 26 Aug 01 Posts: 432 Credit: 2,673,754 RAC: 0
|
People don't understand or realize what resources are used to make the products and/or the comforts that they have...or covet. Which is the same short sighted approach that they use to make their choices. Further corporations capitalize on the consumers not making an informed choice. Ask most people in a urban setting where food comes form and they will likely tell you a grocery store or supermarket, and won't point to the fields or people who grow the products. Which is why the american farmer lost out in the end. In the rush to capitalized profits corporations cause vast amounts of damage to the environment and people look the other way. People don't look past the manufacturer of the end product to see where the raw materials really come from or even how it gets produced. That freedom extends even to you Rush...to believe as you like...oh and feel free to exercise your freedom of choice to not think beyond your wallet. The same goes for you. You can't possibly know all of the trillions of steps that go into providing you with the lifestyle you choose to maintain. It's simply impossible for you to make "an informed choice" like that. I don't believe I claimed to know about every step used to make everything that I use in my daily life; however I do use my freedom of choice to become informed so that I may make better decisions as to where I choose to spend my money. Often those choices at my expense are for the betterment of the environment. So here I sit in a small apartment in a dark room. The only room in my apartment that I actively heat. Furthermore that heat is produced by non other then the heat from my computer. It's a perfect example of conservation and utilizing the byproduct of my computer's data crunching to produce a comfort for me. In the summer instead of using an air-conditioner I utilize the efficiency of my windows and open them at night to lower the temperature and then close them first thing in the morning to trap the cold air which slowly heats up during the day at which point the process starts all over again that night. Again saving energy, money, and resources there by lowering my environmental footprint on the world. Granted that not all people can do this as not everyone lives in a temperate environment. I too have lived where the winter temperatures are closer to the arctic and heat is necessary for survival and not just ones comfort alone. Ok...now that was about the least intelligent thing I have read on this thread. Not that I didn't expect it considering your prior posts. I'd get great joy form comparing my energy bill with yours, considering what you have stated. On the other hand reading the above statement again it seems to me like you feel you don't have those choices. Interesting...very interesting...or maybe it's rather that you don't want to make those choices. Could it be?
ID: 506308 · |
Es99  Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 
|
People don't understand or realize what resources are used to make the products and/or the comforts that they have...or covet. Which is the same short sighted aproach that they use to make their choices. Further corporations capitalize on the consumers not making an informed choice. Ask most people in a urban setting where food comes form and they will likely tell you a grocery store or supermarket, and won't point to the fields or people who grow the products. Which is why the american farmer lost out in the end. In the rush to capitalized profits corporations cause vast amounts of damage to the environment and people look the other way. People don't look past the manufacturer of the end product to see where the raw materials really come from or even how it gets produced. Informed is the keyword here Rush. How are people to get informed? Does everyone have equal access to the information? Are they even aware it is there? Who is controlling the education system in your utopia? Are they training people up to be free thinkers or consumers? There is no free choice without education and access to all the information. However..if the information agenda is being set by people who are trying to maximise profits then that will never happen. The freedoms you go on about are an illusion. Reality Internet Personality ID: 506388 · |
©2025 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.