|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 members (1 invisible),
393
guests, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,574
Posts546,489
Members14,424
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,032 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,032 Likes: 8 |
I propose that you consider the momentous scale of regulating a huge chunk of the wealth of our nation out of existence. And in the hope that the rest of the world will also sacrifice so that Florida and Louisiana don't flood in case global warming really is man-made and signifigant. I say again it is not CO2 that is the problem but people screwing and penicillin. And just like they refuse to give up screwing and keeping their kids alive with penicillin they are not going to give up fossil fuels either.
Shitty thing is we are all stuck with the same consequences. If my descendents are living a third world existence because ya'll decided that we needed go green and eliminate fossil fuels and it turns out global warming was not man-made or it turns out not to be a signifigant rise or it turns out the rest of the world did not go along they will still be poor and I will have been right.
I agree with you that overpopulation and overuse of antibiotics are problems. but you are reading to many absolutes into my posts. I am not for collapsing economies by overregulation. Where did I say that we have to regulate via big government? I am for sensible regulations appropriate for the situation. Moreover, what I would like to see people acknowledge the problem and its causes, then we can start to talk about ideas and work on solutions. Its the "deniers" that always bring up the economic collapse by overregulation bit and don't even allow a discussion to progress. Take for example this thread, someone posted about whether climate change is occuring and it quickly got poo-poo'd by you with a tirade about a $15 per gallon tax on automobile and truck fuels, a 300% tax on natural gas used for home heating and $100 a ton tax on coal used for generating electricity and all the insinuated economic problems from your horrible hypo.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,065 |
I don't believe my post was a tirade.
If there were no costs Involved with going off fossil fuels there would be no debate. If the cost were zero I would say "Hell yes, stop burning them now! Those guys are smart fellows and if they think we could be causing global warming shut that all that oil, gas, and coal down."
But the cost is huge and we need to wait another decade or two to see if they got it right and if the rest of the world will go along.
And I believe President Obama and his party are conducting a guerilla war on fossil fuels. They know if they tell the American people they are doing everything they can do to get gas prices as high as possible and coal generated electricity as high as possible to lower CO2 emissions they will lose the presidency and both houses. So they veto the Keystone pipeline, raise standards for coal plants, stop drilling on public lands but give other reasons for the action.
So the discussion is not just whether it is happening and what is causing it but also the politics and the economics.
In retrospect I regret the sarcasm I used in the post NCA referenced.
Best,
Mike
Last edited by AmarilloMike; 03/19/12 10:30 PM.
I am glad to be here.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396 |
I'm certainly not purposefully avoiding your point. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, as the whole debate to me is one of manmade climate change - not whether the climate is changing or
not. It is a scientific theory, and just that, subject to revision or rejection as more research and information becomes available, but the best evidence to date supports the theory. My experience with the deniers, as you refer to them, has been their consistent claim that only God could cause climate change and man is unable to have any impact. To me, that is based on a preconceived idea and is irrational as well as anti-science. I accept that you may not base your beliefs on that idea. Wow, lots happens when I leave to put my 7 year old to bed. cpa, perhaps I have erroneously lumped you in with nca225 as being unable to employ reason and logic in a discussion. If I have done so I apologize. God has nothing to do with my suspicion of man made climate change theories. Proven deceptive and manipulative practices by some significant number of scientists and many non-scientist who stand to gain somehow by the wholesale adoption of climate change panic is what lies behind my suspicions. UN behavior that seeks to undermine freedom and democracy in favour of PC and group think is what lies behind my suspicions. Nothing more and nothing less. It's is man's venality I am concerned about. Not the climate. I tend to be a bit contrapuntal. When the crowd is zigging, I'm looking for who stands to gain. Not that I mind gaining, just that I want to understand the who and the why. I have had versions of this conversation with Gmomon, when motives or understanding get a bit confused at both ends. There is not the significant religious right in Canada, the way there is in the US. It is possible, up here, to hold views about climate change, smaller and less intrusive government, personal freedom, lower taxes and a host of other concepts and not be a born-again Christian or a member of "the religious right". And while I want them to have the freedom to hold the religious views they do, I don't subscribe to the same views myself. In fact you can be hard right and not religious at all. Politics and religion haven't quite collided in the same way up here.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396 |
canvas, you wrote in part: What we consider not to be proven is that man's activities over the last 150 years have had any significant impact on that possible climate change. OK, fair enough. But science does not prove stuff - it proposes mechanisms that are the best fit to current data. Science only disprovesThat is a very difficult concept to get across. It gets back to my argument about falsification. We can only propose things consistent with data derived from the natural world and therefore these proposals can be disproved. However, and it's a big "however" - one needs to use data from the natural world to disprove. If one wishes to use religion or politics or "personal hunches" then one is operating in a non-scientific world, and one shouldn't mix metaphors (or in this case worlds). But if someone wants to rely on religion, that's perfectly OK. But religion etc do not (or should not) try to impact on science. If someone wants to deny climate change or human's role in it, then they should go back to cpa's URL and falsify the physicist's data. Haha, I've been caught out. In an earlier post, I made the point that words are important. And they are. However I was taking a linguistic shortcut when I say man made climate change in the last 150 years hadn't been proven. And you are right, it can't be proven , only dis-proven. As I alluded to in the recent post to cpa, my problem with the "science" to date, is that if it was so conclusively supportive of the theory, why are scientists suppressing aspects of it, colluding with like minded others to suppress certain information? Now I'm not normally a "grassy knoll" kind of guy, but something about this one got my antennae up. And I suspect that is because the way they have gone about it is a very "EU - UN - NGO superseding democratically elected governments" kind of way. They lost me because they tried to trick me. So the standard got a lot higher. Gnomon it is the politics and the personal hunches to use your terms exhibited by those advocating massive change to world economies and to the way the world is governed that have me concerned. I'm usually pretty open minded, especially about science. I smell a rat on this one.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 34 |
Aw geez, I was reading along happily until I got to this post, and I just can't let it go. People often make fun of science because results and conclusions change as more data is collected and things consistent with the data of 20 years ago are now known to be wrong. But falsification is an absolute necessity of something "scientific" - one has to be able to falsify a theory or it isn't part of science. You cannot disprove the existence of god but it is conceivable to disprove the theory of evolution - just collect enough data that contradict the model. In fact, it is absolutely essential that the theory of evolution is falsifiable I don't know if this post indicates a lack of understanding of scientific method and basic statistics, or just a too-casual use of language. Scientists do not "falsify" a theory, although they can use data to refute a theory. Some of them have been known to use data selectively to support a theory. RE: it is absolutely essential that the theory of evolution is falsifiable This is just plain wrong. The theory of evolution is a theory, not a fact, although the validity of the theory is well supported by lots and lots of empirical data. One cannot "falsify" a theory, but one can develop data sets that refute a theory. Bring enough of that data and the theory loses credibility in the scientific community, but it can still be a valid theory worthy of further investigation, simply because new data may be found that do support the theory.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,045 Likes: 53
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,045 Likes: 53 |
No no, Replacement that's where you miss the point.
This is the one place where Gnoman and I agree.
The fact that it could be falsified is what makes evolution science. The fact that it hasn't been is what makes it fact.
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,032 Likes: 8
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,032 Likes: 8 |
cpa, perhaps I have erroneously lumped you in with nca225 as being unable to employ reason and logic in a discussion. If I have done so I apologize.
Funny, and I'm the guy suggesting that it might be a good idea to listen to the scientists who are in he know. No reason or logic to that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,045 Likes: 53
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,045 Likes: 53 |
You let other people make up your mind for you?
"The price of good shotgunnery is constant practice" - Fred Kimble
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396 |
I propose you consider the momentous scale of the negative and destructive effects of climate change that is changing at a rate different then the historical patterns and in a way that favors more destructive climatic events. For an example of such a way, consider the recent storms in the south east of the county that produced more tornadoes in one day then what historical patterns would indicate for an entire month. Same storm was the size of a hurricane as it was observed from space. The Defense Department even has concerns of mass famine, drought, and population shift as ecosystems across the world change.
You are right, we can not predict with certainty when the seas will rise and consume much of Florida, Louisiana or parts India or China. This is not a Katrina sized event here, and we know how well america dealt with that. Do you know what the models predict if we loose the ice caps? They are receding.
First you need address that the problem exists. To correct it you find the source of the problem. Without doing that you cant fix it.
The vast majority of independent scientists who are tasked with addressing this issue say its man made activities that is the culprit.
Considering the possible outcomes presented by climate change, I think its a nobel goal to work to address and ameliorate it. Other's mileage may vary and they, as many do, may wish ignore our part in it.
Shitty thing is we are all stuck with the same consequences, and being able to say I told you so isn't going to make me feel any better about it. I just hope my time comes before the worst of it is realized. Taking your example of recent storm activity in the south east. I would say that using a time frame of perhaps 200 years to imagine or set in stone what is "normal" is a remarkably short view of world meteorological and geological history. I would add that given the grade four and five boys in my father's school in the early 1930's were charged with taking the weather readings (as punishment) that form the basis for the historical record for weather in Winnipeg, I am somewhat skeptical of the detailed accuracy of weather records prior to the 1950's used by scientist to arrive at their findings. You mention polar ice caps and firmly state they are receding. Yet earlier in this thread we read a article by a professor clearly stating the ice pack in Antarctica is growing. Which is it? How can there be two such divergent yet confident assertions made of what sound like should be a simple measurable fact. Perhaps it's not that simple. I listened as flim-flam men described corn based methanol as a noble goal while all the while they knew it took more energy to create a gallon of ethanol than ethanol itself contains. Their point was personal monetary gain. As far as noble goals go, I'll stick with tell the truth, leave the place better than I found it and teach my son how to be a man. I'm not much interested in demanding that other believe what I believe and I have yet to see any evidence about global warming that makes me move it up the priority list on how to leave the place better. Perhaps one day, but not yet.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,498 Likes: 396 |
Funny, and I'm the guy suggesting that it might be a good idea to listen to the scientists who are in he know. No reason or logic to that.
nca225 I base that comment not just on this thread but on many posts I have seen from you in the misfires section.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
|
