Is our children being educated? [Archive]

View Full Version : Is our children being educated?

Snuffleupagus

11-04-2006, 04:58 AM

Humour me. I was just wondering if cognitive dissonance of the reality of the world could be invoked by mere locality.
For all that the US may be the "leader" of the free world, the atmosphere within the state itself does tend to disturb outsiders. Not least because of the huge production of greenhouse gases per capita (25% of the total output for the world, if I remember correctly). Reality doesn't seem to come into play in everyday life there. Kansas thinks that the much suppressed and scientifically worthy branch of "intelligent design" has earnt a spot in the classroom.
Athiests are barely represented within the senate and congress (far below their proportional mix in society). The system seems to be entrenched that only the rich elite will ever have a shot of getting the office of president, and there is still no potential time frame that women or blacks will ever reach this position within our life times. (Unless you want to count 24 or the West Wing). Some voters still seem to think that they are incapable of holding this position? (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Woman%20President.htm) :frypan:

No, I'm not picking on the wonderful USA. Just a friendly critique from a person who doesn't want to see crazy extremists flourish in a little coocoon away from the rest of the world.

The questions below aren't really in dispute for most of the world. To have an argument about such is just derailing, pointless, losing track of reality etc etc.
And don't get me started on the *possibility* that abortion law will be challenged (more than the appalling level it has reached in South Dakato)

______________________

"You can't fight city hall." "Death and taxes." "Don't talk about politics or religion." This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda, rolling across the picket line. "Lay down, GI! Lay down, GI!". We saw it all through the 20th Century. And now on the 21st Century, it's time to stand up and realize, that we should NOT allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not SUBMIT to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control. Those that control my life, and those that seek to control it EVEN MORE! I want FREEDOM! That's what I want, and that's what YOU should want! It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose of just some of the greed, the hatred, the envy, and yes, the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control, make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have GOT to realize we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state! The 21st Century's gonna be a new century! Not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance, of classism and statism, and all the rest of the modes of control... it's gonna be the age of humankind, standing up for something PURE and something RIGHT! What a bunch of garbage, liberal, Democratic, conservative, Republican, it's all there to control you, two sides of the same coin! Two management teams, bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated! The TRUTH is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of LIES! I'm SICK of it, and I'M NOT GONNA TAKE A BITE OUT OF IT! DO YA GOT ME? Resistance is NOT futile, we're gonna win this thing, humankind is too good, WE'RE NOT A BUNCH OF UNDERACHIEVERS, WE'RE GONNA STAND UP, AND WE'RE GONNA BE HUMAN BEINGS! WE'RE GONNA GET FIRED UP ABOUT THE REAL THINGS, THE THINGS THAT MATTER - CREATIVITY, AND THE *DYNAMIC* *HUMAN* *SPIRIT* THAT REFUSES TO *SUBMIT*! WELL THAT'S IT, that's all I've got to say. It's in your court now.

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2006, 07:00 AM

Why are you making a second evolution topic when there already is one active? >_>

oh, and
(ARE! NOT IS! ARE!)

Mechs

11-04-2006, 09:43 AM

I don't think global warming is not as bad as people make it out to be. I do think exists to a degree, but I think that the change in the earth's temperature is a natural occurance. Only time will tell on that though.

And to the president statement: What does it matter if the President is a rich white guy? Will a Black guy or Woman do the job better? I don't care who is in charge just as long as they're good at the job. Black, White, Hispanic, Martian, whatever they are, it don't matter. Plus the President is always going to be rich. When you make 150,000 a year, that's good living.

Candyvan Stan

11-04-2006, 09:53 AM

For all that the US may be the "leader" of the free world.

In what way? The rest of the free world constitute small parts of Asia, Oceania, and of course the EU. And I don't see how any of them has really cared about much the USA has been doing or saying for the last 10 years or so, especially the EU.

The only people who I see calling the USA "the leader of the free world" are people from the USA and very rarely Brits. Europeans are more and more starting to think of the EU as the of the free world. Of course, I don't agree with them either.

Sorry about going off topic after one of the first posts.

mamba

11-04-2006, 10:06 AM

Why are you making a second evolution topic when there already is one active? >_>

oh, and
(ARE! NOT IS! ARE!)

Yeah but the "is our children being educated" is one of those great bush quotes.
And yes the warming and cooling of earth is natural. BUT not at the rate that it is occurring. Global warming is a very real threat and a report has just recently been published showing that it will cost the world economy up to 20%
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm with other relevant links on the right hand side under the stern review.

PopCulturePooka

11-04-2006, 10:28 AM

Remember to deduct one vote from each choice because JSL decided to be a knob and vote for everything.

Angelyne

11-04-2006, 02:32 PM

shimanotaka

11-04-2006, 03:08 PM

I don't think global warming is not as bad as people make it out to be. I do think exists to a degree, but I think that the change in the earth's temperature is a natural occurance. Only time will tell on that though.
Yes... As the U.S. and a few other countries refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol, only time will tell. We could avoid the chance of the world dying by global warming, but hey... it would hurt the U.S. economy! So let's just see if we die or not, and then we can blame the U.S. when we're dead.

tweek.3867

11-04-2006, 03:33 PM

Rear Admiral Grapefruit

11-04-2006, 03:58 PM

Didn't vote. I believe global warming is occurring, but I think it's foolish to believe that humans are the cause of it. I think it's just arrogant to believe that humans have a chance in hell of stopping climate change. Mother Nature will do as she pleases.

The polar ice caps on Mars are also melting, but that is also Bush's fault, right? I'm sure America is somehow to blame for fluctuations in solar activity.

I don't think global warming is not as bad as people make it out to be. I do think exists to a degree, but I think that the change in the earth's temperature is a natural occurance. Only time will tell on that though.

Humans are tipping the balance, fluctuations in climate are natural, but human activity is affecting it, the changes are occuring faster than they should, in an unnatural way, there's naturaly carbon dioxide being cycled throughout the atmosphere and it can naturaly increase and decrease, but the fact is human activity has resulted in carbon dioxide concentrations massively increasing from combustion of fossil fuels and such. Saying that humans aren't the cause is futile, it's a fact that humans are the cause of the unnatural fluctuations, for decades we've been pumping out crap into the atmosphere, crap that can naturaly be there, like chlorine from CFCs, it's naturaly up in the atmosphere, naturaly breaking down o-zone molecules, but the fact is we put more up there, which tips the balance in the equilibrium and the result is that the o-zone is depleting, just as the putting more carbon dioxide and other green house gasses is tipping the balance and causing an unnatural change in the climate. Fact is, once the polar ice caps begin to melt there's no possible way to reverse the process, it may take hundreds, even thousands of years to completely melt, but it will and at that point it's game over. That is ofcourse assuming that the o-zone isn't completely depleted before that point, right now the o-zone prevents most photons which would essentialy destroy living cells getting through, only 1 in 10^30 ( stupid thing won't let me use superscript : /) photons get through to the earth, and that is a LOT being filtered out, once the ozone goes, it'd be like walking out on a normal day as a vampire i guess, you're just fucked.

Soli

11-04-2006, 04:40 PM

Was this a test? :/

shimanotaka

11-04-2006, 04:42 PM

Was this a test? :/
Yes. You got a D-.

Edit:
Well, no. Ok. You got an A+. I feel nice today.

Stephy

11-04-2006, 04:44 PM

All I heard was the burning of fossil fuel= Global warming. Burning of fossil fuels creating too much carbon dixoide- well just look at Scollan's post basically.

I am ed-u-ma-cated!

But seriously to the topics title: Schools in my city suck. They're trying something new. They extended the length of the school day. Now school days for middle school students and some elementary's here it is from 7:40 a.m to 4:30 p.m.

tweek.3867

11-04-2006, 04:52 PM

...lol.

My school is doing the opposite. Middle school school is 8:30 to 3 and elementary 9 to 3:30, while the high schoolers end at 2 but get to leave early if you have no class... and I take college courses, too, so I get an out-of-jail-free pass at 10:00 atleast two days a week, depending on when my courses meet, whether I have class at HS or not.

Soli

11-04-2006, 05:27 PM

Yes. You got a D-.

Edit:
Well, no. Ok. You got an A+. I feel nice today.

Yay. :clap:

Steph: Wow, that's a long time to be in school. :boggled: My high school is from 7:35 to 2:35. About 7 hours, I guess. The jr. high is from 7:25 to 2:15. (it starts earlier because the busses pick everybody up, drop them off at the Jr. high, then drive to the high school which is about 10 minutes away).

Making the school day longer is sort of stupid. :/ Wouldn't the kids just get tired and bored at the end of the day and not pay attention?

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2006, 05:50 PM

Remember to deduct one vote from each choice because JSL decided to be a knob and vote for everything.
I was in a bad mood last night. :innocent:
IRT Mamba: There are soooo many of his lines like that... I can't be expected to remember all of them, right?

NERD

11-04-2006, 09:32 PM

People who don't believe in Global Warming annoys the hell out of me- I mean, nobody had any disputes about the hole in the ozone layer, but when there are icebergs melting away from the polar ice caps, polar bears drowning because there is no ice for them to settle down (ever heard of that? polar bears ACTUALLY drowning?) or the corals dying because the sea temperatures are rising, guess why, because there is less ice to cool down the temperature, people argue 'oh, it's only a temporary thing' 'surely WE had nothing to do with it, Mother Nature ought to be stronger than that?'

Yeah? Who wiped out the Dodos? Passenger Pidgeon. And possibly all frogs on Earth within next fifty years? We did it. Not to mention wiping out most of the forests in the world, drilling holes in the ocean floor, crushing mountains to mere rubbles. And the fact that global temperatures have been on the rise since Industrial Revolution, when civilizations really started to exhaust fossil fuel, says it all.

And when it comes to things like this, I don't think you can attribute to education alone. Granted, education in US can use some help (I should know, my sister is a math teacher), but personal opinions on issues such as these are influenced by people close to you- parents, siblings, relatives, friends, etc.

Jetsetlemming

11-04-2006, 09:43 PM

Indeed. Both Evolution and man-made Global Warming are taught as facts in American public schools anyway.

雨

11-04-2006, 09:54 PM

People who don't believe in Global Warming annoys the hell out of me-
Ditto...

That holds for everything else in your post too.

Roxie

11-04-2006, 09:54 PM

I believe that evolution and God are not mutually exclusive, however, I do not agree with intelligent design being taught nor discussed in public schools...I do believe in global warming and I voted early...

do I win?

NERD

11-04-2006, 11:42 PM

In what way? The rest of the free world constitute small parts of Asia, Oceania, and of course the EU. And I don't see how any of them has really cared about much the USA has been doing or saying for the last 10 years or so, especially the EU.

The only people who I see calling the USA "the leader of the free world" are people from the USA and very rarely Brits. Europeans are more and more starting to think of the EU as the of the free world. Of course, I don't agree with them either.

Sorry about going off topic after one of the first posts.

Alright, I have a bone to pick with you. Though I do have gripes about certain leadership qualities of US, I have to say at this point US is the most capable nation in the world to take initiative in terms of global affairs. Ever since WWI, US has been involved in many affairs which had interests of many nations, and there were as many screwups as they have been successes- but you know what? I don't see any other country taking initiative in such matters. Sometimes, the will to take initiative is all that matters.

And EU- face it, EU was formed largely because Europeans were trying to look after their own interest and protect their currency from the dollars and the yens (Yen was the currency to go by in the 80's, in the peak of Bubble Economy, don't forget), and one of the crowning achievements was settling down the economy by having a unified currency, which boosted their economical prowess rather than having different currencies in the form of Marcs, Francs, etc, which was much less competitive in international currency.

And don't forget- without US getting into WWI, the war could've been prolonged and thus casuing more damage to Europe. Same with WWII- hell, it was thanks to billions of DOLLARS sent to Europe under the Marshall Plan that many European countries were able to recover from aftermath of WWII and started rebuilding from the ruins. Granted, Marshall Plan started as a way to revitialize Western European economy as to stop the advancement of USSR (just look at the way many Eastern European countries were absored into USSR or established as satellite nations), but face it, most West European countries are better off than their counterparts- in fact, it was the West European countries who started out the formulation of EU, and Eastern European countries were granted a membership into the EU only recently.

Europeans have been a bit snooty when it comes to involving United States, so suffice to say, we share the same sentiments towards Europeans. Especially the damn Frenchies. :D

Kass

11-06-2006, 12:45 PM

Neon Pink Shoehorn

11-06-2006, 01:39 PM

there was a time in earth's past where there were no polar ice caps, and life still existed. I'm more concerned about, say, CFCs and atmophereic lead.

shimanotaka

11-06-2006, 03:42 PM

there was a time in earth's past where there were no polar ice caps, and life still existed. I'm more concerned about, say, CFCs and atmophereic lead.
What kind of argument is that? "Even if the ice caps melt, not ALL of us are going to die (even though we'll still probably will be going to war over the few resources left), so why take global warming seriously?

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/article.print?id=8305

The business-as-usual scenario yields an increase of about 5 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming during this century, while the alternative scenario yields an increase of less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit during the same period.

The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was 3 million years ago, when the sea level was about 80 feet higher.

In that case, the world would lose Shanghai, Tokyo, Amsterdam, Venice and New York. . In the US, 50 million people live below that sea level. China would have 250 million displaced persons. Bangladesh would produce 120 million refugees, practically the entire nation. India would lose the land of 150 million people.

About 1 billion people live near sea level, and our consumption is already exceeding our resources as it is. It's not going to be nice if our living space and resources shrink.

11-06-2006, 05:49 PM

What I think some people fail to realize is that the consequences of not taking action and global warming being true are FAR worse than the consequences of taking action and global warming being false.

Better safe than sorry as they say.

Edit: "Is our children being educated?" Apparently not.

Neon Pink Shoehorn

11-06-2006, 05:58 PM

My argument isn't about the socioeconomic reprecussions of a warmer Earth. What I am saying is, the warming and cooling cycles of the Earth aren't humans' fault. Yes, we can speed things up and exaserbate the circumstances, but I am more concerned about stuff we don't know how to get out of the atmosphere (like lead and CFCs) than about something that humans, animals, volcanos, and internal combustion engines have all been contributing to.

shimanotaka

11-06-2006, 06:36 PM

What I am saying is, the warming and cooling cycles of the Earth aren't humans' fault.
How do you know? And still, even if it's not our fault, if global warming means the largest catastrophy humanity has known, shouldn't we try to do something about it?

I am more concerned about stuff we don't know how to get out of the atmosphere (like lead and CFCs) than about something that humans, animals, volcanos, and internal combustion engines have all been contributing to.
I thought that leaded fuels and CFCs were largely phased out. But if animals and volcanos have been contributing to this, wouldn't it be easy to say that this is not our fault either? I mean, it could just be cycles like the global warming, that we may not actually be causing, but might only speed up. So why really care about it then?

Actually I read up a bit on lead and CFCs also... While CFCs can survive airborn for over a 100 years, I found a quote saying
Because lead is heavy, 80% of it does not stay in the atmosphere for very long, so most lead is found close to where it was produced. For example, lead can still be found in soil close to roads and in the ceiling dust of older houses.
So at least you don't have to worry too much about that.

I also learned that the ozone layer is actually slowly recovering, but also...
There is a slight caveat to this, however. Global warming from CO2 is expected to cool the stratosphere. This, in turn, would lead to a relative increase in ozone depletion and the frequency of ozone holes.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion#Current_events_and_future_prospect s_of_ozone_depletion)

Hmm... Makes you think...

Neon Pink Shoehorn

11-06-2006, 08:19 PM

How do you know? And still, even if it's not our fault, if global warming means the largest catastrophy humanity has known, shouldn't we try to do something about it?
With a careful study of ice cores, lake sediments, and fossil records, one can deduce that the Earth has has warm and cool phases, long before humans ever left Africa (albeit most of the carful studying has been done for me.) Climate control technology is far beyond our reach, but if you suggest that people should give up thier cars for bicycles and horses... you'll prolly get a very strong "hell no!" in response. We could lower the albedo of the Earth. I think I'll thank aobut that on more before I try to elaborate on it...

I thought that leaded fuels and CFCs were largely phased out. But if animals and volcanos have been contributing to this, wouldn't it be easy to say that this is not our fault either? I mean, it could just be cycles like the global warming, that we may not actually be causing, but might only speed up. So why really care about it then?

I wish you would reread what I wrote. I was suggesting that humans, animals, volcanos, and particularly internal combustion engines do not nessisarily contribute to CFCs and atmosphereic lead, but they all contribute to CO2 and other types of pollution. And how the hell are we going to stop a volcano? We can't even accurately predict when they erupt.

Leaded fuels and CFCs are still used widely in China and third world countries.

I was under the impression that once lead was in the atmosphere, it was very hard to get out. I may be wrong about that, though.

NERD

11-06-2006, 09:22 PM

Intolerant people annoy me.

Wow, so I make one post where I argue that I believe in Global Warming, and all of a sudden I am an intolerant person?

For all the assertions made by Al Gore, we don't have enough documented scientific data to show that this kind of fluctuation has never happened before, nor do we have enough to show that this isn't anything more than part of the Earth's cycle of climate change.

I'll let you know that I believed in Global Warming may be taking place even before Mr. Gore made it his campaign to preach Global Warming- I've seen his movie, and though I applaud the fact that he is willing to talk about environment in a country where it takes back seat next to war against terrorism/abortion/gay marriage/teaching creationism in school, I also felt like his 'documentary' was also an hour and half political commerical about himself. After all, being visible in public eye is an important quality for being a politician.

However-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
and this is the same point Al Gore brought up, and has a lot of scientists, the 'experts' on the subject worried, is that this kind of increase in such a short amount of time is anything less than alarming.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png[/img[
If you look at this chart, the increase in carbon dioxide within the atmosphere is at an unprecented level. Even within the last couple, nay, tens of thousands years when we went through the last Ice Age were there such high levels of CO2 present in the atmosphere. In fact, even if the production of CO2 stopped right now, the amount that is in the atmosphere is enough to cause an increase in temperature every year.

Of course, the only argument I can bring up is this skyrocketing temperature/CO2 increase, and meteoroligically I cannot prove this will cause any short term/long term change other than, oh, the Polar caps melting away, the snow on the Alps melting away, and the increase in the sea level, etc.

You know, I'd rather be wrong than right about this Global Warming- because that would mean one less thing to worry about in the world. However, that is not the case.

What I don't dispute is that we have an impact on our environment. We should minimize the negative impact, but to believe absolutely that that 100 years of data proves the earth is coming to an end when it is billions of years old is the height of hubris.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png/646px-Greenhouse_Gas_by_Sector.png

Yes, as in annual Greenhouse gas emissions. Only about 13% of it can be attributed to 'natural causes'- everything else is artificial.

In fact, I am quite disappointed that our current administration has not signed on the Kyoto Protocol, or the fact that it is mulling about drilling operations in Alaska or off the coast of Florida.

But you know what? Maybe this won't all matter by the year of 2012.

Rear Admiral Grapefruit

11-07-2006, 04:24 PM

Nice post by NERD there, i think he's covered alot of the technical aspects of global warming, it's funny this topic comes up now, as i've been studying atmospheric chemistry this year, and it's strangely interesting stuff and really informative.

Shimonataka - CFCs are still affecting the o-zone (and also are a greenhouse gas), this is because, the way they work is in a 3 stage process with no guarantee of a definate end. Initiation, propagation and termination.

Initiation - <random CFC> + photon --> remaining CFC + a Cl* radical

Propagation - o-zone + Cl* ---> O2 + *OCl (* = electron)
- o-zone + *OCl ----> 2 O2 + Cl*

and all sorts of other stuff in a chain reaction, 1 chlorine radical can catalyse alot of o-zone damage. The final part then, termination is where it stops.

Cl* + Cl* ---> Cl2 gas

That's a very basic overview of CFCs, but you get the idea (i hope) chlorine in the atmosphere naturaly can do this anyway, CFCs just add to the effect, if you do a little research into the antarctic vortex you'll see how generating these OCl molecules has largely caused the o-zone depletion to occur and why at the antarctic.

And also as TG said, some countries still use CFCs, i think they're still made in mexico, i heard of smuggling CFCs across the US mexico border. :) ( could be wrong though!)

But the idea here is that human activity is distorting the balance between things, everything we put into the atmosphere is there naturaly anyway, but naturaly there's a balance between the loss and gain of o-zone and cycle of CO2 equivalent gasses, and humans are putting more of these things into the atmosphere. Like NERD has shown, there's more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there ever has been before, right now, green house gasses are at ~430ppmv which is up from about 180, and the green house effect is natural, what we now have is an "enhanced" green house effect. With things going as they are, the temperature will continue to increase, we're at ~430ppmv atm, going as we are, at 650ppmv a temperature increase of ~3°C is expected, which will cause the greenland ice sheet to melt, then at 750ppmv it's ~ 4°C increase, at that point it's expected the western antarctic ice sheet will collapse. This ofcourse means rising sea levels, i'm quite sure the dutch on these boards won't be too happy about that happening!

meh, and all sorts of other stuff related to this, but i'm tired of thinking now.

Kass

11-07-2006, 04:33 PM

Wow, so I make one post where I argue that I believe in Global Warming, and all of a sudden I am an intolerant person?

No, your statement of disdain for anyone who disagrees with you on that subject makes you intolerant. Reasonable people can disagree without the need for such vitriol and disdain.

I'm more inclined to agree with those who show the negative impact of pollution than not, I've seen equally impressive scientific data arguing that this is merely a phase of the earth and that temperatures rise and fall in cycles. There's a tenured scientist at UVA who spends a lot of time on it.

There just isn't reliable data going back far enough to assert that this is unequivocably an irreparable and entirely human-caused situation.

11-07-2006, 04:45 PM

No, your statement of disdain for anyone who disagrees with you on that subject makes you intolerant. Reasonable people can disagree without the need for such vitriol and disdain.

I'm more inclined to agree with those who show the negative impact of pollution than not, I've seen equally impressive scientific data arguing that this is merely a phase of the earth and that temperatures rise and fall in cycles. There's a tenured scientist at UVA who spends a lot of time on it.

There just isn't reliable data going back far enough to assert that this is unequivocably an irreparable and entirely human-caused situation.

As I said in my other post:

Even if we don't know who is right and who is wrong there are dire consequences if one side is wrong and little to no consequences if the other side is wrong.

So, even if you think there is only a 5% chance that the pro-global warming people are correct we should certainly start taking actions to try and prevent disaster.

NERD

11-07-2006, 05:19 PM

No, your statement of disdain for anyone who disagrees with you on that subject makes you intolerant. Reasonable people can disagree without the need for such vitriol and disdain.

I'm more inclined to agree with those who show the negative impact of pollution than not, I've seen equally impressive scientific data arguing that this is merely a phase of the earth and that temperatures rise and fall in cycles. There's a tenured scientist at UVA who spends a lot of time on it.

There just isn't reliable data going back far enough to assert that this is unequivocably an irreparable and entirely human-caused situation.

Sorry if I showed too much vitrol and disdain- debates with college Republicans tend to bring out that side of me. However, you haven't exactly achieved anything by calling me an intolerant person, other than name calling.

If you have valid reasons other than "this may just be a phase" or you have some solid data that indeed proves Global Warming is indeed a temporary thing, I would be happy to see it. Important data would be showing that human activity has no correlations whatsoever to the phenomenon.

I do think temperature records for the past hundreds of thousands of years to be a good data, which is why I provided it.

Neon Pink Shoehorn

11-07-2006, 05:33 PM

I would like to know the source of your charts, please.

King Kong

11-07-2006, 05:43 PM

Like you NERD,
I get particulary annoyed when arseholes such as George W Bush, have not a care in the world when it comes to the world phenomenon of global warming. There is no doubt that global warming is a scientific occurence and is affecting the polar glaciers AS WE SPEAK. Anyone who ignores this is an ignoramus who is probably the type that voted for George Bush (the god of intelligence) and that the Iraq war is being fought on justified terms (WMDs).
These idiots need to be locked away in cages*

Candyvan Stan

11-07-2006, 05:50 PM

Alright, I have a bone to pick with you. Though I do have gripes about certain leadership qualities of US, I have to say at this point US is the most capable nation in the world to take initiative in terms of global affairs.

In terms of using raw power, maybe. If you take a look at the soft diplomacy the EU has been using the last decades and especially the last years, you'd find that the EU, too, has been taking initiatives in its own hands. Did you know the European Union gives more money to foreign aid than any other nation in the world? And this doesn't even include private donations by European citizens, merely as a percentage of the total GDP.

Ever since WWI, US has been involved in many affairs which had interests of many nations, and there were as many screwups as they have been successes- but you know what? I don't see any other country taking initiative in such matters. Sometimes, the will to take initiative is all that matters.

And EU- face it, EU was formed largely because Europeans were trying to look after their own interest and protect their currency from the dollars and the yens (Yen was the currency to go by in the 80's, in the peak of Bubble Economy, don't forget), and one of the crowning achievements was settling down the economy by having a unified currency, which boosted their economical prowess rather than having different currencies in the form of Marcs, Francs, etc, which was much less competitive in international currency.

And don't forget- without US getting into WWI, the war could've been prolonged and thus casuing more damage to Europe. Same with WWII- hell, it was thanks to billions of DOLLARS sent to Europe under the Marshall Plan that many European countries were able to recover from aftermath of WWII and started rebuilding from the ruins. Granted, Marshall Plan started as a way to revitialize Western European economy as to stop the advancement of USSR (just look at the way many Eastern European countries were absored into USSR or established as satellite nations), but face it, most West European countries are better off than their counterparts- in fact, it was the West European countries who started out the formulation of EU, and Eastern European countries were granted a membership into the EU only recently.

Thanks for the history lesson. Trust me, none of this is new to me. We're living in the present, however. And while there is no denying the involvement the United States had in making western Europe as it is today, you shouldn't forget the massive amount of money the Netherlands gave you to aid you during your revolutionary war, and the military involvement of the French. The same French you're bashing in your next paragraph. But I'd truly be surprised if American schools even taught the Dutch involvement to highschoolers, or even colleges. Which, admittedly, I don't find odd, considering our involvement in slave trade at the time.

Europeans have been a bit snooty when it comes to involving United States, so suffice to say, we share the same sentiments towards Europeans. Especially the damn Frenchies. :D

Yeah, this is going to be great. As if pushing each other away during these times will help. And note how in my orginal post, I felt it was just as silly the Europeans thought they were the end of it all. But I guess you skipped that?

setrict

11-07-2006, 08:36 PM

Yes, as in annual Greenhouse gas emissions. Only about 13% of it can be attributed to 'natural causes'- everything else is artificial.

I think those graphs may be a little deceptive, as I believe they are only talking about mankind's green house gas by sector, and do not actually include natural causes such as volcanos, hurricanes (a massive source of natural CO2), the coal bed fires in China, etc.

I do agree that global warming is real, and potentially a huge problem. We don't have to be the primary source to tip the scales like a fat kid on a teeter-totter ( I was a fat kid, so I can say that). According to the smart guys with pocket protectors we should have started a significant cooling trend a few years ago, but it's instead doing the opposite. If you want some really good factual (and pleasant) debate by people who seem very informed check out the forums on space.com.

NERD

11-07-2006, 10:08 PM

snip

Truth be told, I just wanted to have a go at your post. EU and US are the wealthiest and arguably the more advanced countries in the world, so we'll be working together for the foreseeable future- however, making fun of Europe is always fun, just like making fun of Canada. :D

I actually hate nationalism, so though I may say stupid crap like "USA! USA! I don't actually mean it. Being proud of your country is one thing, but it is very easy for that enthusiasm to be manipulated. It's fine to criticize your country/other country, but it's not okay trying to put your country above the other. Simply pointless.

NERD

11-07-2006, 10:17 PM

I would like to know the source of your charts, please.

Gladly.

First chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Second chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Third chart.
http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/model/v32ft2000edgar/docv32ft2000/index.jsp

Now I know referring to articles from Wikipedia is hardly professional, and opens myself up for questions of reliability of the sources-

So, here are the raw documents the first two charts were based upon.

First chart:
Reconstructions

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471.
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations". Geophysical Research Letters 26 (6): 759-762.
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). "Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction". Ambio 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). "Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years". Science 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). "Low-frequency temperature variations from a northern tree-ring density network". J. Geophys. Res. 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). "Low-Frequency Signals in Long Tree-Ring Chronologies for Reconstructing Past Temperature Variability". Science 295 (5563): 2250-2253.
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). "Global Surface Temperatures over the Past Two Millennia". Geophysical Research Letters 30 (15): 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). "Climate Over Past Millennia". Reviews of Geophysics 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). "Merging Information from Different Resources for New Insights into Climate Change in the Past and Future". Geophys. Res Lett. 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). "Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data". Nature 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). "Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records". Science 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in: P.D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001". Journal of Climate 16: 206-223.

Second chart:

1. (blue) Vostok ice core: Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastroianni, and B. Deck (1999). "Ice core records of Atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations". Science 283: 1712-1714.
2. (green) EPICA ice core: Monnin, E., E.J. Steig, U. Siegenthaler, K. Kawamura, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D.L. Morse, J.-M. Barnola, B. Bellier, D. Raynaud, and H. Fischer (2004). "Evidence for substantial accumulation rate variability in Antarctica during the Holocene, through synchronization of CO2 in the Taylor Dome, Dome C and DML ice cores". Earth and Planetary Science Letters 224: 45-54. DOI:10.1016/j.epsl.2004.05.007
3. (red) Law Dome ice core: D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan (1998) "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
4. (cyan) Siple Dome ice core: Neftel, A., H. Friedli, E. Moor, H. Lötscher, H. Oeschger, U. Siegenthaler, and B. Stauffer (1994) "Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.
5. (black) Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii: Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf (2004) "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network" in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

Third chart:
http://www.mnp.nl/edgar/model/v32ft2000edgar/docv32ft2000/index.jsp

Jetsetlemming

11-08-2006, 12:21 AM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

You need to go back far more than that to accurately see the tempurature changes. From 0 AD to present, when speaking on terms of changes to the planet, is a very small band of time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

If you look at the sources for this one, you see that it's an average of about half a dozen very specific areas, and each of them was a study of a polar ice core. The amount of spots and the size of them makes this chart in no way worthwhile as a representation of earth as a whole, and even the climate they tend to study has it's faults. How could anyone assume that a frozen, dry wasteland at the pole of the planet would be an accurate representation of the planet's status as a whole is beyond me. Earth's atmosphere, and the ingredients in it, are not at all evenly spread out in the least bit.

King Kong

11-08-2006, 12:47 AM

How could anyone assume that a frozen, dry wasteland at the pole of the planet would be an accurate representation of the planet's status as a whole is beyond me. Earth's atmosphere, and the ingredients in it, are not at all evenly spread out in the least bit.

Studied by glaciologists, the temporal coincidence of glacier retreat with the measured increase of atmospheric greenhouse gases is often cited as an evidentiary underpinning of anthropogenic global warming. Mid-latitude mountain ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Cascade Range, and the southern Andes, as well as isolated tropical summits such as Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, are showing some of the largest proportionate glacial loss.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

So the trend does seem to perpetuate on the global scale, not just the polar caps, which are the greatest evidentiary indicators of global warming.

Maybe you should do a bit of research of your own. No?

NERD

11-08-2006, 12:58 AM

If you are disputing the record from polar ice cores, or wondering if it is an accurate barometer for the Earth's atmosphere from the past to the present, do yourself a favor and read this article.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
http://www.gisp2.sr.unh.edu/MoreInfo/Ice_Cores_Past.html
http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/Research/projects/ICARA.html

If you look at the span of million/hundreds of thousand years, then the past two hundred/two thousands of years would be a single dot- which in short amounts to nothing. Which is why I would not bother to put up a graph for that.

What I'm arguing, and most likely anyone who believes Global Warming to be a serious threat, is that the average temperature has been rising at an alarming rate for years, at a rate that has not been recorded before. That data coupled with the increase in Greenhouse gases, add the two together, then you come to the conclusion that we are responsible for this problem.

seiji

11-08-2006, 02:02 AM

If you look at the span of million/hundreds of thousand years, then the past two hundred/two thousands of years would be a single dot- which in short amounts to nothing. Which is why I would not bother to put up a graph for that.
Then why did you? Your temperature graph does not go back beyond year 0.

Druid

11-08-2006, 02:11 AM

Worst comes to worst I move to canada and Ontario becomes the new Florida.

edit: and besides, the earth isn't fucked; People are fucked. Try not to confuse ze two..

edit: *Takes control of Outpost Nine*

Jetsetlemming

11-08-2006, 02:23 AM

I was talking about the CO2 levels in the polar ice caps, which are all that are measured as proof of the past levels of CO2 in the entirety of the planet's atmosphere. There's no way to prove that the amount of CO2 at the poles, and frozen in ice, is the same as in the rest of the world, and the amount that's in the air rather than frozen in ice.

NERD

11-08-2006, 02:27 AM

You haven't read the article I posted in response to your query. And I don't feel generous enough to actually hunt out the explanation from the article. I have homework/resumes to work on.

Jetsetlemming

11-08-2006, 03:25 AM

Trump

11-08-2006, 04:16 AM

Global warming is surely an issue, but I do not think it is as important as everyone makes it out to be.

Global warming is less important because humans, being the adaptive intelligent race we are will survive. We may have to change our lifestyle, diet, etc, but we will survive. However, I believe the changes to the environment would mean the loss of so many different types of flora, fauna, and environments as to be catastrophic from a scientific point of view.

Finally, anyone who says that humans are not contributing to global warming is just shortsighted. Obviously, our actions affect the planet as a whole, but it is not nearly as severe as the doomsday activites want you to believe. Put everything into perspective and it makes sense.

Rear Admiral Grapefruit

11-08-2006, 09:29 AM

Oh, but I did. It doesn't at all discuss how the differences between a) the status of the global atmosphere and climate and a local atmosphere and climate (in this case the area of the polar ice caps), and b) between the CO2 in the air at the polar ice caps and the CO2 in the air all across the world. <insert desired comparison here>
It does, however, explain the connection between the air at the polar caps and the ice itself, at least.
"When snow forms, it crystallizes around tiny particles in the atmosphere, which fall to the ground with the snow. The type and amount of trapped particles, such as dust, volcanic ash, smoke, or pollen, tell scientists about the climate and environmental conditions when the snow formed."
However, the climate and enviromental conditions effecting that snow are still the local climate and enviromental conditions of Antartica, not the world. There's a huge difference. You can tell the difference between a frozen tundra, and a plain/mountain/forest/jungle/ocean/city/ANYTHING ELSE, right?

Perhaps you're aware of a concept known as passive defussion and of a concentration gradient? air tends to distribute itself fairly evenly throughout each layer of the atmosphere (though different concentrations at different levels), way back before humans start pumping out carbon dioxide at an immense rate, you could generaly expect that over the world, carbon dioxide concentrations would be consistant, a fluctuation up or down in one area, means an overall change in all parts within, so when you're digging up 800,000 year old ice cores and measuring the carbon dioxide levels dissolved in the ice you can compare it to to different dates based on the depth from which the ice core is obtained and you can compare that to our current climate for carbon dioxide levels comparison to specific areas now like city air and such. By making these comparisons you get the graph that NERD posted, generaly, location doesn't factor into the distribution on earth, it's more to do with height, the higher up you go, the more you can expect differences in concentration of gasses, as i'm sure you're aware, going higher up oxygen concentrations drop which is a big problem for people who enjoy climbing up mountains.

Climate based on areas has many factors affecting it, like distance from the sea, direction of the wind, northern/southern hemisphere etc. I'm not going into massive detail, but honestly, do you think there's going to be a team made up of some of the best scientists in the world investigating ice cores and haven't somehow had the thought that "waitaminute! what if teh climate affects our results? lol." These guys know what they're doing, they know what they're talking about, trust what they say, unless your knowledge gained from reading the internet is comparable to a dedicated working lifetime investigating this stuff, i think it's best not to try to dispute their evidence.

Kass

11-08-2006, 12:20 PM

Sorry if I showed too much vitrol and disdain- debates with college Republicans tend to bring out that side of me. However, you haven't exactly achieved anything by calling me an intolerant person, other than name calling.

If you have valid reasons other than "this may just be a phase" or you have some solid data that indeed proves Global Warming is indeed a temporary thing, I would be happy to see it. Important data would be showing that human activity has no correlations whatsoever to the phenomenon.

I do think temperature records for the past hundreds of thousands of years to be a good data, which is why I provided it.

I'm not registered with any party and if you've ever read any of my posts, you'd know that I don't support the current party system at all so your "stupid Republicans" argument is laughable.

I told you where to find the data and I'm sorry, but I do on occasion have better things to do that be someone else's researcher. The scientist is a tenured professor at UVA (a traditionally liberal college) and he spends a large amount of time critiquing the math and data behind the global warming evidence.

Your utter refusal to even consider an alternate opinion is astonishing. I'm more than willing to consider global warming as accurate, but I challenge the methodology of the "popular" advocates. Asserting with certainty that they know as an absolute fact that the Earth has never seen these kinds of changes is absurd since the amount of actual data we have on climate change is infinitessimally small compared to the age of the planet. Any assertions otherwise is guesswork based on fossils. While I'm sure it is accurate to some degree, I don't buy for a minute that Al Gore or anyone else knows what the climate was really like in the age of dinosaurs.

ETA: Here. http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/michaels.shtml You can get to others by following links from there.

NERD

11-08-2006, 02:08 PM

I never referred to you by your party affiliation- the college Republicans comment is half a joke, and not directed towards you whatsoever. If you thought otherwise, well, now you know.

A tenured professor at UVA has a name? If I am looking this guy up, at least I could have the first and last name of the guy. I never said I expect you to be my secretary, but if you are trying to refer to someone's opinion on the matter, I need a name. I'll look him up on my own time.

I never refused to consider the alternative. However, if the evidences that I found while learning about Global Warming has been groundless, then I think the alternative does not have much going for it either.

Like I've said to Jetsetlemming, trying to make a comparison to age of dinosaurs is pointless, because
-like you've mentioned, we don't really have 100% accurate data on that
-and like I've argued, comparing the age of dinosaurs or overall climate history of the Earth has not much to do with the phenomenon described as Global Warming: the argument, like I'm repeating over and over again, is that the rise in temperature is climbing at at alarming rate within relatively short time span.
-the first and foremost issue when it comes to Global Warming is that are we responsible for this or not? Because there have been some changes happening already, and might be too late for us to make any changes: we can try to lessen the damage by taking the issue up in our hands.

There have been mass extinctions and Ice Ages and Global Warmings in the past, except that human beings had nothing to do with that. I can live with that. However, if we are breaking the balance in nature by any means (and we already have, Global Warming or not) then we have to make sure we won't repeat the same mistakes.

At least let's agree that this increase in average annual temperature is and will drive certain ecosystems to jeopardy, because that's what I really care for.

Kass

11-08-2006, 02:24 PM

Jesus. I googled "UVA professor global warming" and he was the very first and the next 15 cites. It's not rocket science. I also gave you the link to his bio.

seiji

11-09-2006, 04:12 AM

NERD, you still haven't explained how the graph you posted of temperature estimates for the past 2000 years proves anything about greater climate shifts over the course of millions.

NERD

11-09-2006, 04:58 AM

Jetsetlemming

11-09-2006, 04:55 PM

The community at large that supports and heralds Global warming has lost any respect of it as a real science it might have once had. They've done everything but drag out a weeping mother claiming global warming killed her son. Every single thing about global warming that comes out to try to "spread the word" is either a piece of hollywood trash (the day after tomorrow, which was a really, really, really shitty movie.
Scientist: "If you guys don't reduce the production of carbon dioxide in america, global warming will kill teh worldz!"
Corrupt republican evil guys: "STFU N00B! Doing that would hurt our MONEY!"
*one week later world is destroyed*
Scientist: "Seeeee! If only you had listened to me last week, none of this would have happened all at once magically!")
or an excuse for attention whoring for a politician. There's absolutely nothing left legitimate behind global warming at all.

Kass

11-09-2006, 05:15 PM

I'm gonna come back to this issue, but not today. I'm swamped with work and rather get back to this issue when I feel I can deliver a better answer.

And Kass- Prof. Partick J. Michaels have argued in the past about how CFCs don't really cause that much damage to the ozone layers back in 1992, not to mention reports of him receiving a large contribution from Intermountain Rural Electric Association. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2242565

Ironically, that was the first report I got when I was looking for the search terms you provided.

Scientists who argue the other side take money from special interests groups that support their side as well. That is hardly a disqualifier and most of his research has not been funded by the electric association. He got a couple hundred thousand dollars from them. In the research community, that is small donation.

Or did you stop at that report and not read the several dozen others?

Rear Admiral Grapefruit

11-09-2006, 05:38 PM

There's absolutely nothing left legitimate behind global warming at all.

Except for the facts. You're basicly saying "well hey if you don't take into consideration anything that anyone says which has a factual basis, then there's basicly no facts in the global warming discussion!"

Temperature increasing - fact
CO2 levels increasing - fact
CO2 is a green house gas and causes increases in temperature - fact
humans pumping out CO2 into atmosphere - fact
Hole in the o-zone - fact
o-zone blocks photons of specific wavelengths from hitting earth -fact
Hole = photons getting through = rise in temperature - fact
<insert all other facts here>

If you ignore all of that, there's basicly NO BASIS to global warming at all. But you should note, the idea behind it isn't saying at all that it is 100% definately no two ways about it guaranteed, what it's say is, it's a risk, a high risk, the signs indicate this, action must be taken to prevent it, there's a chance that perhaps things will work out, but there's also a good chance that things could be fucked up already. The longer you ignore the signs the worse things get, you keep letting things worsen and then eventually it just might come around even if not immediately, eventually, and the notion people carry of "i don't give a shit, i'll be dead before it happens" is total crap and selfish, people with that mentality are retards, plain and simple, and they get in the way of people with a real oppinion to share and people who think that preservation of the planet to keep it hospitable for future generations is important. Remember, this isn't the Y2K bug, it's a much more serious issue than that, more serious than many would like to believe.

11-09-2006, 06:01 PM

Kass

11-09-2006, 06:01 PM

What goes against the global warming advocates is that they are alarmists in the extreme. They don't say global warming is a risk. They state it as a certainty in terms designed to instill fear and make anyone who disagrees look like evil pariahs. "The world is going to end in 50 years! No more fish! Oh my God! We're all going to die! If you don't agree with me you are a retard."

They lack any kind of ability to actually discuss it rather than scream and yell that we're all going to die. Look at you. You didn't even read Dr. Michael's reports, did you? You stopped at the first story and discounted decades of research. Very much unlike me who reads reports from BOTH sides.

We've had longer droughts and worse temperatures before CFCs, the ozone layer debate and and a plethora of cars and there has ALWAYS been a hole in the ozone layer. It is larger now, but it also fluctuates in size. There have been years recently where it has shrunk in size. We've had equally bad and even more devastating hurricanes recorded in the long past than we've had recently. The major differences in the measuring standards are inflation and population. The Gulf Coast and Florida are much more populous than the last time we had Katrina-like storms. More people in the storm's path, more people die. More infrastructure in the path, more infrastructure gets destroyed. There's a reason they are called storms of the century--they don't happen every year. Have we even had a hurricane of any substantive force hit land in the US this year? We've had long strings of mild storm seasons in recent history and record cold winters. Let me guess, record cold snaps are caused by global warming too?

There's no moderation or consideration of facts that run contrary to their evidence. They are dismissed out of hand as being evidence of people being retards and selfish who get in the way of people with a "real" opinion to share. The real fact is that there is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Nowhere in your litany of "facts" do you establish causality or factor in the cycle of the Earth's climate changes, changes in solar activity or natural phenomena. The Mt. Saint Helen's eruption in the 80s put out more hazardous pollutants than all the cars on the road could. You just dismiss it because you have a social agenda that science can be twisted to back up.

People like me who don't agree with everything that the global warming alarmists say must be stupid, rather than skeptical and open to consider other evidence running to the contrary. Obviously, I must be a selfish cow who drives a gas guzzler, doesn't recycle, cuts down all the trees and advocate the dumping of toxic waste in rivers instead of someone who drives one of the top ten most fuel efficient cars on the road, recycles all recyclable materials, advocates mandatory recycling, is a preservationist and supports strict regulation of all waste disposal, toxic or not.

11-09-2006, 06:12 PM

"The real fact is that there is evidence to support both sides of the argument."

I completely agree. Now, let me make this analogy:

Lets say there is credible evidence for and against the fact that someone will try to shoot you tomorrow but know one knows the real truth. Are you going to take no precautionary measures just because someone MAY not try to shoot you? If someone does try to shoot you, then anything you did to try and prevent that will help save your life. If someone does not try to shoot you, anything you did to prevent a shooting may look foolish. Which is worse: Doing nothing and getting shot or doing something and looking foolsih because nothing happened?
Even if you think there is only a 1% that the people who say someone is gonna shoot you tomorrow are correct I am willing to bet you will take precautionary measures (a bullet-proof vest for example).

My whole point is that either side maybe be correct but people ALWAYS overlook the fact that the consequences of inaction are completely different and one is far worse than the other.

Fred

11-09-2006, 06:35 PM

I believe we are causing global temperatures to increase, which will potentially lead to cataclysmic climate change. Of course, I could be wrong. I agree with a point that has been made before. The risk of cataclysmic climate change is great enough that we need to do what we can to prevent it. (Ironically, this argument is similar to the one Bush used to justify his preemptive strike against Iraq, which I think was a terrible decision.) Fortunately, the strategies for decreasing global warming could help us resolve some other significant problems. Imagine how decreasing our dependency on oil would change our political and economic climate. Reducing air pollution would definitely have a positive impact on our health. So, even if I am wrong about the causes of global warming, I think the benefits of implementing the strategies to reduce global warming are diverse enough and significant enough to justify doing them.

Kass

11-09-2006, 06:39 PM

Did you even read my whole post? No where ever did I advocate not doing anything, in fact, I've expressly stated the opposite TWICE. The point is that global warming alarmists like Scollan and Nerd destroy their own credibility by being so freaking blind to facts slapping them upside the head. Neither of them will even read or consider reports that contradict their social agendas. They don't base their opinions on facts. They use cherry-picked facts to prop up their social agendas.

If they really want to ensure that there are fish in the ocean in 50 years, they should be less worried about global warming and more worried about Japan's open defiance of whaling and fishing agreements between nations. They should also be working on stopping volcanos in Hawaii and Washington and the Pacific. There's evidence of a new volcanic island and volcanic emissions are more dangerous than automobile emissions.

Jetsetlemming

11-09-2006, 06:39 PM

There's no moderation or consideration of facts that run contrary to their evidence. They are dismissed out of hand as being evidence of people being retards and selfish who get in the way of people with a "real" opinion to share. The real fact is that there is evidence to support both sides of the argument. Nowhere in your litany of "facts" do you establish causality or factor in the cycle of the Earth's climate changes, changes in solar activity or natural phenomena. The Mt. Saint Helen's eruption in the 80s put out more hazzardous pollutants than all the cars on the road could. You just dismiss it because you have a social agenda that science can be twisted to back up.

I think Kass is more than capable of answering in responce, but for Scollan I'll say a couple more things:
FACT: Like NERD said, there is no accurate knowledge of the past tempuratures, rates of increase, or cycle times, however,
FACT: We do know the Earth goes through tempurature cycles, and a rise in tempurature now would make sense following the basic knowledge of the cycle. This leads to:
FACT: You cannot dictate economic policy and demand everyone take global warming seriously as a threat when it's a just another hypothesis with no more evidence behind it than any other idea that's thrown around. It needs far more information backing it up before you can expect it to be taken as a fact.
Besides, there are FAR more important enviromental issues enviromentalists seem to ignore in favor of global warming. There are toxic chemicals and pollutants released into the air and water and food supply all the time, but you never seem very concerned over that. Don't you think lead, mercury, smog, and the various other legitimately poisonous by-products should garner at least SOME attention? But no, it's largely ignored in the favor of a half-baked alarmist theory. How bout launching a crusade against Aspartme? How bout cleaning up tuna? How bout protesting trans-fat, which causes damage to artery walls, which causes cholesterol to stick to them? There are factual dangers to our health and wildlife out there, plenty of them. You don't have the time to be panicking over CO2.
"The real fact is that there is evidence to support both sides of the argument."

I completely agree. Now, let me make this analogy:

Lets say there is credible evidence for and against the fact that someone will try to shoot you tomorrow but know one knows the real truth. Are you going to take no precautionary measures just because someone MAY not try to shoot you? If someone does try to shoot you, then anything you did to try and prevent that will help save your life. If someone does not try to shoot you, anything you did to prevent a shooting may look foolish. Which is worse: Doing nothing and getting shot or doing something and looking foolsih because nothing happened?
Even if you think there is only a 1% that the people who say someone is gonna shoot you tomorrow are correct I am willing to bet you will take precautionary measures (a bullet-proof vest for example).

My whole point is that either side maybe be correct but people ALWAYS overlook the fact that the consequences of inaction are completely different and one is far worse than the other.
The only evidence that someone may shoot you tomorrow in your analogy is that there is someone in the neighborhood that owns a gun. I've lived in neighborhoods that have been shot up and been unsafe, and lived near crazy stoner rednecks with plentiful firearm collections. You know what "precaution" I took to avoid getting shot?
I looked around, and payed attention. No bullet proof vest, no hiding in the closet, no avoiding things I had to go about doing. Not even avoiding things I wanted to do for fun. I just kept an eye out. This is what we should be doing, monitoring the situation, not panicking and hiding in the closet from the boogyman.

11-09-2006, 06:58 PM

"I looked around, and payed attention."

You changed your behavior based on what you thought was the risk to your safety. If you had felt you were in even greater danger then you would have even taken more action.

What you did NOT do is collect statistics about how dangerous/not dangerous your area was and then continue along like you have learned nothing.

I would say that your example is a great analogy for what we should be doing. Even though you seem to disagree with me I do not think we are saying different things. Changing our behavior to reduce risk while at the same time trying to learn as much as we can is what I feel is the best way to approach global warming.

Rear Admiral Grapefruit

11-09-2006, 07:11 PM

People like me who don't agree with everything that the global warming alarmists say must be stupid, rather than skeptical and open to consider other evidence running to the contrary. Obviously, I must be a selfish cow who drives a gas guzzler, doesn't recycle, cuts down all the trees and advocate the dumping of toxic waste in rivers instead of someone who drives one of the top ten most fuel efficient cars on the road, recycles all recyclable materials, advocates mandatory recycling, is a preservationist and supports strict regulation of all waste disposal, toxic or not.

Am i wrong to assume you took a little offense to my post? :)

I think you're extrapolating a little bit too much into what i say, if you're skeptical that's ok, there's nothing wrong with putting forth a set of facts and expressing an oppinion based on those facts though, is there? my issue was with those people who *are* stupid and uninformed and as i said, have the attitude of "i don't give a shit, i'll be dead before anything happens." I've heard it so many times and my statement was directed at those of that mentality. But you'll notice i did specificaly say risks in my last post, i won't argue that global warming alarmists are any different to how you say, in your country, i don't live in the US so i can't say about that, but things aren't like that over here. Oppinions generaly change from person to person, some professors in the chemistry department at my university hold differing oppinions also, some believe there's nothing to it, others are polar opposites, you just have to look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

I intentionaly opted to choose those facts which fit my arguement best, not because i'm being biased and ignoring the other things such as global dimming as a result of soot and aerosol particles etc in the atmosphere, but i chose them because i feel they are the most significant and dominating in this issue. To me, all evidence indicates this to be a significant and serious threat which makes it something we need to do something about.

Why would i mention the volcanic eruption of Mt St Helens? no-one has control over that, it is indeed a major contributor to it, but the fact is if the world's getting warmer and all these other issues, and we're contributing to it now, we may not be able to solve the issue of volcanic eruptions, but we can do something about the crap from anthropogenic sources, we can cut down pollution etc.

blah blah blah other stuff.

I think your perspective of me is completely off, there's a difference in an alarmist and a realist, i put forth an arguement that runs with an oppinion contrary to your own, thus you determine that i'm (put bluntly) talking shit. JSL, there is evidence, saying it doesn't exist doesn't make it any less real, I don't think thus far i have even mentioned the word "fish", Kass, you just pulled that one right out of your arse i think. Put it this way, global warming, has been proven, the world is increasing in temperature, running models to determine the effects of the pollution etc put into the environment. Human cause or not it's happening and it is an issue.

Here's a link to start off some reading if you wish, the BBC website has lots on the subject area, have a glance through, i base my oppions on the facts i hear and on the stuff that i've read, if you want to argue that the facts i state are wrong then i'm the wrong guy to speak to, you'll wanna talk to the scientists who conduct the experiments.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5150816.stm

and a quote from this link for you. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5381456.stm

"The results of this study show that James Hansen's predictions of the late '80s are consistent with what has happened," Dr Tett said.

"Modelling has moved on since then, but the idea that early predictions were done to cause panic and were wrong has been proved to be not the case."

*yawn* long post, and i type slow, oh well, i'll leave it at that, if i missed anything, i'm too tired to care.

Trump

11-10-2006, 03:57 AM

You would think all of the global warming psychos would also be shouting for more funding for the space program. Hell, if we are going to destroy our world we had better find a way off it.

shimanotaka

11-10-2006, 04:19 AM

You would think all of the global warming psychos would also be shouting for more funding for the space program. Hell, if we are going to destroy our world we had better find a way off it.
Yeah, but really... Why does it matter? Were all going to be saved by the God and live for all eternity in never-never-land... As long as we admit we've been bad, drink some wine, eat some bread and feel sorry for being so stupid life-destructing bastards. Yay Christianity!

Beer Pope

11-10-2006, 04:51 AM

TAKE THAT! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml)

I don't have time to find flaws with this article, but there's probably something there.

shimanotaka

11-10-2006, 08:41 AM

TAKE THAT! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml)

I don't have time to find flaws with this article, but there's probably something there.
All read and no debate makes Jack a dull boy.

Really. It sounds interesting. I just don't have time to read 9 screens of text and a 40 page PDF. Could you summarize it? Or maybe you didn't read it?

Oh... wait... I once again happened to use Google. This article is written by the same guy that invented a puzzle that he calculated would take three years to solve. Several people cracked it in five months. He sold it for £29.99 and offered £1 000 000 to the person first solving it. He probably had calculated a nice profit, but since three years turned in to five months, he probably got the short end of the stick.

36 months calculated vs. 5 months reality... Hm... :watson:

So actually... I don't really give much for his calculations.

Jetsetlemming

11-10-2006, 07:07 PM

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/

Friday 6 October 2006
Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech
The demonisation of 'climate change denial' is an affront to open and rational debate.
Brendan O’Neill

Whoever thought that serious commentators would want it made illegal to have a row about the weather? One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.’ (1) Others have suggested that climate change deniers should be put on trial in the future, Nuremberg-style, and made to account for their attempts to cover up the ‘global warming…Holocaust’ (2).

The message is clear: climate change deniers are scum. Their words are so wicked and dangerous that they must be silenced, or criminalised, or forced beyond the pale alongside those other crackpots who claim there was no Nazi Holocaust against the Jews. Perhaps climate change deniers should even be killed off, hanged like those evil men who were tried Nuremberg-style the first time around.

Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.

The loaded term itself – ‘climate change denier’ – is used to mark out certain people as immoral, untrustworthy. According to Richard D North, author most recently of Rich is Beautiful: A Very Personal Defence of Mass Affluence: ‘It is deeply pejorative to call someone a “climate change denier”…it is a phrase designedly reminiscent of the idea of Holocaust denial – the label applied to those misguided or wicked people who believe, or claim to believe, the Nazis did not annihilate the Jews, and others, in very great numbers.’ (3) People of various views and hues tend to get lumped together under the umbrella put-down ‘climate change denier’ – from those who argue the planet is getting hotter but we will be able to deal with it, to those who claim the planet is unlikely to get much hotter at all (4). On Google there are now over 80,000 search returns, and counting, for the phrase climate change denial.

Others take the tactic of openly labelling climate change deniers as cranks, possibly even people who might need their heads checked. In a speech last month, in which he said people ‘should be scared’ about global warming, UK environment secretary David Miliband said ‘those who deny [climate change] are the flat-earthers of the twenty-first century’ (5). Taking a similar tack, former US vice president-turned-green-warrior Al Gore recently declared: ‘Fifteen per cent of the population believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona and somewhat fewer still believe the Earth is flat. I think they all get together with the global warming deniers on a Saturday night and party.’ (6)

It is not only environmentalist activists and green-leaning writers who are seeking to silence climate change deniers/sceptics/critics/whatever you prefer. Last month the Royal Society – Britain’s premier scientific academy founded in 1660, whose members have included some of the greatest scientists – wrote a letter to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant cut off its funding to groups that have ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence’. It was the first time the Royal Society had ever written to a company complaining about its activities. The letter had something of a hectoring, intolerant tone: ‘At our meeting in July…you indicated that ExxonMobil would not be providing any further funding to these organisations. I would be grateful if you could let me know when ExxonMobil plans to carry out this pledge.’ (7)

One could be forgiven for asking what business it is of the Royal Society to tell ExxonMobil whom it can and cannot support – just as we might balk if ExxonMobil tried to tell the Royal Society what to do. The Society claims it is merely defending a ‘scientific consensus…the evidence’ against ExxonMobil’s duplicitous attempts to play down global warming for its own oily self-interest. Yet some scientists have attacked the idea that there can ever be untouchable cast-iron scientific facts, which should be immune from debate or protected from oil-moneyed think-tanks. An open letter to the Society – signed by Tim Ball, a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg, and others – argues that ‘scientific inquiry is unique because it requires falsifiability’: ‘The beauty of science is that no issue is ever “settled”, that no question is beyond being more fully understood, that no conclusion is immune to further experimentation. And yet for the first time in history, the Royal Society is shamelessly using the media to say emphatically: “case closed” on all issues related to climate change.’

Or as Charles Jones, an emeritus English professor at the University of Edinburgh, put it in a letter to a publication that recently lambasted climate change deniers, ‘[W]e are left with the feeling that [climate change] is a scientific model which is unfalsifiable and which has not been – and indeed cannot be – the subject of any theoretical counter-proposals whatsoever. As such, it must surely be unique in the history of science. Even a powerful model such as Relativity Theory has been the object of scientific debate and emendation.’ (8)

For all the talk of simply preserving the facts against climate change deniers, there is increasingly a pernicious moralism and authoritarianism in the attempts to silence certain individuals and groups. This is clear from the use of the term ‘climate change denier’, which, as Charles Jones argued, is an attempt to assign any ‘doubters’ with ‘the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust denial’ (9). The Guardian columnist George Monbiot recently celebrated the ‘recanting’ of both the tabloid Sun and the business bible The Economist on the issue of global warming. (‘Recant’ – an interesting choice of word. According to my OED it means ‘To withdraw, retract or renounce a statement, opinion or belief as erroneous, and esp. with formal or public confession of error in matters of religion.’ Recanting is often what those accused before the Spanish Inquisition did to save their hides.) Pleased by the Sun and The Economist’s turnaround, Monbiot wrote: ‘Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.’ (10)

Earlier this year, when a correspondent for the American current affairs show 60 Minutes was asked why his various feature programmes on global warming did not include the views of global warming sceptics, he replied: ‘If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?’ Here, climate change deniers are explicitly painted as the bad guys. He also argued that, ‘This isn’t about politics...this is about sound science’, and went so far as to claim that it would be problematic even to air the views of climate change sceptics: ‘There comes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible.’

Some take the moral equivalence between climate change denial and Holocaust denial to its logical conclusion. They argue that climate change deniers are actually complicit in a future Holocaust – the global warming Holocaust – and thus will have to be brought to trial in the future. Green author and columnist Mark Lynas writes: ‘I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put [their climate change denial] in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it. Those who try to ensure we don’t will one day have to answer for their crimes.’ (11)

There is something deeply repugnant in marshalling the Holocaust in this way, both to berate climate change deniers and also as a convenient snapshot of what is to come if the planet continues to get warmer. First, the evidence is irrefutable that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis; that is an historical event that has been thoroughly investigated, interrogated and proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Although as the American-Jewish academic and warrior against Holocaust denial, Deborah Lipstadt, has pointed out, even the Nazi Holocaust is not above debate and re-evalution; it is not a ‘theology’.) There is no such proof or evidence (how could there be?) that global warming will cause a similar calamity. Second, it is, yet again, a cynical attempt to close down debate. The H-word is uttered as a kind of moral absolute that no one could possibly question. We are all against what happened during the first Holocaust, so we will be against the ‘next Holocaust’, too, right? And if not – if you do not take seriously the coming ‘global warming Holocaust’ – then you are clearly wicked, the equivalent of the David Irvings of this world, someone who should possibly even be locked up or certainly tried at a future date. At least laws against Holocaust denial (which, as a supporter of free speech, I am opposed to) chastise individuals for lying about a known and proven event; by contrast, the turning of climate change denial into a taboo raps people on the knuckles for questioning events, or alleged events, that have not even occurred yet. It is pre-emptive censorship. They are reprimanded not for lying, but for doubting, for questioning. If this approach was taken across the board, then spiked – motto: Question Everything – would be in for a rough ride.

Sometimes there is a knowing authoritarianism in green activism. The posters advertising George Monbiot’s new book are targeted at various celebrities and businessmen judged to be living less than ethical green lives, with the words ‘GEORGE IS WATCHING YOU’ (12). It comes straight out of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. Some institutions employ Orwellian doublespeak when they use the word ‘facts’. They are not talking about submitting theories or hypotheses or evidence for public debate and possibly public approval – they are talking about using ‘facts’ precisely to stifle public debate and change the way people think and behave.

So in a report on global warming titled Warm Words: How Are We Telling the Climate Story and Can We Tell it Better?, the British think-tank the Institute for Public Policy Research argued that ‘[B]the task of climate change agencies is not to persuade by rational argument but in effect to develop and nurture a new “common sense”…. [We] need to work in a more shrewd and contemporary way, using subtle techniques of engagement…. The “facts” need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.’[/B] The IPPR proposes treating us not as free-thinking citizens who should be engaged, but as consumers who should be sold these ‘unspoken facts’: [B]‘Ultimately, positive climate behaviours need to be approached in the same way as marketeers approach acts of buying and consuming…. It amounts to treating climate-friendly activity as a brand that can be sold. This is, we believe, the route to mass behaviour changes.’[/B] (13)

Nurturing a new common sense? Changing mass behaviour? Behind the talk of facts and figures we can glimpse the reality: an authoritarian campaign that has no interest whatsoever in engaging us in debate but rather thinks up ‘shrewd’ ways to change the way we behave. From the description of facts as ‘so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken’ to the lumping together of climate change deniers with Holocaust deniers – and even Holocaust practitioners – we can see a creeping clampdown on any genuine, open debate about climate change, science and society. This represents a dangerous denigration of free speech. When George W Bush said after 9/11 ‘You’re either with us or against us’, he was widely criticised. Yet greens, think-tanks, reputable institutions and government ministers are using precisely the same tactic, drawing a line between good and proper people who accept the facts about climate change and those moral lepers who do not; between those who submit to having their common sense nurtured by the powers-that-be and those who dare to doubt or debate.

If anything, the greens’ black-and-white divide is worse than Bush’s. At least his was based on some kind of values, allowing us the opportunity to say yes or no to them; the greens’ divide is based on ‘facts’, which means that those who decide that they are ‘against’ rather than ‘with’ can be labelled liars, deniers or crackpots like moon-landing conspiracy theorists or anti-Semitic historians.

Effectively, campaigners and officials are using scientific facts – over which there is still disagreement – to shut down what ought to be a political debate about what humans need and want. This is the worst of it. Whatever side you take in the climate change clash of facts, this undermining of debate should be a cause of concern. In place of a human-centred discussion of priorities and solutions we have an unconvincing battle over the facts between two sides – between those in the majority who claim that their facts show the planet is getting a lot hotter and it will be a disaster, and those in the minority, the ‘deniers’, who say the planet is getting a little hotter and it won’t be so bad. We could urgently do with a proper debate that prioritises real people’s aspirations. If parts of the planet are likely to be flooded, then where can we build new cities and how can we transport the people affected by the floods to those cities? If natural disasters are going to become more frequent, then how can we urgently and efficiently provide poorer parts of the world with the kind of buildings and technology that will allow them to ride out such disasters, as millions do in America every year?

We need to elevate the human interest over the dead discussion of fatalistic facts – and challenge the ‘You can’t say that!’ approach that is strangling debate and giving rise to a new authoritarianism.