Global Warming alarmists' scam continues to come undone.
- Thread starter B_JQblonde
- Start date
He was only 15? That makes sense.. thought he was articulate. He was one of the reasons I took a very long break a while back. Got tired of arguing with him and a few others, Chimera particularly because of his very racist viewpoints.
But Zora is right. As much as I disagreed with his worldview, Chimera was worlds smarter than blondie.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Yeah, I had him on ignore several times, but we ended up making kind of hostile friends. I remember I shrieked at him to grow up once and he replied, "I'm trying". Got me. The kid grew on me like a wart.
He was coming around too, making friends with the types of people he thought he didn't like, being here would have done him a world of good. I think Freddie had a soft spot for him too, and I know Danny did. Where there's a brain, there's hope.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
You have the patience of a saint, but I've read every word you've posted, and thank you wholeheartedly for sharing your knowledge. I've been googling all sorts of shit from it!
yggdrasil
1st Like
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Posts
- 44
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 153
- Location
- the vast southwestern wasteland
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Yeah, their choice of articles do tend to be a bit on the "wow, that's cool!" side of science. And I'm glad you took my point well.
Properly undestood goal...
My goal, however, is often consistency checking. (I guess that's why in physics I am most oriented to methodology, on line between theory and experiment). I want arguments that are well supported to not be undermined by mistakes, because I have seen (especially in highly politically charged issues) that there are those that will take advantage of such minor weaknesses in order to make a straw man out of the argument as a whole.
This is what I have found in the arguments over a more thorough investigation into 9/11 and the possible complicity and/or negligence of various political and business magnates -- those who want to obfuscate the issue have taken patently stupid things like the controlled demolition hypothesis and said that this kind of thing represents the reasoning of those calling for accountability.
Climate change is a similarly contentious issue, and the resistance to the overwhelming evidence in favor of there being a long term upward trend, albeit gradual at present, in global temperatures, and that human activities are the primary factor right now, I think is primarily a manifestation of humans' perennial resistance to anything that says that they have to change the way they live. Believe me, if this instinct were not so incredibly powerful, I would have quit smoking by now.
Anyhow, I find it is much easier to prevent the strawman before it occurs than to take it down once it has been set ablaze.
yggdrasil
1st Like
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Posts
- 44
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 153
- Location
- the vast southwestern wasteland
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
OK, so I'll bite and actually place some thoughts before this thread.
I don't know if anyone else here has heard of the statistician and theologian Thomas Bayes, but in my particular subfield of physics (Quantum information) you hear about his contributions ad-nauseum. He promoted a view of the natural word and empirical knowledge, based on "degrees of belief", and this is part of a very sensible interpretation of the progression of scientific knowledge. Basically, he came up with a mathematical theorem which states the probability for an event, based on prior knowledge of the reliability of your test for this event. It is often referred to in the example that if you take a blood test for an illness which is known to occur with 1% frequency in the general population and the test has a 99% reliability, then the probability that you actually have that disease, based only on that test, is 50%. But what happens when repeated tests with high reliability are performed? Well, your conditional probability changes with each test according to the results. Each time you test positive, your likelihood of having that disease increases, but at no point does it ever reach absolute certainty.
The point of this is, every single scientific model describing global warming whose major input variable is human carbon emissions has limited reliability, and probably none of them are as reliable as the above hypothetical medical test, taken alone. But the amassing of data indicates that it is highly unlikely that we are not causing significant adverse effects on the global climate through activities which we could, given the collective will to do so, change. Now, if you take an HIV test with 99% reliability twice and test positive twice, there is now an 83% chance that you have the virus. If you are a person of conscience, are you going to go fuck someone? More on the level of self-interest, would you then go get treatment or just think, "Ah, these doctors are full of shit"? A non-rigorous, but thoughtful assesment of the data is that we are causing climate change which will impact us in serious ways over the next century, with more than an 83% probability. So are we going to sit on our asses, or do something to stop this and adapt? If you don't even accept that it is most likely occuring, then there is no basis for even adapting to those changes, even if you don't want to reduce carbon emissions.
I think that the only real reason, after an appraisal of the available evidence, that there continues to be resistance to making even minimal changes is pretty simple: a mentality of corporate greed that cares only about short-term profits. Obviously it must be short-sightedness because in the long term, the economic benefits of developing new technologies for energy production could be enormous. As the tide of world politics turns on this issue, I am making a bet on firms investing in alternative energy technologies. I think if Reverend Thomas Bayes was alive, he would find that to be a sound investment indeed.
I don't know if anyone else here has heard of the statistician and theologian Thomas Bayes, but in my particular subfield of physics (Quantum information) you hear about his contributions ad-nauseum. He promoted a view of the natural word and empirical knowledge, based on "degrees of belief", and this is part of a very sensible interpretation of the progression of scientific knowledge. Basically, he came up with a mathematical theorem which states the probability for an event, based on prior knowledge of the reliability of your test for this event. It is often referred to in the example that if you take a blood test for an illness which is known to occur with 1% frequency in the general population and the test has a 99% reliability, then the probability that you actually have that disease, based only on that test, is 50%. But what happens when repeated tests with high reliability are performed? Well, your conditional probability changes with each test according to the results. Each time you test positive, your likelihood of having that disease increases, but at no point does it ever reach absolute certainty.
The point of this is, every single scientific model describing global warming whose major input variable is human carbon emissions has limited reliability, and probably none of them are as reliable as the above hypothetical medical test, taken alone. But the amassing of data indicates that it is highly unlikely that we are not causing significant adverse effects on the global climate through activities which we could, given the collective will to do so, change. Now, if you take an HIV test with 99% reliability twice and test positive twice, there is now an 83% chance that you have the virus. If you are a person of conscience, are you going to go fuck someone? More on the level of self-interest, would you then go get treatment or just think, "Ah, these doctors are full of shit"? A non-rigorous, but thoughtful assesment of the data is that we are causing climate change which will impact us in serious ways over the next century, with more than an 83% probability. So are we going to sit on our asses, or do something to stop this and adapt? If you don't even accept that it is most likely occuring, then there is no basis for even adapting to those changes, even if you don't want to reduce carbon emissions.
I think that the only real reason, after an appraisal of the available evidence, that there continues to be resistance to making even minimal changes is pretty simple: a mentality of corporate greed that cares only about short-term profits. Obviously it must be short-sightedness because in the long term, the economic benefits of developing new technologies for energy production could be enormous. As the tide of world politics turns on this issue, I am making a bet on firms investing in alternative energy technologies. I think if Reverend Thomas Bayes was alive, he would find that to be a sound investment indeed.
My skepticisim goes beyond the science. As I've stated before, I have very little faith that Government action could ever be effective in making a meaningful difference in global climate, even if I did believe that currrent GW trend was largely man-made.
The fallback position of " so what ? anything we do to reduce poolutin is good " is not at all logical from an economic standpoint.
Okay, so it's your prerogative to be cynical about the efficacy of government to affect change. The corporate and private sectors can implement change faster and more efficiently than a big bureaucratic government. But who coordinates the efforts for change???? Who sets the standards??? Who provides incentives for change???
Let's step back a bit: Even if you aren't convinced the Man's behavior is contributing to GW, you would agree that pollution is hazardous for the environment and for one's health. Look back at pictures of Los Angeles in the '70s with the smog, or London in the '50s, or visit Beijing or Shanghai today. When you look up and can't directly see the sun - that's pollution. When the people in these cities develop an increased rate in asthma and cancer rates - that's pollution. What changed all that - emissions standards. Who set those emission standards - the government. So, as you can see from past examples of pollution, the government was vital is setting policy that brought about wide scale change and improvements in the environment.
About your cynical position: Again, it's your prerogative to be cynical about the government. What alternative solutions do you, JQB, have to contribute? You've been criticizing Liberals and insutling members on the board, but it's no longer sufficient to be sophomoric in your approach of the topic. What do you advocate?
JQB, you are now a US senator. What do you do? What do you propose?
oh god.
Sadly enough, this probably wouldn't be too much worse than what we've already got.
We're just giving JQB the hypothetical opportunity to demonstrate his intelligence, to solve problems, and to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. What rational choices is he going to make?
Ultimately, one has to put up or shut up.
Hot bulge , I am hiring you as my Senatorial Asst. I need a liberal such as you to balance out my staff.
There are already scads of pollution laws on the books.
Convince me there's a need for more.
what is the cost of the regulation vs. the benefit
There are already scads of pollution laws on the books.
Convince me there's a need for more.
what is the cost of the regulation vs. the benefit
madame_zora
Sexy Member
HotBulge, you bring up so many points to ponder, but I'm actually going to start off this particular post saying I can see JQ's point, to a degree. Don't pass out yet, I'll bring it back around.
Here in Ohio, we had an emissions check that was required on automobiles for several years. I don't recall how many, and it's not relevant to the discussion, but it was recently revoked, because it was finally admitted that the vast majority of the locations were taking bribes to pass cars that shouldn't pass, and that the equipment being used was faulty. I know what he's saying when he says he doesn't trust the government to run a circus, let alone anything of this grave importance. I can see where the hopelessness comes from, and he's not alone.
Where he and I are (seemingly) at odds is that I advocate increased oversight OF the government, by independant committees who are not being paid by the government, nor any personal affiliates. I am disinterested in self-oversight, it is a moronic joke, and an insult to the intelligence of the American people, who given enough information can usually tell right from wrong.
The problems lately have been that our sources of the information we have been accustomed to using to seek evidence have become so corrupted that it takes a great deal of time, effort and preserverance to read enough different sources to arrive at anything close to a "truth" or even reasonable consensus. I believe it was the Reagan administration who revoked the fair reporting acts, the news is no longer obligated to report only things they know to be true (which used to be a law. When was the last time you heard of a case of libel?). Now, even the ABC news has a segment called "The Skinny", which is all about the goings on in Hollywood! Primetime news has been reduced to this, and there is no longer ANY requirement for ANYTHING reported to be true. Most Americans have not noted the change, as it has crept up slowly, nor are they aware that there are no longer any laws protecting them from being fed half-truths, ill-researched stories, pandering from one political party or another, or even outright lies. /rant.
The overwhelming evidence points to an extreme likelihood of a negative correlation between man's contributions to the environment and GW. Bearing in mind the even gravity is still a theory, there is enough scientific consensus that a reasonable person should be taking note. Even, as you said, if one were to stubbornly insist that without "proof" they won't believe it (in which case they must not believe in gravity either), the undeniable facts of cancers, allergies and athsmas are reasons enough to curb our "use it up 'till it's gone" attitude. Even financially.
The costs to the average wage earner for insurance has become exorbitant, even the employee paid portion, for many. With the avalanche of lung cancers, breast cancer- well you get the picture. I wonder if a study's been done to project the possible revenue that could be saved from Medicare, Welfare, and the individual and corporation paying for insurance, were these cancers reduced? It would reduce the demands on the medical field, and free some of their time in treatment and research into other diseases as well. In this, I feel they have become somewhat complacent, preferring to produce medicines primarily for treatment of symptoms rather than cures. Equal, if not superior profits could come from cures, but it would take MORE cures, and that means more work. Obviously, if one is cured from cancer, they no longer need drugs. I am suspicious of any drug that is supposed to be taken for "the rest of your life". But I digress.
It takes a degree of compassion to commit oneself NOW to benefits that won't be realised in our lifetimes, I understand that. If I did not have a child, I don't know if I'd feel differently. I hope not. It's easier for me as a lifelong committed pacifist who believes in adding value to the lives of others without taking away, to the extent that I am capable. Were my personal philosophies different, I can't say how difficult it might be for me to bridge that gap to caring about future people I will never meet before thinking of myself. It's a lot to ask, but still, if we don't just ASK, but actually plead the case successfully, the earth as we know it will very likely be a less beautiful place for generations to come. I can't see that as good stewardship.
If you asked me to watch your dog while you went on vacation, and I neglected to feed him, and he was starving and scared by the time you came home, you wouldn't call that good stewardship either. We can't just suck the milk out of the Earth without feeding it, it just doesn't make sense. We can't participate in the race of Man without caring about what happens to each other- that's the race of individuals, which has no agenda other than personal profits.
Here in Ohio, we had an emissions check that was required on automobiles for several years. I don't recall how many, and it's not relevant to the discussion, but it was recently revoked, because it was finally admitted that the vast majority of the locations were taking bribes to pass cars that shouldn't pass, and that the equipment being used was faulty. I know what he's saying when he says he doesn't trust the government to run a circus, let alone anything of this grave importance. I can see where the hopelessness comes from, and he's not alone.
Where he and I are (seemingly) at odds is that I advocate increased oversight OF the government, by independant committees who are not being paid by the government, nor any personal affiliates. I am disinterested in self-oversight, it is a moronic joke, and an insult to the intelligence of the American people, who given enough information can usually tell right from wrong.
The problems lately have been that our sources of the information we have been accustomed to using to seek evidence have become so corrupted that it takes a great deal of time, effort and preserverance to read enough different sources to arrive at anything close to a "truth" or even reasonable consensus. I believe it was the Reagan administration who revoked the fair reporting acts, the news is no longer obligated to report only things they know to be true (which used to be a law. When was the last time you heard of a case of libel?). Now, even the ABC news has a segment called "The Skinny", which is all about the goings on in Hollywood! Primetime news has been reduced to this, and there is no longer ANY requirement for ANYTHING reported to be true. Most Americans have not noted the change, as it has crept up slowly, nor are they aware that there are no longer any laws protecting them from being fed half-truths, ill-researched stories, pandering from one political party or another, or even outright lies. /rant.
The overwhelming evidence points to an extreme likelihood of a negative correlation between man's contributions to the environment and GW. Bearing in mind the even gravity is still a theory, there is enough scientific consensus that a reasonable person should be taking note. Even, as you said, if one were to stubbornly insist that without "proof" they won't believe it (in which case they must not believe in gravity either), the undeniable facts of cancers, allergies and athsmas are reasons enough to curb our "use it up 'till it's gone" attitude. Even financially.
The costs to the average wage earner for insurance has become exorbitant, even the employee paid portion, for many. With the avalanche of lung cancers, breast cancer- well you get the picture. I wonder if a study's been done to project the possible revenue that could be saved from Medicare, Welfare, and the individual and corporation paying for insurance, were these cancers reduced? It would reduce the demands on the medical field, and free some of their time in treatment and research into other diseases as well. In this, I feel they have become somewhat complacent, preferring to produce medicines primarily for treatment of symptoms rather than cures. Equal, if not superior profits could come from cures, but it would take MORE cures, and that means more work. Obviously, if one is cured from cancer, they no longer need drugs. I am suspicious of any drug that is supposed to be taken for "the rest of your life". But I digress.
It takes a degree of compassion to commit oneself NOW to benefits that won't be realised in our lifetimes, I understand that. If I did not have a child, I don't know if I'd feel differently. I hope not. It's easier for me as a lifelong committed pacifist who believes in adding value to the lives of others without taking away, to the extent that I am capable. Were my personal philosophies different, I can't say how difficult it might be for me to bridge that gap to caring about future people I will never meet before thinking of myself. It's a lot to ask, but still, if we don't just ASK, but actually plead the case successfully, the earth as we know it will very likely be a less beautiful place for generations to come. I can't see that as good stewardship.
If you asked me to watch your dog while you went on vacation, and I neglected to feed him, and he was starving and scared by the time you came home, you wouldn't call that good stewardship either. We can't just suck the milk out of the Earth without feeding it, it just doesn't make sense. We can't participate in the race of Man without caring about what happens to each other- that's the race of individuals, which has no agenda other than personal profits.
Zora;
We'll have to agree to disagree about the overwhelmingness of the evidence.
In the science community, this is what typically happens. { I know this from experience with another field but I see the exact same thing happening in climate science }.
After a while you align yourself with a 'camp'. Once frimly in that camp, you start to make a reputation for yourself by espousing the theories of said camp. At that point, the mind gets closed, everything questioning your view is rejected out of hand, everything affirming your view gets accepted with minimal scrutiny. The thing that maintains the integrity of the system is that each group acts as a check on the other. { hmmm sounds like politics }.
The Pro GW team definitely went on the offensive first. Now the skeptics and deniers are staring to have their say. IMO , both sides raise very interesting points, and I'm not convinced of anything yet.
BTW, this same phenomena occurs with us 'followers' too. Once one places themselves in a 'camp' the mind tends to close , as I've outlined above.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the overwhelmingness of the evidence.
In the science community, this is what typically happens. { I know this from experience with another field but I see the exact same thing happening in climate science }.
After a while you align yourself with a 'camp'. Once frimly in that camp, you start to make a reputation for yourself by espousing the theories of said camp. At that point, the mind gets closed, everything questioning your view is rejected out of hand, everything affirming your view gets accepted with minimal scrutiny. The thing that maintains the integrity of the system is that each group acts as a check on the other. { hmmm sounds like politics }.
The Pro GW team definitely went on the offensive first. Now the skeptics and deniers are staring to have their say. IMO , both sides raise very interesting points, and I'm not convinced of anything yet.
BTW, this same phenomena occurs with us 'followers' too. Once one places themselves in a 'camp' the mind tends to close , as I've outlined above.
p2.
re: a solution.
As many anti-Iraq opponents have pointed out, the Iraq campaign is not succeeding .
Reasons:
Questionable reason for the war.
Undefined goals.
Undefined benchmark.
These are precisely the reasons why I currently reject any massive Government program to reduce global warming.
And its a catch 22 , if it ain't massive , it ain't even worth doing.
Any such program would have virtually zero chance of success.
re: a solution.
As many anti-Iraq opponents have pointed out, the Iraq campaign is not succeeding .
Reasons:
Questionable reason for the war.
Undefined goals.
Undefined benchmark.
These are precisely the reasons why I currently reject any massive Government program to reduce global warming.
And its a catch 22 , if it ain't massive , it ain't even worth doing.
Any such program would have virtually zero chance of success.
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
That's interesting given the title you gave this thread, but that aside, if you are neutral why did you come across as very much against even taking reasonable steps to mitgate risk 'just in case'? As I'd said earlier I don't think you had any considered opinion before posting.
I agree that to be truly effective action would need to be on a significant and global scale and you beleive it's doomed from the start, maybe. Even so you appear happy to let being unconvinced (though I'd say rather you are apathetic) cause you you make such childish insulting posts in response to those who are not.
Does this mean you have been in some way persuaded that GW is not necessarily a 'scam' and if so can you understand why many wish to err on the side of caution and that such behaviour even if futile is sensible.
I think it is common sense to err on the side of caution , which is why I started a thread.
I think alot of you need to be cautious about accepting some of the wildly exaggerated claims of the alarmists and some of their preposterous schemes .:wink:
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 6,058
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 28
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
So you say but your earlier comments such as :
in response to :
Originally Posted by HotBulge
Let's at least exercise some good judgment and err on the side of caution! We should act to reduce Man's deleterious contributions towards global warming so that our future grandchildren - in their old age - will still be able to enjoy the Earth that we once knew as children
in response to :
Originally Posted by titan1968
First of all, global warming is quite real and is affecting our planet as we speak. This is not a Liberal-oriented plot (e.g. a Commie threat) to take over the world; there is no conspiracy. If you don't believe me, take a look outside, read a newspaper, watch the news (not just your news). )
in response to
Originally Posted by Kotchanski
Rather than ignore the fact that its there and could mean trouble, should we not at least do our part to reduce it (based on currently available scientific research) rather than sit back and wait for all to become clear?
And statements like :
Please, you people don't want to go there.
I drive very gas efficient cars. I car pool.
I use flourescent bulbs.
All the normal stuff a good conscientous citizen should do. < except Al Gore>
None of it has anything to do with global warming ,tho.
and
Dont seem to fit too well with that sentiment, but nevermind.
Yes, but as you should be as cautious about rejecting them (and the more moderate ones too it appears), not that it's stopped you.
yggdrasil
1st Like
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Posts
- 44
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 1
- Points
- 153
- Location
- the vast southwestern wasteland
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Hmm....funny I got quoted a few posts up, but none of my actual points were addressed. Oh well, I tried.
Maybe there was something vaguely referring to my comments about the potential benefit to be gained by investment in alternative energies. Something about this being illogical from an economic standpoint. Maybe illogical if your end goal is to line the pockets of oil company execs....
But you know what? Technologies become obsolete and people reinvest in newer better ones, and continue to make money, and create jobs.
Any solution to these issues must come from a combination of: scientists and engineers, private industry, consumers, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental political organizations, and governments through a diversified investment in human capital and innovation. Things like this never happen overnight, but it is how big things get done, each party with their own role to play. It's how we got the innernetz.
Maybe there was something vaguely referring to my comments about the potential benefit to be gained by investment in alternative energies. Something about this being illogical from an economic standpoint. Maybe illogical if your end goal is to line the pockets of oil company execs....
But you know what? Technologies become obsolete and people reinvest in newer better ones, and continue to make money, and create jobs.
Any solution to these issues must come from a combination of: scientists and engineers, private industry, consumers, intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental political organizations, and governments through a diversified investment in human capital and innovation. Things like this never happen overnight, but it is how big things get done, each party with their own role to play. It's how we got the innernetz.
Somehow I have a feeling that there are more than "environmental" concerns involved with the whole CO2 issue.
For those with no chemistry majors, CO2 is scentless, colourless, not exceptionally reactive, not toxic except in high doses (suffocation), which puts it up there with nitrogen, water...
I don't see any evidence correlating that with "healthy people" or indeed "healthy environments". In fact with higher CO2 emmisions, we'd be doing more to help plant growth, but that's not really an issue.
Global warming is not a new issue, I remember back in the early 90s this kind of issue being brought up and I'm deeply suspicious not only of the timing but with the rapidity of not only the development of coal/oil hungry nations (China and Blackistan) and also the war on Iraq, and the investment made by oil giants one wonders.
Yggdrasil, you make a fair point that alternative (non nuclear) tech needs investment, but with so much power invested in oil, I wonder if is indeed possible to wean a nation of oil products, and also, will this just be an excuse to limit technology of other nations as no nation has managed to skip the coal-age yet.
For those with no chemistry majors, CO2 is scentless, colourless, not exceptionally reactive, not toxic except in high doses (suffocation), which puts it up there with nitrogen, water...
I don't see any evidence correlating that with "healthy people" or indeed "healthy environments". In fact with higher CO2 emmisions, we'd be doing more to help plant growth, but that's not really an issue.
Global warming is not a new issue, I remember back in the early 90s this kind of issue being brought up and I'm deeply suspicious not only of the timing but with the rapidity of not only the development of coal/oil hungry nations (China and Blackistan) and also the war on Iraq, and the investment made by oil giants one wonders.
Yggdrasil, you make a fair point that alternative (non nuclear) tech needs investment, but with so much power invested in oil, I wonder if is indeed possible to wean a nation of oil products, and also, will this just be an excuse to limit technology of other nations as no nation has managed to skip the coal-age yet.
