gigantikok: I think I have every reason to be confident about society's ability to survive and adapt. Maybe optimistic people could be societies downfall... who knows...
Javierdude22: Even though i like discussions very much, maybe this point in case is not so much relevant. We all believe what we believe, and who-ever wants to believe that there is no such thing as Global Warming, that we are certainly not causing it, and that all these climatical and ecological changes that we are experiencing now are caused by anything bút us humans, then thats their perogative. And we are dependant on our governments opinion on the matter to expect any pro-active behaviour on it.
We read what we want to read, something that defines our reality just as much. I do not care for The Islamic Daily as it's something that doesn't appeal to me, therefore i will never know anything about it. Many people have a fear for anything that infringes the space, well-being and happiness they created for themselves. Why on earth would you want to read anything that feeds that fear? No, discredit it, toss it away. And in part, who could blame them. When confronted with a lifethreatening disease, denial is the next best thing. I would also rather not want to know that the car i am driving is helping create a Global sauna.
So, the argument of resilience, adaptation and perhaps even 'use and move on' i.e. inhabiting other planets comes up. I think that in themselves, they are valid way of dealing with any kind of misery. Hell, we are a species, our need to survive is strong.
But, we didnt come this far by using the first few of our IQ points, we came this far by using the ones with three digits. What i mean is, why the hell should we adapt? Is that what we call civilization? We would not want to go back 200 years, that would be a step backwards in our civilization. Very true. Hell, i wouldnt want to go back to that either. However, even though many governments present a very black and white stack of options, that needn't be the case.
Why the exageration that we will fall back to prehistoric times if we choose to do something about global warming, meaning emitting less substances? Isn't there a way in the middle? Divert some of those insane investments in war to energy-saving technology maybe? Cause yes, there is much to gain in technology, but not by merely adapting. The billions of dollars pumped into the Iraqi war to preserve energy-interests in the Middle East could have just as easily been diverted to other energy resources. Hey, and the bonus would have been less dead people
.
I am a serious dude when i need to be, but very optimistic in general. Too many times, however, does realism get confused with pessimism. But no. The thing is that people underestimate what adaptation means. Now we don't want to 'change our way of life' simply -cause we don' wanna-. Well ok, again, thats your perogative. But what do you think that adaptation means? It means someone's gonna fuck up your way of life big time.
What i'd wanna say is, i'd rather adapt now, than later. Later i might loose control over it.
But again, i come back to us all having our own ideas about this. There is always some way to discredit anything. Hell, i have someone preaching on the corner of my street that he is from Mars. I was stumped when he asked me to prove him wrong. And that is the case with everything. If i do not want to believe in anything detrimental, i am sure i'll find a website that discredits it. Nowadays, many people (and governments use it wisely as well), feel they built a hard enough case against something by merely stating that -they don't think so-. The only thing missing is a -nahnahnahnanah- while they stick their fingers in their ears and their tongue in the air. Cause i am sorry, that is how people strike me that are bold and pretentious enough to feel they know better than respectable scientific, independant agencies. Ever notice how the information coming from those agencies are supported by júst the agency's name? And ever notice how the evidence coming from scientists on the opposing end of the spectrum feature on their 20 dollar commercial books? Everyone would like to be rich, win a Nobel Prize, or be known to have discredited a dogma. But, what interest does the agency have? No, no conspiracy or larger scheme....and , although the nickname was nicely formulated, also no Environement Religion. We simply care.
We read what we want to read, something that defines our reality just as much. I do not care for The Islamic Daily as it's something that doesn't appeal to me, therefore i will never know anything about it. Many people have a fear for anything that infringes the space, well-being and happiness they created for themselves. Why on earth would you want to read anything that feeds that fear? No, discredit it, toss it away. And in part, who could blame them. When confronted with a lifethreatening disease, denial is the next best thing. I would also rather not want to know that the car i am driving is helping create a Global sauna.
So, the argument of resilience, adaptation and perhaps even 'use and move on' i.e. inhabiting other planets comes up. I think that in themselves, they are valid way of dealing with any kind of misery. Hell, we are a species, our need to survive is strong.
But, we didnt come this far by using the first few of our IQ points, we came this far by using the ones with three digits. What i mean is, why the hell should we adapt? Is that what we call civilization? We would not want to go back 200 years, that would be a step backwards in our civilization. Very true. Hell, i wouldnt want to go back to that either. However, even though many governments present a very black and white stack of options, that needn't be the case.
Why the exageration that we will fall back to prehistoric times if we choose to do something about global warming, meaning emitting less substances? Isn't there a way in the middle? Divert some of those insane investments in war to energy-saving technology maybe? Cause yes, there is much to gain in technology, but not by merely adapting. The billions of dollars pumped into the Iraqi war to preserve energy-interests in the Middle East could have just as easily been diverted to other energy resources. Hey, and the bonus would have been less dead people
.I am a serious dude when i need to be, but very optimistic in general. Too many times, however, does realism get confused with pessimism. But no. The thing is that people underestimate what adaptation means. Now we don't want to 'change our way of life' simply -cause we don' wanna-. Well ok, again, thats your perogative. But what do you think that adaptation means? It means someone's gonna fuck up your way of life big time.
What i'd wanna say is, i'd rather adapt now, than later. Later i might loose control over it.
But again, i come back to us all having our own ideas about this. There is always some way to discredit anything. Hell, i have someone preaching on the corner of my street that he is from Mars. I was stumped when he asked me to prove him wrong. And that is the case with everything. If i do not want to believe in anything detrimental, i am sure i'll find a website that discredits it. Nowadays, many people (and governments use it wisely as well), feel they built a hard enough case against something by merely stating that -they don't think so-. The only thing missing is a -nahnahnahnanah- while they stick their fingers in their ears and their tongue in the air. Cause i am sorry, that is how people strike me that are bold and pretentious enough to feel they know better than respectable scientific, independant agencies. Ever notice how the information coming from those agencies are supported by júst the agency's name? And ever notice how the evidence coming from scientists on the opposing end of the spectrum feature on their 20 dollar commercial books? Everyone would like to be rich, win a Nobel Prize, or be known to have discredited a dogma. But, what interest does the agency have? No, no conspiracy or larger scheme....and , although the nickname was nicely formulated, also no Environement Religion. We simply care.
gigantikok: [quote author=Javierdude23 link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=60#61 date=09/05/03 at 15:24:10]Why the exageration that we will fall back to prehistoric times if we choose to do something about global warming, meaning emitting less substances? Isn't there a way in the middle? Divert some of those insane investments in war to energy-saving technology maybe? Cause yes, there is much to gain in technology, but not by merely adapting. The billions of dollars pumped into the Iraqi war to preserve energy-interests in the Middle East could have just as easily been diverted to other energy resources. Hey, and the bonus would have been less dead people .[/quote]
You can type up as many lengthy speeches as you want Javierdude, but the simple truth is that there has never been any hard, direct evidence to prove Global Warming. But I GAURANTEE you 100 freakin PERCENT that if we are one day demonstrated compelling and persuasive FACT (not "theories" and wimpy charts) that Global Warming will cripple this planet, there will be TONS of money pumped into adapting technology. As we speak companies are trying to find cleaner, more efficient fuel sources with or without proof of the big warming.
Oh, and nice try trying to discredit the opposition of Global Warming. You make them all sound like greedy, money hungry people trying to peddle books. The same can be said about the side that supports Warming. You simply can't discredit around 14,000 names of respectable scientists (many who aren't writing books) who don't agree. You can't discredit some of the top names in climatology. And you know why there are so many scientists and institutions that don't argee with Global Warming? BECAUSE IT HASN"T BEEN EXTENSIVELY PROVEN! As much as you wanna spin, you can't claim there is any real fact. That is why it isn't put into (most) college textbooks, that is why it mostly is only included in college courses as the professor's opinion. We don't know shit. I repeat, we don't know shit.
.[/quote]You can type up as many lengthy speeches as you want Javierdude, but the simple truth is that there has never been any hard, direct evidence to prove Global Warming. But I GAURANTEE you 100 freakin PERCENT that if we are one day demonstrated compelling and persuasive FACT (not "theories" and wimpy charts) that Global Warming will cripple this planet, there will be TONS of money pumped into adapting technology. As we speak companies are trying to find cleaner, more efficient fuel sources with or without proof of the big warming.
Oh, and nice try trying to discredit the opposition of Global Warming. You make them all sound like greedy, money hungry people trying to peddle books. The same can be said about the side that supports Warming. You simply can't discredit around 14,000 names of respectable scientists (many who aren't writing books) who don't agree. You can't discredit some of the top names in climatology. And you know why there are so many scientists and institutions that don't argee with Global Warming? BECAUSE IT HASN"T BEEN EXTENSIVELY PROVEN! As much as you wanna spin, you can't claim there is any real fact. That is why it isn't put into (most) college textbooks, that is why it mostly is only included in college courses as the professor's opinion. We don't know shit. I repeat, we don't know shit.
Javierdude22: [quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1059666572;start=60#62 date=09/05/03 at 17:05:20]
but the simple truth is that there has never been any hard, direct evidence to prove Global Warming. But I GAURANTEE you 100 freakin PERCENT that if we are one day demonstrated compelling and persuasive FACT (not "theories" and wimpy charts) that Global Warming will cripple this planet, there will be TONS of money pumped into adapting technology. As we speak companies are trying to find cleaner, more efficient fuel sources with or without proof of the big warming.
[/quote]
Oi...Gig, I could care less about making my post, not speech, lenghty. You posted quite often and i just had a lot to respond to I guess. With that in mind I think you missed my point. Arguing fór GW was not my point, we've been there done that. My point was that in fact this thread is becoming rather pointless, as we all choose to believe what we want to believe anyway.
For you it is 'a simple truth there is no evidence whatso-ever'. But let's face it, there isn't the evidence in the world to make you think differently. And just to make sure, I am now not trying to convince you that GW is happening, but more or less discussing your acknowledgement of empirical facts. Measurements of higher temperatures are not fact, migrations of species are not fact, more precipitation is not fact, melting glaciers is not fact. Ok, so let me take one of these and explain how they are indeed fact.
Species migrating from equatorial regions more upwards to the North. You say we don't know what causes them to migrate. But we do very well know. Any kind of species, and especially fish, have a range of temperature in which they can survive. Some fish thrive well in colder waters, say 15-18 degrees Celsius, others in more tropical waters, let's say 20-24 degrees C. Anywhere under or over that, they die. No, they might not still survive, they die. That is just as much a biological fact as it is that we will die without oxygen. So these fish that will die if they get in colder water than 20 degrees C all of a sudden are swimming, very much alive, in waters that were fromerly known to be colder than 20 degrees. Well, they survive because those waters are now over 20 degrees C. Fish migrating to other waters is therefore very much evidence that those waters are now warmer.
Is this still not evidence? And i am sorry, but all the rises in temperatures and climatical changes are pretty much rockhard fact just like the one of migrating species. Your way of discrediting empirical data is by claiming they are 'wimpy'. Let me know when they bring out them cool and flashy charts.
The only thing we cóuld still discuss is the cause of these changes. But we discussed that extensively already, no point in repeating what has been said again.
You claim that companies are doing their utmost best to find cleaner energysources. Gig, did you look that up in their year-reports, or did you just say that cause you have a gutfeeling they are? Yes, you read accurately that they are putting money in cleaner technology, but you wouldn't want to know how much. It may come to about 1-5% of what they spend on oildrilling.
I will leave the rest of the story in peace, we've covered the list of scientists and your knowledge of the Dutch educational system and textbook contents.
Again, we believe what we want to believe. And there's not much to say to either person who claims to know the truth, myself included.
but the simple truth is that there has never been any hard, direct evidence to prove Global Warming. But I GAURANTEE you 100 freakin PERCENT that if we are one day demonstrated compelling and persuasive FACT (not "theories" and wimpy charts) that Global Warming will cripple this planet, there will be TONS of money pumped into adapting technology. As we speak companies are trying to find cleaner, more efficient fuel sources with or without proof of the big warming.
[/quote]
Oi...Gig, I could care less about making my post, not speech, lenghty. You posted quite often and i just had a lot to respond to I guess. With that in mind I think you missed my point. Arguing fór GW was not my point, we've been there done that. My point was that in fact this thread is becoming rather pointless, as we all choose to believe what we want to believe anyway.
For you it is 'a simple truth there is no evidence whatso-ever'. But let's face it, there isn't the evidence in the world to make you think differently. And just to make sure, I am now not trying to convince you that GW is happening, but more or less discussing your acknowledgement of empirical facts. Measurements of higher temperatures are not fact, migrations of species are not fact, more precipitation is not fact, melting glaciers is not fact. Ok, so let me take one of these and explain how they are indeed fact.
Species migrating from equatorial regions more upwards to the North. You say we don't know what causes them to migrate. But we do very well know. Any kind of species, and especially fish, have a range of temperature in which they can survive. Some fish thrive well in colder waters, say 15-18 degrees Celsius, others in more tropical waters, let's say 20-24 degrees C. Anywhere under or over that, they die. No, they might not still survive, they die. That is just as much a biological fact as it is that we will die without oxygen. So these fish that will die if they get in colder water than 20 degrees C all of a sudden are swimming, very much alive, in waters that were fromerly known to be colder than 20 degrees. Well, they survive because those waters are now over 20 degrees C. Fish migrating to other waters is therefore very much evidence that those waters are now warmer.
Is this still not evidence? And i am sorry, but all the rises in temperatures and climatical changes are pretty much rockhard fact just like the one of migrating species. Your way of discrediting empirical data is by claiming they are 'wimpy'. Let me know when they bring out them cool and flashy charts.
The only thing we cóuld still discuss is the cause of these changes. But we discussed that extensively already, no point in repeating what has been said again.
You claim that companies are doing their utmost best to find cleaner energysources. Gig, did you look that up in their year-reports, or did you just say that cause you have a gutfeeling they are? Yes, you read accurately that they are putting money in cleaner technology, but you wouldn't want to know how much. It may come to about 1-5% of what they spend on oildrilling.
I will leave the rest of the story in peace, we've covered the list of scientists and your knowledge of the Dutch educational system and textbook contents.
Again, we believe what we want to believe. And there's not much to say to either person who claims to know the truth, myself included.
gigantikok: I think this topic (at least between us, Javierdude) is done. We aren't going to see eye to eye. Thanks for debating with me though.
Similar threads
