Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Global Warming Debate

  1. #1
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't think anyone who's even briefly looked at the effects of different drug policies would disagree that harm minimisation is the most sensible policy, in terms of sensibleness/societal wellbeing/cost-effectiveness. It's just that people are ignorant, and politicians need to cater for that. It's the same with a lot of dumb policies e.g. climate change inaction, illegal immigration, lack of investment in infrastructure. Bleh.

    Also, Portugal seems to be doing ok after drug decriminalisation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  2. #2
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Derailment, sorry.

    I'm largely complaining about my own government. I'm less aware of what the situation is in America, but in Australia, the whole political system is seriously fucked.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    I prefer inaction since it hasn't been sufficiently established that climate change is decisively anthropogenic in nature, or that there's effectively anything humans can do about it short of invoking draconian measures which would necessarily reduce large tracts of the population to subsistence poverty. The proposed policy antidotes to climate change could prove worse than the natural consequences of climate change.
    It pretty much has been established that a large proportion of it is caused by humans. All the attempts by politicians to argue otherwise is either political partisan bullshit, or honest ignorance of how science works.

    There are a million possible solutions to climate change that won't involve draconian measures. Given the enormity of the potential effects of climate change, there's very little risk in exploring measures such as investing more money in green energy research, increased carbon sequestration, greater incentives to reduce carbon emissions etc. Again, I'm not sure what the situation is in America, but in Australia the governing party has been implementing a carbon tax as a very conservative measure to reduce carbon emissions. However, instead of raising intelligent objections (e.g. whether it will actually do anything - to which the obvious answer is that it mightn't, but the impact on the economy even if it doesn't do much is minimal, so it's worth the risk, and it will put Australia in a better position to convince trading partners to comply with emission limits), the opposition party (which is led by a man who believes women are biologically hardwired to be less intelligent than men, and won't say whether or not be believes in evolution) has been attempting to argue that something that makes up less than 1% of the atmosphere can't possibly affect temperature, and that climate change isn't happening because it's cold today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Is a good thing since govt-coordinated efforts invariably result in malinvestment, along with egregious cost overruns. Too much shit gets built by central planning committees that isn't in sync with the actual needs of a given community.
    I meant government in the general sense, not specifically at the Federal level. Again, the situation in America is probably different, but here the federal government has all the money, while the state government is in charge of infrastructure. Easy solution: allocate more money for infrastructure, let the state/local government manage the specifics. Athough our state government is also fucked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  3. #3
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Mm, there are plenty of credible scientists who dissent from that view.
    I wouldn't say "plenty". You have to admit that it's a very short list, compared to the number of scientists in the world who are of that standard and above. As the infographic in the top right hand corner of that page states, "97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming."

    Wikipedia also states: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions." I think this reflects the current scientific opinion more than the views of a handful of scientists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  4. #4
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is where Ashton makes some vague reference to society being overrun by bureaucracy and/or bullshit and that this somehow satisfactorily deflects the majority of scientific research on the subject.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  5. #5
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I hate global warming debates. OFFTOPIC
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  6. #6
    not a bumblebee octo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    TIM
    IEI 4-6-9 apparently
    Posts
    2,744
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    I hate global warming debates. OFFTOPIC
    Sorry! Some mod, please split before Aquagraph has an aneurysm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agee The Great View Post
    Nobody here...besides me, seems to know what SLE is except for maybe Maritsa.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 4w5 sx/so
    Posts
    733
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Oh I guess I'll add, since it was mentioned, I am not a drug user but I agree with most here. Agreed with ashton about taxing. Just so you know that it's not only drug users lol

  8. #8
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenna View Post
    Oh I guess I'll add, since it was mentioned, I am not a drug user but I agree with most here. Agreed with ashton about taxing. Just so you know that it's not only drug users lol
    Our small drug legalizing organisation actually has a streight edge dude. Wish there'd be more of those.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  9. #9
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by octopuslove View Post
    I wouldn't say "plenty". You have to admit that it's a very short list, compared to the number of scientists in the world who are of that standard and above. As the infographic in the top right hand corner of that page states, "97–98% of the most published climate researchers think humans are causing global warming."

    Wikipedia also states: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions." I think this reflects the current scientific opinion more than the views of a handful of scientists.
    Part of the problem with geologists is how significanly deep time factors into their work. That said, any review of the current literature makes a very convincing case for AGW; dissenting views really have no basis in the present-day dataset.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  10. #10
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,626
    Mentioned
    156 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's impossible to make a convincing case for AGW if you know a little bit of statistics. The data is simply not enough - 1 century is an extremely, immensely small amount. I'm a meteorology enthusiast and I'm subscribed to more than one "official" meteorology group (italian & european - nerdy, I know, but what can you do) and every conference I've attended basically ends with scientists admitting that while we have evidence that global warming might be antrophogenic, current statistical methods and theoretical results tell us that we would need at least 1000 times the amount of data in order to obtain a 90% certainty (which is still statistically very low).

    That said, it's obvious that pollution has a negative effect on climate, barring global warming. However, it's impossible to make a legitimate claim of statistical significance of such research results. In my opinon lots of governmental (and private) funds have been misdirected towards AGW rather than trying to understand other effects of human activity on climate, potentially much more dangerous (i.e. very little thought is devoted to building infrastructure and housing in such a way to accomodate ever-increasing population and changing rain patterns, often with disastrous results - entire cities might be destroyed by torrential rain).
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  11. #11
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Ive always considered it a fad. I believe that there are more important research to be had and focused on. I do not even know who or what started this crap. Maybe the Earth will freeze over when Al Gore passes away.

  12. #12
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,116
    Mentioned
    139 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Right. I'm not aware that any sane, informed person rejects that climate change is occurring—that much is trivial. I just don't think it can be yet determined with sufficient certainty that human activity has had a significant influence on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    It's impossible to make a convincing case for AGW if you know a little bit of statistics. The data is simply not enough - 1 century is an extremely, immensely small amount.
    Exactly. And too many influencing factors to account for.

  13. #13
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Thanks for splitting. Appreciated.

    Global warming debates rarely go anywhere. They're lot more stuck than most debates
    Nowadays hard to talk about something so innocent as weather without it going political.

    Well, when you live in Finland you'll be real happy for some extra heat. Our farming industry will bloom if it gets more warmer. By the way, this is the warmest Autumn here in 50 years. This is pretty nice.

    But as I have no clue which side to believe, I'll be careful with my carbon footprint (i hate that concept).
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  14. #14
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Youre Finnish? We have the same nose ridge, lol. I noticed in the pics.

  15. #15
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    "As the temperature pattern changed, global cooling was of waning interest by 1979.[28]"

    Best part, lol.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,967
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This troll thread is the only reason Rick still hangs around.

  17. #17
    Creepy-Snaps

    Default

    This debate is heating up.

  18. #18
    force my hand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,334
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Dew View Post
    This debate is heating up.
    Threads just do that on their own.

    There's not enough posts to determine if posters are the cause.
    SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype

  19. #19
    Rick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Former USSR (global nomad)
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    2,050
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tcaudilllg View Post
    This troll thread is the only reason Rick still hangs around.
    Definitely. Thanks for reminding me! I always appreciate a good debate with Ashton and FDG.

    Actually, I'm less interested these days in global warming, although I am still very interested in the science of climatology and meteorology, the physics and chemistry behind processes, and stuff like that. The science sometimes blows my mind. For instance, the contradictory role of clouds in reflecting both incoming sunlight and heat radiation from the Earth surface, continent placement, whether land masses are near poles or far from poles (which determines probability of ice accumulation and albedo-related feedback loops), size of landmasses (which affects average precipitation over the landmass as precipitation tends to decrease with increasing distance from seas), particulates in the atmosphere (blocks sun and causes cooling, but decreases albedo and causes warming if it falls onto ice and snow). There are so many different interesting processes going on all at the same time. Climatology and earth science in general is an intellectual feast

    My attitudes towards AGW and a host of related topics have changed quite a bit, mostly as a result of listening to >100 hours of seminars from The Long Now Foundation (extremely highly recommended — another intellectual feast). First of all, one gains an understanding that the processes of societal evolution are poorly understood and largely beyond the control of governments, institutions, and individuals. So I am less interested in investing emotional energy in somehow trying to influence the course of events. Also, there is always (almost always?) a "greater wisdom" in the way things are right now, and large changes occur organically and fundamentally and generally not for the reasons we tend to believe (e.g. "so-and-so introduced a policy and things turned around"). I do admit I don't understand politics terribly well.

    I guess this attitude must be what tcaudilllg calls "conformism" (vs. progressiveness). However, it's a philosophical attitude only, and often a person's actual behavior strongly promotes various progressive causes that he/she embodies.

    Basically, there are a number of different realistic climate scenarios, their effects will be unpredictable in many ways (while being predictable in others), societal action or inaction is yet more difficult to predict, and it is possible that government policies will actually not make much difference either way. I believe collective behavior will essentially be determined by economics, which is in turn largely determined by resources, demographics, preexisting conditions, etc. Many statements made by climatologists and other scientists have already been overturned, and many others will turn out to be incorrect as well. For instance, it was widely assumed that Himalayan glaciers accounted for the lion's share of river volume coming from the region. Recently I read a research summary showing that that was the case only for one or two (Ganges perhaps?) rivers; the rest were primarily monsoon-fed. Statements about policy responses to AGW have an even lower likelihood of proving correct; worse yet, pure experiments and data collection in politics and policy is nigh impossible, so very little accumulation of wisdom takes place.

    So, let the warming continue (or not continue)! And may governments and economies respond however they want! How's that for a political slogan?
    It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.

  20. #20
    Creepy-male

    Default

    Global warming works like this -- the sun emits radiation, it moves outwardly in a spherical pattern, part of that radiation hits earth's surface is absorbed and warms it, part of that radiation is reflected back, the radiation that is reflected back travels through the atmosphere on the way out, as it travels through the atmosphere some of that radiation is re-reflected back by certain chemicals and thus causes more radiation to return to be absorbed and reflected off the earth and thus increases the heat. The more chemicals there are in the atmosphere that cause this reflection back towards the earth, the more the overall temperature increases globally. That much is scientific fact, and can easily be simulated in a laboratory. There is a more nuanced description of this effect, but I don't really feel like bothering going into that level of detail.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

    The question is if humans are causing global warming or not -- which I think is irrelevant, the question is if human can cause global warming and the answer is yes, so... it's probably worthwhile to invest a little effort into solving the problem if it should arise. Which means collecting of data from satellites on the earth's albedo and temperature, using computer simulation to predict trends and validate them, and develop small scale prototypes of systems to help deal with global warming or cooling if it should arise, and some effort towards calculating the cost and feasibility of a full scale system being implemented.

  21. #21
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's no debate; we've already caused a lot of damage. The very concept that people think that this topic can be debated at this point in time, is just ridiculous.

  22. #22
    Sam Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Your veins.
    TIM
    INFp, e5
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's too difficult to have people sold on the idea of global warming when they see their own bad habits marked for blame. Maybe explaining the benefits of cleaner, greener methods of living, like cleaner air, natural hair, and polar bears might suffice in place of their vice?

  23. #23
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    I dont think ppl really care as much now that the economy is tanking for the majority of the world. The green fad is just being consumed into mega-corps, just like the "no fat" fat was over a decade ago. Its all marketing bullshit.

    I have to admit, though, the huge windmills are pretty cool. I do not know their total efficiency, and sometimes they creep me out when driving at night (they have blinking red "eyes"!) on the interstate, but theyre interesting. Sadly enough, I live by SolarWorld, and theyre laying people off. Intel isnt, however!

  24. #24
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    "We could have saved the Earth but we were too damned cheap." Kurt Vonnegut

    That says it all.

  25. #25
    Sam Rockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Your veins.
    TIM
    INFp, e5
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jadae View Post
    I dont think ppl really care as much now that the economy is tanking for the majority of the world. The green fad is just being consumed into mega-corps, just like the "no fat" fat was over a decade ago. Its all marketing bullshit.

    I have to admit, though, the huge windmills are pretty cool. I do not know their total efficiency, and sometimes they creep me out when driving at night (they have blinking red "eyes"!) on the interstate, but theyre interesting. Sadly enough, I live by SolarWorld, and theyre laying people off. Intel isnt, however!
    NyTimes recently posted an article about how cities are going to have to find a way to store the excess energy powered by the windmills.

  26. #26
    Creepy-pokeball

    Default

    Kuwait sez, "Sup? Where am I?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •