well your argument is hopelessly metaphysical which is sort of ironic given that its about the science of the question
well your argument is hopelessly metaphysical which is sort of ironic given that its about the science of the question
Here are graphs of what could be causing the global warming:
(Natural causes)
Volcanoes releasing CO2, while sulfate chemicals can cool temperature:
The sun:
Orbital changes:
Human factors (Greenhouse gases, aerosol pollution, deforestation, ozone pollution)
All human and natural factors combined:
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...ing-the-world/
lol it's not because I was responding to you specifically (hence why I quoted you), not the the science.Originally Posted by Bertrand
we can put on the big boy pants and debate the science too if you want.
nice try though.
your entire premise is that the global warming hypothesis is a manufactured falsehood, for economic reasons. I feel like there are far more profitable falsehoods to be manufactured if profit is the motive, furthermore there are far more profitable truths
for you to believe your theory is at all plausible you have to accept a radically different picture of the world and its values and its mechanics (both economic and physical) than what is generally accepted, i.e.: it is a fringe belief system. you have to generally accept the idea that out of all the minds in the world only a select few see the "truth" and it is not some higher spiritual truth, rather it is that a rather banal and implausible scam is being perpetuated on the world and that most people can't see it. the implication of this is that the near-universally acknowledged "best and brightest" of the world are not the typical geniuses we usually celebrate but the isolated and rejected basement dwellers of the world
I feel bad because to have such a divergent picture of the world will only serve to isolate you and I wonder what must make it worth it in order to participate in building such a schizoid castle and I'm thinking its a kind of unhealthy response to social isolation [1] that continues to deepen itself, which is too bad because conspiracy theories of this kind don't resolve the pain they only exacerbate it
it is basically a Ti social hierarchy that has inverted the picture of the world in order to place the crazies on top, which is at odds with reality. by conceptualizing things as such it doesn't make it true. this scheme of beliefs carries with it more costs than benefits but it is not self evident until you realize it via actual consequences which don't manifest except over time... which means regret will be the only product of this way of thinking, not liberation
I do hope that you come to engage more with the science if that is your calling because I believe the truth sets one free and ultimately does not isolate them... I do not believe "it is lonely at the top"--people just erroneously, and hubristically, place themselves at the top because they are lonely; but this is not the answer to their question... it is certainly not the answer to the question of global warming
[1] experienced no differently than physical pain, in the brain, according to science
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-07-2017 at 10:45 PM.
I never said money was the ONLY incentive. I'm saying there's a lot of scientists publically claiming so because it helps bring money in. (While privately they could have a totally different belief)
the majority of people (scientists) once thought the earth was flat. how'd that turn out? just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't mean it's true. you need to think about the information critically, looking at both sides, and coming up with a conclusion, not relying on the majority and saying cliche lines like "ITS SCIENCE!!!!! Don't you believe in SCIENCE!?!?!?" lol
and this isn't to underestimate the sheer amount of scientists that DON'T believe in global warming. I believe it's highly underreported while stupid figures like the 97% are misleading and overestimating.
FYI I have looked at both sides of the argument/science lol. You can look at the same data, and have different interpretations of the data, this is still science. you are aware of this right?
And you keep saying look at the science. Lol okay. Enough with your metaphysical response to my post (lol). Bring on the science sir, waiting on you
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-07-2017 at 11:03 PM.
While I don't have any particular opinion on whether or not global warming is a scam (the apparent results of the debate seem like enough to make people have an interest in perpetuating it, even if it's just the people inside) it really just is the terms of the debate that cause the problem in the first place. It's like: Is the King of France bald? Well, there's no King of France. Except in this case the King of France isn't an object but a value ("is/ought distinction"). By framing "the world" as some giant unreachable thing, you pretty much cause all these problems, and it doesn't matter which side you pick. It's a weird religious-like impulse to think of the globe like some sort of ridiculous macrocosm, like some sort of disillusionment with actual belief systems that gets projected onto the seeming unattainability of action. You pose the question, and then some of the premises of the question are basically unquestionable despite being out in the open just due to how people's thought has been habituated. As soon as you make the Earth "up there", you set yourself below the Earth, which is metaphorically in Hell. That's what alienation does to people. Alienation is extremely, extremely common nowadays, so much it might as well be some new Black Death, although most people aren't quite to the reptile-people-conspiracy level (there are "grades" of conspiracizing from my experience, some of which are true but rather banal and should especially be kept away from anyone not in a position to think about them, since they'll be used as justification for some people who are cranks and others who are just misguided but everyone still loses).
Here's the real scale of the world, so you can't mentally make it a macrocosm:
- Tabasco sauce is owned by one family. Does it have to be the official condiment of the Illuminati now?
- If you live pretty much anywhere in North or South America or Europe, there is probably more stuff in a subregion of your home country than all of Australia.
- There are more English-speakers in pretty much any country where English isn't an official language than in Canada, and most have way more than Australia.
- The circumference of the Earth is 24,901 miles. If you could continuously drive 60 miles per hour, or a mile a minute, it would take you 24,901 minutes to drive all the way around the Earth. That is 415.0166... hours, 17.2923... days, or about 2.5 weeks (~ 2.4703373...). When you drive, even on the highway, you can see everything pass around you, not like you're being whisked off on a plane. What have you been doing for the last 2.5 weeks? Think about that alongside what it'd be like to just drive around the equator (or some line from north to south if you'd rather tour Europe or India or China or some other place during part of it). That's the physical scale of the Earth. A couple of road trips (since you have to include sleeping time somehow, although I guess you can do it like truck drivers and just switch off, but that'd still add on a little bit of time for stopping to get food and take care of various other physical needs), except all the water makes that impossible by being a physical barrier. Hardly a grand enough place to imagine as something you have to constantly strive up to because it's too big to get to.
LSIs willingness to "go on a crusade" on behalf of something or someone is both their greatest strength and greatest liability, as we see here; so much depends on choosing wisely
the castle they build can be an enduring bastion of strength that radiates light to the world, or it can be a prison of their own making, a dungeon of stygian proportions... either way, whatever they subject the world to they first subject themselves to
*yawn* still waiting...
And just to be clear on my position, I'm sure human activity is contributing some, but not to the extent mainstream blows it out of proportion (Al Gore) where it warrants questionable action.
Btw you're actually a great writer. Have you considered being an author?
Also you sound very ILI in your posts
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-07-2017 at 11:41 PM.
Though I tend to assume global warming is happening, I'm skeptical of graphs like that since I've read that we've had big changes in measuring equipment and the amount / types of thermometers over the last 100 years which may lead to some differences... also data can be manipulated, the graph axis aren't even labeled clearly... how does CO2 increase by 2F?. But it doesn't really matter to me, I just assume we are causing climate change because why not assume and prepare for the worst? ... But again my real question is what do you want to do about it? None of the proposed solutions I've seen have been realistic... they don't even come close to stopping global warming, and we can't just kill our industry either... especially when other countries will just pick up the slack.
If you really wanted to stop this the first thing you'd need to do is implement a benign eugenics program like the 1 child policy China has.
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 07-07-2017 at 11:44 PM.
I don't think the science behind it is difficult to understand... since it doesn't take a genius to figure out that burning fossil fuels release CO2, it only takes understanding of basic chemistry (combustion coal: C + O2 -> CO2, methane: CH4 + 2 O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O). It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that the CO2 traps heat and it's what keeps the Earth's temperature warm, or else the heat will dissipate and the Earth will freeze like some other planets.
So I think what people find it easiest to attack is the measurement - "Well the measurement could be wrong! How do we know that it's accurate?". Well for that, maybe we should look into how they're measuring their data, if you want to be completely convinced yourself.
I don't really think it matter whether the whole thing is a scam or whether they have an agenda or whatever. If it's true then it's true.
Last edited by Singu; 07-08-2017 at 12:19 AM.
One of the problems is exactly the "out of proportion" part. You've seen the posts right on this thread: if people think that nothing we can do will change anything, the results are the same as if people think we're doing nothing wrong in the first place. So making "global warming exists" mean "global warming is so terrible nothing we can do will fix it so we might as well just burn all the fossil fuels in 60 years" would serve the same agenda if there is an agenda, and still end badly if there isn't. I think "global warming" is largely assumed to mean gloom-and-doom, since it does generally seem obvious that CO2 would change the global temperature.
I think the "it's not manmade!" part comes from "it's natural, so it must be good for us!" and is supposed to alleviate the gloom-and-doom that way (but not everything "natural" is good for you). I mean, no one says "if a meteorite ends civilization, it's OK!" so I don't see why anyone would say "if the Sun ends civilization, it's OK!" instead of just assuming that that means the Sun won't end civilization, because it's happened before (note: this hypothetical level of dramatic non-anthropogenic global warming has also never happened in human history, much like giant meteorites hitting the Earth). The debate just makes people feel powerless overall, so it doesn't matter how vindicated or intelligent anyone is.
Fuck mitigating anything at this point, so much effort for so little gain. Now "migration" on the other hand, like if we figured out FTL (Warp/Hyperdrives and/or wormhole generators), that's the answer. Abandon this corpse of a dying world and set of for a new one keeping the memory of our past mistakes alive. Next time, Earth 2.0 will last until the heat death of the universe.
According to the same graphs that say we're fucked, we don't have time to leave. What "next time" is there then?
Modern myth
Global warming is very interesting as a modern myth.
"Floods" has always existed in mythology. Prediction of weather changes and impact on harvest. God's punishment.
The weather reflects unconscious dynamic forces. The rising water is the revenge of the unconscious, threatening to swallow us.
"Mother Earth" has been mistreated by too much one-sided conscious development. Now she is coming to get us.
It's interesting how the neuroticism of modern man is actually played out in reality in symbolic form.
(I'm not saying that global warming isn't real. But it is also an inner experience)
Last edited by Tallmo; 07-08-2017 at 11:57 AM.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well, I used that graph specifically for two reasons. For one, it goes back 20,000 years as well like the other graph attempting to prove that global warming is man made. Also, the last glacial maximum was 20,000 years so it makes sense to use that as the starting date.
Saying we have been in an ice age for 2.5 million years is kind of misleading, since we have been going in and out of cold versions of the ice age we are in for the last 2.5 million years so you could define a modern ice age in terms of being in the cold variant of the ice age we are in and we are currently in the warm variant of the ice age:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/w...nd_ice/ice_age
Since we are in the warm variant of the ice age then it means that the temperature is bound to drop again in the future. You could say hypothetically in the far future that our global emissions will be disastrous in millions of years when we leave the current ice age.
However, if we cannot figure out how to solve global warming by then, then we pretty much deserve whatever is coming to us assuming we haven't made the planet inhabitable and/or our species extinct by then.
Last edited by Raver; 07-08-2017 at 03:18 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
I mentioned that we are still in an Ice Age to emphasize the point that the effect of anthropogenic global warming would be even worse if we were not in an Ice Age. It has been suggested that if we exceed a tipping point, we could end up with runaway global warming, and end up in an essentially irreversible Venus-like state.
Do you believe global warming is happening, or is not happening? If you believe it is happening, do you believe it is human caused, or not human caused?
Those are questions, I'm curious to see what you think.
It's interesting to see that the people of this entire thread who have shared their opinions, that it would seem only the American posters refute global warming. I'm curious what kind of scientific rigour they are taught in elementary school, and also critical thinking skills in high school.
I'm a cynic on this topic. I believe we will eat up this world, destroy ecosytems, and cause the extinction of many species. Life will go on of course. Eventually all the resources we can extract and use will get used up. I come from very remote country, and it always amazes me now that I live in the city, just how stupid people really are, and how ignorant they are to the natural world outside civilization. I've worked in resource industry, logging and forestry, from my perspective it does not take a scientist to tell me things are changing rapidly. To be willfully ignorant is fine, just piss off and stop standing in the way of people who want to do something for the better. If that means employing carbon taxing to curb industry pollution, then so be it.
A university scientist studying the decline of amphibian life in a small region in a northern community over the course of 10 years isn't exactly "bringing in the money". The global warming reports is an amalgamation of all the accumulative data from dozens and dozens of fields of study. Not all global warming reports stem from the big "sexy" studies - like ice core drilling in Antartica. To say scientists are publicly claiming the results of their research in order to secure funding, is just wrong. And you know it, so stop, please.
The majority? Sounds like you made that up.the majority of people (scientists) once thought the earth was flat.
Actually once the concept of a round earth took off it was quick to become accepted and common knowledge, often leading to National discoveries, and adding in navigation and global exploration. So, all in all it turned out great. It was only the established "rule of law" at the time, ie: the church, who resisted, as they could loose power via demonstrating their understanding of nature was wrong and thereby showing they did not have absolute understanding of creation.how'd that turn out?
What establishments today stand to gain from willfully disbelieving new discoveries? Could it be Corporations and Governments, who have many vested interests in not changing? Hmmm, seeing a analogous pattern here?
Actually, it does, in this instance regarding the facts of global warming.just because a lot of people believe something is true doesn't mean it's true.
For sure.... If your inquiry has led you to believe global warming is not human caused and is not happening, then your critical inquiry was not good enough. Just because there are two sides, it does not mean they are both equally valid.you need to think about the information critically, looking at both sides, and coming up with a conclusion, not relying on the majority and saying cliche lines like "ITS SCIENCE!!!!! Don't you believe in SCIENCE!?!?!?" lol
*cricket, cricket, cricket, cricket, cricket, cricket, cricket, cricket*and this isn't to underestimate the sheer amount of scientists that DON'T believe in global warming.
.... that's the sound of the convention of Scientists who Do Not believe in global warming. Pretty quiet and peaceful. Not many showed up it seems.
I read dozens of scientific journals (Nature, Scientific America, periodicals) , magazines, online articles, and speak with scientist frequently (for instance my sister-in-law, MSc Microbiology), I have never come across an article discussing evidence global warming is not happening. The causes for it might be multi-faceted, but I have never seen anything saying, "look here is the evidence its not happening". I'm all ears though.I believe it's highly underreported while stupid figures like the 97% are misleading and overestimating.
You've looked at all the data? Hundreds of thousands of data points in hundreds and thousands of studies?................btw, what you just said here is immensely introverted thinking......FYI I have looked at both sides of the argument/science lol. You can look at the same data, and have different interpretations of the data, this is still science. you are aware of this right?
global warming is a "best fit" consensus from hundreds of scientific fields. Scientists are immensely picky about being correct. Not just correct in a subjective sense - but in a objective, ultimate reality, cannot be refuted, here are the facts and nothing but the facts - sense.
There are few vested interests when it comes to observing the phenomenon in the natural world such that scientist preform, as there are for, let's say, business which has many vested interests. For example telling its consumer it's product is safe. At those times business stand to gain by showing one-side conclusions to their data.
Moving on past the media and the papers and the "spin" Doctors and the television into reality, which is where I like to focus my energy, on the ground: What do you say to a community, for instance in Northern Ontario, when the perma-frost they built their homes on for the last 200 hundred years, is melting and they need to move? Perm-frost that has never melted in recored history. What? It's not happening? It's just a big conspiracy? Global warming is not real? That scientists want money to do research and that is why the earth beneath your feet is melting?....Peter, do you not see how non-sensical this is sounding? That's because it is non-sensical, just like saying "you are interpreting the melting ground wrong".
All we need is a big enough spaceship. A "generation ship" is currently within our capability, we only lack the will it seems. We have plenty of time truth be told, but the will... the will is lacking. I blame that on r-selection. The rabbits who currently run things and comprise the overwhelming majority of the voting public in our radically inclusive mass democracies just don't have the time preference to understand how us K-selected poor folks think. We could easily get a nice, big, beautiful generation ship going within the next century if we, as an entire species, mustered up the will... but the friggin' rabbits are dragging us all down!
People never believed the Earth was flat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes (Medieval Europeans also never believed it was the center of the Universe: http://www.worldofdante.org/astro1.html Man wasn't at the center of the material world, the Devil was. How do you not see that reasoning in the first place?)
Americans argue against global warming due to 1. Koch brothers paying everyone to (I've heard actual geologists say they don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, although not global warming per se) 2. the gloom-and-doom predictions being presented as the only alternative and most people being too optimistic for that. It reminds me of people denying the Holocaust because they don't support Israel. You need to dissociate the concepts at the start to be able to think about them clearly and not just have weird knee-jerk opinions. There also seems to be 3. No one trusts anyone at all and just makes everything up about how they see the world from scratch. "What if scientists are making up the global warming data?" That's commonly thrown around. But if it's even possible to dissociate global warming as a concept from any motivated results that it'd lead to then that's not going to be true. That leaves the "did people cause it?" and "is it gloom-and-doom?" as valid questions at that point though. I think the answer to both of those appears to be yes to the first and no to the second (by comparison to geological events such as volcanoes) but in the end it's a bunch of people trying to be experts on something they can't really know about without instruments. Like some test of team loyalty or something. Nope.
Also, Americans learn nothing unless they're self-taught, which is also discouraged due to anti-intellectualism.
The best thing about global warming arguments is how both sides almost always use conspiracies in their arguments. Either global warming is real, and businesses are conspiring to make everyone deny it, or global warming is fake, and scientists are conspiring to perpetrate it. Since there are potential motives on both sides and neither seems to be weighted more, I think it'd be better to ignore that part of the debate as well when looking for veracity, until something ties into either side's motives later to make one weigh more.
i think global warming is real
I dont think businesses are conspiring to make everyone deny it
i think people convince themselves without the need for any outside help for a variety of reasons
i think the idea that there's some kind of conspiracy is just low intuition and that in general disputes over to what extent a (as yet unclear) phenomenon is occurring are products of psychological disposition more than anything. until it gets locked down via Ti people are going to struggle, and even then not everyone will be onboard (flat earthers, etc) the idea that things are unknowable because there remains some kind of dispute has always seemed to me kind of asinine... it goes to the whole "teach the controversy" its like an implicit equivocation on the value of people's opinions. its like saying "well I have a 50/50 shot if I jump off this cliff if I die--either I will or won't" its like no, just because there are two sides to a thing doesn't mean they have somehow equal claim to the truth and it doesn't in turn mean the truth is legitimately in question even if there is a 50/50 split of opinion
there are some truths that are true precisely because most people can't understand them, its why we have differentiation in cognitive framework to begin with
the problem is when people step outside their domain (this goes both ways, dawkins goes into the humanities, etc) of expertise
some people's domain of expertise is vanishingly small as well, we call these people idiots and generally don't listen to them
Sort of off-topic, but, why should anyone "teach" a controversy? People should teach facts. Otherwise people who actually want to know things are going to struggle to find the facts themselves. People should be able to make up their own minds. The idea of "teach the controversy" on any subject pretty much just points to the fact that school has become a place for indoctrination rather than teaching in general.
they would probably say that because there is a controversy that constitutes a fact
they just anaylze every phenomena through the social lens is what it comes down to, which is a real problem. if you watch fox news it is amazing at this. their coverage of the g20 is borderline hilarious because its looked at precisely from the angle of it being a social get together, with zero mention of issues or economic analysis. its literally tabloid level coverage "you'll never believe what so and so did at the g20!"
the stubborn refusal to look at issues through the means by which they might be resolved, (ie treating every object as a nail when all you possess is a hammer) is a product of a kind of hubristic psychological egoism that is the real source of most social conflict [1], which is ironic because as seen "from the inside" by these types they would say it is you know "lazy people" and try to essentially marshal social forces against the maligned group, whoever it may be (sometimes brown people, etc)... its the ESE who makes more problems for themselves, but its not really a problem for them because they thrive on social conflict, its more a problem for everyone else (which ultimately does pose a problem for the ESE when the social ground is pulled out from under them by a sufficient level of manifest chaos, but event x and y are so far apart ESE will never realize they're linked)
its really just the opposite of pragmatism which is dogmatism but across the psychological plane which is inherently divisive because it chalks everything up to basically "if everyone did x it would solve our problems" which is ironic because you could say that in regards to literally anything "if everyone was a good communist it would solve our problems" "if everyone was a good christian it would solve our problems" [2] the point is to recognize everyone is never going to do x, hence you need a better solution than the unification of the masses because to so straightforwardly pursue such a thing is just the basis of demonizing the other, which is ultimately the source of more pain than global warming or whatever issue is it at hand. in short not everything is a social problem just because it manifests itself in the social plane... conspiracy theories are in many ways an attempt to "convert" a not-understood phenomenon into an understood one by shoe horning into a illegitimate level of analysis-- this is what "oh its the evil people on this side" of global warming is
its like "well I don't understand this, but I do (think) I understand that, so maybe this is just another manifestation of that...oh yeah that helps me feel like I got a grip on it.. now, why can't everyone else see it this way too?!" on some level its straight terror-management, because its actually far scarier to believe the world is complex beyond your understanding than to believe G W was responsible for 9/11
[1] conflict that manifests on the social plane generally has its germ elsewhere, its why Jung says we can go into space to solve our problems or we could go into our souls. the point is identification of something as a social issue and thus treating it on that level alone is much like a bandaid, many times; whereas to penetrate into ones psyche in order to see precisely why we do that would likewise serve as a basis to resolve the problem (at its root) or in another way a technological solution might solve it (generally speaking the ultimate band aid--treating the symptom at the physical, rather than psychological or social, level)
[2] the inquisition and the gulag demonstrated how well that worked out
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-09-2017 at 08:30 AM.
Kant never mind that this isn't really a real argument
in short not everything is a social problem just because it manifests itself in the social plane...
This is why everyone in medicine hates dermatology
Kant said that in order for something to be properly formulated as a moral command it needs to not entail a contradiction within itself were it universalized, which means it must be capable of being carried out by everyone all at once, however this is a necessary not sufficient condition for ethics... we could stop there, but further it does in a sense entail a contradiction in that if "everyone does x" and "everyone does y (not x)" are both valid moral approaches, neither must be and hence neither is dispositive (sufficient in of itself) amidst compteting alternative ethics: the abstract contradiction is everyone does x is itself a meta contradiction (as sufficient moral guidance--i.e.: everyone doing x will never be a valid moral assertion without more [1]), there needs to be a higher unifying dialectic that resolves the simultaneous presence of equally valid ethics that is itself universalizable... democracy and tolerance are attempts at precisely that, hence Hegel. its why in the US this push towards authoritarianism under the guise of social cohesion as the answer to our problems is a step backward. Kant already pointed out why this is a problem and Hegel took it a step further with the idea that you need a superordinate concept in order to construct a validly applicable morality in light of the fact that people are never going to all be x or y... what we see happening now is people's apparent frustration with the results of that and a desire to regress to a prior level of development. which is interesting, but its a lot like poor people voting for trump and then trump cutting the social programs they rely on--I don't think its the answer, but more a juvenile response to frustration with predictable results
[1] the idea being that everyone do x entails a higher level meta contradiction in that it leads to a limitless number, in theory, of everyone do x y or z, hence everyone doing "something" cannot be categorically valid in of itself because its broad to the point of uselessness and a moral theory of that kind is structure without content, which leads to the second (and third) categorical imperative pruning most those kinds of theories out for being authoritarian transgressions on individuality... which is why democracy and tolerance are only a few values to survive
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-09-2017 at 11:07 AM.
Thinking it's sufficient is how some Nazis managed to re-interpret Kant from being one of the main philosophers of liberalism to supporting them.
I'm also not sure how your "it's like..." is necessary when you're basically directly equating Kant with Trump as part of your Hegelian philosophy (also, be careful with using Hegel since some people think it's communism).
I'm not equating trump with Kant, and I think of Kant and Hegel as being on the same side...
if people equate Hegel with communism then they've already destroyed their credibility in my eyes
fwiw I consider deontological ethics to be the best, inasmuch as there is a "best"
its more like every camp has some nugget of truth or other... philosophy is in a lot of ways a Ti "game" and ethics is no exception. deontology just formulated a great game but "real" ethics are a developing psychological process in humanity through time, so no one has "perfected" it, and academia are Ti "restatements" of those NF progressions (one could even say they're preceded by SF "embodiments"--"drama" is the literal acting out of ethics [1])
this is why trump as SEE rubs me the wrong way. for him to be SEE would implicate his actions as some kind of new emergent proto moral standard (4d chess [2]), and not just a throwback to an outmoded political ideology (ST). I could see how people living in the 19th century philosophically (which about how long the masses usually lag behind) might perceive him as SEE, I guess
[1] J Peterson talks directly about this where its something like drama (SF) -> literature (SF/NF) -> theology/ideology (NF/ST) -> philosophy (NT)
[2] this is the big joke, of course. but the truth is, if he was SEE, it might be such a radically new form of ethics that I wouldn't recognize it when i saw it anyway--so i guess time will tell if he can pull things out and amaze everyone, in which case his actions will serve as the foundation for real moral progress, and later the philosophers will analyze and make sense of it, post hoc
Last edited by Bertrand; 07-09-2017 at 11:13 AM.
You literally JUST QUOTED ME saying its NOT the ONLY incentive. lol. Reread my quote. Read it slowly. Do it again.
As for issues of money,
Climate change alarmism is an extremely lucrative industry. All in all, there have been over $32.5 billion of federal government grants that have funded climate change research from 1989-2009, far more than any research funded by the oil industry.
???? Not sure why you brought this up, but nice vocab. I can picture you with your taped glasses while I read "amalgamation of all the accumulative data" lol
******You Stopppp itttttttt*****. lol ok
Let me clarify.
The scientific community survive on grants from the federal government. This is their mentality in convincing the nation:
"The Earth is in TROUBLE, humanity will DIE, and that we're trying to SAVE the planet!!! THINK ABOUT THOSE POLAR BEARS!!! THOSE CUTE POLAR BEARS!! BUT!!! We need MONEY from YOU! If not, prediction X **gasp** will happen and there's NO WAY to solve this without YOUR help ($$$).
???
People believed in a flat earth. Until somebody named Artistotle came and provided evidence on a spherical Earth.
Annnndd now you're going off tangent. Thanks for enlightening me. Should we bust out some rulers and measure our dicks to see who's the ultimate dude while we're at it?
My main point: Majority doesn't automatically equal truth.
I see the taped glasses coming out again with you saying ***actuallllllllllyyyyyyyyyy***
No.
I'll clarify. Again.
You need to look at both sides of the argument (why global warming is true vs why global warming isn't true) to make informed conclusions.
You don't turn on the TV and just believe it because Bill Nye told you to.
And like I said; I'm sure human activity is contributing some, but not to the extent mainstream blows it out of proportion (Al Gore) where it warrants questionable action...
...Like paying a dumb carbon tax for literally JUST breathing lol
Maybe you should get your ears checked.
You quoted me linking the scientists that don't believe. Do you even read what I write? I don't understand
I'll link, AGAIN. http://www.petitionproject.org/
These panel of scientists (31,000), including climate scientists, which includes >9000 PhDs that signed this petition. Again, I believe it'd be even MORE, but it might put their careers at risk.
You know who else is skeptical? Try names like Reid Bryson, a LEGENDARY figure in climatology, the most frequently cited climatologist in the WORLD doesn't believe in the hype.
Are you serious right now?
I say that you should look at both sides before making an informed decision and you can't even find evidence that its not happening? You've never seen ANYTHING!? Not even ONE thing? That's like the bare minimum.
Why are you even responding to me if you haven't even looked into it? And here you are lecturing us and questioning people's critical thinking skills lol. My conversation with you should just end here.
BTW, do you know how to use the internet? You can find some counter-evidence now in google.
Maybe you need to unplug from the matrix for 2-seconds and get your eyes checked too.
What a joke.
No but just the "amalgamation of all the accumulative data from dozens and dozens of fields of study."
Or just the general summary/models/predictions that have been made so far.
But there ARE scientists that don't believe it. You can look at the SAME data and come to DIFFERENT interpretations of that data and can still be science.
Oh, and look up with how they came up with the 97% "consensus" because I doubt you did your research on that.
Again, to clarify, I never said money was the only interest. I'm sure saving the planet is a legitimate concern to many.
I'd tell them, "its warm outside and its melting your ice."
Last edited by Computer Loser; 07-09-2017 at 04:35 PM.
These are the things I see which realistically could help, though it's still a long way from a solution:
1: thorium nuclear power
2: benign eugenics programs
3: international, bilateral agreements for reducing CO2 emissions
4: increased consumer awareness and prioritizing
5: solar powered cars
6: probably a carbon tax
7: other?
I see your point. While I would not rule out the possibility of an irreversible Venus-like state, the likelihood of it occurring in the future is unlikely aside from billions of years from now when the Earth gets too close to the sun:
http://www.livescience.com/59693-cou...nto-venus.html
Last edited by Raver; 07-09-2017 at 04:18 PM.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
It is clear that global warming is happening so the debate lies in how much of it is anthropogenic and how much of it is natural. Obviously, the global warming occurring is not 100% anthropogenic and it is not 100% natural.
If it is ~90% anthropogenic rather than ~90% natural then of course, there is more incentive for us to intervene. Even if it is ~50/50 then the onus is still on us to get involved. If it were 90% naturally caused then it would reveal that the global warming agenda is a politically and financially motivated cause.
However, the most important thing to take away from this is that it should not require global warming fears to induce us to take better care of the environment, we should be doing it regardless for our health and the planet's health.
I find the carbon tax method suspect though in that it appears to be a money making scheme for corporations and governments regardless if it is anthropogenic or natural, but switching to cleaner energy alternatives like electric cars and cleaner power plants such as fusion should be a no brainer for a brighter future for humanity and Earth.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
If you're going to reduce carbon emissions you have to incentivize the switch into clean energy, and that has to be done on an international scale. A carbon tax is the most direct way of doing that.
The whole global warming issue leads into a globalist governing body (like the EU) overseeing all the agreements. It's kind of the one issue where globalists have a clear leg up.
Regardless of what is causing it, we should be focusing on reversing it. It is already clear that the costs of a warming planet are significantly increasing.
There have been several times when life on Earth nearly went extinct. There have been times when it has been so cold that the only organisms which survived did so under frozen seas, and other times when parts of the planet were too hot for mammals (but not lizards) to survive there. If you are reading this, you are neither of these creatures. Our civilization with its little heaters and air conditioners is going to utterly transform if and when that happens, and I personally find it hard to place more importance on a slightly increased profit margin for polluting industries than on this threat.
I have a degree in Astrophysics and have studied planetary atmospheres and the spectral transmittance of gasses, and I react to people telling me that man-made CO2 production doesn't retain solar heat the same way you would react if I pissed on your legs and told you it's raining.
This, of course, wins me no points with the people who search for counter arguments, however preposterous, in order to continue to believe what they want to believe. God, I wish that people could suffer the consequences of their beliefs without screwing the rest of us over.
Humans are already an endangered species from a genetic standpoint. We have no close relatives, so when we go, that might be the end of life's little experiment with intelligence.
Actually, wind and solar costs are falling so fast that a carbon tax is not necessary.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...falls-to-solar
That's a business article and it was released in january... from the perspective of a business the costs were getting cheaper. That is because the sectors were being subsidized by the government heavily... they even say that in the article. The real cost is roughly the same, aside for some improvements in the production infrastructures, the sectors were just being subsidized.
Those subsidies are being rolled back now.
Wind and solar produce less power for more cost than coal - and that's real cost, not prospective business cost.
Last edited by rat200Turbo; 07-09-2017 at 06:55 PM.
Switching to renewables like solar and wind are already possible, and it's already happening in a major way in countries like Germany. The only thing that's stopping it is the lack of political will. There are also some technical hurdles like updating the gridlines and where to store the energy and how to deal with the more intermittent energy, but those problems are being solved as we speak.
Wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels in the US. It's no wonder that even many big corporations like Google, Facebook and Apple are switching to 100% renewables, if only because it makes sense financially. While solar is already getting cheaper than fossil fuels in countries like Germany. At peak, Germany produces so much solar energy that combined with wind, it nearly reaches 100% of the electricity demand.
The feed-in tariff program has been tremendously successful for Germany (where electric companies are required to buy and prioritize electricity produced by renewables). There will be a temporary hike in the electricity price, but that will soon go down due to the increased competition for the market driving down the cost of solar panels and windmills, which will drive down the cost of electricity. There's no doubt that Germany will become a leader in renewable energy, which will sure to be a very lucrative business in the future. But there is competition from China as well.
Reply With Quote
