What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism (3 Viewers)

wikkidpissah said:
Oh, i'm well familiar with the sides. Fifteen yrs ago, among the first online conversations i had was one where the alarmists jumped down my throat for suggesting that being at the warmest end of earth's climactic cycle had something to do with the stats. It just amazes me that there remains an entire SIDE to the hackiest talking point the Fox cartoon nazis ever came up with. Abortion, absolutely. Death penalty, guns, well yeah. i guess there are moral points to be made. But to hold steadfast for polluting?!  :lmao: :excited: :P  I was around when Pittsburgh was black with soot, when eastern rivers were burning and scary to even approach. We did that, then we changed that. It's health. It's replacing your divot. But you go, boy - stay on us so we make sure to keep polluting. Goodonya!
Click to expand...
Except greenhouse gases are not really a pollutant, so you are changing the subject to confuse the issue.  I am not saying increasing greenhouse gases is not going to lead to a problem, we are just far away from really understanding the problem as witnessed by the poor record of climate models at predicting the short term effects.(almost every model has significantly overestimated the temperature trend).  There is a lot of science which needs to be settled in this 'settled' science.  Very basic and very significant things like will cloud cover and soil effects have a negative or positive feedback is far from being understood and is probably the source of error in most of the models.  I am not advocating not to take steps to reduce greenhouse emissions, but I do not buy into the scare tactics used to try to advance more radical strong-armed government approaches that some want. 

 
Megaton said:
Except greenhouse gases are not really a pollutant, so you are changing the subject to confuse the issue.  I am not saying increasing greenhouse gases is not going to lead to a problem, we are just far away from really understanding the problem as witnessed by the poor record of climate models at predicting the short term effects.(almost every model has significantly overestimated the temperature trend).  There is a lot of science which needs to be settled in this 'settled' science.  Very basic and very significant things like will cloud cover and soil effects have a negative or positive feedback is far from being understood and is probably the source of error in most of the models.  I am not advocating not to take steps to reduce greenhouse emissions, but I do not buy into the scare tactics used to try to advance more radical strong-armed government approaches that some want. 
Click to expand...
This is what I've been saying all along. The world is getting warmer, humans are contributing to it, and we have alternatives that reduce our need to produce CO2.  We have a problem but one that can mitigated by taking reasonable steps.

What I want is for the deniers and alarmists to go away and practical people to come up with solutions.

 
Megaton said:
People who fail to see two sides are the least enlightened ones.  Certainly there are those who take the points too far on the 'denier' side, but there are also those on the global alarmist side which have admitted exaggerating the case for global warming to advance the cause.  There is a lot more uncertainty and assumptions in this debate than you understand. 
Click to expand...
The science is not settled

/jon_mx

My link

 
Megaton said:
People who fail to see two sides are the least enlightened ones.  Certainly there are those who take the points too far on the 'denier' side, but there are also those on the global alarmist side which have admitted exaggerating the case for global warming to advance the cause.  There is a lot more uncertainty and assumptions in this debate than you understand. 
Click to expand...
I once heard a Holocaust denier make almost this exact same argument, and it this forum Golddigger used to claim that those who questioned the science of evolution were more open minded than those who did not. 

 
Megaton said:
We are talking two different things.  There are facts in the global warming debate which are well established.  And there are lots of things which are still being studied and still very unknown but yet presented under the guise of 'settled' science.  You always avoid discussing the second part.
Click to expand...
What are the "second parts" you would like to discuss? 

Compare these "second parts" to "settled science" and which examples are more harmful to the overall picture? Meaning, are these "second parts" arguing snowfall in the tropics, or the Earth has been cooling for 12 months, therefore there is no global warming. 

What are you looking to debate here?

 
timschochet said:
I once heard a Holocaust denier make almost this exact same argument, and it this forum Golddigger used to claim that those who questioned the science of evolution were more open minded than those who did not. 
Click to expand...
Playing the Holocaust card here?  Really? :lmao:

 
Mario Kart said:
What are the "second parts" you would like to discuss? 

Compare these "second parts" to "settled science" and which examples are more harmful to the overall picture? Meaning, are these "second parts" arguing snowfall in the tropics, or the Earth has been cooling for 12 months, therefore there is no global warming. 

What are you looking to debate here?
Click to expand...
Things like the 2 degree threshold, which assumes there will be tragic events triggered if we allow the earth to warm by 2 degrees.  That was just an arbitrary number, but it is used to set policy.  And the models which are used calculate the 2 degrees rise, all seem to over estimate the relationship between CO2 and temp.  The unknown impacts of cloud cover and soil absorption, which will play a major role in understanding how our climate might be impacted.  The federal government bureaucracy declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant and subject to their regulation without specific laws passed by Congress. 

 
Megaton said:
Things like the 2 degree threshold, which assumes there will be tragic events triggered if we allow the earth to warm by 2 degrees.  That was just an arbitrary number, but it is used to set policy.  And the models which are used calculate the 2 degrees rise, all seem to over estimate the relationship between CO2 and temp.  The unknown impacts of cloud cover and soil absorption, which will play a major role in understanding how our climate might be impacted.  The federal government bureaucracy declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant and subject to their regulation without specific laws passed by Congress. 
Click to expand...
So, an arbitrary number of 2 degrees is one contention you want studied much more before policy to limit any/all pollution is lessened? Would you prefer 3 degrees or 4 or which exactly?

btw, 2 degrees is a hell of a warm up on the global scale... you understand that, correct?

 
Mario Kart said:
So, an arbitrary number of 2 degrees is one contention you want studied much more before policy to limit any/all pollution is lessened? Would you prefer 3 degrees or 4 or which exactly?

btw, 2 degrees is a hell of a warm up on the global scale... you understand that, correct?
Click to expand...
Where did I say I oppose any/all limits?  In fact I just said otherwise.  I support all kinds of efforts to explore and move towards cleaner alternative energy.

 
Megaton said:
Where did I say I oppose any/all limits?  In fact I just said otherwise.  I support all kinds of efforts to explore and move towards cleaner alternative energy.
Click to expand...
Great! Than what is the "2 degree threashold" you are referring to? Legislation has to occur at some point before people begin to listen. So, where should have the policy debate begun? I don't see an issue here. 

 
Mario Kart said:
Great! Than what is the "2 degree threashold" you are referring to? Legislation has to occur at some point before people begin to listen. So, where should have the policy debate begun? I don't see an issue here. 
Click to expand...
Change and action is already occurring.  I just oppose to arbitrary limits which could force more radical changes to be made by future leaders.  If they are guidelines fine, but if they become binding agreements which could have significant and unknown future ramifications, I have issues with that. 

 
Megaton said:
Things like the 2 degree threshold, which assumes there will be tragic events triggered if we allow the earth to warm by 2 degrees.  That was just an arbitrary number, but it is used to set policy.  And the models which are used calculate the 2 degrees rise, all seem to over estimate the relationship between CO2 and temp.  The unknown impacts of cloud cover and soil absorption, which will play a major role in understanding how our climate might be impacted.  The federal government bureaucracy declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant and subject to their regulation without specific laws passed by Congress. 
Click to expand...
We know what is happening and there's no reason to wait for a specific threshold to be met before doing anything.  If we steadily work to reduce CO2 emissions right now we can avoid anything catastrophic without resorting to extreme measures from waiting too long to react. 

 
timschochet said:
Only to the extent that those on your side try to pretend that denying science proves you're "open-minded."
Click to expand...
Instead of debating what 'those on your side', why not discuss what is being discussed?  You like to debate opinions which are not even being made.  In this debate, there are not just two sides to the debate, but lots of positions in between.  On the spectrum, I am probably a lot closer to the Climate Change side of the debate.  But in your black and white view of the issue, you group everyone not lock-step with the IPCC as a 'denier' and then even throw in Holocaust rhetoric. 

 
Megaton said:
Instead of debating what 'those on your side', why not discuss what is being discussed?  You like to debate opinions which are not even being made.  In this debate, there are not just two sides to the debate, but lots of positions in between.  On the spectrum, I am probably a lot closer to the Climate Change side of the debate.  But in your black and white view of the issue, you group everyone not lock-step with the IPCC as a 'denier' and then even throw in Holocaust rhetoric. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, Timmy - you're bein all Hitler about this...

 
Don't matter anyway. No WAY we gettin ahead of this thing. USA's got no cred to lead emerging nations away from enjoying power irresponsibly anymore than WhiteGuys™ had cred to tell chicks and darkfolk and gays to stop diggin they freedom and get back in line.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
Don't matter anyway. No WAY we gettin ahead of this thing. USA's got no cred to lead emerging nations away from enjoying power irresponsibly anymore than WhiteGuys had cred to tell chicks and darkfolk and gays to stop diggin they freedom and get back in line.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. 40, 50, 60 years ago telecommunication meant that land lines had to be installed. That lead to no services in the poor rural areas of the world as governments were lining their own pockets instead of developing the countries. From out of nowhere, almost,  comes mobile telephony and all of a sudden commnication is possible afterall, mobile banking is born and some developments fast tracked (next up will be wifi internet but that's another matter).

The point being that entire stages can be leapfrogged when the economic incentive is right - the moment renewable energy is price and performance competitive with fossil fuels migration will occur. Not there yet but we are a lot closer than we were ten years ago. I'd say the pace is quickening, and if battery technology moves as much in the next ten years as seems possible right now some of the most serious drawbacks with wind and solar will disappear, changing the game.

 
Hope you're right, my friend. Hope is most of what we got on this, but no one says we can't have that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Megaton said:
Instead of debating what 'those on your side', why not discuss what is being discussed?  You like to debate opinions which are not even being made.  In this debate, there are not just two sides to the debate, but lots of positions in between.  On the spectrum, I am probably a lot closer to the Climate Change side of the debate.  But in your black and white view of the issue, you group everyone not lock-step with the IPCC as a 'denier' and then even throw in Holocaust rhetoric. 
Click to expand...
No you're not. And this is why I don't discuss the particulars with you. Because you've been all over the map on this, jon. If I go back through this thread, at one point or another you have argued every climate denier position. And when it gets refuted by a lot smarter people than me, you disappear from the thread for a few months, and then return and argue the next one. Your goal, as it is almost every political discussion, is not so much to argue the issues involved, but to defend whatever the conservative position is in any way you can. It's tiresome. Even on the issues I agree with you on (and there are plenty) your argument is going to be entirely predictable.

I don't want to argue about the details of whether or not the IPCC is right or wrong on this issue. I want you to accept the following facts:

1. Man made climate change is harmfully effecting the planet.

2. We had better take action quickly or we're ####ed.

3. Even if we do take action, we may be ####ed anyhow.

4. There is no issue that is more urgent or important than this one.

If you accept those 4 points, then we can talk about what to do and how best to accomplish it without damaging our economy. If you don't accept those points, I will continue to place you in the denier camp and there's really no point in further discussion.

 
I don't know, the most important senator in the whole government in charge of environmental policy found a snowball and brought it to the senate floor.

But alarmists are the problem, ok :lmao:

 
3. Even if we do take action, we may be ####ed anyhow.
Click to expand...
Leading climate scientists have admitted to engaging in alarmism.  I've seen no evidence that will be unable to limit long-term warming to management levels.

 
timschochet said:
No you're not. And this is why I don't discuss the particulars with you. Because you've been all over the map on this, jon. If I go back through this thread, at one point or another you have argued every climate denier position. And when it gets refuted by a lot smarter people than me, you disappear from the thread for a few months, and then return and argue the next one. Your goal, as it is almost every political discussion, is not so much to argue the issues involved, but to defend whatever the conservative position is in any way you can. It's tiresome. Even on the issues I agree with you on (and there are plenty) your argument is going to be entirely predictable.

I don't want to argue about the details of whether or not the IPCC is right or wrong on this issue. I want you to accept the following facts:

1. Man made climate change is harmfully effecting the planet.

2. We had better take action quickly or we're ####ed.

3. Even if we do take action, we may be ####ed anyhow.

4. There is no issue that is more urgent or important than this one.

If you accept those 4 points, then we can talk about what to do and how best to accomplish it without damaging our economy. If you don't accept those points, I will continue to place you in the denier camp and there's really no point in further discussion.
Click to expand...
:lmao:   So unless I think we are ####ed no matter what, I can't even discuss it?  Here is my take, and I have been consistent.

1.  The accumulation of CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere is impacting the environment.  Some of the change is from man-made, some is naturally occurring.  Probably most of the change is man-made.  Some of the change is bad, and some of the change is beneficial.  Most will probably be bad.  Any alteration in the environment tends to negatively effect people in the short run and scares people.  Long-run, people will adapt. 

2.  This may or may not be true.  Nobody really knows, but there are potentially disastrous outcomes. 

3.  We are not that close to being doomed. 

4.  It is an issue which will be tackled by technology, not by government restrictions on industry or use.  It does have significant long term impacts, but I put the doom scenarios at a very low probability and not one that will be altered one iota by regulation.  Investment in technology and solid energy policy is the answer.  It will not be solved by cap-n-trade or carbon credits or EPA regulation.  International treaties/agreements will help in getting countries on board.  Actual content of agreements are meaningless. 

Your silly labels are just rhetoric and childish jibber which does nothing except divide people. 

 
The republican nominee for President thinks this is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese, but yes, the alarmists are the problem

 
Sure lets let the guvmint tax us a bunch everytime we breathe or drive or switch on a light. That should totally change the weather pattern. 

 
moleculo said:
I find this to be rather compelling.  If that's true, what's the point in intervention?
Click to expand...
Honey, this open wound is bleeding profusely. Never mind the bandage, it's not big enough. No need to dress it - i'll bleed out before infection becomes a factor.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wikkidpissah said:
Honey, this open wound is bleeding profusely. Never mind the bandage, it's not enough.
Click to expand...
If a bandaid isn't enough, it's time to consider a tourniquet.  In this analagy, I suppose that means consider what a globally warm world means and devote resources to that, whatever that means.

 
For the record, my position is that global warming is real, man-made, and not likely to be contained.  I don't believe government intervention is possible as long as carbon energy is cheaper on a free-market than non-carbon.

 
moleculo said:
I find this to be rather compelling.  If that's true, what's the point in intervention?
Click to expand...
It's close to universally agreed.  The conditions that China and India have agreed to don't even put us in the ballpark.  California has introduced policies skyrocketing energy costs yet the global impact is close to nothing.

We should be focusing time and money on dealing with the changes.  Continuing to artificially restrain the economy for minuscule results is silly.

 
moleculo said:
If a bandaid isn't enough, it's time to consider a tourniquet.  In this analagy, I suppose that means consider what a globally warm world means and devote resources to that, whatever that means.
Click to expand...
You could be right. This is where the science really becomes important. Worldwide solutions have been dangerously bad at getting out ahead of situations. 

 
jonessed said:
It's close to universally agreed.  The conditions that China and India have agreed to don't even put us in the ballpark.  California has introduced policies skyrocketing energy costs yet the global impact is close to nothing.

We should be focusing time and money on dealing with the changes.  Continuing to artificially restrain the economy for minuscule results is silly.
Click to expand...
Skyrocketing?

 
jonessed said:
It's close to universally agreed.  The conditions that China and India have agreed to don't even put us in the ballpark.  California has introduced policies skyrocketing energy costs yet the global impact is close to nothing.

We should be focusing time and money on dealing with the changes.  Continuing to artificially restrain the economy for minuscule results is silly.
Click to expand...
That's an argument well-made if by concerned citizens, but more likely to be cover for vested parties who want to profit without restraint.

 
cstu said:
Solar is now cheaper than coal.

This would not have been the case without government investment in research and solar subsidies. 
Click to expand...


We'll see how this bears out.  PV's are great initially but need a lot of maintenance (particularly in an environment as harsh as Dubai) and see degradation in the panels over time.  The stated cost/kwh for Ivanhoe was also pretty low and it was a general failure.  Hopefully this is a bit better than that.

 
moleculo said:
For the record, my position is that global warming is real, man-made, and not likely to be contained.  I don't believe government intervention is possible as long as carbon energy is cheaper on a free-market than non-carbon.
Click to expand...
Well you are wrong. There is a likelihood that our carbon emissions have increased slightly the rate of global warming, but global warming is cyclic, with the latest cycle starting before we discovered fire.

 
bueno said:
Well you are wrong. There is a likelihood that our carbon emissions have increased slightly the rate of global warming, but global warming is cyclic, with the latest cycle starting before we discovered fire.
Click to expand...
I like how the tax me more to  save the earth/the weather crowd trots out the disappearing island videos. China can build an island in two days! We pump sand on our beaches in Florida all the time. This is another Y2k hoax folks.

 
bueno said:
Well you are wrong. There is a likelihood that our carbon emissions have increased slightly the rate of global warming, but global warming is cyclic, with the latest cycle starting before we discovered fire.
Click to expand...
Dunno, old pal. Respect your science knowledge and conservative brand of conservatism, but i got 14 bucks caaaash money says theyre gonna find accelerant at the scene of this'ere fire.

 
If you want to save the planet ban fracking. Thats a real issue not this "does it seem hotter to you?" nonsense. Of course its hotter El nino does that. Increased sun spot activity does that. A true man made problem is fracking not the weather.

 
pinkham13 said:
If you want to save the planet ban fracking. Thats a real issue not this "does it seem hotter to you?" nonsense. Of course its hotter El nino does that. Increased sun spot activity does that. A true man made problem is fracking not the weather.
Click to expand...
Funny that people are eager to believe statements with very little scientific backing— like "sunspots cause global warming"—yet they're hesitant to believe the reams of data and peer reviewed studies that have shown the effect of human activity on warming.

 
I have little hope that we can come together to implement useful policies regarding global warming, given that we are unable to come together on something as simple as banning fracking.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Wiping a Work Computer to be then used for personal use
Replies
6
Views
346
3C's
3C's
TakiToki
Online Poker Warning
Replies
0
Views
194
TakiToki
TakiToki
fatness
FBI finds largest cache of "finished explosive devices" in FBI history
Replies
18
Views
1K
Snoopy
Snoopy

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top