as for decrease - i'm not exactly sure ... they have models ..
Yes, they do have models. Those models aren't singular -- there is much disagreement among them, depending on whose model you examine.
I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm simply a skeptic when it comes to people who want to make definitive proclamations based on a lot of conjecture and assumption -- such behavior is always suspect. I think, at this point, there's little doubt that the climate is warming and that some portion of that warming is influenced by the activities of man. But it horrifies me that people are already proposing solutions without understanding the problem's extent and even its fundamental nature.
Hmm ... Honestly, its a bit hard to say. Perhaps anything we do should count as part of the natural cycle.
I'm unsure how you could ever count something we do as outside a natural cycle.
Perhaps even if we do reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, etc., the globe will still get warmer. Most current evidence suggests that we can slow the warming process by cleaning up our acts a bit, and to me, its worth a try. I dunno. Maybe Al Gore scared me more than he should have. IMHO, reducing emissions won't likely hurt us, and will quite likely help us, assuming that we do so in an economically sensible way. Anyhow, I don't want to be preachy. You raise good questions ... Not sure they can really be answered at this stage.
I completely agree here. Reducing emissions is likely a very wise goal for humanity. However, pretending that actions toward that goal comprise a solution to a problem not completely defined does not seem terribly wise.
Yes, they do have models. Those models aren't singular -- there is much disagreement among them, depending on whose model you examine.
I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm simply a skeptic when it comes to people who want to make definitive proclamations based on a lot of conjecture and assumption -- such behavior is always suspect. I think, at this point, there's little doubt that the climate is warming and that some portion of that warming is influenced by the activities of man. But it horrifies me that people are already proposing solutions without understanding the problem's extent and even its fundamental nature.
because driving cars is not part of the natural cycle ...
not everyone who smokes will get cancer ... but we tell people not to also ... just because we can't definitely determine every impact in every detail does not take away from our need to act ...
I think one of the best things that can happen is ridding the US and world with coal burning power plants. then of course we would need to use nuclear plants but then you run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome.
I think one of the best things that can happen is ridding the US and world with coal burning power plants. then of course we would need to use nuclear plants but then you run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome.
what is another option then?
conservation could cut down the need for energy tremendously,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
I think one of the best things that can happen is ridding the US and world with coal burning power plants. then of course we would need to use nuclear plants but then you run into the "not in my backyard" syndrome.
nuclear power plants produce a incredible amounts of heat. then you have the problem of what to do with the waste.
because driving cars is not part of the natural cycle ...
That's circular logic. Why is driving cars not part of the natural cycle?
not everyone who smokes will get cancer ... but we tell people not to also ...just because we can't definitely determine every impact in every detail does not take away from our need to act ...
No, it doesn't. What is does take away from is the intelligence behind your actions.
sounds great in theory, but in practice the example i mentioned earlier happens to be the reality. The reason i mentioned small towns is people tend to make less money, and therefore go to places where the product is cheapest, places like wal-mart. Even if that means their buddies' store wil go out of business, simply because they can't afford to spend the extra buck buying from local businesses. So wal-mart or whatever steps in, creates the monopoly, and people end up paying more anyway. And dozens of local businesses dry up.
Funny how those same people could afford what they needed before Wal-Mart came to town. Those consumers made their choice that they care more about having more than they do their neighbour. And this is somehow blamed on Wal-Mart. Amamzing.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
That's circular logic. Why is driving cars not part of the natural cycle?
No, it doesn't. What is does take away from is the intelligence behind your actions.
because cars do not exist in nature
we can easily say the same things about many household products that contain known carcinogens ... not everyone is gonna get cancer but we've upped the likelihood ...
we can easily say the same things about many household products that contain known carcinogens ... not everyone is gonna get cancer but we've upped the likelihood ...
But here's the thing -- you already can link an absence of carcinogens to a relative absence of cancer. Unfortunately, you can't say the same thing about greenhouse gasses and the symptoms of global warming. That's really the heart of my question: if you eliminate carcinogens, you decrease your likelihood of cancer, but if you eliminate cars and the like, you can't even definitively say you've decreased your likelihood of being subject to those symptoms.
But here's the thing -- you already can link an absence of carcinogens to a relative absence of cancer. Unfortunately, you can't say the same thing about greenhouse gasses and the symptoms of global warming. That's really the heart of my question: if you eliminate carcinogens, you decrease your likelihood of cancer, but if you eliminate cars and the like, you can't even definitively say you've decreased your likelihood of being subject to those symptoms.
artificially created by man ...
yes you can ... the doubt is in the exact impact we are trying to mitigate ... if we reduce greenhouse gases - we will reduce the greenhouse effect and in doing so will be reducing our affect on global weather patterns ...
And how do man's creations exist outside of nature?
yes you can ... the doubt is in the exact impact we are trying to mitigate ... if we reduce greenhouse gases - we will reduce the greenhouse effect and in doing so will be reducing our affect on global weather patterns ...
No we won't. We'll simply be affecting those global weather patterns in a different direction, to exactly the same extent. It's like taking the weight off of one side of the scale and putting it on the other -- you haven't lessened your affect on the scale.
The word "artificial" effectively means "by the hand of man". It's root meaning has nothing to do with "outside of nature".
A car is certainly "artificial" in the sense that it is built by a man. But man was built by nature, and I have a hard time believing that the chain here somehow goes "outside of nature".
And how do man's creations exist outside of nature?
No we won't. We'll simply be affecting those global weather patterns in a different direction, to exactly the same extent. It's like taking the weight off of one side of the scale and putting it on the other -- you haven't lessened your affect on the scale.
now we're getting into the thing with surferdude ...
no ... imagine it like your body - if i change the o2 concentration in the air you breathe - your body will attempt to adapt to it as best as possible ... if we get to the point where that concentration is not adaptable - your body will break ... so, let's say we try after changing that concentration to get it close to what it is normally - u will see that your body will have to adapt but more in line with the various systems ...
The word "artificial" effectively means "by the hand of man". It's root meaning has nothing to do with "outside of nature".
A car is certainly "artificial" in the sense that it is built by a man. But man was built by nature, and I have a hard time believing that the chain here somehow goes "outside of nature".
okay, let me just say this,... anyone who doesn't recycle is an ass because we eventually will have massive amounts of landfills. we can only recycle so much.
anyone who thinks cutting down massive amounts of trees is ok is an ass because less trees = less oxygen to breathe.
anyone who is careless about energy conservation is an ass too because they are not thinking about our overpopulated future.
build good habits now. why argue about shit we don't know the answer to?
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
now we're getting into the thing with surferdude ...
no ... imagine it like your body - if i change the o2 concentration in the air you breathe - your body will attempt to adapt to it as best as possible ... if we get to the point where that concentration is not adaptable - your body will break ... so, let's say we try after changing that concentration to get it close to what it is normally - u will see that your body will have to adapt but more in line with the various systems ...
The process of suffocation and death are also part of the "various systems"...you're simply ignoring that aspect.
Adjusting the o2 concentration back to "normal levels" would, again, be simply be the opposite "artificial" action producing precisely the same extentual effect on the system.
Whenever I do something. All acts of men produce "artificial" effects. That doesn't make them "unnatural" in any way. It's like suggesting that a chimpanze using a stick to extract ants from a hole in a tree is "unnatural". It's absurd.
The process of suffocation and death are also part of the "various systems"...you're simply ignoring that aspect.
Adjusting the o2 concentration back to "normal levels" would, again, be simply be the opposite "artificial" action producing precisely the same extentual effect on the system.
no ... what i am ignoring is the fact that you are trying to make this one of your wording discussions when really - we do not need to discuss what artificial is or isn't ... its really for your amusement that i'm replying ... i know u get a kick out of playing semantics and in some instances (like today) i will oblige ...
are you serious in that you are equating an adjustment back to normal levels the same as altering them?
no ... what i am ignoring is the fact that you are trying to make this one of your wording discussions when really - we do not need to discuss what artificial is or isn't ... its really for your amusement that i'm replying ... i know u get a kick out of playing semantics and in some instances (like today) i will oblige ...
Sigh...
I'm not playing "semantics". I'm simply trying to understand the core of your points about "natural cycles" and "artificial" actions. If those things have no meaning, your philosophies are on shaky ground.
are you serious in that you are equating an adjustment back to normal levels the same as altering them?
There is no "normal level". That's what I think you're missing here. There's a level without human intervention, but that level is impossible to meet with human action in any direction. Either way you're intervening on a natural process. That doesn't mean that one direction is not worse than the other, however.
I'm not playing "semantics". I'm simply trying to understand the core of your points about "natural cycles" and "artificial" actions. If those things have no meaning, your philosophies are on shaky ground.
There is no "normal level". That's what I think you're missing here. There's a level without human intervention, but that level is impossible to meet with human action in any direction. Either way you're intervening on a natural process. That doesn't mean that one direction is not worse than the other, however.
i'm pretty sure u understand where it is we hope to reduce our emissions in - by implying that driving cars is the same as living and dying - i can only interpret it as playing semantics ...
let me try another approach ...
it boils down to this - the greater the emissions, the greater the impact ... the lesser the emissions, the lesser the impact ... does this work for you?
I can completely understand the reasoning behind all of the skepticism.............especially knowing how fear tactics have been used in the past by a number of organizations.....
it boils down to this - the greater the emissions, the greater the impact ... the lesser the emissions, the lesser the impact ... does this work for you?
No. The impact is the same, except in the reverse direction. If you have zero emissions tomorrow, you'll have a negative impact on global warming. If you have more emissions tomorrow, you'll have a positive impact on global warming.
EDIT The negative/positive lingo above is just directional and not meant to imply "good" or "bad" either way.
No. The impact is the same, except in the reverse direction. If you have zero emissions tomorrow, you'll have a negative impact on global warming. If you have more emissions tomorrow, you'll have a positive impact on global warming.
EDIT The negative/positive lingo above is just directional and not meant to imply "good" or "bad" either way.
if they do not imply "good" or "bad" ... then what is your point?
Comments
Why?
Yes, they do have models. Those models aren't singular -- there is much disagreement among them, depending on whose model you examine.
I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm simply a skeptic when it comes to people who want to make definitive proclamations based on a lot of conjecture and assumption -- such behavior is always suspect. I think, at this point, there's little doubt that the climate is warming and that some portion of that warming is influenced by the activities of man. But it horrifies me that people are already proposing solutions without understanding the problem's extent and even its fundamental nature.
I'm unsure how you could ever count something we do as outside a natural cycle.
I completely agree here. Reducing emissions is likely a very wise goal for humanity. However, pretending that actions toward that goal comprise a solution to a problem not completely defined does not seem terribly wise.
because driving cars is not part of the natural cycle ...
not everyone who smokes will get cancer ... but we tell people not to also ... just because we can't definitely determine every impact in every detail does not take away from our need to act ...
what is another option then?
conservation could cut down the need for energy tremendously,...
~Ron Burgundy
"tremendously" is a relative term. with world population approaching 7 billion, the need to energy and alot of it isnt going anywhere
me either
conservation is the first step, though. we haven't made a 'big' decision to change yet.
~Ron Burgundy
nuclear power plants produce a incredible amounts of heat. then you have the problem of what to do with the waste.
That's circular logic. Why is driving cars not part of the natural cycle?
No, it doesn't. What is does take away from is the intelligence behind your actions.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
alot of heat? so what. yea waste is a problem. but coal burning plants are by far the largest contributor to greenhouse gases.
because cars do not exist in nature
we can easily say the same things about many household products that contain known carcinogens ... not everyone is gonna get cancer but we've upped the likelihood ...
Huh? Where do they exist then?
But here's the thing -- you already can link an absence of carcinogens to a relative absence of cancer. Unfortunately, you can't say the same thing about greenhouse gasses and the symptoms of global warming. That's really the heart of my question: if you eliminate carcinogens, you decrease your likelihood of cancer, but if you eliminate cars and the like, you can't even definitively say you've decreased your likelihood of being subject to those symptoms.
artificially created by man ...
yes you can ... the doubt is in the exact impact we are trying to mitigate ... if we reduce greenhouse gases - we will reduce the greenhouse effect and in doing so will be reducing our affect on global weather patterns ...
These are probably more philosophical questions though than scientific.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
And how do man's creations exist outside of nature?
No we won't. We'll simply be affecting those global weather patterns in a different direction, to exactly the same extent. It's like taking the weight off of one side of the scale and putting it on the other -- you haven't lessened your affect on the scale.
then we wouldn't need the word "artificial"
The word "artificial" effectively means "by the hand of man". It's root meaning has nothing to do with "outside of nature".
A car is certainly "artificial" in the sense that it is built by a man. But man was built by nature, and I have a hard time believing that the chain here somehow goes "outside of nature".
now we're getting into the thing with surferdude ...
no ... imagine it like your body - if i change the o2 concentration in the air you breathe - your body will attempt to adapt to it as best as possible ... if we get to the point where that concentration is not adaptable - your body will break ... so, let's say we try after changing that concentration to get it close to what it is normally - u will see that your body will have to adapt but more in line with the various systems ...
Man can only act naturally, what we create is then natural and is just as much a normal part of nature as anything not made by man.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
well ... then when does the word apply to you?
anyone who thinks cutting down massive amounts of trees is ok is an ass because less trees = less oxygen to breathe.
anyone who is careless about energy conservation is an ass too because they are not thinking about our overpopulated future.
build good habits now. why argue about shit we don't know the answer to?
~Ron Burgundy
The process of suffocation and death are also part of the "various systems"...you're simply ignoring that aspect.
Adjusting the o2 concentration back to "normal levels" would, again, be simply be the opposite "artificial" action producing precisely the same extentual effect on the system.
Whenever I do something. All acts of men produce "artificial" effects. That doesn't make them "unnatural" in any way. It's like suggesting that a chimpanze using a stick to extract ants from a hole in a tree is "unnatural". It's absurd.
no ... what i am ignoring is the fact that you are trying to make this one of your wording discussions when really - we do not need to discuss what artificial is or isn't ... its really for your amusement that i'm replying ... i know u get a kick out of playing semantics and in some instances (like today) i will oblige ...
are you serious in that you are equating an adjustment back to normal levels the same as altering them?
Sigh...
I'm not playing "semantics". I'm simply trying to understand the core of your points about "natural cycles" and "artificial" actions. If those things have no meaning, your philosophies are on shaky ground.
There is no "normal level". That's what I think you're missing here. There's a level without human intervention, but that level is impossible to meet with human action in any direction. Either way you're intervening on a natural process. That doesn't mean that one direction is not worse than the other, however.
i'm pretty sure u understand where it is we hope to reduce our emissions in - by implying that driving cars is the same as living and dying - i can only interpret it as playing semantics ...
let me try another approach ...
it boils down to this - the greater the emissions, the greater the impact ... the lesser the emissions, the lesser the impact ... does this work for you?
I can completely understand the reasoning behind all of the skepticism.............especially knowing how fear tactics have been used in the past by a number of organizations.....
No. The impact is the same, except in the reverse direction. If you have zero emissions tomorrow, you'll have a negative impact on global warming. If you have more emissions tomorrow, you'll have a positive impact on global warming.
EDIT The negative/positive lingo above is just directional and not meant to imply "good" or "bad" either way.
if they do not imply "good" or "bad" ... then what is your point?