Climate Change Skeptics

12357

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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".

    well ... then when does the word apply to you?
  • sonicreducer
    sonicreducer Posts: 713
    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
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    well ... then when does the word apply to you?

    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Just playing around on Fark.com and found this article about global warming. http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693

    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.....
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    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.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    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?
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    polaris wrote:
    if they do not imply "good" or "bad" ... then what is your point?

    My point is simple. Imagine a scale, sitting in a room. One the left side of the scale sits 10 lbs. If you move that 10 lbs. onto the right side of the scale, you haven't changed your impact on the scale. Furthermore, if you remove the 10 lbs from the scale altogether, you haven't lessened your impact on the room as a whole, nor have you failed to impact the scale. No matter what, there is a room, a scale, a weight and a person. Any modification on the configuration of these things is "artificial". Furthermore, any action, or lack thereof, is based entirely on the natural rules provided.

    In other words, your points here seem to indicate a desire for man and nature to sleep in seperate bedrooms. I'm having trouble understanding a) why and b) how.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    farfromglorified wrote:
    My point is simple. Imagine a scale, sitting in a room. One the left side of the scale sits 10 lbs. If you move that 10 lbs. onto the right side of the scale, you haven't changed your impact on the scale. Furthermore, if you remove the 10 lbs from the scale altogether, you haven't lessened your impact on the room as a whole, nor have you failed to impact the scale. No matter what, there is a room, a scale, a weight and a person. Any modification on the configuration of these things is "artificial". Furthermore, any action, or lack thereof, is based entirely on the natural rules provided.

    In other words, your points here seem to indicate a desire for man and nature to sleep in seperate bedrooms. I'm having trouble understanding a) why and b) how.

    ok ... it is what i had understood ...

    it brings me back to the point of then under your understanding - anything goes, whether it be related to climate change or anything ... but if you take it back to my human analogy - u will see that your scale comparison is not the same ...

    when we have an infection - a probably symptom is a fever ... if our fever gets out of control - we die ... the idea is then to get our temperature back to what it should be ... climate change is the same ...
  • Commy
    Commy Posts: 4,984
    farfromglorified wrote:
    My point is simple. Imagine a scale, sitting in a room. One the left side of the scale sits 10 lbs. If you move that 10 lbs. onto the right side of the scale, you haven't changed your impact on the scale. Furthermore, if you remove the 10 lbs from the scale altogether, you haven't lessened your impact on the room as a whole, nor have you failed to impact the scale. No matter what, there is a room, a scale, a weight and a person. Any modification on the configuration of these things is "artificial". Furthermore, any action, or lack thereof, is based entirely on the natural rules provided.

    In other words, your points here seem to indicate a desire for man and nature to sleep in seperate bedrooms. I'm having trouble understanding a) why and b) how.

    ok, let's say that scale affects the room...with the weight on one side its a habitable environment...with the weight on the other side the room becomes uninhabitable by humans. The room still exists....we do not.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    Commy wrote:
    ok, let's say that scale affects the room...with the weight on one side its a habitable environment...with the weight on the other side the room becomes uninhabitable by humans. The room still exists....we do not.
    Unless we..................adapt and evolve :)
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    PJPOWER wrote:
    Just playing around on Fark.com and found this article about global warming. http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693

    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.....

    The author of your article is chairman of an organization funded by Exxon.
  • PJPOWER
    PJPOWER Posts: 6,499
    SundaySilence wrote:
    The author of your article is chairman of an organization funded by Exxon.
    Exactly! There always seems to be an agenda beyond the science itself. Someone is to make millions on "alternative fuels" as well.........am I wrong? My point was that it's hard for people not to be skeptical on either side of the issue at this point. For every study saying that humans are overly responsible, there's always one saying that we are not responsible at all. I personally do not think skepticism is a bad thing...............the crime is disinformation and propoganda. And why does Exxon have any less of a right to defend their claims than anyone else in the market?
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    Rockin'InCanada wrote:
    Its how far partianship has gone...it now applies to everything....every policy every law...some days I think people just fail to agree because they have trapped themselves inside an idealogical corner that they do not have the courage to back out of.....I feel that in years past I was becoming that way over the past year I have tried to open myself up and learn....what I have learned is that extreme views are running this world right now and its a dangerous combination....

    On the matter of climate change I think too many of those on the left (Nike) feel that the right (Reebok) hate the environment and what to choke the bitch we call Earth to death...while Reebok thinks that Nike is some communist faction hell bent on ruining modern culture and is sick of tired of hearing how the world will end....will Nike and Reebok both shut the fuck up and actually realize EVERYONE wants a cleaner environment....Nike needs to drop the doomsday attitude to bring Reebok to the table and Reebok needs to lighten up and realize there are alternatives (tax free hybrid vehicles, tax refunds for wind/soler/thermal power generation equipment, etc.) that are economically possible....I dunno right now both the left and right are the reason nothing is being done and all this division is getting nothing accomplished....sorry for the rant I just want nice clean air for my children...I want to goto National Parks where litter isn't strewn all over the bloody place....


    This is about the best post I have read on this part of the forum.

    Can I play the dinosaurs adovocate and suggest that burning fossil fuels is really just restoring the correct natural balance that existed to make this worls the perfect tropical paradise it was before global cooling from too much trapping of carbon dioxide caused natutal catastrophe which wiped out 80% of existing animal species.
    The different dinosaur factions could not agree on how to deal wiht this, made worse by torpid lack of enthusiasm which comes on when teh cold starts to hit ectotherms, so teh trees won and reduced CO2 levels ubtil glaciers formed.
    Is it possible that global warming is just change, rather than necissarily being BAD change ??
    General environmental pollution is another issue of course.
    People used silly arguments too, like saying we need to eat less meat, cos beef cattel produse too much CO2, ,like the native animal species don't.
    Music is not a competetion.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    lucylespian wrote:
    People used silly arguments too, like saying we need to eat less meat, cos beef cattel produse too much CO2, ,like the native animal species don't.
    This one actually holds some weight. Cows produce much more methane than native food stocks and animals that they are replacing such as Buffalo. More importantly, its the amount of land that is cleared for livestock which is much more inefficent than agriculture. Vast forests are cleared which are valuable carbon sinks especially those in tropical regions such as Brazil where huge amounts of rainforest are cleared. This has serious reprocussions for climate change.
  • lucylespian
    lucylespian Posts: 2,403
    sourdough wrote:
    This one actually holds some weight. Cows produce much more methane than native food stocks and animals that they are replacing such as Buffalo. More importantly, its the amount of land that is cleared for livestock which is much more inefficent than agriculture. Vast forests are cleared which are valuable carbon sinks especially those in tropical regions such as Brazil where huge amounts of rainforest are cleared. This has serious reprocussions for climate change.

    I think that deforestation is obviously important, but a different discussion area, esp here in Australia, where most deforestation was done over teh 40 000 yrs of Aboriginals using fire as a hunting method, and where there is very littel occuring presently.
    I am pretty sure that teh number of native animals in boths our continents were more than sufficinet to match teh difference in methane output.
    I would like to see the evidence that a cow produces more methane than a buffalo or a kangaroo. That does not really make a lot of sense.
    Is it possible that de-forestation is part of a master plan by dinosaur strategists to ensure their eventual revival ??
    Music is not a competetion.
  • sourdough
    sourdough Posts: 579
    lucylespian wrote:
    I think that deforestation is obviously important, but a different discussion area, esp here in Australia, where most deforestation was done over teh 40 000 yrs of Aboriginals using fire as a hunting method, and where there is very littel occuring presently.
    I am pretty sure that teh number of native animals in boths our continents were more than sufficinet to match teh difference in methane output.
    I would like to see the evidence that a cow produces more methane than a buffalo or a kangaroo. That does not really make a lot of sense.
    Is it possible that de-forestation is part of a master plan by dinosaur strategists to ensure their eventual revival ??
    Okay, I made a mistake. The digestive system of a cow does not produce more methane than Buffalo, HOWEVER, because they are fed grains instead of grass they do produce more methane. When grain is digested it produces 2-3 times as much methane than if they were to eat grass (such as the buffalo). Perhaps farmers should just go back to good ol' grass.

    I don't have the stats for Australia, but a huge proportion of beef in Europe and in NA come from Brazil instead of local bred stuff. Perhaps Aussie is a special case (not sure) but for the majority of us, livestock production is intrinsically linked to deforestation. Or perhaps an evil plan by our dinosaur overlords :)

Categories