Global Warming

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
"What does that tell us about the work the image refers to, or about the science of climate change or anything else other than that whoever reproduced the graph for some website made a typo? "

It tells me the folks advocating here are not scientists. Lobbyists? Maybe. Green warriors? Maybe. Scientists? Not a chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying I'm not a scientist? Or are you saying the people who made that graph aren't scientists? If you said either you would be wrong.

Also, other than poor information presentation what is wrong with that graph? There are no typos and the info is correct and backed by independent sources.

Ugh... there is too much to respond to in this thread. Not worth the time...

[QuadsOverQuads]

wacki, I wish you the best, but you need to understand that you're not arguing with a rational person here.

This kid has cast himself into the role of Movement Representative / Evangelist.

He's not here to rationally examine all sides of an issue. He's here because he's convinced he's found a Movement that tells him what The Truth is. He's here to bring you the Good News, spread the light of The Conservative Gospel, and battle down the Evildoers (which is anybody who is not a convert to The Movement).

You're banging your head against a brick wall trying to reason with him, because you presume him to be engaging in the same rational discourse that you are engaging in. The reality is that he is NOT here for that purpose, and he has no intention of ever doing so. He's going to keep throwing talking points and Movement Citations at you for as long as he can engage you. Any response you create that doesn't fit The Movement's official truths will be ignored and forgotten as quickly as he can get it out of his head.

It's classic cultist behavior, and that's what you're dealing with when you're dealing with these people.

It's a very fundamental difference in each participant's perception of the ongoing dialogue. He's not listening, he's not here to further the dialogue, he's simply here to direct conversation in a precalculated direction, and to prevent dialogue where that can't be achieved. That's it, that's all.

You'd do much better to save your efforts for an opponent who was actually going to consider your arguments on the merits. Guys like Fl aren't going to.


q/q

[wacki]

There are a lot of people in this thread that aren't worth responding to. The problem is there are people that listen to "facts" that simply aren't true. You are right though, I educate them all. :-p

[QuadsOverQuads]

Lol, what can ya do. I've been banging my head against the BC wall on the abortion thread too, so I guess I'm probably not the best one to offer this advice anyway [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


q/q

[bocablkr]

Boro,

Sometimes, arguing with you is like arguing with a child. You spew a lot of nonsense and then don't back it up with facts. Your original premise was that " significantly reducing greenhouse emissions can only be done by crippling the world economically ". This is absolutely false. I showed you several examples (there are many more) where people said the same thing about environmental regulations crippling a business or destroying the local economy. Did you dispute my examples - no. You simply replied with Correlation does not imply causation.

Do you even know what that means. You are basically trying to say that the correlation is coincidence. While this is sometimes true it is not always the case. There are many times when the correlation is not coincidence and it is actually caused by a known event. That is the case here. Many studies have been done as to the reasons for the Great Lakes Region fisheries recovery in the last two decades. They point to the passage of several environmental regulations (Clean Water Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Acts of 1972), control of nutrient and toxic substances, habitat restoration, restocking, etc. It was not do to tax cuts, or new industries moving to the area or some other non-environmental reason. Do you dispute the studies???

Then I showed you how Tampa Electric spent a BILLION dollars on eco-friendly technology and it did not cripple them. You response was Broken Window Fallacy. Again, do you understand what you write? That just means it is a zero sum result. Is that the case here? Tampa Electric would have spent a billion on other capital expenditures so instead they spent it on eco-friendly technology - thus a zero net gain. Is that your line of reasoning? Again, you are incorrect. Tampa was being sued by the Justice department as well as the citizens of the community. They were getting sick from the emissions from the plant. Headaches, nausea, sinus problems, breathing problems, children sick and missing school. Parents missing work. After the plant was cleaned up the health problems went away. What is the value of their improved health? Did you add that in your little equation? The children didn't miss school and the parents didn't miss work. They were more productive. Did you add that value to your equation? What about beauty - is there a value for that? For a clean sky?? Add those factors plus the fact the company is now mean, lean and green and you will see your Broken Window Fallacy is just that, a fallacy. Tampa Electric and the community came out way ahead by spending a billion dollars on new technology instead of spending a billion on keeping the status quo. It is not a zero net gain. If you are interested in the truth you can read it yourself in this link - http://www.tampaelectric.com/TEEVArt...fm?article=74.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
What should also not be surprising is that scientists employed by governments produce results to those governments' liking, and what government likes the most is a crisis that allows those in government to justify the extension of their influence, power, and control.


[/ QUOTE ]

Global Warming and the associated ideology would provide for a perfect trinity of moral, economic, and social control for any government. It would perfectly marry bereaucratic, scientific, educational, and legal systems already preexisting and give those institutions virtually unlimited power. This is why it is so appealing to people who already work in those capacities, namely non-producers.

[chief444]

Certainly true however the research is only the first step and is likely the least expensive. It's getting what comes out of that research into practice that takes time and really takes the money. It's also imposing regulation to force these changes into action. Either that or the research has to develop vehicles that not only emit far less pollution (or processes or other products or whatever that emit less) but also run as well and cost less to the consumer. If it was simply a matter of developing technology everybody would have been driving a hybrid vehicle 10+ years ago.

I think Borodog's right in a sense that the economics obviously are important and need to be heavily considered. But what he seems to be missing is why the economics are so important. If every country imposed the same regulations at the same time it wouldn't really hurt much. However it's not like one country can impose regulations on everyone. And since it's such a global market if one country imposes extreme regulation and others don't the country that now has to meet it's own stringent environmental codes puts itself in a tough position to compete economically. That's the real economic issue. If it was simply a big "public works project" without concern for foreign economic competition then I really doubt if the government would hesitate to dump a lot into it. Unfortunately it's just not that simple. Research is the easy part.

[FlFishOn]

Tangental subject alert.

We in S FL have a 'Save the Manatee' club. Turns out that manatees are doing pretty well, likely to be upgraded from 'endangered' to 'threatened'. This is the worst possible news you might get if you're income is tied to the STM Club. The club is actively fighting the status upgrade. You'd think they'd be celebrating if their actual goal involved saving manatees, wouldn't ya?

I see some of this in every 'green' cause and it's well represented in the global warming crowd.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Tangental subject alert.

We in S FL have a 'Save the Manatee' club. Turns out that manatees are doing pretty well, likely to be upgraded from 'endangered' to 'threatened'. This is the worst possible news you might get if you're income is tied to the STM Club. The club is actively fighting the status upgrade. You'd think they'd be celebrating if their actual goal involved saving manatees, wouldn't ya?

I see some of this in every 'green' cause and it's well represented in the global warming crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh, they are worried that the upgrading will end up causing more deaths because restrictions on boat speeds will be relaxed. People will also assume that they are no longer threatened and therefore be more lax in their attitude towards them. Nice try though.

[theweatherman]

manatees are ugly and confusing. They are not approved by theweatherman.

If they are so sweet then why dont they have talons, claws or fangs? Every sweet animal has either taloms, claws or fangs.

Id be all for saving them if they were terrifying, the world is too safe for humans. Time to put a little more gamble into swiming.