# Scientists: 'No question' that man-made warming exists'



## BigDyl (Feb 2, 2007)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

For the most part, this report, as usuall, is full of shit.

They say crap like, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.  There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."  

I'd like to see a 1 to 1 correlation that makes this a fact. 

The only interesting thing was that they said this, "And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries."

Yet the fail to mention that the reason for the unstoppable rise is that it's a natural trend.

Once again, it's nothing more than facts mixed with implications and lies of ommission.


----------



## Dero (Feb 2, 2007)

...and yet another post about lies and deceptions.


----------



## zombul (Feb 2, 2007)

Anyone posted any topics on global warming lately?


----------



## Dero (Feb 2, 2007)

zombul said:


> Anyone posted any topics on global warming lately?



 I'll do  "a search", 'cuz offhand I can't tell you.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dero said:


> ...and yet another post about lies and deceptions.



It is what it is.  If you want to to believe in it, knock yourself out.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 2, 2007)

it's obvious why many people, organizations, etc. would want to deny that global warming exists, but I am failing to see what would be gained from everyone that is claiming it is fact, what is their motivation?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Prince said:


> it's obvious why many people, organizations, etc. would want to deny that global warming exists, but I am failing to see what would be gained from everyone that is claiming it is fact, what is their motivation?



Not wanting to be lied to?  Not wanting to be manipulated?

If I wanted more of that, I'd have listened to Bush's state of the union crap.


----------



## Dero (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> It is what it is.  If you want to to believe in it, knock yourself out.


When I reffer to lies and deceptions, I reffer to the facts that most politicians are trying to hide the facts about global warming.


----------



## Dero (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> For the most part, this report, as usuall, is full of shit.
> 
> They say crap like, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.  There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
> 
> ...



Ok,if it is a natural trend, why help it and make it happen faster then it should happen?


----------



## Arnold (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Not wanting to be lied to?  Not wanting to be manipulated?



you did not understand my question.

I am asking what do the global warming advocates have to gain? 
Why are scientists standing behind this and making their theories be known? 
What is their motivation?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dero said:


> Ok,if it is a natural trend, why help it and make it happen faster then it should happen?



Show me the 100% definitive proof that humans are accelerating the process.

You won't, because you can't, because it doesn't exist.  What you'll end up doing is linking to a page that points to CO2 graphs and temperature graphs that fall apart at the right edge.  That's the _best _you'll be able to do, with plenty of room for doing worse.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Prince said:


> I am asking what do the global warming advocates have to gain?



Funding, votes, and money; just to name a few.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The only interesting thing was that they said this, "And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries."



I think the inference that is being made is that our fuck up will last for centuries, so the effect from stopping now won't be felt for centuries, not that there is no reason to stop because it is inevitable.

I honestly don't know if we are accelerating it for sure...I have an idea we are, just like I have an idea that if I jumped off a 200ft bridge I would die.  I don't know for sure, but I have an idea.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> I honestly don't know if we are accelerating it for sure...I have an idea we are, just like I have an idea that if I jumped off a 200ft bridge I would die.  I don't know for sure, but I have an idea.



The difference being that jumping from a 200 ft. bridge will likely lead to death it 100% provable and repeatable; whereas "mankind is affecting global warming" is not.

But "Yeah!" for feelings...especially when they lead to wasting resources and billions of  (perhaps even a trillion or more) dollars.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The difference being that jumping from a 200 ft. bridge will likely lead to death it 100% provable and repeatable; whereas "mankind is affecting global warming" is not.
> 
> But "Yeah!" for feelings...especially when they lead to wasting resources and billions of  (perhaps even a trillion or more) dollars.



The only way to prove it would be to do it oneself.  I am sure that at least 1 person has fallen 200ft and lived, that 1 out of a million still leaves the chance one will survive.  Again, it is all about where you draw the line as to how powerful the research is.  With global warming data, you can never truly prove the science because there is no control group to compare the study data to.  The only way to prove it would be to end the world, start over, and then see what happens without human interference.  Not gonna happen.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> The only way to prove it would be to do it oneself.  I am sure that at least 1 person has fallen 200ft and lived, that 1 out of a million still leaves the chance one will survive.  Again, it is all about where you draw the line as to how powerful the research is.  With global warming data, you can never truly prove the science because there is no control group to compare the study data to.  The only way to prove it would be to end the world, start over, and then see what happens without human interference.  Not gonna happen.



You're correct; it's all about where you'll draw the line.  Considering the ramifications of the "deciding" that man is affecting global warming, I'd need some fairly concrete proof that this is in deed a fact, and not someone's opinion.  Just look at the garbage that has sprung form this so far.  Read up on the waste that is the Kyoto Protocol.

Also, you don't need a control group to prove something to a point of credibility.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Also, you don't need a control group to prove something to a point of credibility.



You don't prove, you disprove all other theories until there is one left.  Again, it is where you draw the line.  What exactly would you need to be shown in order to believe global warming exists?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> You don't prove, you disprove all other theories until there is one left.  Again, it is where you draw the line.  What exactly would you need to be shown in order to believe global warming exists?



I'd like a 1 to 1 correlation of pollution (of any kind) to the average ambient temperature.  I've seen the CO2/Temperature graph and it falls apart at the right edge.

I certainly am not going to buy into the "hottest days ever" garbage either.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I'd like a 1 to 1 correlation of pollution (of any kind) to the average ambient temperature.  I've seen the CO2/Temperature graph and it falls apart at the right edge.
> 
> I certainly am not going to buy into the "hottest days ever" garbage either.



So pollution charted against temperature?  I would imagine some types of pollution would make no difference so you would need to figure out which aspect  of pollution would cause it.  Then, you would need to figure out the magnitude of change it would bring.  Maybe not in degrees per day with relation to the time of year, but it would be small over time period, maybe 100ths of a degree.  I don't think anyone would say it is going to effect us tomorrow, but more over the long term, over 100s of years.  So if you care that in 100yrs it will be 5 degrees warmer, the data may be important enough for you to care.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> So pollution charted against temperature?  I would imagine some types of pollution would make no difference so you would need to figure out which aspect  of pollution would cause it.  Then, you would need to figure out the magnitude of change it would bring.  Maybe not in degrees per day with relation to the time of year, but it would be small over time period, maybe 100ths of a degree.  I don't think anyone would say it is going to effect us tomorrow, but more over the long term, over 100s of years.  So if you care that in 100yrs it will be 5 degrees warmer, the data may be important enough for you to care.



So, there is no such relationship then? Or, at least, it _can't be proven_.  So we just need to take it on faith that the pro-global warming people have it right...

Even the pro-global warming people estimate that the most the temperature will increase in the next 100 years is about 1.1 degrees.  Have you ever looked at the long term trend of the global temperature?  You should, because just such a rise is inline with the temperature rise that started 10,000 years ago.


----------



## Dero (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> So, there is no such relationship then? Or, at least, it _can't be proven_.  So we just need to take it on faith that the pro-global warming people have it right...
> 
> Even the pro-global warming people estimate that the most the temperature will increase in the next 100 years is about 1.1 degrees.  Have you ever looked at the long term trend of the global temperature?  You should, because just such a rise is inline with the temperature rise that started 10,000 years ago.


DOMS, are you running for office somewhere, you seem to talk like a politician.  (seriously)
Let me get this right, you're saying that with all the polution there is and all the wasted energy around,primarly caused by the industrial sector, we are not heading for self destruction, that this is a natural trend. 
How can YOU prove what you are saying, this cycle has never been done before. This is the first time that society as we know it, is going through this phase.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 2, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> So pollution charted against temperature?  I would imagine some types of pollution would make no difference so you would need to figure out which aspect  of pollution would cause it.  Then, you would need to figure out the magnitude of change it would bring.  Maybe not in degrees per day with relation to the time of year, but it would be small over time period, maybe 100ths of a degree.  I don't think anyone would say it is going to effect us tomorrow, but more over the long term, over 100s of years.  So if you care that in 100yrs it will be 5 degrees warmer, the data may be important enough for you to care.



It doesn't really matter then.  100 years is a long time at todays rate of technological progress.  People take one little aspect of science / technology like global warming and isolate it and make predictions based on that.  The truth is that without looking at the whole overall trend of technology and exponential rates of progress, it is meaningless.  People look at a technology that could make people live forever and predict overpopulation.  The problem with this is it fails to factor in how this same or similar technologies also exponentially increase how many people the planet can support.  

Here is a response to global warming (source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/06/14/DI2006061402086.html ):

Columbia, Md.: I have been following your career with great interest since my office acquired one of your first reading machines. And I have been fascinated by the SINGULARITY IS NEAR. I am also impressed with Al Gore's arguments that the global warming problem should be near the top of everyone's agenda. He claims that climate scientists say we have only about ten years, absent a concerted effort and political will to solve the problem, before the planet has reached a point where it's too late to prevent catastrophic consequences. Do you believe, given your arguments about progress acceleration, that these scientists are unduly pessimistic? Do you think that accelerated technology alone--even without political will to solve the problem--will save the planet?

Ray Kurzweil: None of the global warming discussions mention the word "nanotechnology." Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution. Within 20 years, it can provide all of our energy needs. The discussions talk about current trends continuing for the next century as if nothing is going to change. I think global warming is real but it has been modest thus far - 1 degree f. in 100 years. It would be concern if that continued or accelerated for a long period of time, but that's not going to happen. And it's not just environmental concern that will drive this, the $2 trillion we spend on energy is providing plenty of economic incentive. I don't see any disasters occuring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dero said:


> DOMS, are you running for office somewhere, you seem to talk like a politician.  (seriously)
> Let me get this right, you're saying that with all the polution there is and all the wasted energy around,primarly caused by the industrial sector, we are not heading for self destruction, that this is a natural trend.
> How can YOU prove what you are saying, this cycle has never been done before. This is the first time that society as we know it, is going through this phase.



Why should I have to prove that man-made global warming is a farce?  It's not like someone just decided one day to say that global warming didn't exist out of the blue.  The pro-global warming decided that opinion and theory were not fact and said that man-made global warming was a fact of life.  

You, like some many have decided, hilariously so, that if someone doesn't get on the global warming train of idiocy, then they have no good intention towards the environment.  There are plenty of real issues concerning pollution and the environment to worry about without having to make shit up.


----------



## Dero (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Why should I have to prove that man-made global warming is a farce?  It's not like someone just decided one day to say that global warming didn't exist out of the blue.  The pro-global warming decided that opinion and theory were not fact and said that man-made global warming was a fact of life.
> 
> You, like some many have decided, hilariously so, that if someone doesn't get on the global warming train of idiocy, then they have no good intention towards the environment.  There are plenty of real issues concerning pollution and the environment to worry about without having to make shit up.


Hold on right there, where did I say that? 
I'm trying to see your side of this discussion and all I'm asking for are proofs of what you are talking about.
So far, you have only attacked(mildly) anybody that does not think like you and you yourself have used that same ploy as for asking proof to back up this theory.
How can you prove to me that while being careless with my waste (garbages) and wastfull with byproducts, I don't contribute to global warming.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dero said:


> Hold on right there, where did I say that?
> I'm trying to see your side of this discussion and all I'm asking for are proofs of what you are talking about.
> So far, you have only attacked(mildly) anybody that does not think like you and you yourself have used that same ploy as for asking proof to back up this theory.
> How can you prove to me that while being careless with my waste (garbages) and wastfull with byproducts, I don't contribute to global warming.



_*You *_said " How can YOU prove what you are saying".  I was talking about global warming.  What was that _supposed _to mean?


----------



## Dub guy (Feb 2, 2007)

You people that think this stuff is bull....need a reality check. Its easy to spout off on some gay board that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.....why not STFU and help fix our earth you ignorant fuck tards.

I hate people like that. Oh let someone else worry about it....im to selfish to believe that......plus dont you know everything now a days is a giant consipracey.

LOSERS!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

Dub guy said:


> You people that think this stuff is bull....need a reality check. Its easy to spout off on some gay board that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.....why not STFU and help fix our earth you ignorant fuck tards.
> 
> I hate people like that. Oh let someone else worry about it....im to selfish to believe that......plus dont you know everything now a days is a giant consipracey.
> 
> LOSERS!



You need to go back and retake high school...and middle school...and grade school...and probably kindergarten.  Fuck it, just go back back in the womb you belched from and be nice and safe.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 2, 2007)

Dub guy said:


> You people that think this stuff is bull....need a reality check. Its easy to spout off on some gay board that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.....why not STFU and help fix our earth you ignorant fuck tards.
> 
> I hate people like that. Oh let someone else worry about it....im to selfish to believe that......plus dont you know everything now a days is a giant consipracey.
> 
> LOSERS!



My point is, it doesn't really matter if global warming is a scientific fact or not.  Within 20 years, fossil fuel burning will be obsolete anyway.  Don't come back and say, "That will never happen in 20 years!"... read the post I quoted and research a little on singularity and exponential growth.  I don't feel like explaining it.


----------



## Dub guy (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You need to go back and retake high school...and middle school...and grade school...and probably kindergarten.  Fuck it, just go back back in the womb you belched from and be nice and safe.



That means so much coming from you idiot.

why dont you spend less time polluting this board....and go learn something about the way you are helping to destroy our childrens future enviorment.....but hell you wont do that your too self absorbed for that.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 2, 2007)

Dub guy said:


> That means so much coming from you idiot.
> 
> why dont you spend less time polluting this board....and go learn something about the way you are helping to destroy our childrens future enviorment.....but hell you wont do that your too self absorbed for that.



Global warming is a non-issue to our childrens future.  If you want to worry about something, biological and nanotech virus's are a more real threat... but still nothing we won't overcome.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 2, 2007)

Dub guy said:


> Its easy to spout off *on some gay board *that its bull but none of the info any of you have backs up shit.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)




----------



## The Monkey Man (Feb 2, 2007)

Too many people = More heat produced...

Ever look at inner city areas mapped with an infrared camera?


----------



## Witchblade (Feb 2, 2007)

These discussions are just too predictable nowadays. We all know what types like DOMS and NeilPearson are going to say, it's just the opposition that changes a bit.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 2, 2007)

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so when all the zillion light bulbs, campfires, ovens, papermills, car engines, hot farts release their energy where is that expected to go?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

The Monkey Man said:


> Too many people = More heat produced...
> 
> Ever look at inner city areas mapped with an infrared camera?



That has to do with building materials.  It's known as the "Concrete Island Effect".


----------



## shiznit2169 (Feb 2, 2007)

When i walk outside, the temperature suddenly increase 10 degrees


----------



## bio-chem (Feb 2, 2007)

DOMS said:


> That has to do with building materials.  It's known as the "Concrete Island Effect".



 
i like to see when someone makes a post showing they have a little background knowlege. 2 points for doms.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> i like to see when someone makes a post showing they have a little background knowlege. 2 points for doms.



Thanks, bio-chem.


----------



## ABCs (Feb 2, 2007)

GLOBAL WARMING!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 2, 2007)




----------



## maniclion (Feb 3, 2007)

DOMS said:


> For the most part, this report, as usuall, is full of shit.
> 
> They say crap like, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level.  There can be no question that the increase in greenhouse gases are dominated by human activities."
> 
> ...


Look, 5 years ago it was my belief that man just was not powerful enough to cause the climate of the entire world to change.  My main reason for going into Alternative Energy 5 years ago was because I would rather see a clean enjoyable planet with plentiful resources that we didn't have to depend on the hotbloods for.  Here it is 5 years later and I still hold that man couldn't be the soul cause for climate change, but my immersion in this field has forced me to sit through dozens of talks about how man's industrial waste has caused the demise of flora and fauna, how we have caused a more rapid "natural climate change", how it is in our best interest to do all that we can to stop the wheel that we set in motion and start making plans for adapting to these changes because now that we've got that ball rolling faster than it would have had we not accelerated it, it's time for us to play catch-up..........



The damage is done it's time for damage control people, so stop bitching and moaning about who's fault it was and start making some changes.  Starting tomorrow change a few of your most used lightbulbs in your home to compact fluorescents, hell why not change them all they are investments, they last multiple times longer than incandescents, use a sixth of the power and don't waste most of their energy as heat.....


----------



## Gordo (Feb 3, 2007)

1200 multi-national scientists are politically motivated and spewing crap....it just doesn't add up to me. The suggestion is that 1200 scientists came together (yes under the wing of the UN) to deceive us so that their future climate research projects would receive the proper grants and funding.

I'm not saying it's not possible because frankly, in this day and age anything is possible, but it sounds a little suspect.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 3, 2007)

> Starting tomorrow change a few of your most used lightbulbs in your home to compact fluorescents



I did, those damn tri-light CFL's are almost 20 bucks a pop. There's a bit of sticker shock when you swap to the new bulbs. A little piece of you dies when you drop one too.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 3, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Look, 5 years ago it was my belief that man just was not powerful enough to cause the climate of the entire world to change.  My main reason for going into Alternative Energy 5 years ago was because I would rather see a clean enjoyable planet with plentiful resources that we didn't have to depend on the hotbloods for.  Here it is 5 years later and I still hold that man couldn't be the soul cause for climate change, but my immersion in this field has forced me to sit through dozens of talks about how man's industrial waste has caused the demise of flora and fauna, how we have caused a more rapid "natural climate change", how it is in our best interest to do all that we can to stop the wheel that we set in motion and start making plans for adapting to these changes because now that we've got that ball rolling faster than it would have had we not accelerated it, it's time for us to play catch-up..........



Where did I ever say that we shouldn't clean up our act or the environment?  Just point to one fucking sentence where I said that.  I never said that.





maniclion said:


> The damage is done it's time for damage control people, so stop bitching and moaning about who's fault it was and start making some changes.  Starting tomorrow change a few of your most used lightbulbs in your home to compact fluorescents, hell why not change them all they are investments, they last multiple times longer than incandescents, use a sixth of the power and don't waste most of their energy as heat.....



It's the pro-global warming that are bitching and whining about the fact that not everyone is buying into their shit.  Fuck you very much.

Oh, and about a qaurter of the rooms in my house are lit by fluorescent bulbs and as the old bulbs burn out, they get replaced with fluorescents.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Where did I ever say that we shouldn't clean up our act or the environment?  Just point to one fucking sentence where I said that.  I never said that.
> 
> It's the pro-global warming that are bitching and whining about the fact that not everyone is buying into their shit.  Fuck you very much.
> 
> Oh, and about a qaurter of the rooms in my house are lit by fluorescent bulbs and as the old bulbs burn out, they get replaced with fluorescents.


I didn't say you didn't say....

There are two faction bitching back and forth about is there is or is there ain't anthropogenic climate change, that isn't even near a reason for me to give a fuck about making changes to where we get our energy from, the largest reason I can see is because the less oil there is in the Middle-east is more of a reason for them to make a case for having Nuclear Power Plants, from which a nation or a terrorist could obtain the materials for a Nuclear damage device.  And besides that we need to further the funding of Alternative Energy Research ten fold if we plan on holding on to being one of the largest economies.  Thats where part of our future lies or Japan and Germany will rape us because they are full tilt into Alt. Energies....I mean the more gadgets they come out with the more power we're going to need......Power is power in this day and age...

And just go and change all of your bulbs now because once California makes the Edison incandescent illegal other states like to follow suit shortly there after just like they did with the no smoking laws.......how funny would that be old style light bulbs would be like crack, some man would be in the alley looking for a 100 Watt bulb for his little girls Easy Bake Oven "Yo man, I gots 60's but you know 100's is a felony charge it ain't worth it dude...."


----------



## ABCs (Feb 5, 2007)

The bottom line is, Global Warming rules!


----------



## fufu (Feb 5, 2007)

I made some global warming in my basement last night.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

fufu said:


> I made some global warming in my basement last night.



Methane Squats?


----------



## tucker01 (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Methane Squats?



Actually I think it was a Gerbil... you know those Kiki's


----------



## brogers (Feb 5, 2007)

Prince said:


> you did not understand my question.
> 
> I am asking what do the global warming advocates have to gain?
> Why are scientists standing behind this and making their theories be known?
> What is their motivation?


 
Government grants for the scientists.

As for politicians pushing it--it is a great excuse to claim more power.  It's something they can claim to protect the people from.

This is vaguely connected, just demonstrating how politicians can twist things to try and acquire more power/control:

A comment from Hillary Clinton about SEIZING a company's profits.  How can this woman get away with saying this?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> *Show me the 100% definitive proof that humans are accelerating the process.*
> 
> You won't, because you can't, because it doesn't exist.  What you'll end up doing is linking to a page that points to CO2 graphs and temperature graphs that fall apart at the right edge.  That's the _best _you'll be able to do, with plenty of room for doing worse.



That statement goes south very fast ... you cannot show that humans are *not *accelerating the process. All those graphs you say are not there or go to shit on the right edge may not please you but SOME *few* of them do show undeniable proof that we ass a species are accelerating the issue. The trouble with the issue is that people try to make this an all or none kinda thing and it plainly isn't. Global warming trends are part of this planet's history AND its future. Are we speeding this up? Of course we are ... any one who denies it is a fool. Could we stop it? Not a chance in hell. 

Are we responsible as parents to hand off to our great grand children a planet that's in as good a shape as it was when we arrived here? Duh ... 

Will explaining away the issues make them go away? C'mon get a grip. It's part of reality that we are increasing the amount of contributing factors by the way we as a species do the things we do as we meet our needs to live here. Trains, coal factories, petroleum consuming motors and everything like this drive our lives and have an undeniable impact on this ecosystem. Can we do anything to minimize our impact is the real question that needs to be responsibly addressed. As long as we allow our leaders to politicize it, their bi-partisan followers to galvanize around it, and the scientists to profit from it we will solve nothing.

Personally I think it will just continue to get worse as politics take a higher precedence over ecology. It would be nice to see solutions offered here instead of denials and arguments over shades of gray.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> That statement goes south very fast ... you cannot show that humans are *not *accelerating the process.



The party that brings the accusation is the party that must provide the proof.  Duh...


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The party that brings the accusation is the party that must provide the proof.  Duh...


 You denying this proof is there doesn't equate to the scientific community not providing it.  Gratuitous insult inserted here---> Duh  ...

You gotta get past this thing you have of screaming there is no proof.  It's been clearly given.  What is fucked up is that people are still trying to say we CAUSED this trend.  We didn't ... but we are accelerating it.  Nobody with a sane brain can look at all the crap we put in the air and say we have no impact on this trend ... we need to all get behind this and look at solutions instead of screaming we have no causal impact.  The longer we apply our collective thought processes argueing did we do this or did we do that the less we can do about the problem.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> You denying this proof is there doesn't equate to the scientific community not providing it.  Gratuitous insult inserted here---> Duh  ...
> 
> You gotta get past this thing you have of screaming there is no proof.  It's been clearly given.  What is fucked up is that people are still trying to say we CAUSED this trend.  We didn't ... but we are accelerating it.  Nobody with a sane brain can look at all the crap we put in the air and say we have no impact on this trend ... we need to all get behind this and look at solutions instead of screaming we have no causal impact.  The longer we apply our collective thought processes argueing did we do this or did we do that the less we can do about the problem.



Then show me the definitive proof.  Show the causality of CO2 emissions to the mean temperature. 

Again I say, there are plenty of real, *provable*, reasons to clean up the environment without resorting to making shit up.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Then show me the definitive proof.  Show the causality of CO2 emissions to the mean temperature.
> 
> Again I say, there are plenty of real, *provable*, reasons to clean up the environment without resorting to making shit up.



I'm going to look past the show me thing to the part where we agree that we need to do something about the environment.  

So what do we do to clean it up?  Don't evade me on this one DOMS ...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I'm going to look past the show me thing to the part where we agree that we need to do something about the environment.
> 
> So what do we do to clean it up?  Don't evade me on this one DOMS ...



Just keep doing what we've been doing.  I know it's fashionable, even among Americans, do talk shit about the US, but we've been cleaning up our act for decades.  Just look at how much the pollution level has dropped in L.A.  I grew up there,  I can see the difference.

What I'd really like to see is a move away from oil.  Not only would this clean up the environment, but I can vacation down in Venezuela after their economy collapses when they lose their number one customer and their primary export item drops to a fraction of its current price.  I could throw my food on the ground and watch them scramble for it.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Just keep doing what we've been doing.  I know it's fashionable, even among Americans, do talk shit about the US, but we've been cleaning up our act for decades.  Just look at how much the pollution level has dropped in L.A.  I grew up there,  I can see the difference.
> 
> What I'd really like to see is a move away from oil.  Not only would this clean up the environment, but I can vacation down in Venezuela after their economy collapses when they lose their number one customer and their primary export item drops to a fraction of its current price.  I could throw my food on the ground and watch them scramble for it.


The women there would be even more easy to ... errr meat.

The issues here are not about America but about a global standard hat we all would somehow be required to follow ... that was where I intended to go with my question to you.  All this blathering is about more than just the USA and our contributions to the problem.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> The issues here are not about America but about a global standard hat we all would somehow be required to follow ... that was where I intended to go with my question to you.  All this blathering is about more than just the USA and our contributions to the problem.



The only way that the lesser nations would do anything of value towards a clean environment would be if they received handouts.  Trading concessions, relaxed tariffs, the ability to undercut other country's prices, and such.  That would create a shit load of other problems.  

The only way to "make" them do it, would be through tough international laws.  Which would have to be the reverse of everything I outlined in the previous paragraph.  Which would create its share of problems.

It all comes back to the old adage: You can lead a man to water, but you can't make him drink.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The only way that the lesser nations would do anything of value towards a clean environment would be if they received handouts.  Trading concessions, relaxed tariffs, the ability to undercut other country's prices, and such.  That would create a shit load of other problems.
> 
> The only way to "make" them do it, would be through tough international laws.  Which would have to be the reverse of everything I outlined in the previous paragraph.  Which would create its share of problems.
> 
> It all comes back to the old adage: You can lead a man to water, but you can't make him drink.


What other countries have you been too?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> What other countries have you been too?



Just Mexico; and before you say, or imply, that I can't talk about other countries because I've only learned about them, let me ask you this: have you ever been for a walk in the troposphere?  If not, you'll need to stop talking about the affects of CO2 on the Earth.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Just Mexico; and before you say, or imply, that I can't talk about other countries because I've only learned about them, let me ask you this: have you ever been for a walk in the troposphere?  If not, you'll need to stop talking about the affects of CO2 on the Earth.


Help me understand what you are saying here because right now I don't.  And don't be so defensive with me ... I'm not setting you up for some kinda BS attack.  I'm more straight forward than that.  I understand what the troposphere is ... but why would you ask that question?  We all live in the troposphere ... I don't get it.

Maybe you meant the exosphere?


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

At any rate I've been to a few places in the world and understand the issues from first hand experience dealing with the peeps in their own areas.  Watching the polution from Pakistan come rolling up into the Himalayas brings a tear to your eyes ... it actually stings sometimes it's so thick.  Those  fucktards could care less.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> Help me understand what you are saying here because right now I don't.  And don't be so defensive with me ... I'm not setting you up for some kinda BS attack.  I'm more straight forward than that.  I understand what the troposphere is ... but why would you ask that question?  We all live in the troposphere ... I don't get it.
> 
> Maybe you meant the exosphere?



Yep, I meant exosphere. I shot way too low...

And don't think that belligerent attitude has anything to do with be defensive.  I just think it's fun.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 5, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> At any rate I've been to a few places in the world and understand the issues from first hand experience dealing with the peeps in their own areas.  Watching the polution from Pakistan come rolling up into the Himalayas brings a tear to your eyes ... it actually stings sometimes it's so thick.  Those  fucktards could care less.



Your apparent faith in humanity is...disturbing, to say the least.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 5, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Yep, I meant exosphere. I shot way too low...
> 
> And don't think that belligerent attitude has anything to do with be defensive.  I just think it's fun.



Ohh no I wouldn't wanna imply that you would be ON the defensive in the first place ... 

I like to skydive, scubadive    .  I've seen them high up places.  I can comment on them if you choose to use that premise ...


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 6, 2007)

You skydive?


----------



## Decker (Feb 6, 2007)

brogers said:


> Government grants for the scientists.
> 
> As for politicians pushing it--it is a great excuse to claim more power. It's something they can claim to protect the people from.
> 
> ...


This is a very sad statement. 

Everything, and I mean everything, that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest. From love of family, wife, god...you name it, there's a selfish reason/purpose/goal at the base...even martyrdom is selfish. It's the way of the world.

If pointing out that something is harming us, slowly yet surely, like a silent cancer grows, isn't that a good thing?

If someone takes a further step on marshalling efforts to battle this harmful phenomenon, isn't that also a good thing?

I guess I don't see the downside that you do. Sure, political leaders can go too far in reaching their goals but that's why we have a constitutional system of checks and balances to ensure that lunacy does not follow. Sure that system has failed us for the moment with Bush, but it is catching up.

As for Hillary Clinton--I couldn't hear the YouTube movie--she, as a politician, is answerable to the will of the people.

It is the Oil Industry, which greases the political skids in a manner you or I could not, that is answerable to no one but its own interests.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Just keep doing what we've been doing.  I know it's fashionable, even among Americans, do talk shit about the US, but we've been cleaning up our act for decades.  Just look at how much the pollution level has dropped in L.A.  I grew up there,  I can see the difference.



 

... and that was still at the slow end of exponential curve


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 6, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> The issues here are not about America but about a global standard hat we all would somehow be required to follow ... that was where I intended to go with my question to you.  All this blathering is about more than just the USA and our contributions to the problem.



As the price of technology comes down, others will follow.  They always do.  Once alternative energies are cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, there won't be much point in sticking with fossil fuels.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The only way that the lesser nations would do anything of value towards a clean environment would be if they received handouts.  Trading concessions, relaxed tariffs, the ability to undercut other country's prices, and such.  That would create a shit load of other problems.
> 
> The only way to "make" them do it, would be through tough international laws.  Which would have to be the reverse of everything I outlined in the previous paragraph.  Which would create its share of problems.
> 
> It all comes back to the old adage: You can lead a man to water, but you can't make him drink.



They'll do it when it makes sense for them to do it (see above post)


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 6, 2007)

Decker said:


> Everything, and I mean everything, that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest. From love of family, wife, god...you name it, there's a selfish reason/purpose/goal at the base...even martyrdom is selfish. It's the way of the world.
> 
> If pointing out that something is harming us, slowly yet surely, like a silent cancer grows, isn't that a good thing?
> 
> ...



I'm really not into the Global Warming debate, but I'm gonna argue on DOMS' side from an anti-government point of view for just a second.  Yes, these are bad things because it seems they're not being brought to light on a purely humanitarian basis.  They're being brought to light solely on the basis of said scientists making more money.  That's why quite a few people are like DOMS and don't have any faith in the "scientific" proof being offererd.  And the downside is having the government step in and say, "Hey look, we found something wrong.  Give us more of your money so we can fix it."  I know you've seen the government take a lot of your money, but when have you EVER seen the government actually fix something?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> I'm really not into the Global Warming debate, but I'm gonna argue on DOMS' side from an anti-government point of view for just a second.  Yes, these are bad things because it seems they're not being brought to light on a purely humanitarian basis.  They're being brought to light solely on the basis of said scientists making more money.  That's why quite a few people are like DOMS and don't have any faith in the "scientific" proof being offererd.  And the downside is having the government step in and say, "Hey look, we found something wrong.  Give us more of your money so we can fix it."  I know you've seen the government take a lot of your money, but when have you EVER seen the government actually fix something?



It's also not just the immediate money.  If the scientist isn't PC, then he can be labeled as "bad guy", and "poof" there goes his funding and any appointments.


----------



## Decker (Feb 6, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> I'm really not into the Global Warming debate, but I'm gonna argue on DOMS' side from an anti-government point of view for just a second. Yes, these are bad things because it seems they're not being brought to light on a purely humanitarian basis. They're being brought to light solely on the basis of said scientists making more money. That's why quite a few people are like DOMS and don't have any faith in the "scientific" proof being offererd. And the downside is having the government step in and say, "Hey look, we found something wrong. Give us more of your money so we can fix it." I know you've seen the government take a lot of your money, but when have you EVER seen the government actually fix something?


 
There is no such thing as doing something for a purely humanitarian basis. All human action is selfish to some degree. DOMS???s argument is a non-argument applicable to any human endeavor: See, they are cooking the books b/c they are not impartial.

That???s why in questions of science we rely on the empirical and/or demonstrable findings of scientists. For global warming, scientists from all over the world integrate raw data with 1000s of models of the climate to reach their conclusions.

AL isn???t objectivity the essence of truth? 

Don???t worry about the scientists???s motivation for acting on global warming and look at their arguments. 

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/index.cfm

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/climate_change_101/


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

Decker said:


> DOMS???s argument is a non-argument



Wrong.  It's quite appropriate.  Add to that the fact that you have yet to display clear, viable, proof that humans are affecting global warming.  So you blindly place your faith in scientists even when they've neglected to show clear proof, have shown that that susceptible to political and monetary influences.  By the way, many of these same scientists were worried about global _cooling _back in the '70s.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 6, 2007)

Decker said:


> There is no such thing as doing something for a purely humanitarian basis. All human action is selfish to some degree. DOMS???s argument is a non-argument applicable to any human endeavor: See, they are cooking the books b/c they are not impartial.



Understood and agreed.  My argument (and that of DOMS) is that we know going into this argument that thy're not impartial.  And that very impartiality is why they shouldn't be trusted until they provide indisputable proof of their hypothesis.



Decker said:


> That???s why in questions of science we rely on the empirical and/or demonstrable findings of scientists. For global warming, scientists from all over the world integrate raw data with 1000s of models of the climate to reach their conclusions.
> 
> AL isn???t objectivity the essence of truth?
> 
> ...



Understood again and again, I'm not very versed on the Golbal Warming debate, but I see a couple of flaws in your argument:

#1  Models are just that, by definition they can't provide empiricle or demonsterable proof of ANYTHING.  They can be rigged to support anything you want.

#2  The data being plugged into the models in what, 100?  200 years old?  In terms of global climate that's nothing.  You can't prove anything with such a small sampling of data.


----------



## Decker (Feb 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Wrong. It's quite appropriate. Add to that the fact that you have yet to display clear, viable, proof that humans are affecting global warming. So you blindly place your faith in scientists even when they've neglected to show clear proof, have shown that that susceptible to political and monetary influences. By the way, many of these same scientists were worried about global _cooling _back in the '70s.


No, your line of argumentation is flawed: since we do not have absolute proof of global warming, it is not happening. And anyone who says otherwise is motivated by greed/self-interest in the hopes of keeping the gravy train that is global warming afloat. Tell me if I paraphrase incorrectly.

Do you have a problem with the theory of gravity too? It is only a theory mostly adhered to by NASA scientists and other so-called "disinterested" parties.

Throughout the millenia there has been a clear correlation between GHGasses and observable temperature. Solar radiation and volcanic emissions are natural drivers of the GHG phenom. Man's industrial activities also drivers of GHG. Scientists worldwide have run 1000s of models that lead to the conclusion that global warming is real, man's industrial behavior is making it worse, the warming is irreversible but can be ameliorated by our activities. 

Could these models be wrong? Perhaps. But I???m willing to hold the word of the scientific community over that of bitter critics on this topic. 

I ???blindly??? put my understanding into the hours and hours of research that these eminently qualified men of science put into their work. What do you base your conclusions on? Common sense and selfishness right?

What do I care of global cooling back in the 1970s? Perhaps you???d like to dig up some of the Alchemists from the middle ages to kick in on the subject. I hear that Theodoric of York posits that the fiendish works of sprites and fairies are to blame for the warming of our climate???.and cooling too.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

Decker said:


> No, your line of argumentation is flawed: since we do not have absolute proof of global warming, it is not happening.



Your very first sentence is flawed.  There is plenty of proof that global warming is happening.   There just isn't any credible proof that man is affecting it.




Decker said:


> And anyone who says otherwise is motivated by greed/self-interest in the hopes of keeping the gravy train that is global warming afloat.



So tell me, what do you think my self-interest is?  Do you think that I own stock in an oil company?  Am I part of the "in" crowd of politicians that sells out to oil corporations? My motivation is none of the above.  




Decker said:


> Throughout the millenia there has been a clear correlation between GHGasses and observable temperature.


  This doesn't exist.  Not even on Gore's graph.




Decker said:


> I ???blindly??? put my understanding into the hours and hours of research that these eminently qualified men of science put into their work. What do you base your conclusions on? Common sense and selfishness right?



"Blindly" is the correct word.  Just because they're scientists doesn't put them above question.   Remember, these are the same people that were afraid of global cooling.  These are also the same people on whose livelihood depends on others (politicians, educational institutions, etc.).  

If the topic were something simple like and not politically (and personally) charged like fabricating new synthetic materials, then the outside pressure would be nil.  But on something that so many people have a stake in (for and against), their integrity is questionable.  After all, if they piss off the wrong person, there goes their funding.



Decker said:


> What do I care of global cooling back in the 1970s?



Like I said, "blindly" was the correct word.  You're not even looking.  Unlike alchemy, the global cooling theory was was put forward by some the same people who are promoting global warming.


----------



## Decker (Feb 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Your very first sentence is flawed. There is plenty of proof that global warming is happening. There just isn't any credible proof that man is affecting it.


There are natural and man-made contributors to GHG. Do you dispute this? So man???s adding tons and tons of GHG precursor substances to the atmosphere has no effect? Follow this link:http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm


> So tell me, what do you think my self-interest is? Do you think that I own stock in an oil company? Am I part of the "in" crowd of politicians that sells out to oil corporations? My motivation is none of the above.


 I don???t know what motivates you.


> This doesn't exist. Not even on Gore's graph.


There are correlations of this all over the joint.
???As can been seen in this figure, throughout the millennia, there has been a clear *correlation* between carbon dioxide levels and average global surface temperatures.???
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/longco2temp.cfm


> "Blindly" is the correct word. Just because they're scientists doesn't put them above question. Remember, these are the same people that were afraid of global cooling. These are also the same people on whose livelihood depends on others (politicians, educational institutions, etc.).


You are shooting the messenger. So you claim that, worldwide, these people are risking their careers, their reputations and their livelihoods by knowingly cooking the books on their findings just for some short term gain? Possible but not likely. My guys are credible. I don't know what resources you rely on for disputing these climatologists....


> Like I said, "blindly" was the correct word. You're not even looking. Unlike alchemy, the global cooling theory was was put forward by some the same people who are promoting global warming.


This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But please list 3 eminent climatologists guilty of this apparent flip flop.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 6, 2007)

One problems with DOMS argument:


The people who have something to gain by the "man has no effect on global warming" argument, could pay the scientists way more money than the other crowd.  I mean these are big industry guys, like big oil...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> One problems with DOMS argument:
> 
> 
> The people who have something to gain by the "man has no effect on global warming" argument, could pay the scientists way more money than the other crowd.  I mean these are big industry guys, like big oil...



This isn't a problem.  I don't entirely trust them either.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

Decker said:


> There are natural and man-made contributors to GHG. Do you dispute this? So man???s adding tons and tons of GHG precursor substances to the atmosphere has no effect? Follow this link:http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/motemp.cfm
> 
> There are correlations of this all over the joint.
> ???As can been seen in this figure, throughout the millennia, there has been a clear *correlation* between carbon dioxide levels and average global surface temperatures.???
> http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/temp_ghg_trends/longco2temp.cfm



The problem with your chart is that it falls apart at the right edge.  The correlation goes away.  That's a *fact*.  CO2 emissions no longer correlate to the mean temperature.  You're ignoring this.  You may well have a supposition for this discrepancy, but it'll just be your (or another's) guess, and no longer factual.  BoneCrusher brought up the idea that it takes a while for water to warm up (never mind all the exposed land mass and atmosphere); but all it is his _*guess*_.




Decker said:


> I don???t know what motivates you.



My motivation is easy to understand.  I don't take much as face value;  certainly nothing of consequence.  I want to see the information, the facts, that support it.




Decker said:


> You are shooting the messenger. So you claim that, worldwide, these people are risking their careers, their reputations and their livelihoods by knowingly cooking the books on their findings just for some short term gain? Possible but not likely. My guys are credible. I don't know what resources you rely on for disputing these climatologists....



You have it backwards.  They're risking their careers if the _*don't*_ tow line.  If not their careers, at least some of their funding.




Decker said:


> This is irrelevant to the topic at hand. But please list 3 eminent climatologists guilty of this apparent flip flop.



I don't care enough to track down the list again.  It's out there if you feel like spending the time to find it.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 6, 2007)

The graph shows a correlation... but it doesn't say which causes which.

Does CO2 cause global warming or does higher temperatures result in the planet generating more CO2?

Or maybe there is a 3rd factor that causes both CO2 and heat... like forest fires or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

That sounds like you thought about it for yourself.  Tsk-tsk!

Your idea that the planet's temperature regulates CO2 is more plausible than the idea that CO2 regulates the Earth's temperature.  That hypothesis would hold up against Gore's graph.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 6, 2007)

The Earth is about to flip upside down!!!!Australia will be North and the US will be south, will we have to re name every continent????


----------



## Brachiisaurus (Feb 6, 2007)

maniclion said:


> The Earth is about to flip upside down!!!!Australia will be North and the US will be south, will we have to re name every continent????


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 6, 2007)

Brachiisaurus said:


>



I'd be worried if I were you, son.  You're kind went extinct last time that happened.


----------



## brogers (Feb 6, 2007)

Decker said:


> This is a very sad statement.
> 
> Everything, and I mean everything, that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest. From love of family, wife, god...you name it, there's a selfish reason/purpose/goal at the base...even martyrdom is selfish. It's the way of the world.
> 
> ...


 
So, the scientists claiming global warming is anthropogenic and is a serious threat are legit because "everything that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest."

Interesting, because I keep hearing in the news about the oil companies being so selfish, and thus we can't trust anything they publish about global warming.

I guess it's ok for someone to be selfish if you agree with them.

As for Clinton, it's pretty naive to think that she "answers to the people" moreso than a private company.  Since this is true, we should nationalize the oil industry that way it can "answer to the people" better.  Maybe Chavez was on to something

By the way, that clip of Clinton was her saying she wants to take Exxon Mobile's profits.  Sounds to me like she doesn't even want to answer to the Constitution.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 7, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> As the price of technology comes down, others will follow.  They always do.  Once alternative energies are cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, there won't be much point in sticking with fossil fuels.


I sell more and more PV (photo voltaic) modules every week, it's grown so much since I started four years ago we went from selling a million a year to a million every couple months.  If you ever come to Honolulu you'll see as you head back to the Airport the Harley Davidson Building with it's full array of electric modules, then you'll see the Navy Housing with every home topped with a cherry of two or more solar hot water arrays, it's like taking a glimpse into the future....


----------



## Decker (Feb 7, 2007)

brogers said:


> So, the scientists claiming global warming is anthropogenic and is a serious threat are legit because "everything that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest."
> 
> Interesting, because I keep hearing in the news about the oil companies being so selfish, and thus we can't trust anything they publish about global warming.
> 
> ...


You miss the point in an obfuscative blitz of enormous proportions. 

Are you aware there are degrees of Selfish activity? 

Do you acknowledge the fundamental tension between the ego/self and the superego/society? 

The strong urges of self-interest are tempered to meet the demands of society.  Unless of course you get your kicks taking the life savings of women and children--like Bush's boy Ken Lay.

Clinton is a senator who is accountable to her constituency. I would hardly equate the accountability of oil corps to its investors as being on the same level.


----------



## Decker (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS said:


> ....all it is his _*guess*_.


Yes, it is an educated guess.  It's a hypothesis that follows from empirical data incorporated in countless environmental models by eminent scientists.  

You say that you come to your conclusions through common sense analysis.  What is science but a practice in informed common sense:  Common sense at a higher level.  A scientist knows more info and knows how to analyze it better than the average guy--namely you.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> Clinton is a senator who is accountable to her constituency. I would hardly equate the accountability of oil corps to its investors as being on the same level.



Every politician that makes it to that level is more beholden to special interests than they are to the average citizen.  The system is setup to ensure that.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> Yes, it is an educated guess.  It's a hypothesis that follows from empirical data incorporated in countless environmental models by eminent scientists.
> 
> You say that you come to your conclusions through common sense analysis.  What is science but a practice in informed common sense:  Common sense at a higher level.  A scientist knows more info and knows how to analyze it better than the average guy--namely you.



The difference is that BoneCrusher is saying that some "is" based on his opinions and I'm saying that something "isn't proven" by my opinion.  Said another way, he's trying to reach a conclusion and I'm saying that there isn't enough information (facts) to reach a conclusion.

There is a _very _big difference.


----------



## Decker (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Every politician that makes it to that level is more beholden to special interests than they are to the average citizen. The system is setup to ensure that.


I agree. But the system wasn't set up that way in our constitution. Removing the personhood status of corporations is the first step. The second step is the national funding of federal elections. There's probably a third step but I have to get back to work.

Also, there is still no comparison between the special interest laden politician and big oil. It still comes down to some form of accountability in elections for politicians. It could be better though.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> I agree. But the system wasn't set up that way in our constitution. Removing the personhood status of corporations is the first step. The second step is the national funding of federal elections. There's probably a third step but I have to get back to work.



I agree _*100%*_ with the above.



Decker said:


> Also, there is still no comparison between the special interest laden politician and big oil. It still comes down to some form of accountability in elections for politicians. It could be better though.



This I disagree with.  How about the affect of the Japanese special interest group back in the late 80's and early 90's?  That fucked us up pretty good.  

While oil is a more powerful special interest group, there are way more smaller groups that I believe have a much larger effect.  In the sense that 100 "ones" is more than a single "10".


----------



## Decker (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS said:


> The difference is that BoneCrusher is saying that some "is" based on his opinions and I'm saying that something "isn't proven" by my opinion. Said another way, he's trying to reach a conclusion and I'm saying that there isn't enough information (facts) to reach a conclusion.
> 
> There is a _very _big difference.


I'm not addressing the epistemological relevance of Bonecrusher's or your arguments; that's why I erased it. 

Your whole game is that the empirical evidence out there does not show that man has any qualitative effect on the GHG process. That conclusion from you comes from your common sense analysis.

I support the informed conclusions of the climatologists. That's all. 

If we wait for the predictive facet of science to kick in (realized in fact), it may be a bit too late. Does smoking contribute to higher occurrences of lung cancer? No way according to big tobacco. Later science was able to confirm what was always suspected. Why wait until we lung cancer until we do something? Before you start, I know that all analogies break down.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> Your whole game is that the empirical evidence out there does not show that man has any qualitative effect on the GHG process.  That conclusion from you comes from your common sense analysis.
> 
> I support the informed conclusions of the climatologists.  That's all.



It's those same climatologists that came up with Gore's chart!  You know, the one he, and other global warming pundits, base most of his stance on?  It's their _own chart_ that shows the relationship between CO2 and the mean temperature isn't what they say it is.



Decker said:


> If we wait for the predictive facet of science to kick in, it may be a bit too late.  Does smoking contribute to higher occurrences of lung cancer?  No way according to big tobacco.  Later science was able to confirm what was always suspected.  Why wait until we lung cancer until we do something?  Before you start, I know that all analogies break down.



You're trying to tie in the fallacy of global warming with a different (put proven) topic.  But I'll entertain it anyway.

Yes, you do wait.  You wait until it can be proven so that people don't jump to conclusions and waste money (and resources).  You do it _intelligently_, not _emotionally_. When you do that, you get crap like the Kyoto Protocol.


----------



## Arnold (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS and Decker, why don't you two just have your little political arguments via PM's?


----------



## Decker (Feb 7, 2007)

Prince said:


> DOMS and Decker, why don't you two just have your little political arguments via PM's?


It's your forum Robert.  You'll do as you like.  However, outside of one or two posts tangential to the topic at hand, I fail to see why we should not continue.


----------



## Decker (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS said:


> ....You do it _intelligently_, not _emotionally_. When you do that, you get crap like the Kyoto Protocol.


I still think the common sense of the climatologists is an informed common sense and superior to your position.  I do not see emotion getting in the way of their conclusions other than a common impulse for self-preservation.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> I still think the common sense of the climatologists is an informed common sense and superior to your position.  I do not see emotion getting in the way of their conclusions other than a common impulse for self-preservation.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> It's your forum Robert.  You'll do as you like.  However, outside of one or two posts tangential to the topic at hand, I fail to see why we should not continue.


Because when you post to the boards it takes up more server time which produces heat which gets dispersed into the ambient atmosphere, but thats not all, think about everyone who has to refresh the thread and see what was posted and how much heat each of there computers is producing and then you'll see why Rob is so concerned.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> I still think the common sense of the climatologists is an informed common sense and superior to your position.  I do not see emotion getting in the way of their conclusions other than a common impulse for self-preservation.



You don't think that emotion plays a big role in global warming?  You think it was a calculated use of intelligence that produced the Kyoto Protocol?  

In any case, none of that changes the fact that you still haven't produced any real proof that man has influenced the world's temperature.  All you've done is say "The scientists told me so!" and produce some very valid facts...that still don't prove your point.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Decker said:


> It's your forum Robert.  You'll do as you like.  However, outside of one or two posts tangential to the topic at hand, I fail to see why we should not continue.



I think it's his way of saying that we need more pics of hot, but not nude, chicks.

Think of it as "homo warming".  If you don't have enough hot chicks in a thread, it turns gay.


----------

