|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
 Posted - 05/06/2001 : 15:42:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, we put 25% extra in, and the temperature is rising, pretty good proof that we have done something.
All this proves is that you have faulty logic, and this is the same mistake (sometimes on purpose ) that environmentalists often make. I do not have to prove that added CO2 is not causing global warming. Prove a negative?
|
 |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2001 : 02:36:08 [Permalink]
|
If its already proven and you want to disprove it you do.
Fact is that the damage caused by it if I am right would be so high that the safest course of action is to assume that it is dangerous until there is evidence to the contary.
Much better then finding out after most cities have joined the ocean.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2001 : 08:05:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Much better then finding out after most cities have joined the ocean.
You've got to be joking...
|
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2001 : 18:49:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Fact is that the damage caused by it if I am right would be so high that the safest course of action is to assume that it is dangerous until there is evidence to the contary.
Again, proof that religious convictions have no place in a rational discussion. Should we build an ark and put a genetically diverse example of every ecosystem on it? Then when the flood subsides we can all live happily ever after in a land of gumdrops and sparkling clear waterfalls, where no organism feels pain and the birds sing happily.
|
|
|
|
JRB
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2001 : 19:45:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If its already proven and you want to disprove it you do.
But it hasn't been proven - that's the point.
140 years worth of accurate temperature measurements is not sufficient when compared to the age of the earth.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2001 : 01:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But it hasn't been proven - that's the point.
Not 100%, but nothing ever is, it is at least 95% proven, which is good enough for action to be taken.
We have to do some risk assesement.
The risks from global warming if CO2 that we put into the the atmosphere causes it are that cities will be flooded.
The costs of taking preventative action to stop it from happening are very small compared with that, also it costs far more to fix damage then to prevent it.
quote:
Again, proof that religious convictions have no place in a rational discussion. Should we build an ark and put a genetically diverse example of every ecosystem on it? Then when the flood subsides we can all live happily ever after in a land of gumdrops and sparkling clear waterfalls, where no organism feels pain and the birds sing happily.
Strawman arguments don't work against me.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2001 : 01:41:26 [Permalink]
|
Isn't it a given that the ice caps are melting. Ditto for glaciers? Even if our inustrial CO2 emmisions are not the entire cause, isn't it at the very least a contributing factor? A sifnificant number of scientists have signed on to this train of thought. Also one thing about blaming government about being the worst polluter...maybe this isn't entirely fair, but from my experience Libertarians blame everything on government. That damn government...always messes everything up.
Depends on who's running the government I suppose. I wonder how the Ralph Nadar supporters feel about now.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2001 : 08:26:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Isn't it a given that the ice caps are melting. Ditto for glaciers? Even if our inustrial CO2 emmisions are not the entire cause, isn't it at the very least a contributing factor?
That's the point, we don't know!  As stated before (and you can easily confirm this information from multiple sources by doing a search) 95 - 98% of atmospheric CO2 is natural. So would the .4 degrees C average temperature increase over the last one hundred years be, what, .39999999 degrees C if we hadn't had the industrial revolution?
quote:
It is estimated that sea levels are rising, on average, by about 1.8 millimetres per year.
Quick! Run to the hills! Our cities are flooding!!! 
The point is, are we melting the ice, or would it be melting anyway? So far, the jury is still out, and I still say that we shouldn't make any global economic decisions based on what we know so far. That's all I'm saying. Not defending polluters, as some ridiculously contend. (You think I want anyone to lose their homes and/or lives?!)
quote:
A significant number of scientists have signed on to this train of thought.
And a significant number have not.
quote:
Also one thing about blaming government about being the worst polluter...maybe this isn't entirely fair, but from my experience Libertarians blame everything on government. That damn government...always messes everything up.
You're right, that's not entirely fair. Everything is not government's fault, and when they are blamed for something, there are usually many facts to back it up. For instance, the fact that the U.S. Government is the largest polluter by far in our country is an undesputed fact (except by bestonnet_00) The Boston Globe is hardly a libertarian newspaper, and it's 1996 4 part investigative report has not been refuted, as far as I can find. [What's worse, is that the government is exempt from it's own environmental laws. You can find info on how the states are having a hell of a time trying to get the feds to clean up their messes.]
quote:
Depends on who's running the government I suppose. I wonder how the Ralph Nadar supporters feel about now.
Who cares how they feel? Anyone who supports that scam artist will fall for anything. If they'd take out some of the nonsense they have in their platform, and get a candidate who wasn't a con artist, hell, maybe even I'd support them. The problem is, the Greens pretty much want to legislate literally your every life decision. But I guess that's a subject for the Politics forum.
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/08/2001 08:28:36 |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2001 : 03:47:52 [Permalink]
|
We don't know, for all we know it may be worse then we thought, which is why we should take the safest course of action until further evidence comes out (and don't bring up SO42+).
The effects on the economy would in fact be far smaller then you claim, there would be no economic melt-down, no depressions, in fact not even a recession.
Also CO2 levels have gone up 25% since the start of the industrial age, stop saying it is mostly from natural processes, it is more unlikely that nature is changing that quickly at the same time we are on this planet, then us causing the change.
The Jury isn't really still out, the ice melting is already proven, in fact you only need 1/10 of antartica to raise sea levels a signifcant amount.
The denialists are in the minority, and despite having most of the fossil fuel industry behind them they are still a minority, pretty good proof they are bullshitting.
You haven't even proven that government is the largest pollutor, and it wouldn't matter whether you did or didn't because that is unimportant and would just mean we have to make government clean up as well as industry.
Libertarians blame any depressions on government, even though depressions only occur in periods where there is almost no regulation by government, they blame government for everything bad, even if there is solid proof that those problems are caused by corporations (right libertarians worship corporations as gods).
Fact is that more often then not government is a good solution to a problem.
Also of the US parties the greens are better then most of the others, the republicans are right wing wackos, and the democrats and moving to the right as well (because they have to get the campaing money), maybe you need to set a limit to how much can be spent on political campaings over there in one of the worst democracies on the planet (you don't even have to vote there).
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2001 : 11:19:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The effects on the economy would in fact be far smaller then you claim, there would be no economic melt-down, no depressions, in fact not even a recession.
Are you responding to me? Because I read back over this thread, and I've not claimed melt-down, depressions, or recessions. Skyrocketing gas prices, yes. This is an obvious result. Economic melt-downs, no.
Look, I'd rather be safe than sorry also, just like almost anyone. And if for some reason I ever had to make a decision whether or not to support measures aimed at reducing potential globally harmful practices, I'd support them. But from a purely academic standpoint, I'll continue to argue that the evidence is not strong enough to go around claiming the things you do are facts.
quote:
Also CO2 levels have gone up 25% since the start of the industrial age, stop saying it is mostly from natural processes, it is more unlikely that nature is changing that quickly at the same time we are on this planet, then us causing the change.
Granted, it's almost certain that the increase in this century is caused by humans (I've not said the increase was due to natural processes, just that the total atomospheric CO2 was mostly natural). But is this harmful? I've read many reports (mostly from leftist environmental groups whose motives are anti-capitalist) that say it will cause calamity. I've read many reports (mostly from right-leaning economic policy groups who are pro-capitalists) that say it's not harmful at all, but actually beneficial to plant life. Which is true? Guess people who don't interpret the evidence the way you do are bought and paid for by the oil companies, huh?
Try this link, they seem to be non-biased and purely scientific: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
I'll be the first to (gladly) admit that you are right, if I found sufficient evidence for the idea that 'most of our cities will be underwater in a hundred years'. Would anything convince you otherwise, or is this just ammo in your hatred against 'evil big business', that if proven wrong, you'll just stubbornly move on to something else to rail against corporations with?
quote:
The Jury isn't really still out, the ice melting is already proven, in fact you only need 1/10 of antartica to raise sea levels a signifcant amount.
I've not said anything until now, but your getting a bit out of hand with your reading miscomprehention. Nowhere did I deny that the ice caps were melting. Nowhere have I denied that the earth appears to be warming. Nowhere have I denied that the atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing. What I've been saying is that we don't know for sure if humans are the cause, and more importantly, if there's anything we can do to stop it!!! Got it now?
cont.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2001 : 11:19:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The denialists are in the minority, and despite having most of the fossil fuel industry behind them they are still a minority, pretty good proof they are bullshitting.
*sigh* No one here is talking about the stupid denialists except you! Stop lumping us in with the denialists! We're not denying that the earth is warming. We are skeptical of the reasons!
And just because a majority of scientists hold a certain view that is contradicted by a minority of scientists, doesn't necessarily mean the majority is automatically right. It certainly helps your case, but it doesn't clinch it. (i.e. plate tectonics, and [I was about to post my previous mention of how scientists supposedly were predicting a coming ice age around 30 years ago. On looking into it, I've found that while a few made mention of it, most of the 'hysteria' was generated by the media and public. So I'm not going to. See how easy it is for me to admit when I'm wrong?  ]
quote:
You haven't even proven that government is the largest pollutor, and it wouldn't matter whether you did or didn't because that is unimportant and would just mean we have to make government clean up as well as industry.
How can we do that, when the government has exempted itself from it's own regulations?
You're right though, I don't think any proof in the world will convince you. I might as well be talking to a creationist.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2001 : 01:55:42 [Permalink]
|
Ok, now in the earlier parts you were saying that we shouldn't be making those laws and now you are saying they should be made?
You also said that the economic consquences would be very bad, yet now you are saying that they would be maybe slightly higher petrol prices?
Also the reason most of the leftists are against capatilism (or at least want it regulated heavily) is because the evidence is that capatilism is not enviomentally friendly and also leads to exploitation and a host of other problems.
Government can be regulated if the government regulation departments are not controlled by the ones that are being regulated, the USSR provides a very good example of what happens when the regulator is the same body as the pollutor, the best way to counter pollution from both industry and government is for regulations that are actually enforced.
I'm the one who feels like I'm argueing a creationalist flat earther.
|
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2001 : 18:20:49 [Permalink]
|
Dammit bestonnet! The point is that environmentalists have an idea that no matter what is said, the protection of the environment is important enough to lie and promulgate theories which have NO scientific basis. Why do you beleive that propoganda is the best way to change things? I know, The end justifies the means. Lie enough and the uneducated public will beleive you. Check out the FILCHERS portion of this site and be true to objective reason!!!!!
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2001 : 02:38:46 [Permalink]
|
First of all whilst I do consider protecting the environment to be important I don't consider lying to be a good way to protect it, basically your combining a strawman and ad homenin attack into one.
Lying usually backfires as the lies are exposed, also not all propaganda involves lies, some of it can be completely truthful (like cities that become oceans), propaganda is the art of using emotion instead of logic to reach people, whilst I would prefer to use logic and evidence on most people (they do support what I am saying), too many people don't care about evidence and prefer to use their emotions, which is why we must also find ways to convince those who think with their emotions.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
