Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1221  
Old 18.03.2013, 16:17
Karl's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Here
Posts: 1,964
Groaned at 193 Times in 88 Posts
Thanked 2,884 Times in 932 Posts
Karl has a reputation beyond reputeKarl has a reputation beyond reputeKarl has a reputation beyond reputeKarl has a reputation beyond reputeKarl has a reputation beyond reputeKarl has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Look at it from a common sense point of view.

Let's pretend that mankind was once a docile species, content to hunt and gather from what exists naturally in nature. Living in small settlements, in harmony with the natural ecosystem.

Then some crazy but pursuasive leader suddenly appears and says "hey, it's a bit cold around here, let's see how quickly we can warm this place up!!".

The previously docile population who lived in tune with nature then embarks on a furious mission to extract and ignite billions of tons of concentrated solar energy as quickly as possible, exhuming a high-energy substance consisting of the remnants of vast forests and jungles which rose and fell over millions of years: oil.

The stuff is pumped relentlessly out of the ground and incinerated at a furious, ever-increasing tempo for over a century. Ever more inventive ways to burn it faster and in greater quantities are implemented to spread it's heat and fumes around the planet.

It is the ultimate global bonfire, burning 24/7.

Hmm...could this have something to do with it?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Karl for this useful post:
  #1222  
Old 18.03.2013, 16:22
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,468 Times in 1,779 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Look at it from a common sense point of view.

Let's pretend that mankind was once a docile species, content to hunt and gather from what exists naturally in nature. Living in small settlements, in harmony with the natural ecosystem.

Then some crazy but pursuasive leader suddenly appears and says "hey, it's a bit cold around here, let's see how quickly we can warm this place up!!".

The previously docile population who lived in tune with nature then embarks on a furious mission to extract and ignite billions of tons of concentrated solar energy as quickly as possible, exhuming a high-energy substance consisting of the remnants of vast forests and jungles which rose and fell over millions of years: oil.

The stuff is pumped relentlessly out of the ground and incinerated at a furious, ever-increasing tempo for over a century. Ever more inventive ways to burn it faster and in greater quantities are implemented to spread it's heat and fumes around the planet.

It is the ultimate global bonfire, burning 24/7.

Hmm...could this have something to do with it?
Sounds like a conspiracy theory. Are you selling carbon credits?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1223  
Old 24.03.2013, 22:44
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. ZŁrich
Posts: 9,480
Groaned at 391 Times in 339 Posts
Thanked 16,647 Times in 9,022 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

& in the UK; from the Telegraph;-

As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hoursí worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time.


Under the EUís Large Combustion Plants Directive, UK lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth of average electricity demands.

Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to electricity bills every year.

All this to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere which, according to the UN, will take at least 1,000 years even if production of man made CO2 is now completely stopped (which is not possible).

Meanwhile China & India build ever more CO2 producing plants that produce "x" times the CO2 we think we are saving.
Reply With Quote
The following 3 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1224  
Old 31.03.2013, 16:23
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,681
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,468 Times in 1,779 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
& in the UK; from the Telegraph;-

As the snow of the coldest March since 1963 continues to fall, we learn that we have barely 48 hoursí worth of stored gas left to keep us warm, and that the head of our second-largest electricity company, SSE, has warned that our generating capacity has fallen so low that we can expect power cuts to begin at any time.


Under the EUís Large Combustion Plants Directive, UK lost two more major coal-fired power stations, Didcot A and Cockenzie, capable of contributing no less than a tenth of average electricity demands.

Then, hidden in the small print of the Budget, were new figures for the fast-escalating tax the Government introduces next week on every ton of CO2 emitted by fossil-fuel-powered stations, which will soon be adding billions of pounds more to electricity bills every year.

All this to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere which, according to the UN, will take at least 1,000 years even if production of man made CO2 is now completely stopped (which is not possible).

Meanwhile China & India build ever more CO2 producing plants that produce "x" times the CO2 we think we are saving.
Hmm..with this logic, i guess the world is totally screwed. (no sarcasm). And so, we should burn all the fossil fuels we want to with the full acceptance that we will make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves and the majority of other species around us. Its ok, kids, and we're not sorry about it. Its a natural process.
I like to brew my own beer. I add a small amount of yeast to a resource-rich closed system (jug of sweet malted grain sugars and water). The yeast multiply exponentially. It all seems so healthy and lively to watch, with all that commotion and bubbly yeast water. Until the point that the yeast have created so much waste product (alcohol) that they can no longer survive in their self-toxified jug, and they nearly all die. We have manipulated our planet in the same way we manipulate the yeast, only we are on the inside of the jug and there is no escape.
Alas, time to crack open a beer on a cold sunday afternoon. Happy Easter!....
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1225  
Old 31.03.2013, 16:55
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Hmm..with this logic, i guess the world is totally screwed. (no sarcasm). And so, we should burn all the fossil fuels we want to with the full acceptance that we will make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves and the majority of other species around us. Its ok, kids, and we're not sorry about it. Its a natural process.
I like to brew my own beer. I add a small amount of yeast to a resource-rich closed system (jug of sweet malted grain sugars and water). The yeast multiply exponentially. It all seems so healthy and lively to watch, with all that commotion and bubbly yeast water. Until the point that the yeast have created so much waste product (alcohol) that they can no longer survive in their self-toxified jug, and they nearly all die. We have manipulated our planet in the same way we manipulate the yeast, only we are on the inside of the jug and there is no escape.
Alas, time to crack open a beer on a cold sunday afternoon. Happy Easter!....
And with this type of logic we're going to kill our planet and ourselves faster, all in the name of "saving" it... Unlike your beer tun, Earth is not a "closed" system, as numerous external factors have significant influence on the Earth. Solar activity has more impact on observable climactic phenomena than do the activities of the entire human population, for example.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at Jobsrobertsharpii for this post:
  #1226  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:13
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 13,835
Groaned at 271 Times in 177 Posts
Thanked 16,951 Times in 7,172 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

what's behind it? perhaps a few organisations trying to profit
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1227  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:27
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,733
Groaned at 148 Times in 100 Posts
Thanked 6,822 Times in 2,677 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And with this type of logic we're going to kill our planet and ourselves faster, all in the name of "saving" it... Unlike your beer tun, Earth is not a "closed" system, as numerous external factors have significant influence on the Earth. Solar activity has more impact on observable climactic phenomena than do the activities of the entire human population, for example.
Well, I highly doubt that a coronal mass ejection or a meteor are going to send an ocean's worth of fresh water or an eternity's worth of fossil fuels our way.
Reply With Quote
  #1228  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:28
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,733
Groaned at 148 Times in 100 Posts
Thanked 6,822 Times in 2,677 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
what's behind it? perhaps a few organisations trying to profit
Or a fairly large percentage of the scientific community still trying to figure it out...
Reply With Quote
  #1229  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:29
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

The whole premise of "Global Warming" and "Global Climate Change" is painfully incomplete, inaccurate, and doesn't explain what is actually going on around the world in any meaningful way, shape or form. However, as it has taken on the aspect of an organized religion, with its own already-tired dogma that gets paraded out every time someone says, "But the actual data doesn't match your predictions..." When someone sees that the Emperor has no clothes, they're shouted down and told "better" models are on the way, and these models will give us the truth. Just don't lose faith and start to think for yourself...

If you even question the institution of Environmentalism, you are branded as much a heretic as were people like Martin Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli in their day; fortunately, social values have advanced beyond burning at the stake and stoning to silence the "heretics."

Instead, you're branded as "selfish," "ignorant," or "uncaring." You're told "everybody knows" this and that about the impending environmental doomsday, which never seems to come as fast as, nor in the manner that Al Gore and other members of the Environmental College of Cardinals claim it will. Although "everybody knows," it is amazing how quick everyone forgets what they claimed to know when observation does not back this "knowledge" up. Companies that question this cult-science are branded as "evil" or "profit-mongering" (which is utterly hilarious when you consider the billions going to environmental organizations worldwide, and you see the leaders of these organizations and their hired mouthpieces riding around in "polluting" SUVs and private jets, even as they tell us to drive hybrids) and the proverbial "Scarlet Letter" isn't removed unless these companies dump millions into the coffers of the Environmental Priesthood; it really is the medieval Church, just a new flavor of the same old shakedown.

Now, that all that's been said (which most of the pro-Global Warming crowd won't read because its heresy), this does not absolve mankind from efficient and intelligent use of resources- they are finite. If you dump poison into a river, it will be poisoned. This is all common sense. As I have always said, let's become good stewards of the environment, but not by following a failed dogma.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/scienti...ming-lie/11383
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
This user groans at Jobsrobertsharpii for this post:
  #1230  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:35
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,733
Groaned at 148 Times in 100 Posts
Thanked 6,822 Times in 2,677 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

And just because someone expresses their concern about the environment from time-to-time doesn't mean that they are necessarily part of the "pro-Global Warming crowd" or followers of the "Environmental priesthood."

The fact is, the climate change buzz is still relatively new, and scientists themselves are still trying to understand it. It's obviously not a simple task. But I personally am thankful that the human race is starting to pay attention rather than just turn a blind eye, as a whole.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #1231  
Old 31.03.2013, 17:50
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
And just because someone expresses their concern about the environment from time-to-time doesn't mean that they are necessarily part of the "pro-Global Warming crowd" or followers of the "Environmental priesthood."

The fact is, the climate change buzz is still relatively new, and scientists themselves are still trying to understand it. It's obviously not a simple task. But I personally am thankful that the human race is starting to pay attention rather than just turn a blind eye, as a whole.
Expressing one's concern is good and questioning things is the root of knowledge; this is not to what I was referring. And you are absolutely correct in saying that the "climate change buzz" is relatively new; however, the study of Earth's climate has existed for more than a century, and, at one time about 100 years ago, we believed that human activity was causing the Earth to freeze. 30-50 years ago, depending on whom you believe, we decided we were unnaturally warming the planet and 20 years ago, when the data didn't support this, the claim changed to us warming the planet by cooling it, or cooling it by warming it, again depending on from whom the message came.

However, I object to this organized political environmental movement that has taken the stance that "The discussion is closed; we're right. Agree with us or be excommunicated from the global community." This is wrong. The discussion is not closed. We only think our conservation efforts are better than what came before, as we don't truly know the scope and domain of our impact on the world, nor have we answered basic questions as to whether our behavior and its subsequent impact is a "normal" process for a planet with a sentient species living therein. We don't even know what a "normal" process is. We have no frame of reference for these questions, and the answers to these questions form one of the biggest underpinnings of what our environmental philosophy should be moving forward.
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:00
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,733
Groaned at 148 Times in 100 Posts
Thanked 6,822 Times in 2,677 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Expressing one's concern is good and questioning things is the root of knowledge; this is not to what I was referring. And you are absolutely correct in saying that the "climate change buzz" is relatively new; however, the study of Earth's climate has existed for more than a century, and, at one time about 100 years ago, we believed that human activity was causing the Earth to freeze. 30-50 years ago, depending on whom you believe, we decided we were unnaturally warming the planet and 20 years ago, when the data didn't support this, the claim changed to us warming the planet by cooling it, or cooling it by warming it, again depending on from whom the message came.

However, I object to this organized political environmental movement that has taken the stance that "The discussion is closed; we're right. Agree with us or be excommunicated from the global community." This is wrong. The discussion is not closed. We only think our conservation efforts are better than what came before, as we don't truly know the scope and domain of our impact on the world, nor have we answered basic questions as to whether our behavior and its subsequent impact is a "normal" process for a planet with a sentient species living therein. We don't even know what a "normal" process is. We have no frame of reference for these questions, and the answers to these questions form one of the biggest underpinnings of what our environmental philosophy should be moving forward.
Well, apparently, our understanding of the earth's climate is as dynamic as is the earth itself.

I can see your point, but to be fair, there are also people out there who are convinced that climate change is not a real issue and that nothing needs to be done (or researched) about it. This, to me, is just ridiculously apathetic. And, well, at this stage in "the game," I guess I'd rather be paranoid than apathetic.

But I don't think I will ever understand how anyone could think that such an exponentially-growing population, as is the earth's, could not have some kind of impact on the ecosystem, which is (for the most part) a closed system.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #1233  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:12
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Well, apparently, our understanding of the earth's climate is as dynamic as is the earth itself.

I can see your point, but to be fair, there are also people out there who are convinced that climate change is not a real issue and that nothing needs to be done (or researched) about it. This, to me, is just ridiculously apathetic. And, well, at this stage in "the game," I guess I'd rather be paranoid than apathetic.

But I don't think I will ever understand how anyone could think that such an exponentially-growing population, as is the earth's, could not have some kind of impact on the ecosystem, which is (for the most part) a closed system.
I agree, we have an impact. This is not the same as saying we have a bad impact on the ecosystem, nor does it identify which behaviors are bad. One of the failings of the Environmental Movement (this is the name of the Church of the Environment) is that it presupposes that humans and humanity are somehow outside of and separate from nature and "natural" behavior and cycles. Humans are animals and humanity arose from nature, and despite our technology, we're still very much a part of nature. I would argue that because of our technology we're more integrated with the surrounding environment, in that we derive more benefit from it and exert more influence on it. Yet, the Environmental Movement classifies anything done by humans as "unnatural," (the premise being that technology separates one from nature) as if two separate systems existed.

Quote:
View Post
Well, I highly doubt that a coronal mass ejection or a meteor are going to send an ocean's worth of fresh water or an eternity's worth of fossil fuels our way.
To address this point- we don't need it to. We have the technology to clean water ourselves, and we're developing new means to extract fossil fuels from the Earth, even as we're also developing new means of creating energy.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1234  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:12
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: -
Posts: 1,641
Groaned at 26 Times in 22 Posts
Thanked 2,932 Times in 1,202 Posts
Russkov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
At this stage in "the game," I guess I'd rather be paranoid than apathetic.
Very good point, actually.

Few people would disagree that organized efforts to fight climate change have been politicized, inefficient, and even corrupt to the point of absurdity at times. But one thing I wonder, as far as climate change skeptics are concerned: you would obviously agree that conservation and a sound energy policy of some kind is a good thing, so whose hands do you think you're playing into by getting behind the movement that's poking holes and casting doubt on climate change as the scientific community perceives it? The people who are interested in a sound environmental policy (as I'd imagine you are) or those whose interest it is for environmental and conservation policies to be lax in order to continue unethical practices? Not buying the whole thing wholesale and thinking for yourself is an admirable thing, of course, but it's easy to be smug from the sidelines. What I haven't seen any climate change skeptics propose is a sound and constructive environmental policy of their own that doesn't sound like a free pass for the oil companies.

You keep on using the analogy of religion and well, I'd like to hear "climate change atheists" propose anything in the way of their own secular humanism that will achieve the same goals in a reasonable way. Any failing of the conservation movement, like inefficient renewable energy, is like a ball that energy company lobbyists can take and run with straight to the end zone to cast doubt on the whole thing. I'm not crazy about a large part of what the climate change movement is doing, but at the moment they're the only ones actually stepping up and doing anything constructive.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Russkov for this useful post:
  #1235  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:35
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,733
Groaned at 148 Times in 100 Posts
Thanked 6,822 Times in 2,677 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I agree, we have an impact. This is not the same as saying we have a bad impact on the ecosystem, nor does it identify which behaviors are bad. One of the failings of the Environmental Movement (this is the name of the Church of the Environment) is that it presupposes that humans and humanity are somehow outside of and separate from nature and "natural" behavior and cycles. Humans are animals and humanity arose from nature, and despite our technology, we're still very much a part of nature. I would argue that because of our technology we're more integrated with the surrounding environment, in that we derive more benefit from it and exert more influence on it. Yet, the Environmental Movement classifies anything done by humans as "unnatural," (the premise being that technology separates one from nature) as if two separate systems existed.



To address this point- we don't need it to. We have the technology to clean water ourselves, and we're developing new means to extract fossil fuels from the Earth, even as we're also developing new means of creating energy.
First, Jobs... I want to thank you for being so nice to debate with. I mean that. It's refreshing to get into it without getting emotions heated, etc.

Anyways, to be honest, I'm not so sure that Man is part of or is in harmony with Nature. (Chariots of the Gods, anyone? Just kidding. Kind of. ). Besides, Nature is obviously neither good nor evil. It just is. Yet as humans, we have developed the ability to discern between good and evil (despite the relativity of those terms). In other words, the definitions of good and evil have evolved in the human psyche. This is, perhaps, one of the things that sets us apart from Nature as a whole. We (well, most of us) act according to conscience, whereas Nature apparently does not.

And I think the focus of technology should be, above all else, to decrease and potentially eliminate human suffering. But maybe that's the conundrum we've found ourselves in. I suppose the aim of the Industrial Revolution was to do just that, but look how that may have backfired.

So I can't say that I agree that technology has put us more in-synch with Nature. I would say that it has only provided us with the ability to alter Nature according to our own agendas.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #1236  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:35
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Very good point, actually.

Few people would disagree that organized efforts to fight climate change have been politicized, inefficient, and even corrupt to the point of absurdity at times. But one thing I wonder, as far as climate change skeptics are concerned: you would obviously agree that conservation and a sound energy policy of some kind is a good thing, so whose hands do you think you're playing into by getting behind the movement that's poking holes and casting doubt on climate change as the scientific community perceives it? The people who are interested in a sound environmental policy (as I'd imagine you are) or those whose interest it is for environmental and conservation policies to be lax in order to continue unethical practices? Not buying the whole thing wholesale and thinking for yourself is an admirable thing, of course, but it's easy to be smug from the sidelines. What I haven't seen any climate change skeptics propose is a sound and constructive environmental policy of their own that doesn't sound like a free pass for the oil companies.

You keep on using the analogy of religion and well, I'd like to hear "climate change atheists" propose anything in the way of their own secular humanism that will achieve the same goals in a reasonable way. Any failing of the conservation movement, like inefficient renewable energy, is like a ball that energy company lobbyists can take and run with straight to the end zone to cast doubt on the whole thing. I'm not crazy about a large part of what the climate change movement is doing, but at the moment they're the only ones actually stepping up and doing anything constructive.
Who said anything about "athiests"? I didn't make myself clear with the comparison to Luther and others, I guess. Environmental Protestants might be a better description than athiests.

I see your point and also see a number of flaws in it. Oftentimes, doing something isn't better than doing nothing. One example of this is reintroducing animals into regions where they have become extinct- sometimes it works, and many times the ecosystem has moved on, and the reintroduction creates a new imbalance, which mankind tries to address, which creates another imbalance, etc.

Your acknowledgement of the politicization and corruption of the Environmental Movement is akin to the acknowledgement of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church: "Well they're doing mostly good, so we should ignore all this and look the other way." I don't agree with that.

Simply because one is poking holes into the dogma of the Environmental Movement does not imply one is in favor of unethical practices. Also, who's defining "unethical"? From your connotation, it sounds like the Environmental Movement is.

Also, those of us who question this philosophy are not simply being "smug from the sidelines," and we're most certainly not offering a "free pass to the oil companies." Oftentimes, in fact, this has nothing to do with the oil companies. Also, don't forget that the oil companies are the favorite devils of the Environmental Movement, only sometimes deservedly.

Again, the only people claiming that the Environmental Movement is actually doing good is the Environmental Movement itself; we really don't have any way to independently confirm this. I'm not saying everything they're doing is bad, either; I think much of it is probably good. I'm saying there is so much that is unknown in this field that these overenthusiastic zealots need a healthy force of skeptics to reign them in, before they do something that might really hurt the environment.
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:36
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Now, that all that's been said (which most of the pro-Global Warming crowd won't read because its heresy), [...]
I read it, I just ignore it because you're like a bingo card of cookie-cutter denialist rhetoric, repeated ad nauseum, with little believable argument, let alone data, to support it.

Quote:
[...] this does not absolve mankind from efficient and intelligent use of resources- they are finite.
You mean like the people who think we need to do something about climate change have been saying for decades ?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
  #1238  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:41
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,338
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I read it, I just ignore it because you're like a bingo card of cookie-cutter denialist rhetoric, repeated ad nauseum, with little believable argument, let alone data, to support it.


You mean like the people who think we need to do something about climate change have been saying for decades ?
Well, paint me with a scarlet letter and excommunicate me. It doesn't change that there's still no (man-caused) "climate change."

IMO, you're so deep in your dogma, that no matter what evidence nor how much evidence I presented, you'd deny the truth. I can't lead you to water, and I certainly can't get you to drink...

But, hey, let's play a few rounds of "Your Expert/My Expert." That would only reinforce my belief that the point isn't settled, and that the Environmental Movement's premises, methods, data, and models are very much in dispute...
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

Last edited by Jobsrobertsharpii; 31.03.2013 at 18:52.
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:44
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,733
Groaned at 148 Times in 100 Posts
Thanked 6,822 Times in 2,677 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

But I think "climate change" is inevitable, as the earth has always and always will go through cycles of temperature change (be it great or small)...

The question is: How are we, as an exponentially-growing species with a limited amount of natural resources, going to adapt to the next dramatic shift in climate change?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #1240  
Old 31.03.2013, 18:52
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Expressing one's concern is good and questioning things is the root of knowledge; this is not to what I was referring. And you are absolutely correct in saying that the "climate change buzz" is relatively new; however, the study of Earth's climate has existed for more than a century, and, at one time about 100 years ago, we believed that human activity was causing the Earth to freeze.
This is a lie. There was never any widespread consensus about "global cooling".

Quote:
However, I object to this organized political environmental movement that has taken the stance that "The discussion is closed; we're right. Agree with us or be excommunicated from the global community." This is wrong. The discussion is not closed.
There is little science in history that has been subject to as much scrutiny as climate change. Much like Evolution, another victim of the contemporary anti-science mindset taking over media and education, serious, well-researched, well-evidenced science refuting climate change would be groundbreaking.

Quote:
We only think our conservation efforts are better than what came before, as we don't truly know the scope and domain of our impact on the world, nor have we answered basic questions as to whether our behavior and its subsequent impact is a "normal" process for a planet with a sentient species living therein. We don't even know what a "normal" process is. We have no frame of reference for these questions, and the answers to these questions form one of the biggest underpinnings of what our environmental philosophy should be moving forward.
Then on what basis can you argue we need to make "efficient and intelligent use of resources" ? By your logic, we have no way of knowing they're finite at all, nor that some as-yet undiscovered miracle will save us from ourselves.

Quote:
View Post
Yet, the Environmental Movement classifies anything done by humans as "unnatural," (the premise being that technology separates one from nature) as if two separate systems existed.
It does not. That would be a lie. Environmentalists say that processes which have no natural equivalent are unnatural. Like, say, digging up and burning millions of years worth of accumulated carbon sinks in the space of a couple of centuries.

Ultimately, your whole argument boils down to "we dont need to worry, ignore all the evidence, everything will sort itself out and we'll be just fine". Which, ironically enough, is barely one step short of the sort of irrational belief system underlying the typical religion you accuse the vast majority of scientists in the world to be participating in.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at drsmithy for this post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 18:22.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0