<font color="#55aacc"> I know you all already kow Im not for the Kyoto accords or any of that other global warming stuff, but I never really said why. The reason is that I have known all along that the theories and computer modles were very very far from complete and accuyrate. I also knew/know that they do not take into account many major weather related issues and are in fact just basicly bad science. Here is an article that may help support my views.

Obviously it is only one report but it is a good read and shows some good science.

<font color="#cc99cc"> Extreme cold over South Pole reveals global warming models are wrong

AUCKLAND (AFP) Sep 10, 2002
A discovery that it is much colder over the South Pole than believed has exposed a major flaw in the computer models used to predict global warming, a new scientific paper claims.
US scientists based at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station say they have measured the temperature of the atmosphere 30 to 110 kilometres (18 to 68 miles) over the pole and found it is 20 to 30 degrees Centigrade (68 to 86 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than computer models showed.

Various models are used to predict global climate and some assumptions have had to be made, including air temperatures over Antarctica.

Chester Gardner, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Illinois, Weilin Pan, a doctoral student at Illinois and Ray Roble of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research writing in the American Geophysical Union Letters say the models are wrong.

"Because of the obvious challenges, until now, the only temperature data we have had from either the North or South Poles has been from surface measurements and weather balloons that don't go any higher than about 20-30 kilometres (12-18 miles)," Gardner told AFP.

The researchers used a laser radar system from the South Pole to make the first measurements of the temperature higher up and found it was much colder than assumed.

Global warming could be caused by greater concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) which is a strong absorber of infrared radiation.

In the lower atmosphere CO2 absorbs the heat. While CO2 also emits heat other CO2 absorbs it. In the thinner stratosphere and mesosphere, much of the heat emitted by CO2 is radiated into space and so in the upper atmosphere the primary affect of CO2 is cooling.

"Thus as CO2 levels continue to rise in the atmosphere, we expect the lower atmosphere to continue warming while the upper atmosphere ... will cool."

During winter Antarctica receives little sunlight and its atmosphere is sealed off by a vortex of winds preventing warmer air from lower latitudes travelling to the pole.

"As a consequence the region cools to very low temperatures in winter, primarily by radiation of heat into space."

In May, June and July the stratopause was considerably colder than model predictions. The greatest difference occurred in July, when the measured stratopause temperature was about minus 17 degrees C (0 degrees F) to about 4 degrees C (40 degrees F) predicted by the models.

"Current global circulation models apparently over-predict the amount of down-welling, because they show warmer temperatures than we observed," Gardner said.

Their measurements will be a baseline for future temperature studies.

"We believe a major flaw in current models is the way they account for compressional heating associated with down welling over the polar cap in winter," Gardner said.

"Of course you and I are really not interested in what happens above the South Pole. We do care about what happens where we live. Models can help predict those changes due to rising CO2 levels but only if we believe they give accurate results.

"Our South Pole measurements will help the modellers and theoreticians better understand the atmosphere and incorporate that understanding in their models, making their future predictions more accurate."</font>

I still have yet to see any real hard scientific proof that man has a significant impact on global warming, but at least with these kinds of guys doing the research and not fudging the numbers I can at least respect their work.</font>

I agree (sacrilege! ;) ), I don't agree with Global Warming theories, but I do think pollution is a major problem. We should be cutting down all the poisons we spew into the atmosphere. It sucks to breathe it and acid rain does do damage.

My 2 cents.

Mark

<font color="#cc9999"> I completely agree with you on that too Mark [img]smile.gif[/img] One of the key reasons Im am so PRO-technology is that can allow us to reduce and in some cases eliminate all together the things we put into our atmosphere and our water. I am all for reducing emmissions and waste, I just want to see it done in a reasonable way without crippling anyones economy or for it to become a "wealth" redistribution plan which is how I view the Kyoto accords. </font>

[ 09-12-2002, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Awg, every few months there's a new investigation about the environment, and they're all contradicting one another... I'd prefer to be on the safe side, however. We could all believe the most optimistic reports and not pay too much attention to environment, only to figure out 30 years later that those reports weren't exactly realistic views and we doomed ourselves by neglecting necessary changes... I personally prefer taking the most negative reports very seriously while finding out 30 years later the situation wasn't that nearly that bad. At least you still have decent circumstances to live in then...

[ 09-12-2002, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Perhaps you misunderstand what Global Warming is. It is the definitive average warming of the climate, not just regional rises and fluctuations of temperature. It is the world average temperature recorded throught the world around the year. And yes, it is rising. And if u refuse to believe that, then maybe this will; C02 concentrations in the atmosphere are HIGHEST in the past 42000 years, by examination of polar ice layers on studying the past accumulation of snow and climate samples.

Global warming is not only in the atmosphere. As MagiK said, pro-technology is
stuff like nuclear reactors right? You know what thermal pollution comes out of those suckers right? The ocean water is used as coolant, and as a result gets warmed, and thrown back into the ocean, and ppl think it's fine because the ocean is so huge. Now ocean temperatures are rising world-wide due to this kind of actions.

You can't deny the basic actions, now it's up to you to decide whether you want to ignore and run from these problems, or face them and fix them for our comtinued existance. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's happening out there...

<font color="#cc9999"> You are right, everything we do will have a result, but on a global scale, all the heat pollution of all the nuclear reactors in the world doesnt even compare to a single geothermal event called a volcano. Hot springs, geothermal vents above and below sea level, sunlight all have bigger impacts than man, because they are ALL much larger in scope. Mans total wattage output is miniscule compared to the total hitting it every day just from the sun. I don't mind working toward cleaner cheaper energy sources and fission reactors are not good mostly because of their wastage. Solar is better but is years away, so is fusion. Unless we kill of 4 or 5 billion of the 6 billion of us around you are just gonna have to face the fact that we do have to deal with the fact that we do have some impact.

(and if you want to reduce world population I heartily invite you to take steps to reduce it...say sterilize yourself, and if you are in an extreme fit over "over population" Im pretty sure you could lead with a demonstration of dedication and leave the ranks of the living [img]smile.gif[/img] By the way I limited myself to replacing me and my wife, then had myself sterilized so I walk the walk.)

No one is running away, there is just a choice of being chicken little running around being reactionary and alarmist about things, or you can behave in a more rational way and realize that we have cleaner industry than we did 200 years ago when millions of tons of soot was sprayed into the atmosphere from dirty innefficient coal burning.

As for being agenius about what ius happening out there, there ARE a great many indicators that what is happening out there (re global warming) is a completely natural thing. The only problem is...if it is completely natural no one gets huge government grants and payoffs from industry to go away, no one gets to try and coerce huge cash payments to their favorite cause. You might want to look into why the founder of Green Peace left the organization some time.. I found it a very revealing and telling read. </font>

[ 09-12-2002, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

That article is an obvious example of the conservative media conspiracy telling only the part of the story they want to tell. jk :D

Interesting article. I guess we can't always put our trust in scientists. Maybe we should put our trust in mad scientists. We may not be safer, but it would be a lot more interesting [img]smile.gif[/img]

But seriously, I think Grojlach is right. It's best to err on the side of caution.

I have studied the computer weather predicting models, and found it fascinating that they have to re-set them every so often, because they tend to slip into so called "white world" conditions, where the temperature averages, I think, zero to minus 10 Celsius. In other words, ICE AGE. Some scientists are puzzled that we have not had an ice age for longer than average. A beneficial effect of global warning?

<font color="#cc3399"> The only thing I wanted to do with the article is to demonstrate that most of the so called science that is being spouted by the really radical eco-types is not based on real science at all but on theories and gueses on incomplete modles.

On a telnet talker that I go to, we have 2 meteorologists, who seem reasonable and admit that they can't even predict tomorrows weather with better than 66% accuracy most of the time and that the highend weather modeling doesn't account for small things like..say mountain ranges or the great lakes.

Yes the temps may be going up, but there are indications that a temperature rise is the pre-cursor of a glacial period. The temps rise, melt the ice caps faster and faster dumping fresh water into the oceans and totaly whacking the deep ocean thermal convection currents which disrupt the gulf stream and keep it from sending heat north and causing northern climes to suddenly go cold while the equator keeps most of the heat energy....really good reading on this stuff if you want to study it. There is an analagous convection current for the southern hemisphere too but I dont know the current names. </font>

What in hell ever gave you the idea you needed to be replaced????????????
Although, if the process of sterilization made you walk the walk, you may have a case for a malpractice suit...

What in hell ever gave you the idea you needed to be replaced????????????
Although, if the process of sterilization made you walk the walk, you may have a case for a malpractice suit...[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#cc3399"> LOL hehe As for replacing myself, that is the function of all living organisms. I contributed a 0 net gain, I could have gone forth and multiplied as my religion dictates ;) </font>

What in hell ever gave you the idea you needed to be replaced????????????
Although, if the process of sterilization made you walk the walk, you may have a case for a malpractice suit...</font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#cc3399"> LOL hehe As for replacing myself, that is the function of all living organisms. I contributed a 0 net gain, I could have gone forth and multiplied as my religion dictates ;) </font>[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]So if you were an amoeba, would you go forth and divide? Would a Borg go forth and integrate?

Back on topic, I think any issues as far-reaching as global warming, and other potentially adverse ecological problems should be approached with caution foremost. To misquote Shakespeare, "The ecosystem is not only more complex than we imagine, it's more complex than we can imagine" I think it would be better to find in thirty years that we had spent effort on cleaning up our planet that may not have been necessary for survival rather than discover that we didn't spend effort when we should have. For example, if the degeneration of the biosphere proceeds geometrically, we may be alright, but if we assume that, only to find later that it's a logarithmic process, we're going to be very sorry.

<font color="#cc3399"> Which is exactly why I advocate technology and explorations into newer and more efficient sources of power, on cleaner technology and all of that, I just don't go along with the alarmist, sensationalism that is so prevelant in the media. It can be done in a calm and affordable rational way.....it has been going on...cars are cleaner now than ever, our factories are cleaner our goals are for cleaner.....we do not have to wreck our society to get there is my message. [img]smile.gif[/img]

You know, I am from Pennsylvania, and I still have vivid memories of going to Pittsburgh to see a Steelers game....I remember all the buildings being covered with soot, I remember the haze in the air, and the smell of the steel mills (and the background roaring)...if you go to Pittsburgh today, you see clean buildings, no haze in the air and it is not such a bad place to be. (yes they did close the steel mills eventually, but they have far more people there now with far more business and far more cars and yet it is also one of the cleanest cities)</font>

[ 09-12-2002, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I agree 100% that technological advances are a major part of the answer to our problems. The internal combustion engine is well over a hundred years old, and has not evolved significantly in the last fifty or so. There was very little pressure until recently to make it significantly more efficient, which means cleaner in the end, so little was done to improve it. The changes did not take place until economic pressures were applied to the industries who manufacture the cars and components. Those pressures came about in part due to the shitty state of the atmosphere, the dwindling resources, political pressure, and so on...
My concern with the questions we now face is that if insufficient economic return is seen, will we be able to stop or change in time to prevent lasting damage? In the early 70's would the more fuel-efficient and cleaner engines have even been developed if it weren't for the OPEC crisis?
As you noted with environmental extremists, a change in the status quo toward cleaner technologies would not necessarily benefit those who make their money doing the research. Likewise, without the pressure to change, the companies who are making money with equipment and systems that are unclean will have no reason to do anything that would lessen their profits. It's certainly not a light issue, this state of our planet.

That brings up an interesting point. Don't listen to your Science teacher!! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

You know, I heard an intriuging theory, a while back, that said that the suns changes in temperature could be the cause of ice ages, heat ages (thats what I call global warming). Its only a couple of degree's kelvin, but apparantly that makes an impact on our planet. I think this is the best theory.

My religion says "Go forth and take the partial derivative." ;)

<font color="#cc6699">LOL Lox that was funny [img]smile.gif[/img]

As for the Sun, it is the single biggest factor for temperatures here on earth. Variations in solar output, changes in the density of dust and gas in the solar system also plays a part, for all we know the earth goes through a dust cloud every so often, it wouldnt have to be very dense, just enough to block a small percentage of incoming radiation.

As someone mentioned onece, there are as many theories as there are people researching the problem. </font>

this is my 2 cents

* human interference can't warm up the earth like that (except for nuclear holocaust etc.)
* not so long ago we were in the Ice Age (few thousand years)... who knows what the concequences of that are...
* the guys that discovered this whole gobal warmth stuff is now disclaiming it all ...

The thing is that over time there has grown an entire industry (thousands of people working in that field) in this stuff ...

Now that same guy that made all te newspapers with his idea's/findings is now being almost "silenced" ...

<font color="#ff6699">Yes there is quite a lot of political and professional fall out for anyone who dares to question the "Global Warming" crowd. They do NOT seem to want to allow anyone with discrepancies to report to be allowed to have a voice. It really is a case of intelectual barbarism. </font>

MagiK, just to know, by what authority do you judge which side is offering the truly accurate picture and which side is just spinning out stories? I mean, are you a weather scientist yourself? This is just a question, not a tacit accusation.

[ 09-13-2002, 03:52 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

<font color="#cc6699">KT yeah I am...can you prove Im not?....Ok Im not so read below.</font>

[img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img]
<font color="#cc6699">Ok now to really answer your question. You do not have to be a weather scientist to know bullshit when you step in it. You don't need to be a scientist to see that the people who started the crusade left because the radical eco-nuts have quit doing science and have turned it into a religion. (I even posted the writings of the founder of Green peace at one point on this forum) K.T. I read, I read a lot, I have been lucky and had a job where I got to see information before it got to the news media for public distribution. I am also quite talented at sifting data for relevant facts and a memory that allows me to track concepts over decades. I don't forget concepts...details yes but not overall derivitives of data. I have spent all of my life since I was around 12 (28 years ago) keeping tabs on science and science discoveries, and when I see things that don't fit I look for the source.
I do actually want to know everything there is to know about things I think are important. So I get highly outraged when scientists loose their integrity and make up data just to get their next government grant (such as the guy who made up the data about salt causing high blood preasure) Or when I see people passing themselves off as hard scientists to garner media attention. You do not have to be a PHD in every field to be able to spot inconsistancies or fabricated information. Can you claim to have paid as much attention as I have to these issues for 28 years? Just curious, you see because I grew up when the movie Soylant Green scared the bejeezus out of me, and when I was told there would be no rain forest by the time I was an adult and that the world would runn out of Oil by the 1980's...I grew up listening to the green whackos spout their bullshit to scare all the little kids and became outraged when I learned they were not telling the truth. So you see...this might be one of my own personal little crusades. I demand accuracy, and objectivity in scince, I do not want to see people throwing out data because ti doesnt fit their model and I am sick to death of the doom and gloom groups who lie to people every day because in their minds "The ends justify the means".

Oh and by the way. It is by my own authority. Here in the United States, we don't need to ask the government for permission to think for our selves.</font>

[ 09-13-2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

When you model the world's atmosphere, you have to input information for the model to use as a base. Just because we find out that one assumed number in a model that is - TRULY - amazing does not mean the model is wrong. You simply input more accurate numbers as you run across them. This article, and some posters, seem to think that you must know absolutely everything about every inch of the Earth before you can try to predict anything. I think this thinking akin to the conspiracy theorist's that Buzz Aldrin hit that's on one of today's other threads.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE - meaning better safe than sorry - applies so much to global warming issues. Our current state of ignorance on climate change demands we be super-careful, not that we assume we are doing no harm.

Redistribution of Wealth: to those who object to Kyoto because the developing countries don't have limitations, I inform you that you have been duped by the dumbest president in US history (and Bush's IQ is a fact, not an opinion). A basic assumption of environmental law is that the "polluter pays," a believe me the US puts out more greenhouse gases than anyone ever possibly can.

I don't know the backgroud of all you posters - but if anyone is interested, I've got tons of info on this stuff, as I've worked on it a lot (went to Climate negotiations overseas, taught classes, wrote several papers, etc).

Sir Golum:
You know, I heard an intriuging theory, a while back, that said that the suns changes in temperature could be the cause of ice ages, heat ages (thats what I call global warming). Its only a couple of degree's kelvin, but apparantly that makes an impact on our planet. I think this is the best theory.

You also realize that the Earth's axis of rotation shifts over time too, right? It goes from / to \ and then back to / and so forth. Most scientists think this is a large factor.

IIRC, there are three aspects of the earths rotation/orbit that change over time. The orbit around the sun is slightly elliptical. If you were above the plane of the orbit looking down, assume the long ends of the ellipse point at 9:00 and 3:00 (on a clock face). Over time (I forget the period, but I think maybe 50,000 yrs) the long ends of the ellipse will rotate through 6:00 (and 12:00) and so on. Thats one. The second part is the tilt of the axis. The earth is slowly going through preceission (sp?). Right now the North Pole points toward the sun during July, but in X yrs the North Pole will point away from the sun in July. (It's kind of like a spinning top as it slows down). Now what was the third part... damn, I can't remember.

I'm sure these affect our climate, but I don't think anyone knows how exactly.

<font color="#cc6699">Come back and talk to me when your modles actually acout for more than 20% of all pertinent variables have been ascertained and when you can show me an accuracy of more than ohh say 80% over even a month. Then Ill listen to your models.

As for your "the dumbest president" bullshit take it somewhere else.
I haven't heard him say anything about Kyoto. I have looked at many documents about the accords and can quite clearly see that if a nation wants to increase its output all it has to do is PAY cash to some other country which doesnt use its allotment. Deal with reality.
</font>

<font color="#cc6699">My previous post may sound kind of angry, but in reality I only ment the presidential part to be heated. It irked me that this guy just assumed I was just another uninformed sheeple. </font>

There is evidence that somewhere back a LOONG way, the earth rotated on its side and the poles got more sunlight than the equator... wouldn't that be something? :D

The whole problem I have with science in the US (and it may be this way everywhere) is that it's vision has gotten as short as the next grant cycle. (much as the US stock market has become myopic) Unless the research is being funded BY someone in order to return a certain result (which happens all the time) it's funded based on it's seeming merit. In order to establish that your project has merit you need to make a LOT of noise... BIG FINDINGS, WORLD CHANGING RESULTS, COLD FUSION!!!! [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course this leads to a lot of overstating and hysteria inducing press releases, that turn out to be borderline BS. Honestly I think that BOTH sides of this issue are equally guilty of garbage science. One side overstates EVERY finding to try to whip up public support, the other side finds a needle of dissenting results in a haystack of confirming data and promply demands we throw out the WHOLE LOT.

Makes me glad I'm an Engineer. :D

Bottom line for me: We ARE changing our environment, we ARE increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, we have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what that means over the long haul, but it could be VERY BAD, or it could mean nothing. In light of such information, it would seem the smarter course would be to follow the path that minimizes our chances of wipeing ourselves out. Very bad on one side... not much of anything on the other... I'd try to minimize the Very bad side myself.

That doesn't mean I support Kyoto... when I looked into it I came to the conclusion that I'm not much in the mood to "do my part" when so many other countries get waivers and exemptions.

Ray, the reason people keep arguing with you and not giving you the credit you think you deserve is because of the above types of comments. you may have a world of justification for your viewpoints, but you present them in such a way that you DO IN FACT come off like someone on a crusade. Being passionate about things is good, without it, it's just so much boring pontification, but I think you really let your passion trip up your points sometimes.
I know you'll take this the way I mean it, have yourself a good weekend.

<font color="#cc6699">If I were as gifted at communication as I am at data analysis I would have been a politician [img]smile.gif[/img]

I used the wrong word there...Crusade is not really it, since Im not really trying to convert anyone...hey if people want to be sheep, thats fine by me, but Ill have some fun in the chat forums anyway. Thanks for the reminder though [img]smile.gif[/img] Have a good one yourself.</font>

[ 09-13-2002, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I would certainly not propose something so extreme, nor I think would most people who look at the issues pragmatically. However... I do think it's reasonable for ALL people on this planet to be willing to make sacrifices to insure that we don't keep travelling along a road that could very well be a dead end path.

Regarding GHG emissions... we're 5th in the world (on a per-capita basis) in total GHG output (according to the World Resources Institute), but we are certainly the worst of the developed nations... some are close (Luxembourg is withing about 10%, Australia 15% or so), and some we're a lot worse than (Sweden is about 75% lower). Lots of room for improvement, but it's not like we're up there with Qatar (more than 3x the per capita output of the US)

[ 09-13-2002, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

That's what I would like to know; how do you know it's BS? If you don't use the methods for ascertaining the truth used by scientists, then what are the methods you use?

Don't fit what?

I read a lot, too -- or I wouldn't have got a Masters in philosophy. But of what relevance is one's erudition, talent at sifting facts etc to whether something one claims is true or false? Is this not what one calls argumentum et hominem? Just because I'm very erudite etc, does that mean that whatever I say must be true? And conversely, just because I have no sense of integrity etc, does that mean that whatever I say must be false? Surely the truth of what one says needs to be validated by another independently of any considerations of one's erudition or integrity etc.

So do I, but the question is: how do you tell? From what you've posted so far, it would seem to me that any scientist who asserts global warming is for real automatically falls into your black list. Presumably, then, absolutely all of them are guilty of the crimes you enumerate -- which is honestly stretching one's credulity a little too far. And why can't those scientists who assert that global warming is not for real be guilty of the same crimes? Are they not just as human?

I've been looking at these issues since the early 1980's. Can't be that much less than what you've gone through. And from what you've posted, it would appear that absolutely any position that asserts that global warming is for real is based on inconsistancies or fabricated information. Curiously, you don't seem to consider the possibility that those who assert that global warming is not for real -- at least some of them -- might be equally guilty of the same charge you level against the opposite camp.

Fine. By my own authority I likewise declare that the Eiffel Tower doesn't exist and planet Earth is in the shape of a cube.

One last thought. The fact is that whatever you say about your own erudition, talent at sifting facts etc has also been claimed of at least a few scientists who assert that global warming is for real. (And a couple of them have been around longer than you, be it said.) If their credentials in this respect mean nothing to you, by the same token why should your credentials mean anything to me? For all I know, you may be brewing up stories -- just as you claim they are.

[ 09-13-2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

LOL, first of all, I would ask what a philosopher like you should ask first, KT. Is anyone really sure that all of the effects of the purported global warming would be all bad? Waterworld, aside?
And, MagiK, I know that anti-Bush person made you angry, but consider the source. Did you catch Bush's U.N. speech? Absolutely brilliant. As Peggy Noonan says, the man has the knack for doing exactly what his detractors want him to do, and then shredding them. See

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp

and

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

for some positive reviews

What do you think, Attalus? Do you think the continued release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at exponentially increasing quantities can be a good thing in the long term -- or at least will produce no significant effects? Do you want to take the risk of finding out? If you've actually tried that with a few Earth-like planets already and found that the climate on those planets had continued nicely as ever before -- okay, then I'll believe we've nothing to worry about regarding what we're doing to our planet now.

[ 09-14-2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

<font color="#cc6699"> Actually Attalus, yes I know he tweaked a hot spot, and I apologized to him in a PM. He is reletively new here and I hadn't bothered to really look before I responded.

I didn't actualy hear Bush deliver the speach, I have read it and it is brilliant and I believe it was exactly right. I guess he did stumble over one particular phrase and so I have had to endure a bunch of dorks making comments on how stupid he is. Like any of them have ever addressed a large audience with a flawless delivery. Just exactly how important is being able to speak publicly with 0 defects? Or do you suppose maybe that it is the policy and the intent that is actually more important? I think some people do prefer flash over substance. Anyhoooo I need to get some work done thn come back and speak to K.T. and his reasoning.</font>

[ 09-14-2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color="#cc6699"> K.T. Time and again I have posted articles backing my position and explained how I go about ruling out things I think of as BS, I also use my own ability to observe the world around me and I am not going to pursue our discussion beyond that. You are starting to sound like my favorite socialist on this board, who decides to ignore everything that has gone before, ignores posts of others on the subject and just focus on one person to keep baraging with the same questions over and over. I just have no time for it. In the future, if you dislike what I post feel free to disent, but I already have two children to raise and teach, I can not afford the time to take on a third person.

By the way, using the "ad hominem" comments or the term erudite only serves to confuse people. Try just saying "bullshit" in place of ad hominem they are roughly the same in modern US english. While I don't know that you are Erudite, I know I am not. I have had a long and active life out in the real world and not only in academia.

I do have one question for you and this is not ment in any way as disparagement just honest curiosity and expressing my current opinons.

In my view a philosophy degree is basicly a degree in "My own Damn Opinion" No real substance to it, which is why I despised both the philosophy classes I have taken. Why get a degree in philosophy? It always seemed like a waste of time to me. Of course I prefer hard sciences and things that are more geared to prospering in my society and where I can have some concrete results at the end of the day.

I keep thinking back to Mel Brooks Movie, History of the World Part I, where they had, stand up philosophers [img]smile.gif[/img] With Mel Brooks playing a hilarious "Stand up Philosopher" [img]smile.gif[/img]

One last item I guess before I terminate this, I don't claim to know everything, and I do not expect everyone to agree with me. I will however post my opinions and post my sources when convenient to me. Im not going to sit and argue ephemeral philosophical concepts. Im not pulling my information out of my backside so please, forget any notion you may have that I just post to disagree for the sake of disagreement.</font>

To MagiK:

Well, I don't think it's fair at all to say that philosophy is just so much airy-fairy stuff. If you despise philosophy, well, guess it's just you, but like it or not, you'll just have to accept that there are a lot of people who beg to differ with you on this view -- and on the issue of global warming -- and that what you prefer isn't going to change that. (Unless, of course, you believe in enforcing your views through various means.)

And if you disagree with the points I've raised, there's nothing to it but you demonstrate to my satisfaction the validity of your position. Insofar as you haven't (I've already explained why), sorry, but I remain unconvinced regarding your views on global warming.

Guess we'll just agree to disagree. End of story.

BTW, thanks for providing an opportunity for me to engage in a little more careful thinking on these issues. :rolleyes:

[ 09-14-2002, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: K T Ong ]

I quote:
"So the question is...Do we completely disolve our existing societies and make sure that at least 5/6ths of the world population dies out or do we ignore the irrational panic mongering that is going on and continue to improve our technologies as almost every western nation is doing while maintaing the best quality of life for every one (in the west) that is the highest in the known history of the planet? I vote for option #2....see my post above about the 1970's and the Enonut horror stories we had to grow up with."

Howsabout we just slow a exponential/geometric rate of growth a little bit? Note that exponential growth here refers not just to Population (world's single biggest enviro problem - but that's another post), but also to resource usage per capita, and consequently GHG output per capita and en toto.

As for concerns regarding the simple *buying* of clean air by rich countries, I have a few commments. Some articles, such as Article XII, of Kyoto that provide what the U.S. delegation championed and ram-rodded through committee in a 4 a.m. session the last night of Kyoto, the so-called FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS, allow countries that get below their targeted output of GHG to SELL the "clean air" they created to countries like the U.S. who would rather buy credits and keep polluting. As the U.S. delegation argued, however, this is the structure of the Clean Air Act which has worked amazingly well. (Note I would point out it's not *that* similar and the CAA is working all *that* well at this point, but that's a rather boring legal discussion.)

Moreover, because Kyoto did not provide limitations on the poorer/developing world, they cannot get *below* their targeted emission (they have NO target, you see). Thus, it is only those countries that are developed, large polluters who will be SELLING credits. Now there are other FlexMechs that would apply to the poorer countries, such as credit for technology transfers, etc.

The reason Kyoto was set up this way is the basic assumption (as the US argued) that a ton of clean air is as good in one spot of the world as in any other, as climate is holostic. Moreover, a ton of clean air costs less in some countries, because what we consider 20-year-old cleaning technology is *new* there. So, given X dollars in the pot, why not go where you can by the most clean air for your money?

As you can see, even though Kyoto is a framework document as to how the system will function, changing the system to force limitations on developing countries will result in the need to re-write the whole thing. That would be good for the U.S., because the longer it is before anything is done, the less money it costs the big polluters now. I liken it to the big belching chemical plant that wants to simply tie up the bill in committee until it's forgotten.

When we think of this climate change crap, we picture the butterfly-people all unwashed and high on idealism chanting outside the UN meeting house. Well, guess what, folks, Exxon is *inside* the UN meeting house, along with all the other big dirties, having daily meetings with various delegations. I must say, though, that the industry leaders always have the best free food at the climate change conferences.

<font color="#cc3399"> Is it just me or is there a general lack of ability to read what is posted? I never said I despised philosophy or philosophers, I said I despised the 2 CLASSES that I had taken. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Also, if you still want to know where I get my information.,..try reading the very first post in this thread...I didn't make that up.</font>