News for anyone interested in Global Warming.

Originally posted by Absynthe: 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.

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.

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

[Thoran]

Originally posted by MagiK: 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.

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 ]

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by MagiK: [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] 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)

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?

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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".

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.

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.

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 ]

[Attalus]

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

[K T Ong]

Originally posted by Attalus: 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?

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 ]

Originally posted by Attalus: 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

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.

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

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.

[K T Ong]

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.

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

[Timber Loftis]

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.

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.

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.