Quote :

"Of course, if all you want is high gas taxes and the introduction of coal taxes then I'm with you"

i'm not

8/8/2006 12:07:38 PM

Quote :

"Irrelevant"

IM TELLING YOU PEOPLE

IM AN UNDERGRADUATE WITH MAYBE 2 INTO COURSES IN RELEVANT AREAS AND I KNOW MORE THEN THE CLIMATE EXPERT

Quote :

"We read 928 abstracts published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and listed in the database with the keywords "global climate change." Seventy-five percent of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view. The remaining 25 percent dealt with other facets of the subject, taking no position on whether current climate change is caused by human activity. None of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html


by the way im totally in awe that mbigms used the burden of proof argument. i think there are some 13 year olds that may still believe that has meaning.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 12:32 PM. Reason : 234 ]

8/8/2006 12:26:34 PM

MEA students dont usually have the massive political agenda that your climate experts have either

how come you fully acknowledge that the evil oil companies have scientists in their pockets to say what they want but it seems absurd for you to think the alternative energy companies dont have scientists in their pockets to spread their agendas so they can make the multi billions of dollars the oil companies make?

8/8/2006 12:33:31 PM

Quote :

"alternative energy companies dont have scientists in their pockets "

ok. show me. lets see the specific scientists. i can show you scientists funded by oil companies.

you still havent refuted that almost all federally funded climate experts agrees w/ global warming

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 12:40 PM. Reason : sfg]

8/8/2006 12:38:33 PM

Quote :

"you still havent refuted that almost all federally funded climate experts agrees w/ global warming"

Let me think... So, people who's salaries are being paid by the government are coming out in favor of putting more power in the hands of government... Na, surely there is no conflict of interest here.

8/8/2006 1:16:21 PM

Quote :

"are coming out in favor of putting more power in the hands of government"

Ive never read one journal article on global warming that argued this. They do science, and their science is reviewed. You do the politicizing.

8/8/2006 1:43:00 PM

Libertarians.



LoneSnark, would you please just admit that you're "denying" human's impact on climate only because you don't want the type of government regulation confronting reality would cause?

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 1:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2006 1:44:27 PM

i am relatively uneducated into the specifics of the global warming issue. i have read some, but not much. i disagree with the claim that humans are a cause of such a phenomenon. i have read that the global population or termites produces more greenhouse gases than humans do. if our planet is going through a warming trend, i believe it to be a part of the natural cycle of the life of our planet... something we have little to no control over. and if the ice caps melt, will we really be underwater? when you get a glass of water and the ice melts, does the level of the water go up or down? i expect to be attacked and insulted, but im up for discussion...

8/8/2006 2:06:21 PM

Boondocks, I don't mind doing something about global warming IF AND WHEN it is proven by science that the natural variations in the Earth's temperature cannot explain the current warming trend without placing a significant portion of that on our emissions. And then there is one more, all-important factor before I give a shit. And this one hasn't even begun to be looked at. Will it cost the world more in terms of resources to reduce our emissions now rather than simply dealing with a warmer climate later.

I do support several emission control programs...so don't confuse me with someone who doesn't care for the environment

I think cars ought to increase average fuel economy and/or reduce emissions over the next several years. I think power plants should get incentives to put in stack scrubbers (and I absolutely love Emission Permit Trading Programs)

I just refuse to be terrified that humans won't invent our way out of the problem. I really think that 1000 years from now, this Global Warming scare will be the new Malthusian rationale failure.

8/8/2006 2:10:25 PM

Quote :

"and if the ice caps melt, will we really be underwater? when you get a glass of water and the ice melts, does the level of the water go up or down? i expect to be attacked and insulted, but im up for discussion..."

Well, the troll show something very important. Most arguments from his side make you looker dumber then shit.

8/8/2006 2:24:01 PM

^ im not sure what the tone of your post is. am i meant to be insulted? my comment had nothing to do with making anyone feel stupid.

8/8/2006 2:30:31 PM

man global warming is gonna completely fuck us up

we still havent recovered from the disastrous catastophe that was Y2K

or El Niño

8/8/2006 2:37:26 PM

I guess that theory of the changing in sea level wasnt even thought through. It is in fact true that the water level of a glass wont rise, therefor, there is no danger.

Exactly what do scientists do all day long? I cant believe I trusted global warming fear-mongers. My water level water glass test disproves global warming.

There cannot be any rebuttal to this model, becuae the physics are indisputable. All ice floating in the water of the glass, just as all ice on earth is floating in the ocean.



[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 2:42 PM. Reason : sfaasf23]

8/8/2006 2:39:06 PM

Quote :

"i have read that the global population or termites produces more greenhouse gases than humans do."

1) Source?
2) If that were true (which I doubt), we don't have control over natural sources of CO2. We do have control over human sources of CO2.

Quote :

"and if the ice caps melt, will we really be underwater? when you get a glass of water and the ice melts, does the level of the water go up or down?"

If only Antarctica weren't a landmass holding ice above water, you'd have a point.



bgmims = LoneSnark?

Quote :

"Will it cost the world more in terms of resources to reduce our emissions now rather than simply dealing with a warmer climate later."

I think it's pretty clear that reducing emissions now is preferrable for a number of reasons. Climate change is only one of them. Geopolitically, everyone will agree we need to quit guzzling oil. Environmentally, even if you don't want to accept climate change, there's mercury emissions, acid rain, asthma, smog, etc, not to mention the costs of coal mining.

With oil, it's a sooner rather than later issue. With coal, it can be vastly improved with manditory scrubbers (no more grandfathering) and emission containment. Not to mention increased use of alternatives such as switching to nuclear/renewables.

Quote :

"I just refuse to be terrified that humans won't invent our way out of the problem."

I refuse to believe they can't. I do think it's possible that they won't.

8/8/2006 2:42:26 PM

Of greater concern then global warming is stabilizing global population growth.

8/8/2006 2:43:48 PM

When it comes to gaynes, that moral degredation will surely destroy our planet.

When it comes to global climate change in our envirmoent, we'll think our way out of it in 50 years.

8/8/2006 2:44:11 PM

Quote :

"I think it's pretty clear that reducing emissions now is preferrable for a number of reasons."

what if its not preferable? what if reducing emissions does no good? you want to limit everyones freedoms for something that might not do any good at all? no thanks

8/8/2006 2:44:34 PM

Quote :

"In 30 to 40 years when it's 150 outside, and your underwater"

single dumbest thing in this thread, b/c it tries to be 'real' and 'smart' but just isn't


warming is occuring, that much is obvious, how much of it humans are responsible for, in the past, now, and in the future is pretty much yet to be determined....

i'd say we are only now feeling real affects of past mass pollution...

china ain't helping either....

8/8/2006 2:45:50 PM

^^ What if you read the entirety of peoples' posts before you commented on them?

Wouldn't that be nuts?

8/8/2006 2:48:01 PM

Quote :

"would you please just admit that you're "denying" human's impact on climate only because you don't want the type of government regulation confronting reality would cause?"

I refuse on the grounds that human's are having an impact on the climate. Try reading more than one post. What I am deying, however, is that Global Warming is going to inflict massive damage on mankind. It may not even be worth it to do anything. That said, I am terrified about what the government is going to do. If it taxed CO2 emissions just a little that would be fine, but it never stops there, command and control regulations are the next step and run the risk of inflicting massive damage upon our industrial society. It isn't that likely, but warming induced destruction is even less likely.

Quote :

"and I absolutely love Emission Permit Trading Programs"

And I completely hate them. They grandfather in polluters, acting as a barrier to entry for new competitors which need to buy credits to start polluting from old firms which have so many credits because their pet government officials over-estimated their pollution needs.

It is far better to just slap a legislated price on emissions and make everyone pay it, old and new alike. If this scheme results in more pollution than you like then just raise the price.

8/8/2006 2:49:55 PM

Quote :

", how much of it humans are responsible for, in the past, now, and in the future is pretty much yet to be determined...."

by you.

how hot are you waiting for it to get? 120.... 130 ?

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 2:50 PM. Reason : 234]

8/8/2006 2:49:55 PM

^^^Nice way of avoiding my question

I guess you're for telling people "you can only drive this much" and limiting their freedoms when theres a 0% guarantee that it would change anything

^how hot are you waiting for it to get? 95 degrees and you declare global warming must be stopped! how come these threads never get posted in the winter time? i thought you guys cared about the planet all the time?

8/8/2006 2:50:48 PM

NEWSFLASH: there are zero guarantees in life.

8/8/2006 2:51:41 PM

NEWSFLASH: global warming will increase the earth's average temperature to 400 degrees by 2008 its a fact

8/8/2006 2:52:42 PM

Quote :

"NEWSFLASH: global warming will increase the earth's average temperature "

yes, that is a fact.

8/8/2006 2:53:54 PM

Quote :

"by you. how hot are you waiting for it to get? 120.... 130 ?"

sooo, you think it's never been over 100 for very long here before? what rock did you move out from under?

geologically the earth has been much warmer than it is now or has been in recent history, heating a cooling phases are nothing new.

the rate of the temperature change is really what's at the heart of the debate, and how much humans have altered it. since that is not entirely known i'll mostly keep my opinions to myself.

however, the world, and the US used to pollute alot more than they/we do now.... though I do agree that tighter emission standards, a major shift from using petroleum/coal as a power generating source is ultimately a good move.

nukes, using fuel cycling can provide very safe, lower cost, and lower wastes and far less overall pollution than anything else really. solar and fusion have the best potential but still need to be developed more...

8/8/2006 2:58:03 PM

.

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 2:58 PM. Reason : nm]

8/8/2006 2:58:28 PM

does anyone honestly think there is a real world solution to this 'problem'? where would you start? take either side, assume that we are causing or we arent. i dont think you could truly PROVE either case... but we will suspend that first case for the sake of moving forward.

8/8/2006 2:59:20 PM

i'll take the side of "humans cause global warming"

ok my solution is to make mandatory electric cars

ok after we charge people out the ass to make them and all drive them, china is emitting more co2 than we ever were

ok now what

8/8/2006 3:01:06 PM

nah, there isn't any way to 'stop it' any more than you could stop the earth from spinning...

the only thing we can do is try our best to reduce the human impact on accelerating the warming trend

8/8/2006 3:02:13 PM

I should not commit murder becuase neighbor may or may not commit murder ...

FALSE.

I should not commit murder becuase it is wrong.

8/8/2006 3:02:29 PM

you should not commit murder because it infringes on your neighbor's right to live

morals are a product of society...there isnt one single code of morals that everyone lives by worldwide

8/8/2006 3:03:20 PM

Quote :

"morals are a product of society"

You dont believe in objective morality?

You believe nazism was good morality?

You believe that racism is good as long as it reflects society's vew? Slavery was great, at the time, according to you.



[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 3:09 PM. Reason : 32]

8/8/2006 3:07:34 PM

you havent ever taken a philosophy class

8/8/2006 3:09:49 PM

it needs to be a fair global effort

8/8/2006 3:09:58 PM

Quote :

"there isnt one single code of morals that everyone lives by worldwide"

How about caring for babies?

last i checked, you could not even have a society if you didnt have that moral, becuase everyone would be dead.

your view is officially disproven.




[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : thank you come again]

8/8/2006 3:11:34 PM

agreed, we should limit our production of emissions that accelerate the warming trend. i dont think youll find too many intelligent people who disagree.... regardless of whether they agree or disagree with human influence. just because i dont think global warming is a big problem... doesnt mean i want to shit on my planet in spite of itself. but obviously there is a balance.... political and economical. and of course this is global warming, not US warming. so as irritated as we want to be with the lack of 'action' by our own... youre still not going to account for 2/3 of the planet. josh, at the risk of being the target of your animosity, why dont you debate instead of sharpshoot?

8/8/2006 3:14:43 PM

because cultural relativism desrves 'sharp shooting'

but agree with a lot of that^

8/8/2006 3:16:12 PM

Some of us "sharpshoot" because there are so many trolls on this board that it's barely worth it to compose a well thought-out response.

Until better moderation rolls along, this will be the case.

8/8/2006 3:16:22 PM

Quote :

"agreed, we should limit our production of emissions that accelerate the warming trend. i dont think youll find too many intelligent people who disagree...."

oh, I think you will

8/8/2006 3:16:31 PM

being new... whats a troll?

8/8/2006 3:18:59 PM

TreeTwista10

8/8/2006 3:21:39 PM

Quote :

"find too many intelligent people who disagree...."

yes, he made and exception for nutjobs like you

8/8/2006 3:22:07 PM

^^^People who get their kicks from intentionally stirring up crap on the internet

[Edited on August 8, 2006 at 3:23 PM. Reason : .]

8/8/2006 3:22:45 PM

can i get a better definition of troll please

8/8/2006 3:22:55 PM

got it... so is it impossible to educate some 'trolls'? for example, my initial 'arguments' were classified as troll. im here to see what else is out there besides what i think i know. if my initial comments are 'troll' like... so what? is it just because i disagree?

8/8/2006 3:24:49 PM

Boondocks, while I agree that any claim about termites emitting CO2 would need to be verified (I also suspect it may be false) I disagree with your "so what, we can't control that, we focus on us" response

If we aren't producing a significant amount of greenhouse gas (compared to the whole of nature), there is no reason for us to give a shit because we couldn't reverse the process (or even slow it down). We'd be better off designing ways to remove CO2 from the air rather than designing ways to produce less of it.

We should first have some research into what portion of it we are producing (I'm pretty sure there is some research into this somewhere)

8/8/2006 3:24:58 PM

Jere just attempted a few posts up to troll


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

Quote :

"One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. 'you're nothing but a fanboy' is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue. "

8/8/2006 3:26:36 PM

i should modify... not too many intelligent and educated people... there is a difference between intelligent, smart and educated. you could have an intelligent doctor who drives a SUV but doesnt want to stir his pot by paying a tax for his 12 mpg car. he isnt educated because he doesnt take into account all factors that go into regulation... assuming regulation will 'solve' it

8/8/2006 3:26:41 PM

it would be extremely difficult to 'reverse' or even slow down the warming trend. personally I think we have allready done the damage and now it's just starting to register, but that doesnt mean we shouldn't try to reduce our current outputs.

there's a theory of the greenhouse effect called the greenhouse cliff... anyone familar with it?

basically it says that at a certain point the climate will tip rapidly towards warming (in a matter of a few months or years rather than decades or centuries or milliena) where things will stabilize....

8/8/2006 3:30:23 PM