global warming

[Julius Brenzaida]

Originally posted by La Fayette
bump

why

[La Fayette]

Originally posted by Julius Brenzaida
why

someone asked a question about pollution and GW (IIRC it was Bloody Monk) and the answer is HERE, that's why.
(you know I am so lazy that I prefer to give a good thread a bump rather than write it again

[La Fayette]

BTW glad to see you back, Julius!

[debeest]

OK, I'll try to make the bump more worthwhile. Did anyone see the news articles around the beginning of July, announcing that the State of Connecticut has passed a law specifically aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the State of California legislature has passed an even "farther-reaching" law targeting vehicle CO2 emissions, which the governor is expected to sign? (Interestingly, the San Jose Mercury article that I saw contained a list of things which the implementing regulations must NOT do -- basically, almost anything that would interfere with business or personal freedom -- but didn't give any specifics about what they MUST do.)

So, does this mean an end to the rationalization that if global warming really was a problem caused by humans, then someone besides those silly third-world countries would try to do something about it?

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by debeest
So, does this mean an end to the rationalization that if global warming really was a problem caused by humans, then someone besides those silly third-world countries would try to do something about it?

Only on a subtle level. We'll still blame them in official statements.

[Straybow]

Magnifying error doesn't make it true

Hmmm, yes, CT and CA, those great bastions of legislative conservatism and judicial restraint.

Originally posted by debeest
So, does this mean an end to the rationalization that if global warming really was a problem caused by humans, then someone besides those silly third-world countries would try to do something about it?

Nope, "…those silly third-world countries would try to do something about it" in their own back yards. If gw were truly anthropogenic, then industrialization of backward nations (especially China and India) using cheap, high-pollution tech remains the greatest near and long term threat. Any moderate decrease in Western sources will easily be swamped by smaller proportional increases from the other 90% of the population.

As is, gw hype remains a tool for punishing the success of developed nations. It matters not if the punishment comes from without or is self-inflicted by "white man's guilt." It really is like Civ, in which the AI is exempted from having to deal with the rules imposed upon the player.

[Campo]

I wish you liberal pinko commie fascist enviro lunatics would get this into your heads once and for all:

1. There is no such thing as global warming.
2. The global warming that's occuring has natural causes, not human causes.
3. The global warming that's caused by people is somebody else's fault, not ours.
4. The global warming that's caused by us is nothing to worry about anyway, since the consequences are so trivial.

There, it's that simple!

And besides, if global warming does ever cause a problem we'll just assign some engineers to clean up pollution. We'll be able to identify it by the big skulls on the ground.

[La Fayette]

Re: Magnifying error doesn't make it true

Originally posted by Straybow
As is, gw hype remains a tool for punishing the success of developed nations.

I love this one...
May I suggest?
GW Bush remains a tool for punishing the success of developed nations.
Tv shows remain a tool for punishing the success of developed nations.
Coca Cola remains a tool for punishing the success of developed nations.
... this forum is never as much fun as when it turns OT.

[debeest]

Sometimes, when someone has a brilliant idea that flies in the face of conventional wisdom, they find that over time, more and more people come to agree with them, and their brilliant idea eventually overthrows the conventional wisdom and becomes accepted as truth. This happened to some people highly regarded in Civ, such as Darwin and Copernicus.

Other times, when someone clutches fiercely to a backward notion that flies in the face of a growing evidence-based consensus, they find that over time, fewer and fewer people agree with them, and their idea is eventually relegated to the scrap heap of history.

I wonder what will happen this time.

[Straybow]

Ah, I see now! Accept the evidence handed to us without question, because it might be inspired by such brilliance that we just can't comprehend it yet. Also, if we dare to question the received wisdom of our betters our views might be ridiculed. Better to be safe from public shame now than worry about pesky contrary evidence that might be relegated to the scrap heap of history. It is all so clear!

Never question the motives of anyone who says they're saving the Earth, even at the expense of the people who live on Earth. Always question the motives of the wealthy people and corporations that have profitted from the labor of the masses and given nothing in return. Except our jobs, and sometimes libraries and hospitals. The evil rich gave to salve their consciences, and the government would've gotten around to building those things eventually. Don't fret over where the government gets money to do it.

The government, guided by the enlightened who have cast off all doubt, will solve the problem by foreseeing every obstacle and predicting every result. Who knows, perhaps the Search for the Real Killers will serendipitously turn up the Philosophers Stone, which our Noble Defenders of the Planet Earth can use to transmute pollution into sunshine, fresh air, and Happy Ever Afters.

Until then, let us all embrace our oneness with Mother Earth, and return to living off the land like our ancient ancestors. Except for playing Civ2. She will rejoice and stop letting the world get warmer. We'll all lay down our arms and have World Peace, because we won't be fighting over oil or gold. Ummm… or religion. Surely we can all agree that science has explained away God and all that as well. Except the Mother Earth stuff because that's good. Let's close with a rousing chorus: "Imagine there's no heaven…"

[La Fayette]

Straybow
I disagree with what you write , but I like the way you write it .

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Re: Magnifying error doesn't make it true

Originally posted by Straybow
As is, gw hype remains a tool for punishing the success of developed nations. It matters not if the punishment comes from without or is self-inflicted by "white man's guilt."

O, get real.

Punishment for success? Isn't that the ridiculous argument used by the wealthy to justify tax loopholes? Why on earth would anybody even want to think of it that way? Success is success, dirt is dirt, chloroflorocarbons are chloroflorocarbons. White man's guilt? Who feels guilty? Nobody. But some people think it'd be better to have a clean planet.

For somebody who supposedly flies the flag of fact and scientific proof, you are always quick to toss out nonsense to deride those who disagree with you.

[Bloody Monk]

I understood Straybow to say that you guys can't have it both ways...if, in fact, you are really as interested in having a clean planet as you claim, then why and how can you adopt a position that simultaneously says emissions from the US and other developed countries are horrlble, but fine and dandy if from India, China, and 'third world' nations?

Why don't you answer Straybow?? Do you really think ridicule and mis-statement is a substitute for logic?? or facts?? or reasoned argument?? If the facts he uses are wrong, or the reasoning flawed, or the logic faulty, then why don't you answer in kind, with fact, reason, and logic??

Do you really suppose that saying the equalivant of, "NO IT ISN'T!!!!!", will stand as an arguement?? Or that SHOUTING will make your point, or even make it so?? Or that making a jape and laughing among yourselves is a valid response?? Do you not comprehend the usefullness of having the solution actually address the problem?? That the unintended consequences of doing the wrong thing might make things worse?? Or that it is a scam and a fraud to claim you are doing something about air quality, when all you have done is establish a regime to redistribute incomes and wealth??

If it is wrong for the US, how can it not also be wrong for China?? That question is the elephant in the living room that none of you are willing to address.

[Campo]

Bloody Monk, it seems to me that you're the one doing the shouting and resorting to invective rather than fact.

I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I don't mount a serious, fact-laden response to Straybow is because it's pointless. Is there anything -- anything at all -- I could possibly say that would convince you or him that global warming may be occuring? Or that we should take some cautious measures to deal with it? I don't think so. My very strong sense is that your minds are already made up.

Besides, we all know that the evidence isn't universally and totally unambiguous. Whatever one side says, the other can counter. The science isn't absolute. It requires personal assessment and interpretation.

My own opinion is that global warming may be occurring, though we're not positive. And it probably has human causes, though we're not positive. But by god we ought to err on the side of caution, because the consequences are so catastrophic.

FWIW (though I'm certain it won't change anyone's mind) here's my reply to your "elephant" point about the U.S. vs. China:

1. In round numbers, because I'm not going to spend time looking up the exact figures, the U.S. has about 5% of the world's population. We account for about 25% of the world's pollution emissions. Do we not have a greater responsibility to curb emissions, since we're the worst offender?

2. We (the U.S.) has done a lot of polluting to get to where we are -- a "developed" country. Now that we have the big advantage, is it fair to say to the underdeveloped countries that they aren't allowed to do what we already did? Can we expect them to adhere to a higher standard than we did?

3. We can afford to curb emissions more than they. The standard of living and average annual income in the U.S. is far beyond that of China, India, etc. It wouldn't kill us to pay, say, an extra $100 per year in pollution controls for the products we buy. On the other hand, that $100 per year could be a typical month's/two-month's/three-month's-or-more earnings for a resident of an undeveloped country. Is it fair for us to cut back by eating Porterhouse instead of Filet Mignon, while asking them to cut back by skipping meals altogether? (Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, but the point is legitimate.)

That's my hasty response. I'm confident it won't change your mind, or Straybow's, or anyone's. Sure I could spend a couple hours or days getting more precise numbers, and that might make my case a little stronger. But it STILL wouldn't change anyone's mind.

This is a political/social issue more than a scientific one, at least given our current state of scientific abilities and information. That's why posts like this are a waste of time -- I'm not going to convince you of anything no matter what facts I present.

Given that, it's easier, and a lot more fun, to turn to some good-natured sarcasm.

Now lighten up -- my words are backed with nuclear weapons!

[debeest]

The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, uses 35% of its energy. Combustion of fossil fuels by vehicles and by power plants is the major source of anthropogenic global warming emissions.

Stray, you say that limiting U.S. emissions more stringently than the emissions of undeveloped nations is "punishing success." Monk, you say that it establishes a "regime to redistribute wealth." Aren't you both saying, in essence, that because the U.S. is currently rich, it's entitled to use a disproportionate share of the world's resources and create a disproportionate share of the world's pollution in order to ensure its continued disproportionate wealth? Do you feel comfortable staking out that position?

Incidentally, Stray, you partially misinterpreted my last post. I didn't intend to suggest that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is a brilliant idea that flies in the face of conventional wisdom; after all, global warming is now the broadly accepted conventional scientific wisdom. Rather, I was posing your rejection of the conventional wisdom as the potential brilliant idea that would, through the power of its Truth, overcome the conventional wisdom and become the new conventional wisdom. I was offering that as one of two possible outcomes, and wondering which outcome lay ahead for your beliefs: recognition as a brilliant paradigm shift, or dismissal as a defiant rejection of the evidence.