Environmental Issues

[cableguy]

i have never, not for a single moment, claimed to be a scientist... the graf you quoted was typed tongue in cheek, because many people who share your belief system would happily place the blame for these at the feet of President Bush... you need not look further back than this past fall, when he was blamed by some for the hurricaines that hit florida (and other places in the carribean/US coastline)...

what effect have humans had on a single planetary process?? i am also curious which extinct species is responsible for thousands of other extinctions... i have heard nothing of the sort--ever... you speak of theory, not practicality... there cant be too many plants or animals that rely on a SINGLE other species for survival... even if this were the case, i cant imagine the extinction of one leaving a gap that wont be filled by something else... that is adaptation, and on a more grand scale, perhaps even evolution...

as for US participation in the un, who, may i ask, funds most un activities?? what nation should be asked to actively campaign for things that are to its detriment?? what nation should abstain from using a power it has for the purpose of thwarting something that would hurt it?? the US is responsible for the creation of the un.. no US participation after ww2, no united nations...

diplomacy is indeed a double edged sword... where, then, is the international assistance when the US has some kind of disaster?? where is the international support of ANYTHING the US does?? seems your double edge only cuts one way...

the US has pledged 35 million in aid for this tsunami, and are called stingy for not pledging more... private contributions are not taken into account at all... how much is the rest of the world contributing??? forgive me if i end up not surprised at all when the final numbers roll in and the US has provided well over half the total aid given for this disaster... oh, all this money going toward something that has NO benefit to the US at all... we provide it because thats the kind of people we are... yet the international community will go on hating us... i anticipate there will be little, if any, gratitude expressed for whatever aid is given... America, for simply helping out, will still be considered a pariah...

if this trend, which is decades old, continues as it has, one day, a disaster will happen, and America will stand to the side, middle finger raised, and exclaim "your lack of sincerity, support, or gratitude for past generosity indicate your lack of need for US assistance. you are on your own, and good luck." personally, i wouldnt be saddened if this were to happen...

we give, give, and give some more, and get slapped for it... let france assume the role it wants... surely the french economy can afford and assume the BILLIONS of dollars currently provided by America for foreign aid in medicine, food, shelter, and other necessities... oh, and the transport planes to get it all there as well...

what happened on september 11, 2001, was in no way a temper tantrum... it was an act of cowardice, carried out by weak individuals who have no stomach for fighting anyone who can fight back... the US isnt a muslim nation, and is one of only a few worldwide who are willing to stand up and fight against this thing called terrorism... also, as stated before in many threads here and elsewhere, the whole envy and jealousy thing must be taken into account... what an average family makes in a year in the US could probably support an entire third world TOWN for quite some time... oh wait, that same family pays taxes and probably DOES support that town, though indirectly, for some time...

shit...

 

[Conman]

the US has pledged 35 million in aid for this tsunami, and are called stingy for not pledging more... private contributions are not taken into account at all... how much is the rest of the world contributing??? forgive me if i end up not surprised at all when the final numbers roll in and the US has provided well over half the total aid given for this disaster... oh, all this money going toward something that has NO benefit to the US at all... we provide it because thats the kind of people we are... yet the international community will go on hating us... i anticipate there will be little, if any, gratitude expressed for whatever aid is given... America, for simply helping out, will still be considered a pariah...

I dont know what you're been reading or where you get ALL your data from but this statement is an insult to Asian Integrity. You have no idea what is really going on here and how appreciative we are for any and all assistance rendered or contributed to this cause, big or small. To say such things to advocate animosity during such a trying time is in bad form.

I hope you seriously reflect on what you have said and take it back.

 

[Iceberg]

diplomacy is indeed a double edged sword... where, then, is the international assistance when the US has some kind of disaster?? where is the international support of ANYTHING the US does?? seems your double edge only cuts one way...

Ummm. I seem to recall the hundreds of flights and the tens of thousands of people that Canada took in to feed/clothe/shelter when 9-11 happened. Newfoundland, alone, took in over 19,000 people, I seem to recall, doubling or even tripling the sizes of many towns.

I also seem to recall the outpouring of sympathy and support from the majority of the nations of the world. "We are all Americans" was one quote spoken many a time and then some more after the atrocious acts were committed that terrible day. The French, Germans, and Russians (who many Americans despise now) pledged unconditional support in the War on Terror. (That was until the US went into Iraq and diverted the attention of the military to a nation that didn't participate, plan, or conspire to bring about the attacks on 9-11.)

the US has pledged 35 million in aid for this tsunami, and are called stingy for not pledging more... private contributions are not taken into account at all... how much is the rest of the world contributing??? forgive me if i end up not surprised at all when the final numbers roll in and the US has provided well over half the total aid given for this disaster... oh, all this money going toward something that has NO benefit to the US at all...

Canada has pledged $40 million in aid as a preliminary donation. (This is a nation with 1/10 the population of the US, keep this in mind.) Therefore, with the monies given in aid by the dozens of other nations that can afford to provide aid, there is no way the US can provide "well over half the total aid given."

There are also no benefits to the other nations who donate as well. However, the nations which provide aid do so not for their own benefit, but as a duty to be "good samaritans" wherever they can. If nations only were self-interested and only did something if it benefitted them, the world would be a hellacious place to live.

Oh, and don't be so vicious towards the French, for without them, the United States of America would still be a British colony. That is, the American Revolution would have been crushed in seconds without France's help in helping fight off the British (and dividing their attention by having their own quarrels).

 

[cableguy]

conman, while i feel for that entire region of the world, i will not rescind my words... no matter how much money is pledged, or now much help is given, most of the world wont lift a finger in thanks, but will be quick to criticisms of "not enough" or "it should have been done THIS way instead." to whit: http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3944374

instead of writing a check to the funnel of corruption and graft that is the united nations, the US, India, Japan, and Australia are combining on a joint effort to HELP, not to make anyone rich...

why was israels offer of assistance refused by (i believe) sri lanka??

iceberg, i do not recall any mass exodus from the US post 9/11, but i was in a tad of a rage, so i will take your word for it... as for the french, germans, and russians and their unconditional support, well, you can plainly see what "unconditional" means to them...

this wasnt, and isnt, the war against al quaeda, it was, is, and will be the war against terrorism... at this point, only the blind and the terrorists can plead any case whatsoever that saddams iraq did not support and encourage terrorism...

as for tsunami relief funds, first and foremost, who gives what doesnt matter... canada pledged 40 million preliminarily, the US pledged 35 million preliminarily... now let me dice your argument to bits... how much money will be raised and donated to the relief/rebuilding effort by PRIVATE citizens of both this country and canada?? those numbers you quoted are government funds, not donations by individuals... add public and private together, and you will see where my comment came from...

there is no nation on earth populated by more generous souls than America... many of us, myself included, believe things like disaster relief are far better handled in the private sector... i will complain about illegal government spending (welfare and other transfer payments), and unreasonable tax rates for the rest of my life, but i will also support organizations like habitat for humanity, the salvation army, and in this case, direct relief international... these organizations are efficient, and in no way self serving... they go in, get the job done, and do little or no grandstanding in the process...

the french were late to the dance in the American Revolution, and may or may not have played any key role in such... more recently, Americans have booted the germans out of france twice, and kept soviet tanks off of german and french soil for decades... with hindsight available, we should have left europe to the soviets, excepting Great Britain... free people have lost perspective on why they are that way... i find this sad...

anyway, here is a list compiled by cnn of relief agancies, and contact info if you want to help... http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/27/quake.aidsites/index.html

do a little digging or just a brief view of this list, and things like US, America, American seem to appear somewhat frequently... this money, froom these organizations, will not be added to any national total, yet to make any argument that anyone isnt doing enough, it should be... the fewer individuals touch the money, the more of the original amount there is to actually help...

****EDIT****

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/37436.htm
the fun part of this article is as follows:
"The aid at issue now is disaster relief.

Secretary of State Colin Powell found himself in the position of having to remind the world that over the past four years the United States has provided more such aid than all other nations on the planet combined."

stingy?? hardly...

****EDIT AGAIN****

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041231/D87AQ4FO0.html
US aid pledge increased to $350 million...

remember this next time someone says the US doesnt care about anyone outside its borders...

 

[Iceberg]

Anyway, time to end this tangent and get back on topic... (I let it go on for a while just to see what would happen.)

Many of arguments against those who argue that global warming is happening are refuted in this presentation:

http://dannyblair.uwinnipeg.ca/distinguishedlectureblairnov17.ppt (It's a PowerPoint file, so I hope you can all view it.)

If you have any questions, please don't be afraid to ask.

 

[oscaraustin]

Before it totally ends a few things.

At Cable:

Out of the 2 billion + donated to the cause, the U.S. is projectted to have donated ~260 million (this includes private). A generous amount, but not near half. Not near half of the total, or half of what is capable to be donated by American citizens. We are the Kings of excess, we give our small tithes, but still sit rich and pretty afterwards, it's not much of a sacrifice on our parts. I'm not comparing the U.S. to the rest of the world, because there's no point, I'm just saying we don't do as much as we can or should. In theory none of us cared all that much, because we didnt sell these computers we don't really need for spare cents to send over.

the french were late to the dance in the American Revolution, and may or may not have played any key role in such... more recently, Americans have booted the germans out of france twice, and kept soviet tanks off of german and french soil for decades... with hindsight available, we should have left europe to the soviets, excepting Great Britain... free people have lost perspective on why they are that way... i find this sad...

Not sure how this exactly came about in this thread, but since it's here, just for clarification. The French won York Town, you know the decisive battle of the Revolution. Reason 1, the blockade. Reason 2, ~2/3 of the soldiers at York had French names, had formerly been enlisted in the French army, and over the few months after the revolution most of these reenlisted with the French army. Essentially, it was the French Army at York, just not officially. It's not that the French are ungrateful for WWI and II, they fought in those wars as well (.... I know, i make My cheese, my wine, my running shoes jokes too....), but the truth is they got hammered in both wars. They were slaughtered. France was the main battle field. They had the most deaths civilian as well as military. This is a pretty good idea of why they are slow to go to war now, they experienced two horrors 20 years apart.

But let's just let the horrible tragedy of this tsunami serve to further seperate the U.S. from the rest of the world, by saying we are the most generous and noone else cares enough. (I say this entirely sarcastically) If anything this should be a wake up call to the world to start working together again, and enjoying all acts of generosity no matter who its from or how large or small it is. 5 pennies from the kid who had to break his only dime means more than a million dollars from Steven Spielberg. I'd say something about Sri Lanka and Israel, but i don't want to further taint Ice's thread.

on that note, sorry Ice, had to vent, back to the continuation of part II of Global Warming: Ice says, Cable says.

 

[mindido]

Iceberg,

I have to give you a lot of credit for attempting to educate those with a closed mind. I couldn't do it as I don't have the patience. I studied this subject many years ago in college and, it seems to me, the arguments haven't changed a bit; only the amount of evidence supporting global climate change.

Cableguy,

You really need to get a bit of an education on the subject rather than just spouting the latest from Fox News and the Republican party. I would suggest picking up the September 2004 issue of National Geographic Magazine (a very left wing mag of course) or check this link:

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/index.html

I believe this to be a very balanced argument.

 

[Conman]

Going off topic for a little bit to say:

This has been one of the most, if not the most engaging discussions on this board that could easily have gone south. Props to Iceberg, oscaraustin, Cableguy and all who have contributed to this discussion. This has filled out 4 wonderful pages of facts, figures and assumptions and never once got personal. I admire the self control and diplomacy of all the contributors here and congratulate you for not getting at each others' throats. :wink:

Keep it coming! BOT.

 

[cableguy]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/02/world.relief.contribution.reut/index.html

current list of which countries have donated what... oscar, your ~260mil was exceeded several days ago when the US government upped its pledge to 350 mil... various organizations, individuals, and companies have also pledged a million apiece, and that is well before the smaller contributions are added in... it seems that in THIS instance, i will probably be proven wrong in regards to % of contribution, but this may never be known... what is the cost of operating a carrier battle group?? what is the cost of flying supplies to the affected areas??? the point i was trying to make is that when bad things happen, the US us USUALLY leading first and with the most...

now, the cold hearted sounding part... i believe there is already too much money pledged... the loss of life was terrible, and it will be a struggle to see that the necessary aid gets to where it is needed, but as this is a part of the world where a dollar buys a bit more than it would stateside, and as the economic impact of the tsunami has been repeatedly referred to as "minimal," i wonder what this 4+ BILLION dollars already donated will be used for.... as money and pledges of more money continue to roll in, at some point, the aid organizations, at least the ethical ones, need to say "we have enough, please dont send any more.." one such group, doctors without borders, issued such a statement two days ago...

my thoughts and prayers are with those who made it through, and those who lost family, friends, and countrymen... i hope that the proper amount of aid is provided to those in need, and that graft and embezzlement is kept to a minimum, and that money donated and not used is not wasted in a fit of excess and unnecessary spending, but put toward a fund to help in future disasters... the un being in charge does not lend much hope to this scenario, however...

mindido, thank you for the link, i read the proffered article, and remain a skeptic... it asks a question "how much of it is our fault?" which i believe to be THE single best question on this issue, BUT the article fails to answer it... i have not denied the warming trend, i have only questioned whether it was a natural one...

Global temperatures are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand years.

what about the past 2000 years??? 5000??? 1,000,000??? uncertain?? unknown?? inconclusive!!!

until "some experts" becomes "most" or better yet, "all experts", i wont change my mind... another area for improvement is changing "almost certainly" to "definitely".. i am certain that you will be hard pressed to come up with any idea that doesnt have "some experts" "almost certain" that something is true--on all sides of said issue... this one is no different...

some places are warmer, some places are cooler... this will continue to be true... what does it mean?? i say nothing... where i live, we recently had a record high temperature... surrounding it, however, has been the coldest series of days in recent memory... is this indicative of anything?? no... this is simply another anecdotal story added to the rickety pile upon which most of the global warming argument rests... atmospheric temps have stayed steady, declined, or risen, depending on which study you want to believe... surface temps in certain areas may be trending warmer or cooler...

with so many differing OPINIONS pertaining to data collected UNEVENLY by DIFFERENT sources, and with so many divergent opinions and preconcieved notions and various propaganda, sprinkled with a bit of science here and there, a sane person MUST come to the conclusion that while this might merit more study, currently, it is most definitely inconclusive... as i have stated before, those who do not believe in global warming being a problem, or something unnatural, are awaiting incontrovertable proof to the contrary... those that believe in it are awaiting incontrovertable proof that it ISNT a problem, or that it IS a natural occurrance... i will continue to claim that the burdon of proof lies with those who propose change... in this case, that group is the "global warming is a problem" folks.. i need not prove anything if i wish to maintain the status quo, you have to justify a change... you have not yet done so...

conman, i must echo your sentiments... this is the way things happen on this board, and for that i am grateful... it is tough, if not impossible, to find reasoned discourse with those who disagree with you anywhere, and as people tend to hang out with those who they agree with, such discussions are rare... i very much value this forum as a place to argue, cajole, convince, and learn... plus all of the porn...

 

[mindido]

Cableguy,

I believe Iceberg (and the National Geographic article) mentioned earlier that there are now only a handful of scientists who study the subject that believe we are not the primary cause of global warming. But I guess the real question is actually quite simple. Who Cares?

Those of us that believe we need to leave the planet in as good, or better, shape for our coming generations think this is a problem that needs to be addressed. When you think about it, its really not that difficult. Better scrubbers on coal fired power plants and that problem is taken care of. More fuel efficient vehicles (or hydrogen) kill several birds with one stone. I mean, think about it, lets say we all just halved our oil consumption. The best thing about that is not the trade imbalance, improved air quality, or whatever; its that we could pretty much tell the Middle Eastern countries to go fly a kite.

Now that would really be something!

 

[Iceberg]

until "some experts" becomes "most" or better yet, "all experts", i wont change my mind... another area for improvement is changing "almost certainly" to "definitely".. i am certain that you will be hard pressed to come up with any idea that doesnt have "some experts" "almost certain" that something is true--on all sides of said issue... this one is no different...

Here is the consensus among the scientific community:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=86

I also object to peer-reviewed scientific journals being referred to as propaganda that is "sprinkled with a bit of science here and there." The people on the boards of these journals are the "experts" of which you speak, people who heavily analyse the scientific process to see whether the studies submitted to them are accurate and are without bias. Scientific bias leads to inaccurate, even false, results.

i will continue to claim that the burdon of proof lies with those who propose change... in this case, that group is the "global warming is a problem" folks.. i need not prove anything if i wish to maintain the status quo, you have to justify a change... you have not yet done so...

The issue has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If this issue were to be presented before a 12-person jury by believers vs. skeptics, it is a guarantee that at least 10 (if not all 12) of the 12 would side with the believers. The arguments by skeptical "scientists" are heavily biased, inaccurate, and unscientific.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, you and berg say there are only a handful of scientists who dont say global warming is a man-made real threat... i dont know about you, but as i have done with the pro-warming scientists, berg has done with the anti-warming scientists... an out of hand rejection based on the belief that there is a preconcieved notion driving the end result... that said, there is not a small amount of legitimate dissent, there is simply a small amount you are willing to concede...

we HAVE better scrubbers on coal fired power plants, and to improve much beyond where we are now would create a huge spike in energy costs... to what end??? a half point reduction in something that may or may not be harmful?? id rather not have a 50% increase in my electricity bill to make a meaningless pollution reduction...

fuel efficient vehicles... here, i have a major problem... the alternatives to gas/deisel powered engines are too expensive, silly looking, underpowered, and/or small... i cant speak for the rest of the world, but i myself drive a large, v-8 powered car, and will, at some point, get an even larger, v-8 powered suv or truck... they are safer, more utilitarian, and i dont mind paying for the extra gas... i see a large vehicle as being more useful, and the size alone as a second insurance policy... show me an alternative that is practical, will run just as long as a tank of gas will now, takes no longer to refuel/recharge than filling my gas tank, is large enough for my comfort level, and COSTS NO MORE than something i would consider buying now, and i will happily join that parade... we arent there yet... do a little digging, and you will find that the internal combustion engine, while much maligned, is not nearly the threat you see it as, when presented with other pollution sources..

as an aside, i have read several places that a gallon of gasoline, when burned, creates over 20 pounds of pollution... a gallon of gas weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of 7-9 pounds, and a good portion of the exhaust is h2o(water), so can someone please enlighten me as to how this number is anything beyond a wet dream fabrication by some enviro-freak who is mathematically illiterate??

iceberg, as usual, your links merely serve as supporting evidence to my claims... thank you once again... i dont recall using the word consensus in this argument, as i generally abhor the underlying features of such things... i did not, nor will, ask for a consensus, i am asking for a general agreement... a consensus is a group of people who all get some of what they want, but no one gets all of what they want... as noted in your link, consesus in science is meaningless...

i object to the outright disqualification of scientists sharing my view on this topic by you... face facts, there are signifigant numbers of those who call themselves scientists on BOTH sides of this issue... just because you dont call them that, or for that matter, because i dont, does not necessarily make it so... i still believe your group of scientists is working with some bias, which, as you stated, leads to innacurate or false results...

i am a reasonable person, and i have serious doubts... half the meteorologists in my town disagree with the other half on this... ergo, there has not been proof, much less beyond a reasonable doubt, that this is unnatural or a threat... for that matter, there is compelling data that would indicate there is no all encompassing warming trend at all... i can tell you for certainty that the record high temperature i experienced two weeks ago was much higher than todays high temp... perhaps this is indicative of global cooling...

yesterday, the record high temp was 44 degrees, in 1990... the record low was -20 in 1976... the actual high and low temps yesterday were 21 and 9 degrees respectively... the averages are 22 and 6 degrees... for yesterday, there was a 23 degree drop in the high temperature from 1990... there was also a rise of 29 degrees in the low temperature since 1976... the actual temp compared to the average showed a slightly higher low temp, and a slightly lower high temp... perhaps this means the global temperature is moderating....

the problem with global warming is evidence collection... i can, if i choose, take temperature samples every day of my life, leave instructions to my children to do the same after i die, grandchildren, great-grandchildren.. this would create a tremendous record, accurate beyond a doubt, yet scientifically meaningless... it is but a small plot of land on this huge rock we call earth... a local sampling is useless... how can one take a global sample without something that can look at the ENTIRE globe?? seems to me that would require satellites or some technology we do not have yet... i think a temp record of every square mile of this planet would be highly instructive, and scientifically signifigant, though i would be against the intrusion on private prperty rights, and we would still need millenia to show natural trends...

pffft...

 

[oscaraustin]

There are still a substantial amount of scientists on every side of the global warming debate. Most scientists tend to say that there is a "general warming trend" to the Earths overall climate. Amongst these, the percentages who think it is a natural occurance or those who think it is a man created problem are very close. It only seems that the majority see it to be man created problem because these are the ones who are loud about it. Those who side with natural phenomena do not make so many publications, because there is nothing they can say to try to stop the rising temperature trends. However, those who see it as created by man, release material frequently because if it is man created then it can be stopped by man as well.

Noone in this thread (I don't think anyway), nor are there very many left in the world who refute the warming trend. Many do not believe it is a permanent warming, and that it is a temporary warm up before another drastic cooling, but very very few do not acknowledge global warming at this point in time. That said, everyone has their bias, even scientists prior to going into reasearch. Only way not to have one is to stay in a tiny dark box until they pluck you out and tell you ",now you study this global warming thing," and you reply, "what they hell is that?

 

[Iceberg]

That said, everyone has their bias, even scientists prior to going into reasearch.

There are two forms of bias, though. There is one bias, as in relating to personal opinion. This type of bias is the type that most people have.

However, there is another form of bias which is defined as a poor statistical sampling technique selection that ends up making one's conclusions incorrect. This form of bias (the type I am referring to) is something that true scientists try to avoid including in their research. If one is to include bias in their research, their study will be flawed, resulting in the potential loss of future research grants, causing the scientist to be discredited in their field.

Oh yeah, and cableguy, please give me a list of the scientists who believe that humans are not responsible for global warming's occurrence and those who believe that global warming is not happening. I will gladly provide a list of scientists who believe humans are responsible for the occurrence of global warming once I have it compiled. Then we'll see how many are on each side.

Also, you had mentioned something about the tsunami/earthquake before in relation to lobal warming. Here's an article that deals with this subject:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/27/tsunamis.environment.reut/index.html

 

[oscaraustin]

The thing about a bias is that it is biased. It's one of those things, even if you are completely aware of, sometimes especially when you are aware of it, it affects your judgements even more. Either you go along with what you want to believe is true (evolution vs. creation debate this is often the case), or in order to avoid being called bias you lean towards the favor of the opposition to your theory. Both can easily be done without realizing it. It is very difficult to escape bias, it is like trying to escape the fact humans walk on two legs.

This is in no way a complete list, but it is a listing of (Geoscience) scientists who are professors when they are not involved actively involved in research, though every few years they go devote themselve back to research science. I'm sure that they are not all primarily focused on global warming, but they are all Earthnerds even moreso than us:

-Burke: Global warming is natural, with the aid of man.
-Bradley: The Earth is warming, but it is a swing trend of an ice age.
-Eisenhardt: Global warming is primarily caused by man.
-Sheehan: Global warming is fault of man as well as a natural occurance.
-Yohannes: Global warming is a natural occurance, with the effects greatly sped up by the interaction of man.
-Mayda: May have happened eventually, but what we are facing is man's fault.

Scorecard: 3 for natural occurance sped up by man, 2 for primarily made by man, and 1 for phase of an ice age.

Granted it's a small sampling, but it's within a single dept, and shows the diversity within it. Even after you guys compile your massive lists, you realize you will claim each other are falsifying, right?

Edit: Besides, numbers do not necessarilly mean that side is right. 30 years ago scientists in training were taught of the coming ice age and the majority believed that theory. I could speak of a flat world, and geocentric universe. However, now you say our science and research techniques have advanced to being so much better now than they were even 30 years ago, but in another 30 or 40 years will we look back with even further advanced science and think the same thing?

 

[mindido]

Man, it amazes me sometimes that we are still debating this issue. One last attempt.

Cableguy,

I'm not sure what all was in the online National Geographic article, but the hardcopy devoted a section to all of the different methods we now use to determine temperature records. We have records going back about 10,000 years from dendrochronology, over 100,000 years from the arctic and antarctic ice sheets, and, if I remember the article correctly, about the same amount of time from pollen and gas samples from around the world. I believe that there is very little debate, from those sources, that the world has shown a significant temperature increase since the industrial revolution.

I guess if you want to drive the huge SUV thats OK. As long as you're willing to pay the true costs for its use (I wish I could remember the economic term). Anyway, I still think we are playing with fire. If we are correct, all of us will have to pay a little more for our energy in the short term. If you are wrong, there could be significant changes that would affect our children and theirs. I guess thats what it really gets down to.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, i think the economic term you are looking for is opportunity cost... if so, it is the wrong term, as opportunity cost is what one gives up in acquiring something... for the safety of my family, for the convenience of not having to pay delivery fees, and for the convenience of being able to load things on a trailer and pull it, i am willing to pay more for the vehicle and the gas required to operate it...

we have already played the thousands of years old game... it too, comes up inconclusive... tree rings are used, but there is only one thing a tree ring can tell you, and that is how good of a growth year it was... it can not tell you WHY it was, or was not... generally, rainfall is the number one determinant of tree ring size, but too much results in a tree ring identical to too little, and neither is tied to temperature.. i reject temperature samplings based on anything but a thermometer as little more than supposition, much less correlative and even less causative...

berg, as long as this debate goes on, there are large ENOUGH groups of scientists on either side, i will not play the "my scientists are better or more numerous than yours" game... it is pointless, silly, and childlike to do so, when it doesnt have any effect on anything anyway... signifigant numbers on both sides = inconclusive...

oscar, brilliant point on bias... hopefully you have better luck than i did...

 

[Gibson]

I haven't studied geology, weather patterns, or climate change near enough to add to this debate without being unsure of what I am talking about. But I have read over this entire thread from start to finish and can say this: Iceberg has chosen to study these subjects and continually provides sources to back up his claims. cableguy usually resorts to taking the easy way out by putting the burden of proof on Iceberg instead of providing (more than a few) sources to support his argument. As well, cableguy tends to contradict himself occasionally. For example:

the alternatives to gas/deisel powered engines are too expensive

i myself drive a large, v-8 powered car, and will, at some point, get an even larger, v-8 powered suv or truck... they are safer, more utilitarian, and i dont mind paying for the extra gas...

These certainly don't happen often, but they say something about your debating skills as a whole.

I have enjoyed reading this thread, as it has provided me with more information concerning global warming as well as good points against global warming to think about.

 

[cableguy]

gibson, to clarify, there was no contradiction... currently, i can get a tiny, electric powered car that wont do much above 65mph for the same cost as a large car or mid sized suv... a similar sized and performing car costs a mere fraction of those electric jobs... i also dont know how long one of those takes to charge, but i am betting its a tad more than 10 mins or so i need to spend at a gas station every now and then... i am willing to pay for the extra gas i burn, as i burn it, but i am not willing to pay premium dollars for a small, crappy, diseased and underpowered car... for context, here is the entire quote:

fuel efficient vehicles... here, i have a major problem... the alternatives to gas/deisel powered engines are too expensive, silly looking, underpowered, and/or small... i cant speak for the rest of the world, but i myself drive a large, v-8 powered car, and will, at some point, get an even larger, v-8 powered suv or truck... they are safer, more utilitarian, and i dont mind paying for the extra gas...

if someone told you that there was scientific evidence that showed you needed to move out of your house, and you knew there was also scientific evidence showing such a move to be unnecessary, would you not ask for incontrovertable proof of WHY you need to move??? the reason i put the burdon on iceberg and co, is because that is where it belongs... i need not prove myself if all i am arguing for is the status quo, just as you need not prove your case in staying in your house...

several centuries ago, the world (earth) was believed to be flat... this was the status quo, accepted and believed by most people, including all but a small minority of SCIENTISTS... a certain individual named ferdinand magellan believed otherwise... he was shouted down and roundly criticized for believing it was round, and thereby circumnavigable... history will show that the criticisms did not stop until his historic voyage that PROVED his case... i ask you again, upon who was the burdon of proof placed, and where SHOULD it still be placed?? if history is to be your guide, as well as practicality, your answer should be on those who advocate change...

were this some political subject on which i was the one advocating change, i would happily accept the burdon of proving my case... this is the way it has always been...

i still find it odd, and more than a little humorous that a mere 30-40 years ago, many of the same scientists who are yelling about global warming now, were concerned about the coming ice age... you might ask yourself why this change of heart happened, and what caused it... upon answering those questions, you might also dig further and wonder what should be made of the evidence used to support the global cooling charges that were made in the 60s and 70s... after you are done with that, ask yourself why some of the same data is used by the global warming crowd today...

there you have it, even without using a bit of science, there is a perfectly valid argument to look closer at this without claiming armageddon is near, or insisting i toss all of my internal combustion engines, buy a car i could never like, and move into an apartment i know i would hate.. the application of logic and common sense sometimes goes a long way, even in a scientific argument...

 

[Gibson]

if someone told you that there was scientific evidence that showed you needed to move out of your house, and you knew there was also scientific evidence showing such a move to be unnecessary, would you not ask for incontrovertable proof of WHY you need to move???

several centuries ago, the world (earth) was believed to be flat... this was the status quo, accepted and believed by most people, including all but a small minority of SCIENTISTS...

2500 years ago, Pythagoras, a philosopher and scientist, taugh that the earth is spherical. 200-300 years later, Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of a spherical earth using mathematics. Ancient Greek scientists knew that the earth is not flat.

I can think of no other way for people living several centuries ago to believe that earth is flat other than it looks flat when viewed from the ground. Unless you can show me a work written more than several centuries ago that uses scientific and logical reasoning to prove that the earth is flat, I will continue to think that people people thought the earth was flas simply for the previously mentioned reason: that the earth looks flat when viewed from ground level.

Ancient scientists gave proof of a spherical earth using science and mathematics, while most people living in the Middle Ages used poor logic to prove that the earth is flat (again, feel free to prove me wrong in my claim about those living in the Middle Ages). My point? Scientific proof has been given in favour of global warming, as provided by Iceberg and others. You have yet to provide a single source in favour of your side of this issue.

So, yes, if I was shown scientific evidence that I should move out of my house for whatever reason (I'm assuming you're using a house as an analogy) and there was less or equal evidence to show otherwise, I would move. Dealing with a minor problem early is better than dealing with a major one later on.