Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Simplified Global Warming logic
12-15-2011, 12:40 PM,
#16
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
Climate change is real. Of course it bloody well is, that's how there has been an Ice Age in earth's history. But this bullshit of taxing us for CO2 whilst still paying the Alumina or Fertilizer industry for their toxic waste to dump it in municipal water supplies is like wtf? How can people be so dumb?
Reply
01-11-2012, 06:26 PM,
#17
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
Glad to see that this "pile of dog shit" thread has generated some discussion.

I agree that the over-simplification of the "logic" can be irritating and applied to almost any decision, but Occam’s razor (lex parsimoniae) has often proven the obvious to be at least worthy of some consideration.

I am not suggesting we pay toxic waste dumpers at all, or that we introduce any unnecessary taxes to attempt to artificially counteract failures to correctly assess the medium to long term impact of our consumer greed.

I am suggesting that we move towards sustainable, maintainable technologies and that any industry proven to be part of the problem rather than the solution be swapped out as soon as possible for something that qualifies as “environmentally friendly”, with the realization that this will be an ongoing, “continuous improvement” initiative as new methods are discovered and exploited.

Obviously the ever-shifting position of the “proven bad” proverbial “line in the sand” regarding when to act VS when to watch will continue to be a contentious issue as long as there remains any threat of global warming at all.
<as some would say there never has been…..queue the trolls….>
Reply
01-11-2012, 11:15 PM,
#18
RE: Simplified Global Warming logic
Keep in mind that "climate change" and "global warming" are often used synonymously, particularly when individuals attempting to 'discuss' (or 'bitch', depending upon your bent) such things are in a heightened state of emotion and rationality is at least mostly nonexistent.

Climate change exists - there is no denying this. Anthropogenic climate change exists by way of basic thermodynamics: humans generate body heat, heat helps drive the climate, and therefore, regardless of how much impact is created, there is some level of impact.

This gets a little sticky, though, when the question as to whether the globe is warming or cooling is considered. Sadly, because of the sheer complexity of climatology, it is best handled by those with the backgrounds in the various areas of study required. (I trust at least some reading this are aware of how mind-bogglingly multidisciplinary climatology is, and that no one on this planet is an expert is all of those areas.)

The message this fellow brings to the table is that it may be better to act anyway to save the environment regardless of what's happening. This seems to be a moot point. There's no question that there are practices occurring that do destroy environments, but do they cause global warming? Can anyone here not only answer that with certainty, but provide proof through research that hasn't been refuted by other research?

The point is that none of us here are going to be able to figure out climatology. The best any of us can do, and this is key, is analyse the shit out of the reports that are available and keep tabs on the researchers producing those reports. There have been numerous instances that those aligned with the IPCC have merely referred to one anothers papers to support their own notions. This act invalidates research - it's akin to someone stating that their research suggests that space dinosaurs are a possibility (thanks Hans!) and then other people generating research assuming that the original report is fact.

But it goes further than that if you have more than one individual's suggestion being assumed by others as fact.

I'd offer that the most important part of this process is to eliminate the agendae that focuses more on money than on helping humans. But how could this best be done without turning the process into a witch hunt?
Truth appears in many forms. Find those that resonate with you.

- "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise, we do not believe in it at all." - Noam Chomsky
- "Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." - Leon Festinger

http://avaaz.org - The World In Action
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Survival or Extinction: The OM Principles versus the Global Depopulation Policy mexika 0 342 11-20-2013, 10:06 PM
Last Post: mexika
  - Toxic Logic - mexika 0 241 11-09-2013, 01:19 AM
Last Post: mexika
  US farmers may stop planting GMs after poor global yields Easy Skanking 6 659 02-16-2013, 06:33 PM
Last Post: thokling
  Bird flu is 'only three steps' from mutating into deadly new form - global pandemic TriWooOx 2 470 07-14-2012, 08:29 AM
Last Post: nwo2012
  Leaked Rio+20 Earth Summit Final Agreed Text – Utterly Inadequate Response to Global mexika 1 437 06-22-2012, 03:35 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
  The Global Bee Death. i8manu 6 1,677 05-20-2012, 09:38 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Canada – $6b to cut global temps by 0.0007°C. Just $84Trillion per degree! icosaface 1 485 10-21-2011, 04:27 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
Information Where's the Beef? Global Livestock Population and Agricultural Production Statistics FastTadpole 1 2,843 08-23-2011, 05:48 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Global Warming/ Climate change? junebug0000 14 2,442 12-04-2010, 02:31 PM
Last Post: icosaface
  US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest fraud' drummer 0 616 10-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Last Post: drummer

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)