10-03-2007, 05:40 AM | #41 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
I agree its frustrating to do more at a personal level when others dont.
The other component is what we can do as a nation in terms of better policies and practices. In the 70s, in response to the degradation of the environment that was all too evident (polluted lakes and streams, smog, open dumps...) we enacted the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Hazardous Waste Management Act, etc. Many industries (and conservatives) bitched and moaned about the cost or improper government interference in commerce, but I think we can conclude that our waterways are cleaner, our air is more breathable and no one sacrificed too much. If we accept that current industrial and agricultural practices contribute to global warming, what is wrong with taking these environmental laws a step further, like the new law in Cali or laws to require more sustainable agricultural practices?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire |
10-03-2007, 06:15 AM | #42 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
People like myself or Crichton don't pull this out of their ass for no reason on little data. I'm going to guess I'm far more qualified and educated in understanding this sort of data then just about anyone on tfp, and BECAUSE of that data people like Crichton and myself have formed our opinion on human caused global warming. And since you started this Will, you don't even think an aircraft hit the pentagon, how can I take your interpretation of any 'data' seriously when it comes to something political? It always pisses you off when I bring this up, but you have a 20 page thread in paranoia as public record. You have described yourself as far left now, and my belief, and others, including the founder of Greenpeace think people like you are using the environment as a scare tactic to attempt to sway the general public into adopting far left political ideas. Quite frankly Will, you can't be trusted to be scientific in such debates. I don't have an axe to grind with society, I have a long term stake in the 'future' of the planet now that I have children, I am in fact impartial on the whole debate. If I thought my children would be living in some post global warming apocalyptic world that could be avoided I'd be the first fighting to change policy. You on the other hand live in a world of massive conspiracies and global injustice. You have the axe to grind, you want to see society change, and this is your tool.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
10-03-2007, 06:25 AM | #43 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
As an aside to give you an idea just how absurd this can be from time to time: In my cooperative of 1600 housing units, we have to recycle. After 9/11 Bloomberg stopped the recycling requirement stating it was too costly for the city. It was recently restarted. To enforce compliance, there is a ratio of weight recycling:waste that is used to estimate what the recycling expectation is for the building. There is some forumula to come up with this number. Even if everyone recycles or doesn't buy products that constitute these recycleable materials, the city fines out building for not recycling. Also if they find any recycleable materials in the refuse, again we are cited. To make sure we don't get cited we pay a union man (he's got a good contract getting guaranteed 3%/4%/4% raises for three years) to pick through the garbage to make sure there are no recycleables in the trash. Where I used to bring the recycleables downstairs to the designated location, I no longer bring my recycleables downstairs and I put them in the chute since I know that someone is being paid specifically to pick through the garbage. I'm paying for someone to do that work, he should have some work to do.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-03-2007 at 06:31 AM.. |
|
10-03-2007, 06:26 AM | #44 (permalink) | |
spudly
Location: Ellay
|
Quote:
More than that, I'm stunned that in the last 4.5 years you haven't figured out the difference between discussing issues and discussing people. It's really not that difficult. What possible gain do you get from trying to diminish Will's status in this argument? If you're going to take down scientists who believe in global warming one at a time in this fashion, you'll be stuck here for a while.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam |
|
10-03-2007, 07:00 AM | #45 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
this is a bewildering thread.
first off, i dont understand what is going on with cynthetiq's posts about eating red meat. where are they coming from? who are these Perscuting Others who cause you to get so defensive about your dietary choices? maybe one reason this thread tripped this particular wire is that it is framed so badly as to make coherent discussion nearly impossible. the problem is that it raises questions concerning industrial farming as over against--well nothing, actually. eating meat only comes up in the context of some tedious sophistry concerning global warming. and that makes no sense either. this is one of the few threads in which crompsin's tactic of lobbing goofball quips instead of bothering to construct arguments seems appropriate to the content of the op. you have a host of problems with arise from industrial farming practices. researching them is easy peasy---you'd think that if you are going to bring this matter up that you'd do at least a little basic research. for example: the question of whether one "should" eat meat at all is only one way of thinking about this. you could also juxtapose industrial farming to sustainable, smaller-scale farming, and decide that the problems industrial practices raise can be addressed at the level of consumption by purchasing locally produced, sustainably grown meat and vegetables. you could argue for the latter on the basis of health and on the basis of taste, and on the basis of environmental concerns (monocropping vs. diverse cropping, reliance on chemicals to replentish soil as a result of monocropping vs. other more rational types of field rotation, etc) in other words, if you do actual research and come to be critical of industrial farming practices, the alternative is NOT simply "dont eat meat at all" but every bit as much "change the types of meat you buy." this is an indication of the way in which a poorly framed op can open onto ay number of red herring arguments, particularly when the op itself is little more than a red herring itself. within this, charlatan raises an important question concerning the relation of sustainable practices to scale. you see this debate all over the place--look at john mackey's blog on the whole foods website for a very interesting debate between mackey (ceo of whole foods) and michael pollan (who wrote "the omnivores dilemma") on this. it is an important question. this thread has not done it justice at all. dietary disclosure: i am mostly a vegetarian but will eat meat on occasion. when i do, i prefer to know at least something about how it is produced as my committment is not so much to being vegetarian as it is to not eating industrial foods, not eating processed foods.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
10-03-2007, 09:16 AM | #47 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
CAUTION this reply may contain incoherent discussion!
Quote:
sample sarcastic response to intellectual drive-by click to show The "OP" was purposely sarcastic, but not veiled. The adverse impact on the environment by all aspects of the livestock industry is a significant issue by proportion, but is rarely discussed or addressed. I did not suggest that we all become vegetarians, discount the numerous other factors impacting the environment, nor question industrial farming. The UN link was included as a piece of background for the topic. The point of the "OP" was apparently simple (enough) and understood by the majority of responses. Last edited by ottopilot; 10-03-2007 at 09:52 AM.. |
|
10-03-2007, 09:53 AM | #48 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
The fact that global warming goes into politics itself speaks volumes for the real issue here.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
10-03-2007, 10:32 AM | #49 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
The fact is that data and experts back global climate change and it's direct connection to human behavior. Suggesting otherwise is to suggest that you are more informed than people who are experts on the subject. That's asking too much trust in you and none in real, verifiable experts. |
|
10-03-2007, 10:34 AM | #50 (permalink) |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
K... let's keep this about meat and global warming.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
10-03-2007, 10:47 AM | #51 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Besides radical population decrease and soon, there are options to help deal with the problem of methane emissions from cattle and livestock. I recall hearing on a local radio program that some farmers are using methane reclamation technologies in order to utilize the methane from cattle excretions to create free energy (which is so brilliant, I want to jump up and down and clap my hands) in order not only to power their farms but also entire neighborhoods, selling power back onto the grid. It's stuff like this that can drastically reduce the greenhouse effect humans are having AND that can reduce out dependance on fossil fuels.
|
10-03-2007, 10:49 AM | #52 (permalink) |
Asshole
Administrator
Location: Chicago
|
I like steak. It is yummy. I will continue to eat it, regardless of the source.
The chances of anyone changing my behavior are nil. Beef, pork and chicken are too yummy. Where's Supple Cow when we need her?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo |
10-03-2007, 10:50 AM | #53 (permalink) | ||
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
I think that SC is busy eating some meat.
I still don't see a concensus when some of the same scientists have now flipped to not believing that humans are responsible for global warming. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
||
10-03-2007, 11:43 AM | #54 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Washington State
|
I've never tried being a vegetarian, but from what I've read and from people I know who have tried it, it's not for everyone. It is difficult to get all the protein & amino acids one needs from exclusively vegetable sources, and many people who try end up feeling less healthy, and then quit. This is supported by abundant evidence that the omnivore diet is the natural diet of humans. Ancient humans ate vegetables most of the time, and meat when they could.
My other objection is more personal. I've been a skinny guy most of my life, and a couple of years ago I started exercising & eating to delevelop more of a muscular athletic physique. This requires lots of protein, and not from soy. Very few vegetarians are the type of guy you see in the "hunk" calendars. The few guys who are most likely have the genetics to look that way without much deliberate effort. Ok, you may accuse me of wanting to melt the polar icecaps so I can have bigger biceps, but is that any worse than saying "beef and chicken are yummy?" As for global warming, I feel like I came here late for the debate, but I'll add this: The global warming debate is really several different questions meshed together: 1) Is there really a warming trend? 2) If so, are human activities a significant factor in the warming trend? 3) If a warming trend exists, is it harmful as a whole? All three questions should be considered separately, but they are usually not. Last edited by Racnad; 10-03-2007 at 12:09 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
10-03-2007, 05:06 PM | #55 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Thank you Cynthetiq excellent links.
That second link is great, and I plan on adding to my reading list from it. I just finished "The Ancestors Tale" which I recommend for anyone interested in evolutionary biology at what I'd describe as an 'in depth basic level' and have been looking for a new book. Lots of possibilities from that last link
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
10-03-2007, 06:26 PM | #56 (permalink) | |
I'll ask when I'm ready....
Location: Firmly in the middle....
|
Quote:
As far as global warming, there are far too many facts and opinions being thrown from all directions for me to really be able to come to any conclusions. It really turns me off to the whole thing when scare tactics are used by either side regarding the issue. What I do know is that the Earth will do what it wants to do, regardless of humankind. Case in point, the mini-ice age just a few hundred years ago.
__________________
"No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me- "Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown- DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer- |
|
10-03-2007, 11:00 PM | #57 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
If you guys are going to try to cite "studies" to support your desire to ignore the science, at least cite ones that don't get rejected. And you might notice that both Marc Morano and Michael Asher are not exactly unbiased sources of information on this subject, since they both are desperate to ignore the fact that the paper was rejected. Critical thinking, anybody? We can call this the "some guy said on the web" argument against global warming. It's a fun argument, because you can use it to prove whatever you want. For example, look, here's a list of scientists who doubt the truth of evolution: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...os/#presentsci And if you look around a bit, you'll see that the "here's a list of scientists" argument can be used to prove a lot of very interesting things, for example: HIV doesn't exist, the Holocaust never happened, the world is 6000 years old and created in 7 days. So guys, if you're going to be consistent, if you're going to deny global warming on that basis, then I'm afraid that commits you to accepting every crackpot idea that a "list of scientists" or "some guy on the web" ever endorsed. Or, maybe you should consider the possibility that you are more interested in confirming your biases than learning any science? Last edited by raveneye; 10-04-2007 at 12:38 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
10-04-2007, 04:36 AM | #58 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Which paper and what part. Before you compare us to holocaust deniers you should get more specific. I dont' think anyone is calling that 'proof', but I did get to add some potential books to my reading list from that so called worthless list. Of course those books, written by people in the field, are undoubtedly like holocaust deniers too.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
10-04-2007, 07:03 AM | #59 (permalink) | |||
Born Against
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And if any of them explain the relevance of those cute sunspot butterflies you posted on the other thread before vanishing, feel free to pass on your new insights in atmospheric physics. |
|||
10-04-2007, 07:28 AM | #60 (permalink) |
Location: Washington DC
|
The article posted by Cynthetiq (one of the two links that Ustwo described as excellent), "Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory" by Klaus Martin Schulte, was rejected by the journal Energy and Environment. (link)
Schulte's article drew heavily from an earlier study by Benny Peiser, who self-published his paper on his own website after Science magazine had rejected it....after his work was criticized by a number of climate scientists, who said most of those 34 papers did not actually reject the IPCC consensus, Peiser later retracted his critique, saying only one of the 34 papers had actually rejected the IPCC position. (link) No consensus? There is consensus among the Academies of Science of the largest industrial nations in the world that "is it likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activity." (link) Where's the beef in the "no consensus" position?
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-04-2007 at 08:07 AM.. |
10-04-2007, 07:31 AM | #61 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
it doesnt seem possible for there to be a coherent conversation about global warming here. folk who do not like the idea of it are operating from quite a marginal position in the bigger world, and so you would think that the presentation of good, reliable systematic information would be important for their positions--but we dont get that--instead we get either bluster or sophistries. it'd be nice if, for once, something of the actual informational base for this marginal position--the one that prefers to imagine that there either is no phenomenon or that it is caused by arbirtary factors, not human activities and certainly not co2 emission levels. these hand waving moves in the direction of "the field"...these claims that "real scientists agree with me" dont cut it.
not only would it be nice to see something of the informational base, but it'd help as well for there to be some critical approach to authorship and/or funding and/or venue in which the material being cited appears. short of that, the anti-global warming position is not credible and its proponents simply spin their wheels.... if the basis for the view that there is no global warming is not rooted in data but rather in political committments (e.g. its part of being-conservative these days for some reaons--that comes first, information second) it'd be nice to be a bit forthcoming about that. short of this, there is no debate. there is often--as abve--not even a conversation--there is only the exchange of random aesthetic positions, on the order of "i like hip hop" followed by "i hate hip hop" and then nothing. lots and lots of nothing. given that it is the anti-global warming position that is decidedly in the minority, i think it incumbent on these folk to actually make thier case. this thread sure as hell aint doing it--but then again it has not happened here. for example, the reason i considered the op incoherent was that it presupposed linkages and cause-effect relations that are arbitrary outside of a certain political viewpoint. it is what they call a sophistry. the linkage to meat production --and by extension to dietary choices--was peculiar and the results so far array as a. i eat meat and do not accept global warming b. i eat meat and accept global warming c. i do not eat meat and accept global warming with the "i do not eat meat and do not accept global warming" remaining logically implied but not present so therefore potential. supplemented with: 1. i eat meat and am defensive about it 2. i eat meat and a militantly not defensive about it what the fuck why should i be defensive 3. i sometimes eat meat etc. why not ask about the correlation between the type of car you drive and your position on global warming, or your general political views and your position on global warming. or why not present an actual case for the anti-global warming position? or is there no such case, is it all just a matter decided a priori?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
10-04-2007, 08:30 AM | #62 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
I don't live my life reading journal after journal to backup each and every opinion and thought. To answer where is the critical thinking? It's right here. I don't believe for a moment that in the big picture that the world is in any peril. There is too many different factors to take into effect from planetary wobble to solar flare activity. The idea that "is it likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activity." is equally an opinion that is mustered by self supporting evidence and facts found that support their opinions.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
10-04-2007, 08:37 AM | #63 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
Do you really believe this? |
|
10-04-2007, 08:49 AM | #64 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
10-04-2007, 09:11 AM | #65 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
cyn:
then there is no debate on this topic. there is not even an actual conversation because conversation implies a give and take that isnt going to happen here: instead, we basically just repeating what we imagine we already know. so we have yet another instance of basic disagreement not over global warming, but over what constitutes political debate. at the same time---thanks for being up front about this. i am not sure that others would have been so. at least now the situation within which this kind of thread turns has been clarified to some extent, and one can choose to interact or not accordingly.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
10-04-2007, 09:24 AM | #66 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
I try to take 10 minutes to google a source before I post it in order to verify, at least in my own mind, that it is credible. It doesnt take "a lifetime" nor does it require double or triple checking, but it does make the debate more honest and it results in less misinformation being brought into the discussion. A quick google of "Klaus Martin Schulte" may have given you second thoughts about posting the article.....or maybe not.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-04-2007 at 09:34 AM.. |
|
10-04-2007, 09:45 AM | #67 (permalink) |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Are you referring to Klaus Martin Schulte's ties to the oil industry? Or do you mean that he's an endocrinologist (Endocrinology is a branch of medicine dealing with disorders of the endocrine system and its specific secretions called hormones.)?
|
10-05-2007, 03:07 AM | #68 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
The bottom line is that all lines of scientific evidence are in agreement and converging on the same conclusion. Ice cores, stable isotopes, reconstruction of past climate, controlled physical experiment, monitoring of plant communities, of snow/ice cover, of extreme events, of global and regional temperatures, of ocean currents and temperatures, of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, models based on physics, etc. are all telling us the same story. That's what "consensus" means, and that's where there is no symmetry between the two sides. If you disagree, then feel free to bring up a line of scientific evidence that contradicts the consensus. |
|
10-05-2007, 05:41 AM | #69 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
At one point the greatest minds of science thought the world was flat and that the heavens revolved around the earth. There was a consensus back then, they had evidence that proved their points. dc: I do normally try to check sources as best as I can, but again, 10 minutes for each thread/post or even citation is a considerable amount of time. If I was to do the same for a single host post it can cost me almost an hour. If you don't think that the case, great, I am glad that you do have the time. I try to when I can, and cannot all the time. ---- upon rethinking what I have posted here I thought to clarify this a bit more I don't reject that humans have an affect on the current state. I am however rejecting flat out that humans have CAUSED the current state.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-05-2007 at 06:50 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
10-05-2007, 03:24 PM | #70 (permalink) | |||
Born Against
|
Quote:
“I can just point to the fact that people can get cancer naturally. It happens WITHOUT swallowing uranium” “I can just point to the fact that people die all the time. It happens WITHOUT getting decapitated” Why is it necessary to point out that (1) just because something occurred in nature once doesn't mean it can't possibly be dangerous to people; and (2) just because something can increase or decrease naturally doesn’t mean it can’t be increased 10x as fast by people? Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
10-05-2007, 04:51 PM | #71 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Temperatures for Ice Ages and retreats haven't happened once, they have happened MULTIPLE times. Thus this idea right now where pregnant women are told to not eat raw fish or fish during pregancy is explained away with, "Why take the chance?" since there is no single study done that states that eating fish leads to birth defects with children. I'm not ignoring the entire corpus of modern science. It is within this realm and a few others that my own critical thinking has decided for me and my own lifestyle that the decision still rests within me to make choices. Maybe you want to have dittohead's around so that you can be condescending towards someone. I however am firm in my statement that this works for me and me alone.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
10-06-2007, 02:30 AM | #72 (permalink) | ||
Born Against
|
Quote:
Quote:
Funny how the critical thinking vanishes sometimes, isn’t it? |
||
10-06-2007, 03:53 AM | #73 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Again, I'll state that I don't find that humans are responsible for causing global warming. The trends of Ice Ages and retreats show that they have been happening without human intervetion for millenia. Could humans be contributing to it? Sure, that could be LIKELY, but again, I don't think that humans are CAUSING it. Hey, I'm glad you are right. So far you've not explained your critical thinking, and how you've arrived at your acceptance. You've just stated you accept it. Good job with the critical thinking! As far as the continued harping on the dittohead portion, I already explained that I did not do the due diligence of looking at the author, the site of the original publishing, etc. etc. etc. I'm not sure what I was doing at that particular moment, but I again explained that I didn't have the time. Again, you'd like to continue to be condescending towards someone who is still posting and responding to you, you have that right. But what inadvertently happens is that the person tends to get tired of such discussion, and no longer posts which I believe is why the politics posting community has thinned out to where it is now.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-06-2007 at 05:28 AM.. |
|
10-07-2007, 12:05 AM | #74 (permalink) | |||||
Born Against
|
Quote:
As far as personal choices go, you could be posting with your blackberry cruising through the badlands at 120 MPH with the AC on max in your 2008 Hummer, a buffalo rump taco on your lap, and, hey, it changes absolutely nothing I’ve said in this thread. Quote:
So now you claim that you don’t ignore the science, and condescendingly roll your eyes at my inference that you do. Sorry, but I tend to take the view that actions speak louder than words. Quote:
I notice that you still haven’t provided any evidence of your claim that scientists in 20 countries for the past 20 years all happen to have the same ideological bias. Can I assume then that there isn’t a shred? Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
10-07-2007, 05:29 AM | #75 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Is it better to your acceptance if I stated clearly for you that I withdraw that assertion of the post? because if it helps you I'm all for that. I with the assertion in post #53 that there is consensus for global warming. Does that warm your the cockels of your heart??
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. |
|
10-07-2007, 06:03 PM | #76 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
Here's what would warm the cockles of my heart: if you're interested, spend more time outside than usual. Pay more attention to the changing of the seasons. Think about what "responsible" means in a wider sense. Imagine what opinion your grandchildren will have of you and what you've done when they're your age. And anything you hear about climate change from anybody (including me): if it's not replicated twice in peer-reviewed publications, assume it's complete bullshit and the messenger thinks you're a fool. Feel free to quote me on that. |
|
10-07-2007, 06:18 PM | #77 (permalink) |
Sir, I have a plan...
Location: 38S NC20943324
|
I try not to eat meals that something hasn't died for.
No, really. Contrary to popular belief we are actually omnivores, and I for one like to celebrate that every day. Note: I buy locally grown chicken, beef, and pork and hunt my own deer, elk, and game-fowl. I don't know if this figures in the CO2 terror, and I don't really care. I have that part covered. I mention it because I feel that more consumption should be of locally produced goods rather than the pre-packaged, pre-processed crap that we are being force fed these days.
__________________
Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
|
10-07-2007, 06:22 PM | #78 (permalink) | |
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
I do know that in the 70's I was being preached to that there was cooling and another Ice Age was coming, suddenly it's the 90s and it's warming. I've lived in California and the strange temperatures of El Nino and La Nina are nothing new to me. I see it as cycles of the earth and nothing more. You may with to call it global warming, and your version of critical thinking brings you to that point of accepting what you've read. My version sees that there is a much bigger picture and we're infinitely small in the scheme of things. I do own a small compact car which I drive less than 8,000 miles a year. It is 6 year old car with just over 35,000 miles on it. I moved from a city where I drove that within 1 year to the one I live in now. I live in a community that provides it's own power for cheaper than what it costs for ConEdison to produce using our own boiler room and steam production. We've considered even providing our our generators so that we provide our own electricty and can be 100% off the grid and self sustaining. Most of my electronics and durable goods are Energy Star efficient. My windows are energy efficient double paned double hung windows. I live in a small 800 sq. ft 1 bedroom apartment with my wife. Chances are very good that I won't have grandchildren because I don't plan on having children so this "think of the children" stuff is a bunch of emotional tugging on the heartstrings bullshit. WTF do you mean about "responsible" in a wider sense? I'm irresponsible because I like to eat meat, remember that's what this thread is about? Or I'm irresponsible because I don't subscribe to your point of view? Please explain how I'm irresponsible. So what are you trying to tell me I need to do more here? Because that's what I'm getting from these kinds of threads and these kinds of articles. That each time something new turns around that I'm now required to make ever more another sacrifice when there are many other people who don't drive in less than an SUV, who cannot walk to work, who drive to the grocery store, who live in huge houses...
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-07-2007 at 06:26 PM.. |
|
10-08-2007, 12:57 AM | #79 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
In my opinion, what you need to do is to open your mind to the science, and to think more critically. If you do, then you will reject every argument that you made above that the current warming is part of a natural cycle and that we have no significant effect on it. Each of your arguments is easy to reject. ENSO is a short-lived cycle that can't explain the longer-term rise in temperature over the last 30 years. The current rise can't be explained by the causes of the ice age interglacials, we're in a cooling period in the ice-age cycle (a downward phase of the Milankovitch cycle in the Northern Hemisphere), not a warming period: the natural warming period ended 10,000 years ago. And human beings are not insignificant, we know from physical experiments that certain gases trap radiation very efficiently and we know from the past ice-age cycles that small increases in greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere cause immediate increases in temperature. In fact it's easy to predict how much our emissions will raise the temperature; predictions made in the late 1980s have turned out to be very accurate. We also know that increases at the rate that we are currently experiencing (10x the average rate in past ice ages) can be dangerous, because they have caused mass extinctions in the fossil record. What you do in your personal life is largely irrelevant (despite its effect on the cockles of my heart). Your personal actions can't have a measurable effect on any global atmospheric phenomenon. Some people, however, simply feel better about themselves and their lives if they know that they're not part of the problem. Your mileage may vary. Last edited by raveneye; 10-08-2007 at 01:19 AM.. |
|
10-08-2007, 03:40 AM | #80 (permalink) | |||
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So again, what are we talking about here? The only thing I'm distilling from your posts is that I don't subscribe to the global warming theory and that I'm not "critically thinking" to accept it. And you've still not stated where I'm irresponsible. Where's that fit into your points? I'm irresponsible because I don't agree with the rest of the group?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. Last edited by Cynthetiq; 10-08-2007 at 03:53 AM.. |
|||
Tags |
footprint, meat |
|
|