Koki on 13/3/2009 at 06:51
Quote Posted by Muzman
Eugenics was not in any way scientific theory by present day standards (even 1900 standards).
But that's only because men are made from clay. If we were animals like everything else it would work.
hopper on 13/3/2009 at 11:20
Even if it made sense, that wouldn't be funny.
Celtic_Thief on 13/3/2009 at 11:20
VA, you just read State of Fear by Michael Crichton, didn't you?
jay pettitt on 13/3/2009 at 13:07
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
You're right to point out that there's holes in my argument. Technically I haven't really given one yet because I haven't backed anything up that I've said.
That's been noted. What you have done though is act to obscure (on the very important international stage that is TTLG no less) good honest debate and discussion by slinging a bunch of wild card unrelated randomness into the mix. The thing that occurs to me is, I don't think your intention was obfuscation. I think you're a victim of it. I think you've seen other people at it, stood a bit too close and some of it stuck and now you're passing on some of the arguments that struck you.
The thing about climate change is that, as arguments go, it's the kicker. Somewhere aside from the science and number crunching is the realisation that it is the final nail in the coffin for the notion that a debt fueled system defined by greed, pollution and addiction to gluttonous consumption of dwindling oil supplies was ever going to produce healthier, fairer societies. That, in a nutshell, was the root of liberal economic theory, a theory that was hard won and that we've put everything into. Accepting that it has substantially failed is too bitter a pill for some to swallow. Those are the people who seek to muddle the debate with Eugenics, DDT, cosmic rays, marxism, ooh it was hotter in 1998 and yadda yadda yadda and who have just finished their jolly in New York. I do sympathise with them - it's a hell of a lot easier standing around the burnt out wreck that once was our great contribution to a global free market and wondering if the wheels can be put back on, than it is confronting the real world. It is easier to go and be distracted by something somewhere, anything. Because right now the real world is uncertain - and that
is scary.
Volitions Advocate on 13/3/2009 at 13:40
Nobody is really listening to me.
The thing is many of you bring up valid points. But like I said. I'm not supportive of one specific side of the argument. The climate change debate is centered around one very specific theory. More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere raises the temperature of the earth which causes catastrophic changes in climate. Most notably rising sea levels that threaten coastlines and small island countries/settlements. I don't believe in that specific theory. The idea analogies I've used are good ones, because they illustrate a point. If things are so dire and we're on the brink, as so many have said, then were are the results? Why has nothing actually changed? I"m speaking in regards to Sea Level rise.
My claim is that people keep speaking about things as if they're true, when there's no evidence of them. Where are the islands that have been swallwed up by the ocean? I hear about them all the time and I haven heard of it actually happening. And I doubt the sea level is goign to rise in a day... so if we're in the thick of it.. why is there no evidence that its actually happening? Is it just one day going to happen all at once?
So because I ask these questions... I'm the one who's not facing the facts? I'm not the one throwing out conspiracy theory accusations about the UN scientists being paid off by big corporations. I'm looking for the truth without all the emotion and celebrity and hype. And it's really difficult to find.
I go to university at one of the most climate conscious schools in the world. We have 2 huge buildings on campus that are only for climate studies in a city of less than 100,000. Its a big deal here. The SPOT satellites dump there data here, first thing after they pass the north pole. In my geography classes I have been taught by several different World leaders in their field, from all over the world. and this is what helps me form my opinions.
I'm not flinging crap. I just dont have the time to go researching for a bunch of video gamers on a forum right now until this exam rush is done.
quick edit: I didn't finish one of my thoughts. Remember that earlier I said I think Pollution is a problem. Just because I dont believe in the popular concept of what climate change is. Does not mean I think we can just sit back and let corporations poison and destroy the earth. There is a Difference!
DDL on 13/3/2009 at 13:52
Given tidal effects (which vary on a fairly pronounced timescale) make it fairly difficult to just stick a pole in the sea and say "ok it's 2 mm deeper", you're not going to see things like "island X slowly but surely drowns", you're going to see "island X shows increased incidence of severe flooding until eventually the flooding is so fucking constant that the island is uninhabitable".
And severe flooding is on the increase, aided by an increase in extreme weather conditions.
So...let me get this straight: you don't actually believe that Carbon Dioxide can lead to a temperature rise? Or you don't believe that man-made CO2 contributions can?
Because the former is pretty much just straight scientific fact.
Rogue Keeper on 13/3/2009 at 14:12
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I"m speaking in regards to Sea Level rise.
My claim is that people keep speaking about things as if they're true, when there's no evidence of them. Where are the islands that have been swallwed up by the ocean? I hear about them all the time and I haven heard of it actually happening. And I doubt the sea level is goign to rise in a day... so if we're in the thick of it.. why is there no evidence that its actually happening? Is it just one day going to happen all at once?
Why, you can start your own research about sea levels right here :
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise)
Well I didn't hear about any big island being swallowed by ocean just yet, but as I understand the warnings, the idea is that many can be swallowed in the next 100 years or so if the average global temperature raises as it is predicted to. No of course one fourth of land isn't going to be flooded just overnight. How possibly you can have such idea? If you say you are being taught by such scientific aces, didn't they told you already it can't happen overnight?
Didn't they told you that regional cooling does not disprove global warming?
About Antarctica getting cooler :
(
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11648)
In other article I have read that while Antarctica may experience a cooler period, the Arctic polar cap is melting at faster rate.
There are more of your claims and subjective impressions without data backup you promised to deliver before, which I originally had interest to react to. But now I have decided I can't be bothered to do in-depth research for allegedly climate conscious students while I'm at work.
Quote Posted by demagogue
Where does this come from? The Panel is "intergovernmental", so the scientists were selected among every UN State Member, and even then they had absolute freedom from their sponsoring states. And it was a consensus document.
Are you saying the governments of the world can't agree on a single damn thing except they can organize to corrupt the incredibly complex science of climate change among thousands of independent, ego-driven scientists?
Edit: Stitch said it better. This is one of those faux debates that doesn't actually exist as a real disagreement about the science. The real debate is about the best policy reaction. Now that's a live and important open question; that's where our energy needs to be.
Don't look at me, I'm just paraphrasing rhetoric of prolific doubters in the media and on think-tank related boards and blogs I'm often coming across.
But if you have ambition to take science seriously, you just CAN'T single-handedly dismiss about 80 PhD.s stating their arguments on their party or elsewhere in the media and pretend they don't exist, because then you are just like Klaus' Club. It's just not scientifically professional, right. Did you ever bother to peek into random study of any GW critic? I did and I can't argue with their calculations and graphs, because I'm not a graduated climatologist, natural sciences aren't my domain. All I can do is to present study claiming the opposite, but in the end I always contribute to the debate from political and economical end and I examine political and economical motivations of the scientists and corporations and think-tanks who fund them - not the physical measurements or mathematical data provided.
Sir Nicholas Stern addressed the doubters in the media “Oh, they're marginal and they're very very confused flat-earthers.” Well, with all respect dear sir, you're an economist too (just like Klaus), not a climatologist or geologist. You can be easily perceived by doubting part of the public as a political pawn who subtly advocated pushing subventions to friendly companies willing to profit hand in hand with the state from ‘green technologies' or biodiesel bogus - and it's harmful protectionism anyway!
And what about that petition denying human causes of climate change, allegedly signed by circa 30 000 or so scientists? I haven't examined it more closely yet.
Anyway, more relevant fearmongering for freemarketeers and other doubters to rant about : (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7940532.stm)
Celtic_Thief on 13/3/2009 at 14:39
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
Nobody is really listening to me.
Because all of your points are from a damn work of fiction. You literally took all of Kenner's arguments from that book and put them in a post. Good work.
jay pettitt on 13/3/2009 at 15:35
I think, brnumbers, that VA isn't so much claiming that sea level rises or temperature increases aren't happening - that's a no-brainer. I think he is wondering how you can claim confidence attributing anthropogenic climate changes as separate from natural climate changes, when they are both are apparently occurring simultaneously. The IPCC's AR4 (demagogue's post has the linky) discusses these themes and sets out the scientific basis for doing so.
Quote:
Nobody is really listening to me.
I am trying VA. But the stuff you're posting is tired nonsense. Yes, we know DDT is useful as a spot treatment control against malaria, but causes environmental damage when used as an agricultural pesticide. That is why it's use in agriculture is controlled by an international agreement that allows its continued use as an anti-malaria control. This is not an example of hysteria, it's an example of policy reflecting scientific evidence and finding a balance that protects health and the environment.
Understanding a little bit of the history of liberal economic theory helps understand why Eugenics gets flung about a bit. Very briefly free markets based on capitalism were the great hope, accepted almost universally, against perceived illiberal threats such as Eugenics, Nationalism and Communism after much conflict and warring in the 20th Century. Modern liberal economic theory is now all but dead in the water and is unlikely to resurface on the other side of the current economic and environmental crisis without being reigned in through significant government regulation, if at all. There are a lot of people who fear that climate change is a political tool for illiberal influence because they perceive it as a direct threat to the freedom of economic markets which they have invested a great deal of time and resources promoting as a force for good or at least source of wealth.
Oh and a bunch of stuff besides. Go read the IPCC report when you can take a break from revision, then come back. Right now your argument seems to be 'people should read the IPCC report, I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, I want to be a nice guy, eugenics, DDT, Y2K!!!! - It's a little hard to know what to say to that.
Starrfall on 13/3/2009 at 15:36
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
Nobody is really listening to me.
That's because you're a ninny.
If you want people to listen to you, you can start by not saying THERES NO EVIDENCE just because you once heard/once read so. There's evidence all over the place, you just are either ignorant of it or don't think it's sufficient. (Or you're mischaracterizing the arguments to make it easier for you to attack them.) It's not irrational to say you don't think the evidence is sufficient (and in fact this is where the real arguments should be) but it's silly to act like there isn't any.
I mean when a bunch of scientists come out and say "hey we think the sea level could rise by 5 feet by the year 2100" do you think they're just making it up like you've been doing with your posts in this thread? (And if you don't know what I'm referring to then you're not nearly as educated on this subject as you seem to think you are.)
