Global Warming - Poll

[nietzsche]

This is retarded, it's just so fucking easy and you guys keep at it.

FACT: Global Climate changes all the time, there are cycles, some take long time, some little time, there are minicycles.

FACT: Everything inside the Earth influences climate, including humans and their actions, including the farts of cows. Including the size of Scotty's ass.

NOT A FACT: The meaning we assign to it, as if it is a disaster or not, etc. This is just opinion.

NOT A FACT: The world is going to end in 2050 because we have cars and factories.

RETARDED: Being a sheep of politicians, following their words whether they are about whose to blame for global climate, what to do about it or whatever.

[rdsrds2120]

NOT A FACT: The world is going to end in 2050 because we have cars and factories.

You, nor anyone, can know that to be a fact or not a fact.

--Gomez

[nietzsche]

NOT A FACT: The world is going to end in 2050 because we have cars and factories.

You, nor anyone, can know that to be a fact or not a fact.

--Gomez

Going by that rationale neither is point 1. We see cycles because we interpret data according to our ideas and definitions.

My point is however, that being alarmist about it is only a way to provoke certain types of behaviour in people. For instance, you don't know if, by the meaning we assign to it, "the global climate crisis" comes to a "critical point" that creates some sort of alliance or awareness that then spreads and creates a better world in all areas, that we wouldn't have if this never happened. So it's important to understand where does the judgement come from, and to understand that it's only an opinion.

The other end of the idea is also flawed, I'm only addressing the one end because I know it's the one pertaining to your viewpoint. (And because for some reason I'm mildly constipated today)

[rdsrds2120]

I don't follow what you mean talking about the first point. A cycle with an explanation is an observed force and factual.

--Gomez

[nietzsche]

I don't follow what you mean talking about the first point. A cycle with an explanation is an observed force and factual.

--Gomez

No. Information comes from processing data, the processing needs a certain criteria to be chosen, and that criteria contains biased definitions. That a group of people agree on certain definitions doesn't make them factual. Imagine a 2-axis graph going for infinitum, you can zoom in, zoom out an infinite amount of times, what you will see will always be different depending on the level of zoom you are in. What appears to be a pattern dissapears if you zoom in/zoom out.

That is the problem with popularized research, people interprets it many times before it reaches you. From the point someone chose an experiment to be included in X journal or paper, a judgement was made there, and not to mention that a thesis is a propositon of how the world behaves, adapting it to a model, and a model is no other thing that a way for humans to understand, therefore biased. You get the point.

So, it's important to be cautious as to separate the facts from the judgements we and others make about it.

At some point, we need to agree on certain definitions, that nevertheless biased, they are necessary to understand (as basic as the language to use, and others, but the less complex we stay, the more clear things are and less biased).

Global Climate Change is always been there, change is the constant. Good or bad? well, that's a judgement.

Humans influence the climate change, it would be impossible not to as we are inside the system. How much, I leave that to science but I'd be really jealous of trusting any research paper no matter how gifted the scientist or how important is the journal, because it's a matter of politics and money now.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't follow what you mean talking about the first point. A cycle with an explanation is an observed force and factual.

--Gomez

No. Information comes from processing data, the processing needs a certain criteria to be chosen, and that criteria contains biased definitions. That a group of people agree on certain definitions doesn't make them factual. Imagine a 2-axis graph going for infinitum, you can zoom in, zoom out an infinite amount of times, what you will see will always be different depending on the level of zoom you are in. What appears to be a pattern dissapears if you zoom in/zoom out.

That is the problem with popularized research, people interprets it many times before it reaches you. From the point someone chose an experiment to be included in X journal or paper, a judgement was made there, and not to mention that a thesis is a propositon of how the world behaves, adapting it to a model, and a model is no other thing that a way for humans to understand, therefore biased. You get the point.

So, it's important to be cautious as to separate the facts from the judgements we and others make about it.

At some point, we need to agree on certain definitions, that nevertheless biased, they are necessary to understand (as basic as the language to use, and others, but the less complex we stay, the more clear things are and less biased).

Global Climate Change is always been there, change is the constant. Good or bad? well, that's a judgement.

Humans influence the climate change, it would be impossible not to as we are inside the system. How much, I leave that to science but I'd be really jealous of trusting any research paper no matter how gifted the scientist or how important is the journal, because it's a matter of politics and money now.

tl;dr: We can't ever know anything, so give up now.

[kuthoer]

The alarming fact is rising CO2 levels in our atmosphere by humans. Within a couple of generations the Oceans will become pools of acidic waters unable support many creatures that we eat and depend on.

[notyou2]

Over the past 3 decades the number of weather related insurance claims in North America have quadrupled.

[nietzsche]

I don't follow what you mean talking about the first point. A cycle with an explanation is an observed force and factual.

--Gomez

No. Information comes from processing data, the processing needs a certain criteria to be chosen, and that criteria contains biased definitions. That a group of people agree on certain definitions doesn't make them factual. Imagine a 2-axis graph going for infinitum, you can zoom in, zoom out an infinite amount of times, what you will see will always be different depending on the level of zoom you are in. What appears to be a pattern dissapears if you zoom in/zoom out.

That is the problem with popularized research, people interprets it many times before it reaches you. From the point someone chose an experiment to be included in X journal or paper, a judgement was made there, and not to mention that a thesis is a propositon of how the world behaves, adapting it to a model, and a model is no other thing that a way for humans to understand, therefore biased. You get the point.

So, it's important to be cautious as to separate the facts from the judgements we and others make about it.

At some point, we need to agree on certain definitions, that nevertheless biased, they are necessary to understand (as basic as the language to use, and others, but the less complex we stay, the more clear things are and less biased).

Global Climate Change is always been there, change is the constant. Good or bad? well, that's a judgement.

Humans influence the climate change, it would be impossible not to as we are inside the system. How much, I leave that to science but I'd be really jealous of trusting any research paper no matter how gifted the scientist or how important is the journal, because it's a matter of politics and money now.

tl;dr: We can't ever know anything, so give up now.

Don't get your panties in a bunch.

While that is in the end the point, we gotta be practical and agree on something, however, the further that we go "so let's assume that", "let's define this as", "according to the generally accepted notion that", and more.. the more assumptions we are making, the more judgements. We gotta keep that in mind all the time.

That's why philosophers are considered wise, because they are able to go on specifics and discuss to detail while never losing sight of the big picture.

[nietzsche]

Over the past 3 decades the number of weather related insurance claims in North America have quadrupled.

Exactly the kind of data that while it's informative and could point to a tendency, it's use, if not careful can be misleading and, exactly the kind of data those interested in the manipulation of masses use. One convinced individual will spread the information charged with judgement and emotion to x amount of peers.

How long has insurance existed? 400 years or so? Ok, maybe (I have no idea) we are living on the most extreme climate over the last 400 years, that, in the history of earth is next to nothing. Or it might be that people is constructing now where there is more risk because there isn't available space on safer places, or maybe people actually invest quite a lot on their houses now and decide to buy insurance, or maybe the lobbies push more laws requiring insurance for everything, or maybe it's the insurance ads every minute on tv. And even at that, say, what if your stats are incorrect? Either manipulated by the whatever-insurance-national-alliance or even the newspaper where you got that info from?

I'm not saying either side is right, all I'm saying is there are facts, and there are opinions. There are theories that are closer to being accurate and there are those who might end up being utterly wrong. DIdn't most authorities claim the earth was flat a few hundred years ago? Whatever it is that ends up being right, check your facts before you form your opinion, and even while you are forming your opinion you gotta check why you are choosing certain researchers to be right. Or do whatever you want, but just don't think that because someone said so it is.

Mets and rds and all those who promote awaraness and changes in policies and behaviour of people have long ago made up their minds, the same is the case of the naysayers, whatever fact you present them it will be colored by them to either support their views or simply discarded as heresy.

[Metsfanmax]

While that is in the end the point, we gotta be practical and agree on something, however, the further that we go "so let's assume that", "let's define this as", "according to the generally accepted notion that", and more.. the more assumptions we are making, the more judgements. We gotta keep that in mind all the time.

That's why philosophers are considered wise, because they are able to go on specifics and discuss to detail while never losing sight of the big picture.

In response, I will quote Richard Dawkins.

"Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus: 'The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore then completely.'"

Philosophers may be 'wise' but none of your philosophizing helps us make actual policy decisions, which must consider the risks in any action. The risks of inaction on this issue are great, given that the vast majority of experts in the field agree that some serious damage is headed our way if we do not substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Good policy is not about trying to decide whether any one particular model is right -- it's about betting carefully. And in this case, the conservative action is the one to sharply reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It's possible that the argument has been reinforced by bias so much that we've created an entirely false understanding of the physical system -- but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Trevor33]

NOT A FACT: The world is going to end in 2050 because we have cars and factories.

You, nor anyone, can know that to be a fact or not a fact.

--Gomez

Which makes it a non fact numb-nuts.

[oVo]

This is retarded, it's just so fucking easy and you guys keep at it.

FACT: Global Climate changes all the time, there are cycles, some take long time, some little time, there are minicycles.

True there are minicycles... but FACT IS there is currently more carbon dioxide being introduced into our atmosphere than has ever been present in the history of our planet. It is not a good thing. Maybe you intentionally ignore this or just don't keep up with current events.

[Metsfanmax]

This is retarded, it's just so fucking easy and you guys keep at it.

FACT: Global Climate changes all the time, there are cycles, some take long time, some little time, there are minicycles.

True there are minicycles... but FACT IS there is currently more carbon dioxide being introduced into our atmosphere than has ever been present in the history of our planet. It is not a good thing. Maybe you intentionally ignore this or just don't keep up with current events.

That's not a fact. The carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration during the Cretaceous period, for example, was perhaps 10 times higher than it is now. The reason why the amazingly fast increase in its concentration is not a good thing is simply that we have built an infrastructure in culture that is predicated on a stable climate, and we don't have the resources or the time to simply pick up and move entire cities and nations whose infrastructures are now threatened by sea level rise and other dangers of a warmer planet.

[Phatscotty]

This is retarded

I was watching Idiocracy on Comedy Central yesterday, I noticed they bleeped out the word 'tarded' and 'retarded' I began to wonder if they were going to cut out the word 'stupid'. The pinko Nazis are startin to flex, and those are the exact same ones who are on board with this carbon-unit trading market. Since they have a monopoly on the market and make the rules (they have already transferred billions out of that market and into their own pockets) the nazis are gonna be flexin even harder to the point they are trying to force newspapers and magazines and universities and media to BAN any speech/ideas that do not fully accept the tenets of global warming/climate change.

They have the same power the Church used and abused during the dark ages with their lock on the media and education and culture and soon a U.N. imposed climate change world tax. Soon climate change politicians will be demanding that deniers confess and convert or else they are not worthy of the carbon they waste.

The danger is, ANYTHING can be justified when people believe the existence of the planet is at stake.

[Phatscotty]

Over the past 3 decades the number of weather related insurance claims in North America have quadrupled.

Exactly the kind of data that while it's informative and could point to a tendency, it's use, if not careful can be misleading and, exactly the kind of data those interested in the manipulation of masses use. One convinced individual will spread the information charged with judgement and emotion to x amount of peers.

How long has insurance existed? 400 years or so? Ok, maybe (I have no idea) we are living on the most extreme climate over the last 400 years, that, in the history of earth is next to nothing. Or it might be that people is constructing now where there is more risk because there isn't available space on safer places, or maybe people actually invest quite a lot on their houses now and decide to buy insurance, or maybe the lobbies push more laws requiring insurance for everything, or maybe it's the insurance ads every minute on tv. And even at that, say, what if your stats are incorrect? Either manipulated by the whatever-insurance-national-alliance or even the newspaper where you got that info from?

I'm not saying either side is right, all I'm saying is there are facts, and there are opinions. There are theories that are closer to being accurate and there are those who might end up being utterly wrong. DIdn't most authorities claim the earth was flat a few hundred years ago? Whatever it is that ends up being right, check your facts before you form your opinion, and even while you are forming your opinion you gotta check why you are choosing certain researchers to be right. Or do whatever you want, but just don't think that because someone said so it is.

Mets and rds and all those who promote awaraness and changes in policies and behaviour of people have long ago made up their minds, the same is the case of the naysayers, whatever fact you present them it will be colored by them to either support their views or simply discarded as heresy.

Wow, Dirttze missed a bunch.

Over the past 3 decades the number of weather related insurance claims in North America have quadrupled.

That doesn't have anything to do with the point you are trying to make. Even if prices of timber, copper, labor all stayed the same since 1970 (yeah and cigarette packs were 45 cents/median home price $23,000) the number of weather related insurance claims are going to rise simply based on population. New towns are being built all the time. If a global warming made tornado hits a certain location in 1978, it does no damage because nobody built anything there yet. Yet a tornado that is half the size of the 1978 tornado goes through the exact same spot in 2014, because urban sprawl there is growth and now there are a dozen building and 80 houses, can cause tens of millions of dollars of damage. And of course prices have risen since the 70's, dramatically. Again, lets take house A and it get's flattened in 1978, it's gonna cost 10,000 to totally replace that house. An exact same house as house A gets flattened by a tornado in 2014, it will cost you more than quadruple, more like octuple, to replace that exact same house in 2014.

It's more than misleading, it's meaningless

[nietzsche]

While that is in the end the point, we gotta be practical and agree on something, however, the further that we go "so let's assume that", "let's define this as", "according to the generally accepted notion that", and more.. the more assumptions we are making, the more judgements. We gotta keep that in mind all the time.

That's why philosophers are considered wise, because they are able to go on specifics and discuss to detail while never losing sight of the big picture.

In response, I will quote Richard Dawkins.

"Is there a meaning to life? What are we for? What is man? After posing the last of these questions, the eminent zoologist G. G. Simpson put it thus: 'The point I want to make now is that all attempts to answer that question before 1859 are worthless and that we will be better off if we ignore then completely.'"

Philosophers may be 'wise' but none of your philosophizing helps us make actual policy decisions, which must consider the risks in any action. The risks of inaction on this issue are great, given that the vast majority of experts in the field agree that some serious damage is headed our way if we do not substantially decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Good policy is not about trying to decide whether any one particular model is right -- it's about betting carefully. And in this case, the conservative action is the one to sharply reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. It's possible that the argument has been reinforced by bias so much that we've created an entirely false understanding of the physical system -- but I wouldn't bet on it.

In response, I will quote Eric Cartman.

"Goddamn hippies!"

Philosophers shape the minds of other thinkers including scientists.

I agree with you, I'm not saying otherwise, I just want to call the things as they are, the only thing that bothers me is reductionist half truths and the people reacting to and spreading fear. Yes, if at a reasonable cost, (not overreacting) we can take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by all means we should, but at the same time we should pay attention to people that might be pushing policies because they will directly benefit economically.

We should never lose sight of the bigger picture.

[nietzsche]

This is retarded, it's just so fucking easy and you guys keep at it.

FACT: Global Climate changes all the time, there are cycles, some take long time, some little time, there are minicycles.

True there are minicycles... but FACT IS there is currently more carbon dioxide being introduced into our atmosphere than has ever been present in the history of our planet. It is not a good thing. Maybe you intentionally ignore this or just don't keep up with current events.

I'm not denying our part on the global climate changes, I'm aware that there's a consensus among most scientists and I actually believe in it.

I'm against the obscurity in which these topics are discussed, with people buying opinions, half truths and fear from others.

My idea is that we should stick to facts without losing our heads with emotion charged arguments.



I was watching an episode of Cosmos the other day with Neil deGrasse as the narrator. THe story he was telling was very good, though nothing new, yet the narrative with the excellent computer generated images was very appealing, excellent. Yet, if you kept your mind in neutral, with some sort of mind process analizing the ideas behind what it was been said, you could see how a lot of meaning was being imparted besides the facts. In fact, I would say it was more meaning than facts (not that he said something that was non-factual). This goes past most people, and they would regard the meaning shared as truth, and this is a mistake. The facts are the facts, science describes what it observes. The meaning are interpretations.

What does that has to do with out topic? Well, this is what I mean we need to be careful not to make judgements if we want to really asses the facts. Many times the meaning hides behind the words and structure of an argument.

[nietzsche]

All in all it was a good conversation. Thank you guys, you are cheaper than a therapist.

Next time remember you're not supposed to contradict the patient.

[Metsfanmax]

That doesn't have anything to do with the point you are trying to make. Even if prices of timber, copper, labor all stayed the same since 1970 (yeah and cigarette packs were 45 cents/median home price $23,000) the number of weather related insurance claims are going to rise simply based on population. New towns are being built all the time. If a global warming made tornado hits a certain location in 1978, it does no damage because nobody built anything there yet. Yet a tornado that is half the size of the 1978 tornado goes through the exact same spot in 2014, because urban sprawl there is growth and now there are a dozen building and 80 houses, can cause tens of millions of dollars of damage. And of course prices have risen since the 70's, dramatically. Again, lets take house A and it get's flattened in 1978, it's gonna cost 10,000 to totally replace that house. An exact same house as house A gets flattened by a tornado in 2014, it will cost you more than quadruple, more like octuple, to replace that exact same house in 2014.

It's more than misleading, it's meaningless

The population of the USA in 1984 is estimated to be 236 million. It is currently 314 million. That is an increase of approximately 1/3, or 33%. A quadrupling of weather-related claims (note: different from the amount paid out in these claims) is an increase of 300%. So it's quite a reach to suggest that increase of population and urbanization can explain even the majority of the effect.

Your other argument relates to inflation. Obviously this has been thought about. When you adjust for inflation and compare everything in dollars from the same year, you still get a quadrupling of damage from serious disasters compared to the 1980s.

[hotfire]

Direct quote from Sustainable Construction third edition p 219 pertaining to loss of prime farmland
"Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth itself. From 1982 to 1997, the US population grew by 17 percent, while urbanized land grew by 47 percent. Over the past 20 years, the acreage per person for new housing almost doubled; and since 1994, 10-plus acre housing lots have accounted for 55 percent of the land developed"

also 70 barrier island off the US coast have been commercially developed, and millions live on them. Barrier islands have no effective protection against flooding and damage from severe storms. The continuing subsidence of these passive coasts (combined with changes caused by commercial development and the ongoing rise in sea level) will undoubtedly cost lives and destroy property.

[notyou2]

Direct quote from Sustainable Construction third edition p 219 pertaining to loss of prime farmland
"Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth itself. From 1982 to 1997, the US population grew by 17 percent, while urbanized land grew by 47 percent. Over the past 20 years, the acreage per person for new housing almost doubled; and since 1994, 10-plus acre housing lots have accounted for 55 percent of the land developed"

also 70 barrier island off the US coast have been commercially developed, and millions live on them. Barrier islands have no effective protection against flooding and damage from severe storms. The continuing subsidence of these passive coasts (combined with changes caused by commercial development and the ongoing rise in sea level) will undoubtedly cost lives and destroy property.

You are correct. Stuff that happens in America will destroy the world as we know it. That's how much influence you Americans have on this planet. We should rename the planet The USofA and Whatever.

[Dukasaur]

Direct quote from Sustainable Construction third edition p 219 pertaining to loss of prime farmland
"Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth itself. From 1982 to 1997, the US population grew by 17 percent, while urbanized land grew by 47 percent. Over the past 20 years, the acreage per person for new housing almost doubled; and since 1994, 10-plus acre housing lots have accounted for 55 percent of the land developed"

also 70 barrier island off the US coast have been commercially developed, and millions live on them. Barrier islands have no effective protection against flooding and damage from severe storms. The continuing subsidence of these passive coasts (combined with changes caused by commercial development and the ongoing rise in sea level) will undoubtedly cost lives and destroy property.

You are correct. Stuff that happens in America will destroy the world as we know it. That's how much influence you Americans have on this planet. We should rename the planet The USofA and Whatever.

I don't know why you're mocking him. The study he cited might have been American, but the problems he describes are worldwide. Wasteful land use, in conjunction with ludicrous overpopulation, is the driver of environmental degradation.

There was a time when shopping malls were built as one building with a fairly compact strip of parking lots around it. Now, malls are built so that every chain store has its own building, and they sprawl over hundreds of acres. Can't even be called malls any more really, more like miniature cities with interconnected parking lots. And every square inch is paved. Gravel parking lots used to be a key element in the recharging of the aquifer in urban areas, now everything is paved and every single drop of rain is diverted from the aquifer to the sewer.

Lest ye think that the West is the only one at fault, the Third World with its callous slash-and-burn economy is pound for pound every bit as bad.

I think it should be a mandatory rite of passage that everyone should spend six months in the bush before they become a citizen. Maybe if people had a little more time to see the trees and come face-to-face with the badgers, they wouldn't be so quick to bulldoze every square inch of forest to put up another fucking Wal-Mart. Maybe.

[notyou2]

Direct quote from Sustainable Construction third edition p 219 pertaining to loss of prime farmland
"Wasteful land use is the problem, not growth itself. From 1982 to 1997, the US population grew by 17 percent, while urbanized land grew by 47 percent. Over the past 20 years, the acreage per person for new housing almost doubled; and since 1994, 10-plus acre housing lots have accounted for 55 percent of the land developed"

also 70 barrier island off the US coast have been commercially developed, and millions live on them. Barrier islands have no effective protection against flooding and damage from severe storms. The continuing subsidence of these passive coasts (combined with changes caused by commercial development and the ongoing rise in sea level) will undoubtedly cost lives and destroy property.

You are correct. Stuff that happens in America will destroy the world as we know it. That's how much influence you Americans have on this planet. We should rename the planet The USofA and Whatever.

I don't know why you're mocking him. The study he cited might have been American, but the problems he describes are worldwide. Wasteful land use, in conjunction with ludicrous overpopulation, is the driver of environmental degradation.

There was a time when shopping malls were built as one building with a fairly compact strip of parking lots around it. Now, malls are built so that every chain store has its own building, and they sprawl over hundreds of acres. Can't even be called malls any more really, more like miniature cities with interconnected parking lots. And every square inch is paved. Gravel parking lots used to be a key element in the recharging of the aquifer in urban areas, now everything is paved and every single drop of rain is diverted from the aquifer to the sewer.

Lest ye think that the West is the only one at fault, the Third World with its callous slash-and-burn economy is pound for pound every bit as bad.

I think it should be a mandatory rite of passage that everyone should spend six months in the bush before they become a citizen. Maybe if people had a little more time to see the trees and come face-to-face with the badgers, they wouldn't be so quick to bulldoze every square inch of forest to put up another fucking Wal-Mart. Maybe.

You're right. My apologies to hotfire. If the study he points to is worldwide then it is correct. I know the same issues are happening in Canada as you pointed out. I expect they are happening in other areas as well. Municipalities should have regulations on over burdening the storm sewer system, and your solution would ease a great deal of that, but I expect you will have a hard time convincing the owners as whenever its wet, the parking lot could become a quagmire. A lot of buildings erected under the LEED system have retention ponds that the parking areas drain into.

[oVo]

Myth: we have to save the Earth. Frankly, the earth doesn't need to be saved. Nature doesn't give a hoot if human beings are here or not. The planet has survived cataclysmic and catastrophic changes for millions upon millions of years. Over that time, it is widely believed, 99 percent of all species have come and gone while the planet has remained. Saving the environment is really about saving our environment -- making it safe for ourselves, our children, and the world as we know it. If more people saw the issue as one of saving themselves, we would probably see increased motivation and commitment to actually do so.

-Robert M. Lilienfeld, management consultant and author (b. 1953) and William L. Rathje, archaeologist and author (b. 1945)

Fact: It's not if humans will become extinct, but when.