| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/15/2007 01:32:21 AM · #151 |
So.
We're 149 posts and 2249 views into this.
Is there anyone who's learned anything new, including anyone reading but who hasn't yet posted?
If not, maybe there's not much point in continuing.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:40:09 AM · #152 |
| I learned it was 104 in Houston today... |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:48:25 AM · #153 |
| There are a few stories I hadn't heard before in this summary of news headlines from the past two weeks from NASA's Earth Observatory site. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:53:12 AM · #154 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I learned it was 104 in Houston today... |
I learned that I'm never moving to Florida!
(Or Houston, for that matter...)
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:32:46 AM · #155 |
| I learned that there's a video called "The Great Global Warming Swindle" that blatantly disregards accepted scientific principles and evidence. Some of their arguments sound plausible until you check the facts. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 09:53:16 AM · #156 |
I can site my sources, but you’ll just dismiss them because in 1962 one worked on a consulting project for Exxon, one doesn’t have a wiki page, one might be republican and one was a radio DJ in college. Do a little digging and you’ll find them yourself so you can trash them. If you try hard enough you can get them fired or just belittle them enough to keep your happy consensus (the strategy seems to work)!
On Greenland I was duped by a bad source. In the highlands it is growing, but in the low lands it’s shrinking faster then the highlands is growing so overall it’s shrinking. I concede that. My source was only giving half the truth so they are no longer a source for me.
Thanks General for the spelling lesson, as stated, I have trouble spelling my own name some days. I do know north and south though. And, that article is more recent then the source I saw, so apparently the ARCTIC had a nice summer. We’ll see what happens this winter. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 09:58:08 AM · #157 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
On Greenland I was duped by a bad source. In the highlands it is growing, but in the low lands it’s shrinking faster then the highlands is growing so overall it’s shrinking. I concede that. My source was only giving half the truth so they are no longer a source for me.
That article is more recent then the source I saw, so apparently the ARCTIC had a nice summer. We’ll see what happens this winter. |
I appreciate your willingness to re-evaluate your sources. As I said before, I hate hyperbole and half-truths on both sides. That's why I said what I did about single instances of hot temps not meaning anything.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 10:07:02 AM · #158 |
| I learned that it doesn't matter if you believe the warming is caused by man or nature, the earth is in for some hot years. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 10:10:34 AM · #159 |
Originally posted by pcody:
I learned that it doesn't matter if you believe the warming is caused by man or nature, the earth is in for some hot years. |
AMEN (but then it will cool off again, becasue that's what nature has done for billions of years)
I learned that:
1.) Al Gore is an idiot
2.) George Bush is an idiot
I had never heard that before about either of them.
Message edited by author 2007-08-15 10:11:56.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 10:16:49 AM · #160 |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 10:36:26 AM · #161 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I can site my sources, but you’ll just dismiss them because in 1962 one worked on a consulting project for Exxon, one doesn’t have a wiki page, one might be republican and one was a radio DJ in college. Do a little digging and you’ll find them yourself so you can trash them. If you try hard enough you can get them fired or just belittle them enough to keep your happy consensus (the strategy seems to work)! |
The problem with this kind of debate is that the participants (me included) don't have the technical skills to understand properly the technical data and reports. Instead, we rely on summaries produced by the relevant scientists and journalists.
It is natural therefore for people to take into account the background of anyone that they rely upon - their expertise, qualifications, experience, and any conflicting interests are all relevant factors in determining a source's reliability.
It is therefore highly relevant in the context of this debate if you are citing a source with no qualifications, no relevant expertise, and strong connections to a relevant political party. Whether a source is sponsored by Greenpeace or Exxon, it is more than reasonable to question the independence and the reliability of that source.
If we were all scientists with a good understanding of all the relevant sciences, the fact that someone who came up with a stunning new, insightful theory was an oil burning radio DJ or a greenpeace activist should not be a factor. Our problem is that until the large group of moderately independent specialists (whom we can trust) verifies a crackpot theory, we (the uninformed debating club) do not know whether to give the crackpot theory any credence - and the default position should be that unconventional crackpot theories are probably wrong.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 10:58:09 AM · #162 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
The problem with this kind of debate is that the participants (me included) don't have the technical skills to understand properly the technical data and reports. Instead, we rely on summaries produced by the relevant scientists and journalists.
It is natural therefore for people to take into account the background of anyone that they rely upon - their expertise, qualifications, experience, and any conflicting interests are all relevant factors in determining a source's reliability. |
Bingo. That's why, for example, when I posted links earlier to globe-spanning environmental issues, I specifically avoided Greenpeace or even articles primarily about Greenpeace.
Again, it's a matter of trust: who do you trust? I trust that it's relevant that a vastly larger number of peer-reviewed articles say this is real and that we're causing it than say otherwise.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:02:02 AM · #163 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
Do a little digging and you’ll find them yourself so you can trash them. |
I DID dig! I also did quite a bit of digging to reinforce MY points! I watched the Global Swindle (It's over an hour!!!) with an open mind. After watching, I did more research and found that there are some blatant inaccuracies.
Originally posted by LoudDog:
On Greenland I was duped by a bad source. In the highlands it is growing, but in the low lands it’s shrinking faster then the highlands is growing so overall it’s shrinking. I concede that. My source was only giving half the truth so they are no longer a source for me. |
Three cheers for taking a second look at this and black-listing your source ;)
Message edited by author 2007-08-15 11:06:39. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:03:10 AM · #164 |
Originally posted by larryslights:
I learned that:
1.) Al Gore is an idiot
2.) George Bush is an idiot
I had never heard that before about either of them. |
LMAO!!! :) |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:21:14 AM · #165 |
Originally posted by meyers:
2 - Take a look over here for some perspective on sophistry. |
Wow, I've been hoping to come across something that would articulate this particular kind of outrageous behaviour. That's a great article. And I've subscribed to that blog now, thanks (Atheist Ethicist). |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 11:44:22 AM · #166 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
So.
We're 149 posts and 2249 views into this.
Is there anyone who's learned anything new, including anyone reading but who hasn't yet posted?
If not, maybe there's not much point in continuing. |
I haven't learned much new, but maybe rather than continuing down the current path the thread is on, it would be interesting to divert it into a discussion of what the risks are of not doing anything about man's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
I see many advantages to promoting efficiency, promoting alternative energies that don't emit C02 and other pollutants and reduce the dependence on foreign oil sources, but there are not a whole lot of disadvantages to doing this. With so much potential upside and little downside, why would you not want to do anything, whether you believe man is responsible for global warming or not?
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 12:58:43 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by sailracer_98:
I haven't learned much new, but maybe rather than continuing down the current path the thread is on, it would be interesting to divert it into a discussion of what the risks are of not doing anything about man's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
I see many advantages to promoting efficiency, promoting alternative energies that don't emit C02 and other pollutants and reduce the dependence on foreign oil sources, but there are not a whole lot of disadvantages to doing this. With so much potential upside and little downside, why would you not want to do anything, whether you believe man is responsible for global warming or not? |
It will be expensive - we currently operate in a semi-regulated market in relation to pollution. This is because it is often cheaper to pollute than to fix the problem. In order to encourage people away from inefficient and dangerous practices using market forces, the best solution is usually adding to the direct cost such as through carbon tax.
As an aside, the EU's carbon credit trading scheme is not operating smoothly: as some suspected, there has been some manipulation of the market that has resulted in oil companies making money and the UK National Health Service losing money because it set itself aggressive targets. It will take a couple more years to settle down, but I suspect that there will be further such complications in the coming years.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:32:03 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
It will be expensive |
That's easy to solve, make the largest offenders pay for it.
Remove the loophole in the Gas Guzzler Tax that allows car-makers to avoid paying the tax on SUVs. Use the additional funds to create tax incentives for purchasing highly efficient cars. The Prius doesn't qualify for tax credits any more because it's been on the market too long and, as far as I know, highly efficient conventional-engined cars receive no credits as well.
Require that the highest polluting utilities pay an additional tax that goes into tax credits for clean energy sources and/or homes that use the least amount of energy.
Etc., etc., etc.
Message edited by author 2007-08-15 13:33:21. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:36:07 PM · #169 |
| I bought a bag of seeds and plan to plant lots of trees to counter the CO2 I spew. Anyone that wants me to plant trees for them too, just send me some cash :) If you drive a SUV the price is double. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:41:26 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
I bought a bag of seeds and plan to plant lots of trees to counter the CO2 I spew. Anyone that wants me to plant trees for them too, just send me some cash :) If you drive a SUV the price is double. |
The check is in the mail :) |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:47:46 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
Originally posted by Matthew:
It will be expensive |
That's easy to solve, make the largest offenders pay for it. |
I agree with you completely on that issue. The current gas guzzler tax doesn't force owners with vehicles that weigh more than 6000(?)lbs to pay for gas guzzler taxes nor does it require manufacturers to officially quote gas mileage numbers. This completely frees up anyone who drives a Hummer, Escalade, Suburban, Range Rover, etc and pretty much anyone who's using the MOST gas. This is absolutely unacceptable. Why should those that use the most pay the least?
The money from taxing all these vehicles can go into motivation to purchase efficient (but not necessarily weak) cars and trucks. It can also go into research funds for alternative energy sources.
Edit to add: I think a lot of people shy away from Hybrid cars because they assume them to be boring and not much fun to drive. To some extent I agree with them. The Prius, while a great vehicle and an great advancement, is a total yawn compared to a gas powered car. This is not, however, always true. Take the Honda Accord EX Hybrid, anyone driven one? It's a BLAST to drive. V6 engine combined with an electric motor make for one hell of an experience and it gets nearly 35mpg to boot. It's not even close to the mileage of a Prius, but it's a fun, practical, and enjoyable car to drive. Honda is unfortunately discontinuing this car because no one seems to want to buy it. Why would a person buy a Hybrid (boring) car when they could get a V6 (FUN!) car? Well people need to smarten up when it comes to hybrids and open their minds a little more. The new Tahoe and Yukon hybrids from GM are to make their debut shortly which will make these beasts get 20-25mpg(!!) compared to 10-14mpg. Is this the end, not a chance, but it's a good start. Manufacturers like Honda need to start producing fun to drive hybrid cars and they'll fly off the shelves as soon as people begin to realize it.
Message edited by author 2007-08-15 13:54:19.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:50:05 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by chip_k:
Originally posted by Matthew:
It will be expensive |
That's easy to solve, make the largest offenders pay for it.
Remove the loophole in the Gas Guzzler Tax that allows car-makers to avoid paying the tax on SUVs. Use the additional funds to create tax incentives for purchasing highly efficient cars. The Prius doesn't qualify for tax credits any more because it's been on the market too long and, as far as I know, highly efficient conventional-engined cars receive no credits as well.
Require that the highest polluting utilities pay an additional tax that goes into tax credits for clean energy sources and/or homes that use the least amount of energy.
Etc., etc., etc. |
The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-08-15 13:51:23. |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 01:55:40 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again.
Ray |
I disagree. The abridged version would be...Don't buy a !@#$ing Hummer unless you actually have a reason to.
|
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:09:54 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by SamDoe1:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again.
Ray |
I disagree. The abridged version would be...Don't buy a unless you actually have a reason to. |
That would hold true if all that was involved were "!@#$ing Hummers".
However, if you include the comments made by Mattew, you will note that he made reference to "carbon tax", and that would include a myriad of mechanisms currently in place, such as heating, air travel, and the list goes on.
Invariably, when these things are tended to, guess who will get hosed? ... no, not only the proud owners of "!@#$ing Hummers", but just about everyone.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/15/2007 02:13:59 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The abridged version of all this... The consumer will get hosed again. |
Huh? You have a choice, if you afford to buy a Hummer or Escalade, surely you can pay a little more for it. If not, buy one that's a year old or pas up the $4000 chi-chi wheels.
Car-makers WILL make cars more fuel-eficient so they can maintain their high-profit margins on SUVs. They WILL leave the power in them or they won't sell.
Consumers who want to go green get help in doing it.
It doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything. It's all about choices. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 03:53:12 PM EDT.
