|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2009 04:48:37 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
If I want to balance out my admittedly liberal bias I read the Weekly Standard or the National Review, prefer George Will, or the late lamented William Buckely as a source of civil and honorable conservative thought ... |
I've also found David Brooks of the NY Times/PBS to often express his views in a rational and reasoned manner. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:59:09 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by farfel53:
No, I would argue that ALL of that carbon is coming out of the atmoshpere, in the form of carbos and protiens, which is CO2 converted by plants. And yes, I do put most of it back in as waste gas or solids, but in the overall, I DO sequester carbon. My pants and shirts say so. |
You are still mistaking "carbon" as being equivalent in this coversation to "carbon dioxide". |
I still don't see your distinction. I'm not eating coal or diamonds, I am eating, essentially, plant life, that derives all of it's necessary carbon from CO2 in the atmoshpere. All of the carbohydrates I consume become sugars and fats, and a bit or protien, correct? Yes, I breath and excrete, but I do still maintain, even just a bit.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 05:03:47 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man... |
Come on, Doc. Don't answer a perceived attack with another just like it. He wants to debate both sides of an issue. How does that constitute an "ad hominem" attack. Becasue he thinks Al Gore is hot air? Goodness, the left would be guilty of the same thing every time they say Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air!
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 05:31:52 PM · #54 |
| If Global change is occuring because of man I am sure taxing it will help! |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 05:32:45 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man... |
Come on, Doc. Don't answer a perceived attack with another just like it. He wants to debate both sides of an issue. How does that constitute an "ad hominem" attack. Becasue he thinks Al Gore is hot air? Goodness, the left would be guilty of the same thing every time they say Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air! |
Equating Gore, a former senator, vice-president and Nobel Laureate to Limbaugh, who has never accomplished anything, is a stretch at best, even if you disagree with Gore's politics.
Give me a break. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 05:41:38 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man... |
Come on, Doc. Don't answer a perceived attack with another just like it. He wants to debate both sides of an issue. How does that constitute an "ad hominem" attack. Becasue he thinks Al Gore is hot air? Goodness, the left would be guilty of the same thing every time they say Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air! |
Equating Gore, a former senator, vice-president and Nobel Laureate to Limbaugh, who has never accomplished anything, is a stretch at best, even if you disagree with Gore's politics.
Give me a break. |
Exactly to the point. You do not wish to discuss anything that disagrees with your "faith". Anybody with a differing view is a heathen and not worth equating with the prophet.
As usual, what good for the goose will not be tolerated by the gander. Ppfftthhtt!
Buy whatever you want.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 05:51:03 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Come on, Doc. Don't answer a perceived attack with another just like it. |
Achoo is correct. Attacking Al Gore rather than the data at issue is the very definition of ad hominem attack, and the bit about "two sides to every story" and "fair and balanced" (FAUX News) is just plain ridiculous. That only works in a "he said, she said" recollection of events. You don't need to weigh "two sides of the story" to know that the earth is a sphere or that germs cause illness.
That humans have contributed significantly to global warming is not speculation, it's established fact. CO2 strongly absorbs infrared radiation– this is proven beyond any doubt, and therefore adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere means the earth collects more heat from the sun. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by about 35% since the beginning of the Industrial Era, and climbing rapidly. We know from ice core samples what happens when CO2 levels rise and fall dramatically: the dates correspond exactly to periods of glaciation or extreme warming and global extinctions. CO2 levels in the past have been as much as perhaps 350 times modern levels, and the earth still dealt with it... minus the plants and animals that succumbed to the resulting catastrophic changes in climate. So, yeah, CO2 levels have changed even more dramatically before, but those changes were caused by massive supervolcanoes. Seen any of those lately? No? So, let's see... what else could be causing the sudden rise in greenhouse gases? Invisible supervolcanoes? Aliens? Magic? Hmm... could it be the extra 27 MILLION TONS we pump into the air every day? Nahhhhh.... :-/
(Note that whether or not Al Gore is a hypocrite does not change the answer.)
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 17:52:57. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 05:56:19 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man... |
Come on, Doc. Don't answer a perceived attack with another just like it. He wants to debate both sides of an issue. How does that constitute an "ad hominem" attack. Becasue he thinks Al Gore is hot air? Goodness, the left would be guilty of the same thing every time they say Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air! |
Equating Gore, a former senator, vice-president and Nobel Laureate to Limbaugh, who has never accomplished anything, is a stretch at best, even if you disagree with Gore's politics.
Give me a break. |
Exactly to the point. You do not wish to discuss anything that disagrees with your "faith". Anybody with a differing view is a heathen and not worth equating with the prophet.
As usual, what good for the goose will not be tolerated by the gander. Ppfftthhtt!
Buy whatever you want. |
I love a lively debate. But you have to match credentials. Gore has them, Rush doesn't.
funny how you criticize those that might listen to talking heads and yet invoke Rush. Pot/kettle thing going on here.
Match up Gore with Cheney on a policy debate topic and you might have someting there. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 06:02:06 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Exactly to the point. You do not wish to discuss anything that disagrees with your "faith". Anybody with a differing view is a heathen and not worth equating with the prophet.
As usual, what good for the goose will not be tolerated by the gander. Ppfftthhtt!
Buy whatever you want. |
I'm sorry, but was any of that intended to say anything? I got that you disagree. But do you have anything else? Some facts? a coherent conterargument. You have to be able to do better than "Ppffthhhtt" |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 09:11:56 PM · #60 |
Without attempting to rebut any of the interesting debate items offered by  Vtruan and  farfel53, I’ll offer, in balance, the Abstract of an article found in the The New Yorker Magazine’s current issue. It is by Elizabeth Kolbert, titled The Catastrophist, She writes about James Hansen, PhD, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and long-time climatologist.
He notes that coal is used for some 50% of energy in the USA and 80% of energy in China. Coal is of course composed of “carbon,” a word used liberally in this thread.
Sadly, The New Yorker has made its on-line articles available only to subscribers, or for those who pay a fee, as the entire article is truly worth reading.
ABSTRACT: PROFILE of climatologist James Hansen. A few months ago, James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), in Manhattan, joined a protest outside the Capitol Power Plant, in Washington, D.C.
Thirty years ago, Hansen, who is sixty-eight, created one of the world’s first climate models, nicknamed Model Zero, which he used to predict most of what has happened in the climate since. Hansen has now concluded, partly on the basis of his latest modeling efforts and partly on the basis of observations made by other scientists, that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he had suspected. Unless immediate action is taken—including the shutdown of all the world’s coal plants within the next two decades—the planet will be committed to climate change on a scale society won’t be able to cope with.
Hansen grew up in Denison, Iowa, and he obtained a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Iowa. From there he went directly to work at GISS, where he studied Venusian clouds. In 1981, he became the director of GISS. He published a paper forecasting increased temperatures in the following decades and his insights were immediately recognized by the scientific community. Mentions Anniek Hansen, Bill McKibben, Michael Oppenheimer, and Spencer Weart.
[the article]Describes a talk Hansen gave on climate change at the state capitol in Concord, New Hampshire. What is now happening, Hansen said, is carbon dioxide is being pumped into the air some ten thousand times faster than natural weathering processes can remove it. There’s no precise term for the level of carbon dioxide that will assure a climate disaster; the best scientists have come up with is “dangerous anthropogenic interference,” or D.A.I. Hansen estimates the dangerous amount of carbon dioxide to be no more than three hundred and fifty parts per million. The bad news is that carbon dioxide levels have already reached three hundred and eighty-five parts per million.
Hansen argues that the only way we can constrain the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to drastically decrease the use of coal. But if Hansen’s anxieties about D.A.I. and coal are broadly shared, he is still, among climate scientists, an outlier. Describes the cap-and-trade system, which Hansen argues is essentially a sham.
Mentions the American Clean Energy and Security Act. In order to stabilize carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, annual emissions around the globe would have to be cut by something on the order of three-quarters. So far, there’s no evidence that anyone is willing to take the necessary steps.
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 21:36:10.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 09:39:31 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by New Yorker:
Hansen argues that the only way we can constrain the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to drastically decrease the use of coal. |
What a crock! Everybody knows the primary global source of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other air pollutants is Rush Limbaugh's cigars. |
|
|
|
06/28/2009 06:41:18 AM · #62 |
As usual, this becomes adversarial in two shakes. Not pretty.
I didn't invoke Rush Limbaugh, people. I only compared the supposed "ad hominem" attack of vrtuan to what people toss off at the right, (most regularly at Mr. Limbaugh) routinely, without any restraint or guilt. Now you give ME a break. Rush is an entertainer who is largely a gas bag, but he does stimulate alternative thought. I know, it's not thought about your point of view, so it can't have any merit. I understand that. But let's do away with the double standard, shall we? If one calls Al Gore a gas bag, and the other calls Rush Limbaugh a gas bag, it's the same thing. They're both just men, plain, ordinary men, neither exempt or specially protected by their status as "prophet".
I'll go back to my original argument.
You have no problem seeing conflicted interest in the opposition, yet you don't see ANY on your side? You state as "fact" statements made by climatologists, but don't question the data or how it is collected and interpreted?
Shannon, the article you pointed me to said, flat out, that they had to "tease" the data, that what they were looking for was hard to find. That's not scientific method, to me. That's trying to make the data fit the theory.
How can you all just swallow this huge pill seemingly without protest? Isn't anybody digging into what's presented, looking for error or bias? You are about to see the destruction of your economy, painful limits on your personal liberty, and all you can do is jeer at anybody who questions it all?
Thousands of brave men have fought and died to secure and maintain freedom all over the world, and now it's going to be swallowed up in what may be propaganda and half-truths, without a peep from most of you? Think about where this is going and what it's going to cost you. And what good will any of it do without the cooperation of the Chinese, Indians, Russians? Do you think they are going to choke down what is finally progress in the rise from poverty? Voluntarily? Are we going to have to war them down?
Assume for the sake of "debate" that I am converted.
What do some of you see as a successful plan of action in all of this? What do you want to happen, and how are the steps now being taken going to contribute to the solution?
And please, if we are going to discuss this, stick to the arguments? I know I'm not highly educated or skilled at debate. I know some times I present foolish arguments. You don't win any points or solve any problem by attacking or patronizing me.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2009 09:15:01 AM · #63 |
quite simply, what do we stand to lose by taking the dangers of global warming/climate change seriously?
Money. And little else.
Do people who claim it's silliness really believe that our incredibly dirty industrial system should be continued because it is inconvenient to put drastic systems into place?
I mean we can all quote scientific or "scientific" studies till we are blue in the face, but at the end of the day we will eventually have to find clean ways of doing things.
The industrial push is simply not sustainable. It's not just climate. It's not just energy.
It's also resources. We are plowing through resources so fast that by the 2050's, many major mineral resources will be completely exhausted. Zinc. Copper. Those kinds of things.
Why? Because we are wasteful as a global community. We are not responsible. We are dirty and shortsighted. We care only about the bottom line - $$$.
We do need to take action to clean up the way things are done. We will need to pay more for things. We will have to deal with inconveniences. We may have to walk.
Did you know that in some parts of the world, car owners are only allowed to drive on certain days of the week? Other days, they need to take a bus or something.
Inconvenient. Absolutely.
But regardless of whether our eventual condemnation comes as a result of carbon dioxide or some other reason, we still need to DO something. Putting our heads in the sand because we think that Study A is wrong or Study B is misleading is not a valid excuse for continuing our current course of action.
Message edited by author 2009-06-28 09:18:03. |
|
|
|
06/28/2009 09:39:56 AM · #64 |
Agreed, we are wasteful. Agreed, we need to make much better use of our resources. Agreed, the rape of the environment needs to cease.
Problem, though, without the $$$ that business and industry strive for, what are we all going to do for a living? Subsistence farming?
eta: I know that's an extreme vision of the outcome, but we're already highly unemployed. Where is it going to go?
Message edited by author 2009-06-28 10:45:59.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2009 11:32:52 AM · #65 |
| Op-Ed piece (with links) on the effect of endocrine disruptors in the environment. |
|
|
|
06/28/2009 12:47:37 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man... |
Come on, Doc. Don't answer a perceived attack with another just like it. He wants to debate both sides of an issue. How does that constitute an "ad hominem" attack. Becasue he thinks Al Gore is hot air? Goodness, the left would be guilty of the same thing every time they say Rush Limbaugh is a bag of hot air! |
Equating Gore, a former senator, vice-president and Nobel Laureate to Limbaugh, who has never accomplished anything, is a stretch at best, even if you disagree with Gore's politics.
Give me a break. |
Exactly to the point. You do not wish to discuss anything that disagrees with your "faith". Anybody with a differing view is a heathen and not worth equating with the prophet.
As usual, what good for the goose will not be tolerated by the gander. Ppfftthhtt!
Buy whatever you want. |
I hate it when people make this argument. It's a case of the closed-minded calling the other side close-minded. I am about as far left as it gets from San Francisco, and also 20 years old, but I look at both sides of the story and try to understand it as best I can. I agree that there might not be enough data and it is even possible that these changes are occurring mostly because of nature...BUT I see no harm in trying to get better gas mileage, less harmful emissions, use less oil so we can stop relying on others, create new green technologies that will open up new jobs, having a organic garden in your yard or using solar panels. If you cut out funding, you lose almost all of that. As for the Ad hominems going one here, everyone is guilty of it as some point, but I've observed the right side (especially on FOX) guilty of using that form of argument waaay more. Now you can blame me of using Ad Hominem on an Ad Hominem argument, but let me remind you that you are the one who used "Ppfftthhtt!" in your argument. Good day to you.
|
|
|
|
06/28/2009 03:04:37 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Agreed, we are wasteful. Agreed, we need to make much better use of our resources. Agreed, the rape of the environment needs to cease.
Problem, though, without the $$$ that business and industry strive for, what are we all going to do for a living? Subsistence farming?
eta: I know that's an extreme vision of the outcome, but we're already highly unemployed. Where is it going to go? |
In case you are interested in my personal experience as an industrial chemist, this might reassure you: The vast majority of process improvements which have been forced by environmental regulations have ultimately lead to an improvement in productivity! On the long term, you earn more money, not less! And it's certainly not only the chemical industry, have a look at the US car companies for instance...
|
|
|
|
06/29/2009 01:25:18 AM · #68 |
Lets forget about left and right, and instead focus on right and wrong. There are a couple of issues at stake when we talk about Free Energy.
Nikola Tesla tried to change the world in 1918 and give us unlimited power but the "right" side stopped him when they tore down Wardenclyffe and modified his patents. The reason is that human beings tend to weaponize everything discovered initially. This is all changing now after 90 years because the truth reached too many people now. Investors need something to invest in and so Solar energy is soon going to become a reality for all civilians.
The downfall of this is that any regular joe could harness the power of the sun and might start evaporating his neighbors. And so, the leaders of Earth, whomever they might be, regardless of whether you think its the Pope, or Uncle Sam, kept us running on Fossil fuels for all these years and AC motors, and cockadoo hardwired electrical grids to keep man from destroying himself. So I say, lets mature spiritually or they wont give us the new world Tesla tried giving us all those years ago!
Message edited by author 2009-06-29 01:39:42. |
|
|
|
06/29/2009 07:27:38 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
If Global change is occuring because of man I am sure taxing it will help! |
Yes, this could be true; thank goodness I sold my car 3 years ago, I dont need it here in the city thankfully; but I did hear about a commuter tax.
I believe global warming is caused by TWO things;
-Over use of primitive technology due to the suppression of new innovations which is all caused by this fear of change from the global elite who refuse to dismantle their enterprises since they have conquered economically. And of course, what they initially feared, like I mentioned in the above comment.
-And, the heating of the oceans is due to the overuse of orbiting power-stations that scan the oceans with X-Rays to help find oil resevoirs.
Message edited by author 2009-07-01 00:57:00. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 02:13:46 AM  |
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: 08/28/2025 02:13:46 AM EDT.
|
