|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/11/2007 05:36:32 PM · #176 |
| Oh, I believe it does too -- I just think it's kinda funny : ) |
|
|
|
01/11/2007 06:06:08 PM · #177 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Spaz, there is an old saying
"If the map and the road do not agree...trust the road"
|
Sounds like a good way to get lost.
I trust my map, compass and GPS. Terrain can be deceiving. |
Maps become obsolete to one degree or another the moment they leave the printer. I once followed the road shown on a map and found myself at a dead end on the top of a mountain in a blinding snowstorm.
A compass can certainly be compromised. Do a Google search on compass anomaly or magnetic anomaly to see what I mean.
GPS, while the most "factual" of the three, doesn't tell you what lies between point a and point b. You won't get lost, but you may encounter a sheer cliff in your path.
The terrain is what it is. It never lies. Rather than saying that the terrain can be deceiving, it would be more correct to say that you can misinterpret the terrain. |
Maps do become obsolete, recent ones are essential.
Compasses can be compromised, if you drop them or otherwise abuse them, but if you take care of them and use the proper compensation for variations in the magenetic field, which is easy to do, a compass will not let you down.
My GPS unit has detailed and accurate maps stored inside it. It will most certainly tell you if there is a sheer cliff in your path. You'd be amazed at the two track trails it has in it's database. Not only will it be able to tell you about the cliff, it'll likely tell you the way around it.
The terrain can be deceptive, many areas look alike. It's easy to think you are at point c somewhere between a and b, when you are in fact at point d, which is nowhere near the path between a and b because you've really been walking in circles. People who get lost in unfamialr areas do it all the time. Can the terrain you're on tell you about the sheer cliff or the lake or the river that block the path between a and b?
Message edited by author 2007-01-11 18:07:11.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 09:26:07 AM · #178 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Maps do become obsolete, recent ones are essential.
Compasses can be compromised, if you drop them or otherwise abuse them, but if you take care of them and use the proper compensation for variations in the magenetic field, which is easy to do, a compass will not let you down.
My GPS unit has detailed and accurate maps stored inside it. It will most certainly tell you if there is a sheer cliff in your path. You'd be amazed at the two track trails it has in it's database. Not only will it be able to tell you about the cliff, it'll likely tell you the way around it. |
Here is the topographical mapping disclaimer from GPSnow.com about GARMIN TOPO maps ( Garmin is one of the most popular GPS receiver manufacturers ).
Originally posted by GPSNOW.com:
"This product is based on United States Geological Survey topographic maps. USGS topographic maps are primarily intended to show topography which rarely changes. The government does not update them very often to show man made changes such as buildings, streets, roads and trails - many USGS map sheets are over 20 years old." |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The terrain can be deceptive, many areas look alike. It's easy to think you are at point c somewhere between a and b, when you are in fact at point d, which is nowhere near the path between a and b because you've really been walking in circles. People who get lost in unfamialr areas do it all the time. |
So, if you get lost, it's really not your fault in the least. It's the terrain's fault. Right.
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Can the terrain you're on tell you about the sheer cliff or the lake or the river that block the path between a and b? |
Yep. Just look at it. If there's a cliff in front of you , it's a cliff. If there's a lake in front of you, it's a lake. Even though the terrain cannot tell you if there is a cliff between point a and b if you can't "see" it, if you are traversing between them and come upon it, there it is. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 10:18:20 AM · #179 |
This thread is so telling.
Our house is divided. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 10:37:51 AM · #180 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Maps do become obsolete, recent ones are essential.
Compasses can be compromised, if you drop them or otherwise abuse them, but if you take care of them and use the proper compensation for variations in the magenetic field, which is easy to do, a compass will not let you down.
My GPS unit has detailed and accurate maps stored inside it. It will most certainly tell you if there is a sheer cliff in your path. You'd be amazed at the two track trails it has in it's database. Not only will it be able to tell you about the cliff, it'll likely tell you the way around it. |
Here is the topographical mapping disclaimer from GPSnow.com about GARMIN TOPO maps ( Garmin is one of the most popular GPS receiver manufacturers ).
Originally posted by GPSNOW.com:
"This product is based on United States Geological Survey topographic maps. USGS topographic maps are primarily intended to show topography which rarely changes. The government does not update them very often to show man made changes such as buildings, streets, roads and trails - many USGS map sheets are over 20 years old." |
|
There are maps available for street navigation that show street details and addresses. Topographical maps are not for street navigation.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The terrain can be deceptive, many areas look alike. It's easy to think you are at point c somewhere between a and b, when you are in fact at point d, which is nowhere near the path between a and b because you've really been walking in circles. People who get lost in unfamiliar areas do it all the time. |
So, if you get lost, it's really not your fault in the least. It's the terrain's fault. Right. |
No, getting lost is not the terrain's fault. I never said that. Frequently, it's difficult, if not impossible to tell it your path leads you where you need to go, unless you can actually see the destination. If you're just going to that tree 30 feet off the trail to take a crap, your method would work. If you're going to walk 100 miles through nowhere, your method would be suicide.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Can the terrain you're on tell you about the sheer cliff or the lake or the river that block the path between a and b? |
Yep. Just look at it. If there's a cliff in front of you , it's a cliff. If there's a lake in front of you, it's a lake. Even though the terrain cannot tell you if there is a cliff between point a and b if you can't "see" it, if you are traversing between them and come upon it, there it is. |
Again, the terrain itself only tells you about what you can visually observe, not what's over the next hill, or the next 5 hills so that you can set a new course.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 10:41:36.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 10:56:43 AM · #181 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My GPS unit has detailed and accurate maps stored inside it. It will most certainly tell you if there is a sheer cliff in your path. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Here is the topographical mapping disclaimer from GPSnow.com about GARMIN TOPO maps ( Garmin is one of the most popular GPS receiver manufacturers ).
Originally posted by GPSNOW.com:
"This product is based on United States Geological Survey topographic maps. USGS topographic maps are primarily intended to show topography which rarely changes. The government does not update them very often to show man made changes such as buildings, streets, roads and trails - many USGS map sheets are over 20 years old." |
|
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are maps available for street navigation that show street details and addresses. Topographical maps are not for street navigation. |
I know that. But street maps don't show cliffs, which is what you were claiming they did ( detailed and accurate ).
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 11:32:58 AM · #182 |
Holy GPS rat holes, batman!
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 01:31:26 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
My GPS unit has detailed and accurate maps stored inside it. It will most certainly tell you if there is a sheer cliff in your path. |
Originally posted by RonB:
Here is the topographical mapping disclaimer from GPSnow.com about GARMIN TOPO maps ( Garmin is one of the most popular GPS receiver manufacturers ).
Originally posted by GPSNOW.com:
"This product is based on United States Geological Survey topographic maps. USGS topographic maps are primarily intended to show topography which rarely changes. The government does not update them very often to show man made changes such as buildings, streets, roads and trails - many USGS map sheets are over 20 years old." |
|
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are maps available for street navigation that show street details and addresses. Topographical maps are not for street navigation. |
I know that. But street maps don't show cliffs, which is what you were claiming they did ( detailed and accurate ). |
No, those cliffs are on my Topo Maps. If the cliff is there now, it was there 20 years ago unless you're in an area of huge geological unrest.
I have both street AND topo maps. It's about the right tool for the job. A map of Cleveland won't do you any good in Wyoming and vice versa.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 01:32:28 PM · #184 |
Originally posted by rswank:
This thread is so telling.
Our house is divided. |
Yeah, not only can we not agree on which direction to go, we disagree on how to navigate at all.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 02:38:05 PM · #185 |
Exon cuts ties
should have used 2 x's in Exxon
Please note the dates of 2005 and 2006 in the article.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 14:40:44.
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 02:38:06 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are maps available for street navigation that show street details and addresses. Topographical maps are not for street navigation. |
Originally posted by RonB:
I know that. But street maps don't show cliffs, which is what you were claiming they did ( detailed and accurate ). |
|
No, those cliffs are on my Topo Maps. If the cliff is there now, it was there 20 years ago unless you're in an area of huge geological unrest.
I have both street AND topo maps. It's about the right tool for the job. A map of Cleveland won't do you any good in Wyoming and vice versa. |
And you have a problem with the terrain being deceptive when you are wandering about on the streets? Afraid that there might be a cliff between points a and b? Walking around in circles because it all looks the same?
Somewhere along the way we were talking about terrain, cliffs, and suddenly you switch to streets to support your argument about terrain and cliffs? Two words: Calvin Ball.
Message edited by author 2007-01-12 14:39:39. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 02:57:49 PM · #187 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
There are maps available for street navigation that show street details and addresses. Topographical maps are not for street navigation. |
Originally posted by RonB:
I know that. But street maps don't show cliffs, which is what you were claiming they did ( detailed and accurate ). |
|
No, those cliffs are on my Topo Maps. If the cliff is there now, it was there 20 years ago unless you're in an area of huge geological unrest.
I have both street AND topo maps. It's about the right tool for the job. A map of Cleveland won't do you any good in Wyoming and vice versa. |
And you have a problem with the terrain being deceptive when you are wandering about on the streets? Afraid that there might be a cliff between points a and b? Walking around in circles because it all looks the same?
Somewhere along the way we were talking about terrain, cliffs, and suddenly you switch to streets to support your argument about terrain and cliffs? Two words: Calvin Ball. |
I'm afraid you brought up streets, buildings and other manmade features with your quote from GPSnow about Garmin's topo maps. You did read it before you posted it, didn't you? I never claimed that the topo maps for my GPS showed streets. The street maps in my GPS do though. Nor did I claim the the street maps in my GPS show the topographical details that the topo maps contain. Together, they are quite comprehensive.
Originally posted by RonB:
Here is the topographical mapping disclaimer from GPSnow.com about GARMIN TOPO maps ( Garmin is one of the most popular GPS receiver manufacturers ).
Originally posted by GPSNOW.com:
"This product is based on United States Geological Survey topographic maps. USGS topographic maps are primarily intended to show topography which rarely changes. The government does not update them very often to show man made changes such as buildings, streets, roads and trails - many USGS map sheets are over 20 years old." |
|
|
|
|
|
01/12/2007 03:15:18 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm afraid you brought up streets, buildings and other manmade features with your quote from GPSnow about Garmin's topo maps. You did read it before you posted it, didn't you? I never claimed that the topo maps for my GPS showed streets. The street maps in my GPS do though. Nor did I claim the the street maps in my GPS show the topographical details that the topo maps contain. Together, they are quite comprehensive. |
A stretch at best. The GPSNow quote said that the topo maps were not updated very often regarding man made changes *like* buildings, streets, etc. In addition to streets etc., *man made changes* include those that would result in changes to topographical features - for example, highway construction and bridges ( that may eventually show up on street maps, if you update them often enough ), and dams, stream diversions etc. ( that may not show up on street maps ). Nor do landslides, washouts, etc. show up on topo maps in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 03:16:57 PM · #189 |
okay, ya'll have lost me with teh map stuff. :/
any other thoughts on global warming?? :| |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 04:30:26 PM · #190 |
Yeah, Karmat --
global warming is happening, and we are contributing to it. To what extent, we cannot say for sure because there is not enough information over a long enough period of time.
We could stop all greenhouse gas right now, and the earth would heat up; then the earth will have another cold spell (ice age). |
|
|
|
01/12/2007 05:39:38 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm afraid you brought up streets, buildings and other manmade features with your quote from GPSnow about Garmin's topo maps. You did read it before you posted it, didn't you? I never claimed that the topo maps for my GPS showed streets. The street maps in my GPS do though. Nor did I claim the the street maps in my GPS show the topographical details that the topo maps contain. Together, they are quite comprehensive. |
A stretch at best. The GPSNow quote said that the topo maps were not updated very often regarding man made changes *like* buildings, streets, etc. In addition to streets etc., *man made changes* include those that would result in changes to topographical features - for example, highway construction and bridges ( that may eventually show up on street maps, if you update them often enough ), and dams, stream diversions etc. ( that may not show up on street maps ). Nor do landslides, washouts, etc. show up on topo maps in a timely manner. |
The problem is that nothing shows up with your method until it's too late to make reasonable course corrections.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 08:58:43 AM · #192 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm afraid you brought up streets, buildings and other manmade features with your quote from GPSnow about Garmin's topo maps. You did read it before you posted it, didn't you? I never claimed that the topo maps for my GPS showed streets. The street maps in my GPS do though. Nor did I claim the the street maps in my GPS show the topographical details that the topo maps contain. Together, they are quite comprehensive. |
A stretch at best. The GPSNow quote said that the topo maps were not updated very often regarding man made changes *like* buildings, streets, etc. In addition to streets etc., *man made changes* include those that would result in changes to topographical features - for example, highway construction and bridges ( that may eventually show up on street maps, if you update them often enough ), and dams, stream diversions etc. ( that may not show up on street maps ). Nor do landslides, washouts, etc. show up on topo maps in a timely manner. |
The problem is that nothing shows up with your method until it's too late to make reasonable course corrections. |
I never said it wasn't a problem. I agree that a map, even one that is out of date, is better for navigation. But that is not what we were debating. We were debating what was more "FACTUAL", map, compass, GPS, or the terrain itself. I don't think that you can get any more factual than the terrain, itself. It is what it is and no map, compass, or GPS can refute it. |
|
|
|
01/13/2007 09:13:34 AM · #193 |
Originally posted by RonB:
We were debating what was more "FACTUAL", map, compass, GPS, or the terrain itself. |
Somehow, that relates to Al Gore and global warming.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2007 09:34:58 AM · #194 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by RonB:
We were debating what was more "FACTUAL", map, compass, GPS, or the terrain itself. |
Somehow, that relates to Al Gore and global warming. |
In a way, it does.
The discussion of came about because when I said if the map and road disagree, trust the road, you argued that you trusted your map, compass, and GPS. I was merely pointing out that the road is absolutely factual, while the others can all fall short of being absolutely factual for various reasons.
Likewise, in the discussion of whether global warming ( which I agree IS happening, since the claim is supported by FACTS ), the arguments that it is caused by, or even significantly impacted by human activity is not supported by FACTS showing cause/effect.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2007 10:50:08 AM · #195 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The discussion of came about because when I said if the map and road disagree, trust the road, you argued that you trusted your map, compass, and GPS. I was merely pointing out that the road is absolutely factual, while the others can all fall short of being absolutely factual for various reasons. |
The analogy was dissected in more detail than it really was meant to bear. A better criticism of RonB's position might be that the person following the road might ignore the markings on the map saying "road out" and "cliff edge" to his detriment if he were to follow the road right over the edge of a precipice (a sort of analogy to the argument that it will be too late if we just wait and see).
Originally posted by RonB:
Likewise, in the discussion of whether global warming ( which I agree IS happening, since the claim is supported by FACTS ), the arguments that it is caused by, or even significantly impacted by human activity is not supported by FACTS showing cause/effect. |
Unless, perhaps, you follow the line of reasoning I adopted on reading the article you referred me to, which does seem to indicate just that (to me). Perhaps I misread it?
The importance of working out whether human activity is promoting climate change is that if we are not then (it would be argued) there is no reason to change our ways from a climate change perspective.
Message edited by author 2007-01-14 10:50:23.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2007 11:51:40 AM · #196 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
The discussion of came about because when I said if the map and road disagree, trust the road, you argued that you trusted your map, compass, and GPS. I was merely pointing out that the road is absolutely factual, while the others can all fall short of being absolutely factual for various reasons. |
The analogy was dissected in more detail than it really was meant to bear. A better criticism of RonB's position might be that the person following the road might ignore the markings on the map saying "road out" and "cliff edge" to his detriment if he were to follow the road right over the edge of a precipice (a sort of analogy to the argument that it will be too late if we just wait and see). |
Matthew, I never advocated ignoring the map. What I said is, to use your analogy, if the map does NOT show "road out", but your eyes can plainly see that the road is out, then it would behoove you to trust the road. My point is that it IS what it IS, regardless of what anyone else or anything else claims that it is. And so far, no one has shown me the facts ( a real-time picture of the "road" to use your analogy ) that support their claim that human activity is a *significant* factor in the current cycle of global warming ( their claim that their map is right, to use your analogy ).
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by RonB:
Likewise, in the discussion of whether global warming ( which I agree IS happening, since the claim is supported by FACTS ), the arguments that it is caused by, or even significantly impacted by human activity is not supported by FACTS showing cause/effect. |
Unless, perhaps, you follow the line of r.easoning I adopted on reading the article you referred me to, which does seem to indicate just that (to me). Perhaps I misread it?
The importance of working out whether human activity is promoting climate change is that if we are not then (it would be argued) there is no reason to change our ways from a climate change perspective. |
Again, I never said, nor implied, that human activity is NOT promoting climate change - only that it is not a *significant* factor. I am, and have consistently been, all in favor of "changing our ways" to reduce our impact on the environment. Contrary to what I perceive is popular belief ( at least among those who debate me in this thread ) I am a staunch advocate of conservation. My approach to conservation is best summed up by the old maxim, "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". |
|
|
|
01/16/2007 10:36:41 AM · #197 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I never advocated ignoring the map. What I said is, to use your analogy, if the map does NOT show "road out", but your eyes can plainly see that the road is out, then it would behoove you to trust the road. My point is that it IS what it IS... |
I understand the analogy and agree with your sentiments. However, I was using your analogy to point out the problem of relying on what you can see, when we have identified a risk (on the "map") that we will not be able to "see" until we have gone too far.
Originally posted by RonB:
Again, I never said, nor implied, that human activity is NOT promoting climate change - only that it is not a *significant* factor. I am, and have consistently been, all in favor of "changing our ways" to reduce our impact on the environment. Contrary to what I perceive is popular belief ( at least among those who debate me in this thread ) I am a staunch advocate of conservation. My approach to conservation is best summed up by the old maxim, "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". |
I do not question your conservative attitude (joke!).
Seriously, I agree with your approach to conservation. My issue is that you view human impact on the climate as "not significant". If it is insignificant, there are a couple of logical inferences that may be drawn:
1) because our impact is insignificant, it is *unnecessary* to change our ways; and
2) if all our output is insignificant, and climate change *is* happening, then we *cannot* affect its occurrence because it would take something of an order of magnitude greater than our existing output to affect the climate in a positive manner.
The natural conclusions from your premise are that it is unnecessary and impossible to prevent climate change.
This is mistaken, IMO, because it is obvious that we can and do affect the atmosphere significantly, the ozone layer being the obvious example. By controlling emissions, we have contained the problem and started to reverse it.
Climate change is a challenge and we should not shy from responsibility as it will be far more difficult and expensive to counter in the future than now.
|
|
|
|
01/16/2007 07:35:07 PM · #198 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Seriously, I agree with your approach to conservation. My issue is that you view human impact on the climate as "not significant". If it is insignificant, there are a couple of logical inferences that may be drawn:
1) because our impact is insignificant, it is *unnecessary* to change our ways; and... |
I do not agree that that is a logical inference at all. For example: let's say that I have observed that my total cholesterol level has risen by 2 points in each of the last 5 years. The Doctor says it *could* be due to diet, or a lack of exercise, or simply the result of genetics coupled with my getting older. Even though the gain is not *significant* when viewed in the grand scheme of things, and even though the doctor doesn't KNOW what the underlying causes are, I would consider that it's *necessary* to "change my ways" - e.g. better diet, more exercise.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
2) if all our output is insignificant, and climate change *is* happening, then we *cannot* affect its occurrence because it would take something of an order of magnitude greater than our existing output to affect the climate in a positive manner. |
Using my cholesterol analogy, just because neither diet, nor exercise, nor genetics can be directly implicated as a cause of my rising cholesterol, that fact is NOT enough to dissuade me from doing my best to mitigate those factors over which I DO have some measure of control - namely diet and exercise. And not just for the sake of attempting to affect my cholesterol, either. A better diet and more exercise is probably beneficial for my general health and well being. And even though we may not be able to affect the climate in a significant positive manner doesn't mean the we cannot affect it in a ( not so significant ) positive manner at all. Every little bit can help.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
The natural conclusions from your premise are that it is unnecessary and impossible to prevent climate change. |
For some, apparently yourself included, that it is unnecessary is perhaps the *natural* conclusion. But it is, obviously, not one that I would draw. I do not see what my premise has to do with the possibility or impossibility of preventing climate change - but, now that you mention it, I WOULD agree that it IS impossible to prevent climate change.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
This is mistaken, IMO, because it is obvious that we can and do affect the atmosphere significantly, the ozone layer being the obvious example. By controlling emissions, we have contained the problem and started to reverse it. |
Perhaps you could enlighten us on the scientific correlation between the ozone layer and global warming. Just so we know that this is not a completely tangential argument. And just because we can and do affect the atmosphere, even significantly ( as in the case of the ozone layer ), does not mean that our actions significantly impact global warming.
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Climate change is a challenge and we should not shy from responsibility as it will be far more difficult and expensive to counter in the future than now. |
If it can be countered by mankind's efforts at all, either now or in the future. I would think it difficult, indeed, to counter the effects of solar activity ( unless we can somehow build a REALLY big umbrella ).
I do agree that we should not shy away from taking more responsibility for our actions as they relate to the environment ( Note, I did not say more responsibility for global warming, just more responsibility for our own actions ). |
|
|
|
01/17/2007 02:01:23 AM · #199 |
Here is the best take on it I have ever seen.
//www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html
--small excerpt---
""George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine"
We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these fucking people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the fucking planet?"
And here it is on YouTube
The Planet is Fine Part 1
Planet is Fine Part 2
Message edited by author 2007-01-17 02:10:13.
|
|
|
|
01/17/2007 06:08:10 AM · #200 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
[If human impact on climate it is logical to infer:] 1) because our impact is insignificant, it is *unnecessary* to change our ways; and... |
I do not agree that that is a logical inference at all. For example: let's say that I have observed that my total cholesterol level has risen by 2 points in each of the last 5 years. The Doctor says it *could* be due to diet, or a lack of exercise, or simply the result of genetics coupled with my getting older. Even though the gain is not *significant* [...] I would consider that it's *necessary* to "change my ways" - e.g. better diet, more exercise. |
You have inserted uncertainty into your proposition (whereas you previously made an assertion).
If the doctor said "your diet has no significant impact on your cholesterol" (ignoring the fact that in the case of cholesterol it is usually an important factor), would you then change the diet you enjoyed to one that you did not? I would be very surprised if many people did - they would respond to the "significant" factors first. They might change their diet for other reasons (say, feeling healthier, more energy), but not because of cholesterol. If they don't have other reasons, then they will not change their diet.
I stand by my statement: if you consider human impact on climate change to be insignificant, you will not consider it necessary, and possibly not even important, for us to change our ways.
If you are unsure (perhaps an environmental agnostic), then hedging may be an appropriate course of action.
Are you saying now that it is merely *unclear* whether human impact on the climate is significant or not?
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
2) if all our output is insignificant, and climate change *is* happening, then we *cannot* affect its occurrence because it would take something of an order of magnitude greater than our existing output to affect the climate in a positive manner. |
Using my cholesterol analogy, just because neither diet, nor exercise, nor genetics can be directly implicated as a cause of my rising cholesterol, that fact is NOT enough to dissuade me from doing my best to mitigate those factors over which I DO have some measure of control - [...] A better diet and more exercise is probably beneficial for my general health and well being. And even though we may not be able to affect the climate in a significant positive manner doesn't mean the we cannot affect it in a ( not so significant ) positive manner at all. Every little bit can help. |
I would still stand by my original statement - to use your analogy, I consider it unlikely that you would take significant steps to change a diet you liked to one that was difficult to swallow if the doctor said that diet is an insignificant factor (again, ignoring the known position re: cholesterol). It is unrealistic to expect people to make significant changes in their life in order to make a perceived insignificant difference. If they do so, as you say, it will be for other reasons (which not all people will share).
Originally posted by RonB:
For some, apparently yourself included, that it is unnecessary is perhaps the *natural* conclusion. But it is, obviously, not one that I would draw. I do not see what my premise has to do with the possibility or impossibility of preventing climate change - but, now that you mention it, I WOULD agree that it IS impossible to prevent climate change. |
This reflects my argument (although my argument is less generic - I only wish to reverse trends initiated by man, although I also give that greater weight than you) on the danger of assuming human impact to be insignificant - we assume that the changes are too big to be controlled, and our impact too small to be worth changing, and if we did change our impact, it would have an insignificant effect on the larger whole.
I think that this severely underestimates:
1) the extent to which we *can* have an impact on global weather and atmospheric systems (of which the ozone layer was merely an example)
2) the extent to which the current warming has been influenced by human activity; and
3) accordingly, the extent to which changing our activities can change the global climate trends because:
a) our activities represent a very significant factor in climate change; and
b) changing our activities can have a very significant influence.
Originally posted by RonB:
If it can be countered by mankind's efforts at all, either now or in the future. I would think it difficult, indeed, to counter the effects of solar activity ( unless we can somehow build a REALLY big umbrella ).
I do agree that we should not shy away from taking more responsibility for our actions as they relate to the environment ( Note, I did not say more responsibility for global warming, just more responsibility for our own actions ). |
But we have identified systems operating within our atmosphere that do provide an answer. You say "umbrella" - but in fact what we need is to reduce heat retention (we only need an umbrella for the infra red elements of the sun's rays). I don't pretend to understand all the details, but I am willing to accept the answers revolving around CO2 reduction identified by mainstream science.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:45:46 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 12:45:46 AM EDT.
|
