|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:26 PM |
|
|
I see your point, but does it necessarily contradict with the article?
It is oversimplified indeed, but do we need a more detailed approach? While it's not a closed cycle, the ocean is somehow the most important part of the cycle, and we can not alter it in any way. The warming doesn't necessarily have to be a positive feedback and it does not have to be exponential; Why do you assume so?
Nobody denies that the amount of CO2 increased over the years, but, how much of it was our own doing? You say yourself that we pretty much fail at predicting the weather for tomorrow. How come that we can predict how much impact we actually had on the whole complex process?
I agree with those who say that we have minimal impact - or rather, we have some impact, but we cannot change it in a way that would make any difference. Well, not right now. We need energy, cars, factories. We can make them eco-friendly, but to what extent? I think it would take lots of effort, and the outcome would be marginal anyway.
I think we actually CAN change other things, like the water pollution, which is way easier to control than global warming, but it does not get even half of the interest.
What am I trying to say is that we concentrate on wrong things; It's like people attempting to stop a volcano from immolating some forest while there are people dumping radioactive trash in it in the same time. There are things on the world which are DEFINITELY our fault, and those should be - imho - the priority, not those which are ambiguous. Can you say that global warming is 100% our fault?
I don't think so.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
|
But pollution is not bad only because of Global Warming. Thousands of fishes die because of us polluting the waters. And there are even worse things that happen because of pollution.
So even if it doesn't change the Global Warming as you say, pollution is still something to be stopped.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:33 PM |
|
|
I agree with that, but the thread is about Global Warming - not about the pollution in general 
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:34 PM |
|
|
Hehe, you have point there, sorry
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Minion: What "research" are you talking about? FACTS please.
You can start here Alse read an article here on Science Magazine for some general information on the matter.
Honestly, there is too much crap written, your "rocktscientist" is one of them. Do you even question why his stuff isn't published at any respected science magazines? Instead he keeps a blog. Go figure.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:43 PM |
|
|
One thing to add: regardless of how hard people will fight for their precious little climate, the earth is bound to follow the Milankovitch's cycles, which alter Earth's orbit and cause climate to change; It is closely related to your precious CO2 anyway (orbital forcing). We will have another ice age sooner or later anyway. The interglacial era of Holocene lasts for 11.000 years already. I am not saying it's something that will happen today or tomorrow, but in a next couple thousands years.. it will happen anyway.
Now, check what Corribus wrote (I agree with him on that matter): do you trust the "scientists" that can't even say what the weather will be tomorrow on the matter of global warming?
It will have an effect, that is true, but if it's something that will happen within thousands of years, slowly.. well, just as I said, another Ice Age is 100% sure to happen anyway, so..
And one more thing. Ice ages are affected by positive feedback. The next one will be much more severe then the last one
I am not saying we should ignore the problems because of that, but I think that most of the eco-warriors don't even realize that the world WILL change and that it's natural, no matter how "eco" we are.
Minion: I don't agree. What my "little blog" says may be oversimplified, but it's not entirely wrong, and because of that, it can be considered as an option. Besides, I don't agree with it totally. I agree mainly with the point.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 08:55 PM |
|
Edited by Minion at 21:17, 16 Jul 2008.
|
You replied that fast, I am not sure you read my links.
Climate change and weather forecasting are very different things. If you do not understand that much... I do not wish to be rude, but you know very little on the matter. Even though you say that you have read opinions on both sides. Frankly I think you have only read your "rocketscientist"
And I believe what Corribus was saying that it needs tremendous effort to model something as complex as climate, there are so many variables. He was more criticising this guys conclusion that was based only on a few pieces of the puzzle.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 09:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I do not wish to be rude, but you know very little on the matter.
Never imply that your interlocutor is an ignorant just because his opinions differ from yours. By doing so, you are not being rude, you are being ridiculous 
I don't want to brag, but I'm familiar with the subject, so don't tell me that I know very little on that matter because it's rather ridiculous My thoughts may be controversial for someone who accepts everything around as a given, but whatever.
Look, you really don't have to tell me what Corribus meant. I know it. I also understand the difference between weather forecasting and everything else. But! do you?
We can say that our planet will follow the Milankovitsch's Cycles. That is, hmm, a formula, something that is sure to occur. But the complex process of our planet responding to our activity is in fact related closer to weather forecasting: We cannot be SURE what will happen - or more precisely - WHEN.
Do you understand my point now?
I am also not as good as Corribus when it comes to such things, but I took my time reading.
Oh, and I replied fast because I didn't have to read what you linked. I already know that Just wanted to check if YOU know anything about the problem we discuss. Yay, me and my big head
Cheers.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 09:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And I believe what Corribus was saying that it needs tremendous effort to model something as complex as climate, there are so many variables. He was more criticising this guys conclusion that was based only on a few pieces of the puzzle.
Yes that is exactly what I was saying.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 09:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My thoughts may be controversial for someone who accepts everything around as a given, but whatever.
Lol. Sorry if I upset you. I accept everything as a given? Well, a very good example of making hasty conclusions on little information  I may have fallen for the same trap, however I am not yet convinced What else am I supposed to think when you have made some quite striking errors, and just on previous post this..
Quote:
do you trust the "scientists" that can't even say what the weather will be tomorrow on the matter of global warming?
Can't really read minds, but what am I supposed to think after comments like these?
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 09:32 PM |
|
|
I explained it in my edit.
Seems like we've both fallen for the same trap, yes. Nope, I'm not upset, it takes a lot of effort to make me upset, actually
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 10:29 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Take aliens for example.
Why? Sentinent nature, aliens... all of it we have no reason to assume exists.
Quote:
Heck, if we are crazy enough (I doubt) we can as well move the Earth into the Sun (if we can), thus we disturb it and the balance of all things, whether it is sentient or not.
Yes, but we shouldn't do it, because that would be suicidally idiotic.
Quote:
Self-interest causes hate in the first place (hate here is a vaguely used term that applies to most things someone does to others).
How? What does hate have to do with self-interest?
Quote:
As for "society", as a materialist you are, why the hell do you care for it?
Emotional benefits, of course.
Quote:
Do you worship your neighbor because you don't disturb his rest?
No, but that's because my neighbor is human, just like me. Nature, I need hardly point out, is not human.
Quote:
As for "non-existence", I think God (in your opinion) is non-existence, not nature; or are you saying that nature does not exist?
No, what I meant was that you worship non-existence of the self.
Quote:
Please don't bring the "rights" arguments as it is not valid if you restrict to your view.
Rights come from society, though. Society is made up of individuals. Rights protect individuals. Nature is not an individual. Therefore, rights don't protect nature. See how that works?
Quote:
Actually in some countries (in EU), there are some "rights" people have assigned to nature and animals, so it seems mvass' argument is even weaker and more subjective
But remember that (IMO) rights don't come from the law, they come from society. So those laws are actually a restriction of rights (not all of them, of course, but some of them).
Asheera:
Quote:
How about YOU leave the nature alone, hmm? You "steal" from the nature
How can I "steal" from something that doesn't own anything and has no will?
Quote:
It's like you enter my property and you say I should leave you alone?!?
The whole Earth is not your property. If you owned the whole of Earth, you could say that, but your property rights only apply to your property.
Quote:
You know, black people also didn't have rights in the past... I'm sure you wouldn't have liked to be one of them, hmm? Don't tell me the difference between black and white people is far smaller than the difference between people and nature, this doesn't support the fact that nature shouldn't have "rights".
Actually, it does, because rights protect individuals, while nature is surely not an individual.
Quote:
Yes, it would be actually very good if we stop the people polluting the planet. However, what I was trying to say is that it's completely useless (IMO) to stop yourself (and those that appreciate nature) polluting the planet since the "bad guys" will still do it. I understand that converting the "bad guys" into "good guys" (by stopping them) is a very important thing, but if only the "good guys" will try to stop Global Warming, it will be in vain because of the "bad guys".
I don't support polluting the planet. I support stopping global warming. It's just that my reasons for it are different than from those of the typical environmentalist. It's like the story of the golden goose - you don't cut the goose open.
Xerox:
Quote:
We need to care about nature. Without nature we cant survive and neither can other animals
That's exactly why we should protect nature. I don't see why we should go beyond that, though.
Doomforge:
Quote:
do you trust the "scientists" that can't even say what the weather will be tomorrow on the matter of global warming?
Long-term trends are easier to predict than short-term changes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 10:35 PM |
|
|
@Mvass: why you ignored some things when commenting... probably because you didn't have any arguments against?
I mean, look here a quote from Xerox:Quote:
Thats completly true - in Sweden nature has "rights".
You see? Rights are subjective, and are NOT only for humans everywhere (even if that's the case in America). Rights are subjective
Quote:
The whole Earth is not your property. If you owned the whole of Earth, you could say that, but your property rights only apply to your property.
But the Earth is not yours either, so how about you leave it alone?
Quote:
Actually, it does, because rights protect individuals, while nature is surely not an individual.
Again, rights are subjective. In some places rights protect nature (not only individuals), even if in USA they don't. Do you think USA has the perfect society model?
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 10:43 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:44, 16 Jul 2008.
|
WOW, just WOW, not another quote war thread  
I'll do your game this time around 
Quote:
Why? Sentinent nature, aliens... all of it we have no reason to assume exists.
Would you go on a mined field if you are not sure whether some mine will explode and hurt others (not you)?? You are being close-minded completely if you think that the humans are the only way of achieving something or entitle them to anything. We may not have any reason, but again if we DO NOT KNOW, then do not disturb. It is you who make the "action", not me. You are actually "worshiping" something here, and it's called either self-interest or society, because worshiping implies an action, something which YOU do, not me -- I just say: heck don't disturb it (thus NOT to do an action).
Quote:
Quote:
Heck, if we are crazy enough (I doubt) we can as well move the Earth into the Sun (if we can), thus we disturb it and the balance of all things, whether it is sentient or not.
Yes, but we shouldn't do it, because that would be suicidally idiotic.
Well in that example we were in some other planet, and didn't care about the Earth and so on.
Quote:
Quote:
Self-interest causes hate in the first place (hate here is a vaguely used term that applies to most things someone does to others).
How? What does hate have to do with self-interest?
Tell me something: can someone who thinks about others the same as of himself have any hatred towards anyone?? (especially if the "others" are the same as him). Self-interest causes hate BECAUSE you don't think of others like you, but they don't either (they have self-interest as well).
Quote:
Quote:
Do you worship your neighbor because you don't disturb his rest?
No, but that's because my neighbor is human, just like me. Nature, I need hardly point out, is not human.
Eh, you are actually part of nature, just like "her" Animals are living beings, just like you. They need a clean planet.
Quote:
Rights come from society, though. Society is made up of individuals. Rights protect individuals. Nature is not an individual. Therefore, rights don't protect nature. See how that works?
So what? I mean, what do rights have to do with justifying an action? Are we talking philosophically or religiously close-mindedness where you worship the "society"?
Quote:
But remember that (IMO) rights don't come from the law, they come from society. So those laws are actually a restriction of rights (not all of them, of course, but some of them).
Is murder a restriction too? Just stop considering humans different than nature. I agree, they are different, but not to the point of disturbing something else. That is, you may help humans, and be neutral towards nature -- that is perfectly fine.
Quote:
Quote:
We need to care about nature. Without nature we cant survive and neither can other animals
That's exactly why we should protect nature. I don't see why we should go beyond that, though.
There is something here. Is that only about humans? No, we should "protect" nature because we have harmed it already. You do an action, you expect the consequences. If you don't want to help it, then go back 300 years and stop the others from harming it.
Again, it's perfectly fine to be "neutral", but we haven't been that way. I'm not forcing you to help nature. I'm forcing you to not disturb it -- that is neutral.
You see? People like you are the offenders here, so don't tell me that we shouldn't "help" it, because we harmed it -- we need to repair what we have done. Environmentalists are not forcing anyone to help nature, but they sure are forcing them to not disturb it. It's like, you don't force a criminal (before he murders) to help others, but you do force him to not murder. See?
It is ultimately people like you that take the initiative with "worshiping" their self-interest, not us.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 11:12 PM |
|
|
Asheera:
Quote:
Rights are subjective, and are NOT only for humans everywhere (even if that's the case in America). Rights are subjective
Rights are subjective, but they have the possibility of being objective. But just because the law says so doesn't make it so.
Quote:
But the Earth is not yours either, so how about you leave it alone?
Sure, I'll leave other people's parts alone, but I can do whatever I want to my part.
Quote:
In some places rights protect nature (not only individuals), even if in USA they don't.
No, no, in some places the law protects nature. That's a different thing. Law =/= rights.
TheDeath:
Quote:
Would you go on a mined field if you are not sure whether some mine will explode and hurt others (not you)??
Would you go onto a random field and assume that it's mined?
Quote:
You are being close-minded completely if you think that the humans are the only way of achieving something
I'm not sure what you mean here. "Achieving something"? What do you mean by "achieving", and what do you mean by "something"?
Quote:
or entitle them to anything
I certainly don't think that anyone is entitled to anyting. People have the right to have what they earn, certainly, but to say that they're entitled to something, that I definitely don't agree with.
Quote:
You are actually "worshiping" something here, and it's called either self-interest or society
I'm not "worshipping" it; I'm just saying that both of those are good things. And you keep viewing society as a lump, which it's not. It's a large collection of individuals.
Quote:
Well in that example we were in some other planet, and didn't care about the Earth and so on.
Well, there'd be still people on Earth, or resources, or something, and it would still be important historically, so we would have no reason to do so.
Quote:
Self-interest causes hate BECAUSE you don't think of others like you, but they don't either (they have self-interest as well).
I don't understand where you got this idea. Self-interest requires that you do think of others the way you think of yourself. That's just basic self-interest. After all, you'd want them to do the same to you, wouldn't you?
Quote:
Animals are living beings, just like you.
But they are not individuals, not parts of society.
Quote:
what do rights have to do with justifying an action?
Rights, you see, apply to those who have them. So you can't be violating something's rights if it doesn't have rights, now can you?
Quote:
Is murder a restriction too?
No, because people have the right not to be killed.
Quote:
Just stop considering humans different than nature.
Why? If I do good to humans, humans will do good to me (as a general rule, of course, not specifically). If I don't murder, I won't be executed. Simple. No such thing exists with nature, however.
Quote:
we should "protect" nature because we have harmed it already
Let's say you take a rock and break in in half. YOU JUST HURT NATURE CRIMINAL MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER!!!!  Now, come on, really. We have harmed nature, and that's bad for us. It comes back and hurts us. So we should protect nature so we can continue to use it wisely. But it shouldn't be an aim in itself.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 11:22 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 23:23, 16 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Rights are subjective, but they have the possibility of being objective. But just because the law says so doesn't make it so.
The only point in making them objective is to not make exceptions or favor one group -- thus your rights will always be subjective, since you favor the group called human society, no matter how you put it
Quote:
Sure, I'll leave other people's parts alone, but I can do whatever I want to my part.
Ok, let's call the first man on the planet Adam, and the second Eve ().
Who gave them any property hmmm?
Quote:
Would you go onto a random field and assume that it's mined?
I would rather not disturb a "field" if I have doubts.. in fact I wouldn't disturb it anyway
Quote:
I certainly don't think that anyone is entitled to anyting. People have the right to have what they earn, certainly, but to say that they're entitled to something, that I definitely don't agree with.
OK, how have we EARNED the Earth? I'm talking the first humans here... did they buy it? From who?
Quote:
I'm not "worshipping" it; I'm just saying that both of those are good things. And you keep viewing society as a lump, which it's not. It's a large collection of individuals.
Society is not bad, it can't be.. it can't be good either, it just is... what's bad, is when people only care about it and ignore anything else. Again, I'm not saying you should care for nature, but not pollute it either! Simple really.
Quote:
I don't understand where you got this idea. Self-interest requires that you do think of others the way you think of yourself. That's just basic self-interest. After all, you'd want them to do the same to you, wouldn't you?
Ahem, it doesn't really work that way, which is why we need police and all that. Self-interest for me means ONLY self-interest, that is no altruism at all.
Quote:
But they are not individuals, not parts of society.
Because you say so, right? Is that divinely inspired? When did we "buy" these rights/property and from who?
Quote:
Rights, you see, apply to those who have them. So you can't be violating something's rights if it doesn't have rights, now can you?
How does that answer my question? I meant: what have rights got to do with justifying an action? (philosophically speaking obviously, not from some subjective law).
Quote:
Let's say you take a rock and break in in half. YOU JUST HURT NATURE CRIMINAL MURDERER MURDERER MURDERER!!!! Now, come on, really. We have harmed nature, and that's bad for us. It comes back and hurts us. So we should protect nature so we can continue to use it wisely. But it shouldn't be an aim in itself.
Now that example is just childish, I mean how can a broken rock affect the scheme of things anyway? I already told you, on the large scale. Breaking a rock doesn't change much, in fact probably nothing at all. Doesn't have any "reactions" either.
As for the fact that it shouldn't be an aim in itself, again it's perfectly fine to NOT help nature, as long as you don't disturb it either. See? Simple.. now whether you like it or not, we have to protect it since WE HAVE disturbed it. Basic logic.
And one more thing before you quote with "rights" again -- rights are not philosophical arguments for whether something is wrong or not. Period. They differ from law to law, there is no "universal" code of society, because if it were, it wouldn't be YOUR model, trust me. And if you argue, then it's ok, since it's subjective, there is no universal "society model" with rights and all that.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted July 16, 2008 11:44 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 23:44, 16 Jul 2008.
|
Quote:
Are you going to let that guy (that you apparently hate/ dislike)do what he wants?
By letting that nitwit do what he wants, destroying the environment in the process, he basicly destroys the things that make his very existance possible, as such destroying himself. I love Karma.
If anything, I am tempted to actually help in that just to ensure human race screws itself over, since I am quite convinced it doesn't deserve to have the right to life, if we take a look at the kinds of people and attitudes the human race produces (mvass).
Fact is, especially in western society, people simply lack a sense of morale and basic respect for life... It breeds arrogance and stupidity. But good luck trying to convince self-righteous idiots of their ignorance.
Human race is like a body filled with cancer that simply can't be saved anymore. I know that's very unfair to say towards those cells that are still good and trying to hold on, but how would you fix it ?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 12:50 AM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
your rights will always be subjective, since you favor the group called human society
Rights only apply to human society, since they're the ones who made them in the first place. "Nature's rights" makes as much sense as "lizards' computers".
Quote:
Who gave them any property hmmm?
If the property is owned by no one, the first one to get it owns it.
Quote:
I would rather not disturb a "field" if I have doubts
But why would you have doubts?
Quote:
OK, how have we EARNED the Earth?
Well, that's different, because it was unclaimed territory until humans came up with the idea of property. And if it's not owned, then the first one to claim it and possess it owns it (excepting things that are basicallly impossible to possess).
Quote:
Self-interest for me means ONLY self-interest, that is no altruism at all.
Well, then, you take a very narrow view of self-interest. In my view of it, altruism and self-interest are not conflicting ideas, and altruism can serve self-interest very well.
Quote:
I meant: what have rights got to do with justifying an action?
Well, if that didn't answer your question, maybe I just don't understand it correctly. What do you mean by "justifying an action"?
Quote:
how can a broken rock affect the scheme of things anyway?
You've disturbed nature, no?
Quote:
it's perfectly fine to NOT help nature, as long as you don't disturb it either
You can't talk about "disturbing" nature, since it doesn't have any rights.
Quote:
rights are not philosophical arguments for whether something is wrong or not
"I know it is so. I have said that it is so. Therefore it is so." Right? You say that they aren't, I say that they are. If you are violating someone's rights, then the action is wrong. If not, then it's not. And rights do not come from laws; laws come from rights, but are often twisted in the process.
Moonlith:
Quote:
By letting that nitwit do what he wants, destroying the environment in the process, he basicly destroys the things that make his very existance possible, as such destroying himself.
It appears that you have selectively ignored every part where I said that we should protect the environment.
Quote:
It breeds arrogance and stupidity. But good luck trying to convince self-righteous idiots of their ignorance.
I love all these little counterculture environmentalist misanthropes. "Humans are evil! Humans are evil!" Guess what? You're human.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 05:55 AM |
|
Edited by xerox at 05:58, 17 Jul 2008.
|
Also about the animals and natures rights.
They are made by the government not society -.-
You know that in some countries the governments care about the ftae of our world?
Its a fact that humans are the most evil race in this solar system 
We are the reasons for several speices getting exterminated EVERY DAY. I dont call that very good.
Humans are like viruses. When we have destroyed this planet then we will move on to another and devaste it, and then another, and another and another untill we find some aliens that kills us lol
By the way: The thread sucks. To long posts >.>
Also I would like to bash all of you because now the younger generation (which includes me ) has to restore everything you destroyed >.<
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TitaniumAlloy
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
|
|
posted July 17, 2008 09:36 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Take aliens for example. They might have some effect on our planet (maybe even admiring it or CREATING it), and they wouldn't want us to disturb it, even though they are peaceful and thus do not apply force to stop us (and even in such a case, it would cause more destruction!)
What has this got to do with the sentience of nature?
____________
John says to live above hell.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
