|
| Thread: Serious Debates! Wolfman, Private Hudson and Dargon's Debate Forum |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
posted January 18, 2003 05:41 AM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 17 Jan 2003
|
silly question alert!
Enviromentalism isn't my thing, so I'm pitifully ignorant about the whole global warming debate. Can someone enlighten me as to the politics behind it? Ignoring the science for a momement (there either is global warming or there is not, never mind what people want  ), why are people bickering so fiercely over the issue? Who benefits/loses if the evidence suggests it exists? Who benefits/loses if the evidence suggests otherwise? I'm curious as to the motivations behind this particular fight.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
posted January 18, 2003 10:58 AM |
|
|
|
Khaelo that is one of the best questions I have heard in a while. Very instructive question and cuts to the heart. Too tired now to input but wanted to say I appreciated your question
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2003 07:49 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 19 Jan 2003
|
NEWS ALERT
...RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURES FOR MIAMI AND NAPLES...
A record low maximum temperature was set at the miami international
Airport this afternoon. The high temperature only reached 55
Degrees...which broke the previous record low maximum for this site
Of 57 degrees...which was set in 1977.
A record low maximum temperature was set at the naples
Municipal airport this afternoon. The temperature only climbed to 54
Degrees...which broke the previous record low maximum for this site
Of 56 degrees...which was set in 1977.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 19, 2003 07:56 AM |
|
|
Global warming
Khalo I liked your question so much because in its innocence it cut to the heart of the matter. Global warming theory has much less to do with science then it has to do with politics. The catastrophic prophets of global warming have an invested interest.
If catastrophic global warming (CGW) theory gains adherents/power…who wins…that is an excellent question!
In its most basic form on one side you have the CGW crowd who consist of those who want to redistribute wealth and power…those who are for “big government”. This crowd typically entails communists, socialists, democrats (in America), and environmentalist. The group that does not concur that global warming will have any significant negative impact on the world typically consist of those who believe in freedom and “limited government”. This group comprises of capitalists, republicans/libertarians (in America), business advocates, and anti tax groups.
IF CGW theory gains adherents/power, the UN profits as they can therefore claim more power in telling countries how they can run their economy.
If CGW theory gains adherents/power, the hard core environmentalists win as they despise any human technology and want the earth to remain as it was thousands of years ago.
If CGW theory gains adherents/power, then socialists/communists/democrats win as it means more government intervention and less freedom for people and business. More taxes, less money for the workers, and increased government reallocation of funds.
If CGW theory gains adherents/power then people who want to redistribute wealth win as they can penalize (tax) advanced technological societies and reward less advanced countries. All the regulations prescribed by CGW lobbyist would effectively cripple much of the economy in advanced nations.
If CGW theory gains adherents/power then many climatology related scientists benefit as there will be billions of more dollars for them to use for research whereas other scientist competing for funds to study other problems (such as AIDS, cancer, etc. )will lose out as they are not studying climatology.
Why do people so strongly oppose CGW? Well it is basically people who are proponents of freedom…people who dislike massive control from governments….people who believe in the free market and capitalism….people who believe the earth is resilient…people who understand that every control by the government means less freedom and prosperity for the individual.
I tend to believe that government intervention should only occur after it has been absolutely determined beyond a reasonable doubt that people would suffer harm without the government intervention. So in regards to CGW theory this basic standard has been severely lacking beyond any reason.
The fact remains that CGW lobbyists are unable to predict the future climate with any degree of certainty. In fact, in less then a few years they continually change their predictions (i.e. how much warming, how much rise in sea level, etc.). So if they can’t get their predictions right in less then 5 years how on earth can they predict what will occur in 100 years?
In the end CGW is a political movement that tries to disguise itself as real science so as to gain credibility and power. It has many similarities to the Catholic church’s grasp for power against Galileo.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 19, 2003 09:57 PM |
|
|
Yeah, and guess what, there's no such thing as disease, it was made up by doctors so that they could charge people to cure the diseases (which don't exist).
There's also no such thing as crime, it was made up by police so that they could justify their insanely high salaries.
There's also no such thing as psychological problems, they were made up by psychotherapists to milk people for money.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 20, 2003 12:27 AM |
|
|
Thank you bort
Truly, this argument kinda defies logic in some respects. Sure there's no way I wanna see the earth put back into the dark ages like some scare groups hint at, but personally I see nothing wrong with the notion that we should at least take SOME preventative measures such as more recycling, look into alternative fuels etc before the inevitable. Why we have to burn out our resources and go on lavishly using items such as paper metals and plastics without recycling is beyond me.
As for global warming, it's netheir fully proven or unproven, but it's clear that some of the things we currently do to ruin our environment are going to get us into pretty deep water if we continue with this "there's no proof it affects us NOW so why do we care" attitude.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 06:42 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 21 Jan 2003
|
Quote
“Yeah, and guess what, there's no such thing as disease, it was made up by doctors so that they could charge people to cure the diseases (which don't exist).”
Bort your point is a red herring. Of course people profit off of things that need to be repaired, treated, protected. That was not the point. The point (one of them…there were actually many points) is that science is not noble pursuit for truth where they all devote themselves to poverty in attempt to do good for mankind. Since there is a high competition for government funding to which you know doubt are very well aware of….it is always something that must be considered when examining someone’s motives and findings. Our courts, our politics, our religions are constantly under scrutiny to follow the money trail…but somehow you think scientist are exempt from that questioning?
If some doctor is paid by the cigarette companies do you hold his finding questionable? Of course you do…so why is it so different for you when the Al Gore (i.e. funder of monies) stands up in 1992 and says that the number one priority of NASA is global warming…you think scientist are immune to that?
Does it mean profiting off of research is wrong…of course not. Does it mean all those that profit are thereby corrupt…of course not. Does it mean that many people have a strong self interest in perpetuating their theories and income…well to think otherwise would be naive.
Scientist of today are often granted the perception of some sort of middle age saint..someone whose pursuit is solely good and knowledge. That just isn’t true. They are not unmoved observers (i.e. purely objective seekers of truth)…they are human like we all are. Are you denying the fact that a science (climatology/global warming) which received milions of dollars in the recent few years now recieves billions? Would this affect my objectivity…likely. We saw it ten years ago when psychiatrists were milking people forever in treatment…they had good intentions…but the money was there so they went after it…no one is immune to the profit motive. To not discuss these things would be foolish. So in the end most scientists are not corrupt, but they don’t necessarily have saintly and purely objective motivations either.
Quote
“I see nothing wrong with the notion that we should at least take SOME preventative measures such as more recycling, look into alternative fuels etc”
I concur…that is a reasonable position. The difficulty I have is most of the doomsayers of global warming go far beyond that and want to control, control, control.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted January 21, 2003 01:53 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 21 Jan 2003
|
Well if my point is a red herring, your point is just insulting.
I am a proponent of global warming and do you know what I get out of it?
Zip, nada, diddly over squat.
Do I gain more power? No. Do I get wealth redistributed to me? No. Do I get more research money? No - by your argument I get less since I am not a climatologist. Do I get jollies from "penalizing more advanced nations." No.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, environmentalists are acting out of concern that we are severely damaging the environment? That we are acting out of concern that we are causing damage that will have profound effects on both health and economics? That maybe, just maybe, a bunch of liberals and communists and baby eaters didn't get together and say "I know, let's make up a crisis so that we can have a world government and take freedom and money away from good, God fearing americans. Oh, pass the sauteed baby."
For somebody who, like me, was somewhat resentful at the assumption that the US is invading Iraq for the sole purpose of stealing oil, you seem remarkably willing to ascribe motives to people that you disagree with.
Edit : Regarding "scientists immune to questioning" that is not true in any way shape or form. Go read a couple journal articles -- note how there always has to be disclosure about where the funding came from. This is down to the point where, if an articles publication cost was offset by advertisements sold by the journal, the article itself is marked "advertisement." There is intense scrutiny regarding where funding money is spent. Computers purchased with grant money are not allowed to be used to, for instance, surf the internet unless it. Technically, a computer purchased with one grant isn't allowed to be used in a project funded by another grant (normally, people look the other way on this one, but, for instance, in the case of stem cell research, entirely private facilities have been built to prevent not just the mixing of grant monies, but also to prevent even the possibility of the mixing of grant monies.) The burden of proof on falsifying data accusations is on the accused, not on the accuser. No, scientists are not all wonderful people, but the suggestion that people who do research on global warming are either money grubbing snows or part of some sort of evil overlord's plot unless they conclude that global warming is not occuring is quite offensive to me.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 22, 2003 07:21 AM |
|
|
Quote
“Well if my point is a red herring, your point is just insulting.”
Bort please look at the context I was writing…I was responding to the excellent question of Khaelo about what are the political issues underlying Global warming. Perhaps I overstated my case, but the points needed to be shown. It was not meant to be a category for which all those who believe in global warming fit into…it was specifically looking at those who profit from or have a vested interest in catastrophic global warming theory.
So yes I fully agree there are people who believe in global warming who actually believe it with a sincere heart and are not motivated by conflicting interest. That was not what I was addressing. Moreover I believe that you can have a vested interest and still strive for objectivity and a sincere heart.
There are political motives and profit motives by both sides which affect the dialogue…no where did I declare that that ALL people or scientists are money grubbing and have some sort of ulterior motive. The knife of profit and conflicted interest indeed cuts both ways to those both pro and anti catastrophic global warming theory. But since GW is the current paradigm I do think that people need a much more objective look into the situation as paradigms are often self perpetuating.
Quote
“Regarding "scientists immune to questioning" that is not true in any way shape or form.”
That is great and interesting information you provided about the scientific review process.
But I was also wondering have you even noticed how the second I questioned global warming months ago people leaped out of their skins saying that all the scientists were saying global warming is going to be horrible and they seemed perturbed that I would even question the “science” of global warming…so yeah I do think there is a feeling in society today that you aren’t suppose to question scientists in general…now that may be different within the scientific community but in society at large it isn’t.
Also It really rubs me wrong the way that some “scientists” treat other scientists that disagree with them. For example in 1990…the fact that GCM’s have not replicated empirical evidence was not allowed to be published. At that time climatologist Michaels submitted a paper to Science detailing the concerns about GCMs, which the editors refused to print saying that modeling community was well aware of this problem so there was no need to publish the information.
Or what about what happened when Michaels wanted a look at the year by year data from an organization to write an article but they refused to release the information to him...interestingly he ends up getting it from his colleague who they had no problem releasing the data to.
Another example…at the ongoing USG-CRP seminars in the House of Representatives office buildings, only one mainstream skeptic, John Christy, has ever been permitted to present a seminar..and even then it was only allowed if his prominent adversary Kevin Tremberth would speak immediately afterwards. This type of stuff does not sound like an objective search for scientific fact!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted January 25, 2003 05:30 AM |
|
|
global cooling? ;-)
RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES WERE SET AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS THIS
MORNING:
CITY NEW RECORD PREVIOUS RECORD
MIAMI 37 DEGREES 38 IN 1940
W PALM BEACH 33 DEGREES 37 IN 1960
MIAMI BEACH 38 DEGREES 42 IN 1960
HOLLYWOOD 36 DEGREES 37 IN 1987
NAPLES DROPPED TO 34 THIS MORNING TYING THE RECORD FROM 1960.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 02, 2003 03:45 PM |
|
|
Well that's me convinced, that's what 5 cities?
*rolls eyes*
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 04, 2003 03:08 AM |
|
|
|
PH if you don't get the humor of all the latest record setting cold temperatures...much more than 5 cities btw..then you need to get a sense of humor
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 04, 2003 03:55 AM |
|
|
PH should know all about California's low temperatures, right PH.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 04, 2003 11:18 AM |
|
|
Perhaps that's why I wasn't being serious?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 05, 2003 06:24 AM |
|
|
|
Good we are all laughing
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 07, 2003 04:29 PM |
|
|
So I assume the debates are done with? Shall I leave HC now? 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 01:23 AM |
|
|
Actually, I'll take that decision out of your hands. Please accept this notice as the announcement that I'm leaving this nice little debating forum and HC for some time, maybe for good. (and this time I mean it)
Got some stuff in RL that needs sorting out and this means leaving places like this behind. Guess I may catch you all later sometime, if not have a nice life everyone (yes even those of you who think I'm a American Hater/Nazi/Communist/Eco Terrorist/Liberal/whatever) and hope you all have as much fun arguing/discussing stuff without me as you may have had with me.
PH
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
posted February 10, 2003 04:36 AM |
|
|
noooooooooooooooooooooooooo, you can't leave!
You are going to leave me with dArGoN and Lews! How could you!
Oh well, I suppose nothing we say will change your mind. Will you still be on GameSpy?
Nice knowing you.
____________
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 10, 2003 08:11 AM |
|
|
Take care PH...nice debating and occasionally agreeing with you
I often think I need to get out of here also...just takes to much time...but a little addicting
|
|
Nidhgrin
Honorable
Famous Hero
baking cookies from stardust
|
posted February 18, 2003 01:39 AM |
|
|
Privatehudson,
Real life must always come first. I could not agree more. My own real life is getting increasingly demanding which may cause me to diminish my online activities even more from next autumn on.
Know that you will always have a place here and you will not be forgotten soon. Drop by anytime you want, there will always be news to read on the other side
Live well friend.
Respect, Nidhgrin.
|
|
|
|
