What About Global Warming?

At first the debate was man-caused global watming. Well nobody has stated that we CAUSED global warming, but that didn't stop many from arguing against the point anyway. "Man caused" is the only way non believers can argue the concept. Yet that is not an issue of debate.

Man's emissions INCREASING the natural effects is the real debate, get on track.

Now you have taken that even one more step out of context, "American-Caused" global warming. You make a strong assertion and I agree, America did NOT cause global warming. I think teh globe agrees with that though, thus it is hardly a point to be made.

That's not a topic of debate either. How about you sit down and show me proof that our emissions do not harm us directly (yes right here on Earth at round level),and thus do not need further control; and that our emissions do not have an adverse effect on the natural depletion of the ozone layer and thus do not require further control.

To make life easier for you, you can't. We have undeniable fact to proove both; not photos and heresay, but scientifically proven fact(the same thing we base most of our responsible decisions on).

So argue a point or concede that our emissions efffect on the atmosphere is having a negative impact, but don't stand there making up arguments that are not contested to begin with.

"a global effort to exercise control or influence over the United States"

Let me guess, you whisper at home because the French government is spying on your thoughts too, right? Everyone is jealous of America and wants to see her sink, right?

That lump in your neck is not a possible cancerous tumor, it is an alien implant to monitor your thoughts and eventually help Europe take over the world, right?

Laughable, coments, assertions, so called facts, etc. simply laughable. Go and curl up under your bed with your shotgun and fear the uprising of the globe.

Your comments are so self centered and inasanely paranoid that it is funny to think people actually believe that crap still. It's the kind of stuff we laugh at in the movies, have you been watching too much King of the Hill, Dale?

NAME: Dale Gribble

OCCUPATION: Licensed owner/operator of "Dale's Dead Bug."

HOBBIES: Paranoia, smoking, golf

QUOTE: "Guns don't kill people. The Government does."

FAVORITE CONSPIRACY: You really believe they landed on the moon?

How may hours a week do you spend on the Area 51 website? I hired a guy in Oregon once that had a similar mindset, what a nutter, had to let him go eventually (and very carefully) as you never know what you loonies will come up with next.

While some like to separate the issues, one is a reason for the other.

The only reason people agrue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control. This works for both our cars and ground level emissions, smog etc. and also our emissions of the same gases that increase the natural effects of global warming.

Show me how our pollution control is NOT aligned with emissions control/global warming awareness, I'll show you very easily that they are related.

While there is contest relative to the amount that our emissions incrase global warming, there is NO contest that our lack of emissions control is killing us as we live and breath on Earth.

If we reduce and pay close attention to our KNOWN harmful emissions, it will also decrease the number of contaminants sent into our ozone, not all gases reach high enough altitude to break down and become harmless. Read up on carboxyhemoglobin, I know someone who died from it already, right in his own home. Polution control will, in turn, result in environmental support/control.

[i]As far as pictures of natural ice cap metls and other "questionable" photos, we cannot deny the absolute fact that astronauts have photographed the ozone layer from space for decades and it is VERY clear that it has thinned.

Are our emissions the cause of this? NO I don't believe so.

Are our emissions contributing to this? Yes, there is little to debate that emissions do add to the natural ozone breakdown.

So why haven't we made a move?[/i]

Um, Oz, I don't know where you were in the 80's, but we have moved on the ozone depletion issue, and my understanding is that it has helped.

Reducing carbon monoxide emissions from my gasoline engine would mean that more efficient combustion is occurring, meaning that I'm getting more horsepower for the gasoline I'm already buying. I'm for it. You however seem more enthusiastic about it, so I invite you to [b]create[/b] that more efficient engine, or zero-emissions engine.

I suppose it goes without saying, but I'm on the side that claims man-caused global warming/climate change is a huge scam, and that the REAL debate/question has its roots -- and catalyst -- in politics, not science. Inasmuch as establishing public policy, to any degree whatsoever, it's simply (or should be) a non-issue. If global warming/climate change really IS happening, which I won't deny some "qualified" people suggest, it's all part of the natural cycle of nature, something the earth has been experiencing since its beginning, and there's nothing we can do about. And if -- a VERY BIG IF -- human activity is, somehow, contributing to the process, which is nowhere near "proven, but is often touted as undeniable, then it's insignificant in the overall scheme of things, and should simply be a non-issue.

It fears you so that you may lose your God given liberties, oh no, make that liberties your government has chosen to provide you with. In your eyes, because your government allows you to have some liberties, you feel that no change can take place that may effect those assumed liberties?

You wouldn't sacrifice the changing of your current liberties to see your children's children also experience life also?

Personally, I couldn't give a rats ass if you were inconvenienced in any way. The issue is not about saving your liberties it is about changing as a society to become more aware and responsible.

I bet you are so scared of change, that you still walk around in blue leisure suits with white, platform shoes. DO you still have that futuristic 8-track player in your Desoto? Why change, it works just fine and you understand it?

When the 'older' generation passes on, perhaps the world will be able to move forward, but as long as there are those who hang onto outated science and fear of change, there will be no progresion as a race. Time's ticking, what are you mid 50's now? 55 this year I think? Oh well, we can wait a little longer I suppose. Pretty soon the feed tube will be in and we won't have to listen to those who fear losing control to a changing society.

'kin old Americans and civil liberties. Get over yourself and wake up already.

When the California clean air act was brought about, people with 70's muscle cars were at arms over the new 'whimpy cars' that couldn't get them down the highway like a 440 did. We all know this was an untrue fear. In fact there are many 4 cylinder passenger cars that wil literally eat a 440 now.

By the time fuel injection was common, all the former carb mechanics were complaining that new cars were wimpy and too problematic. Now we see that fuel iunjection is not only more efficient but provides a longer lasting vehicle, requires less maintenance and is a lot easier to tune and repair than an old Thermoquad carb.

For some reason, many peopl still think that cars here ae the same as cars in Europe, which is also a myth. The same model car (usually adorned with a different model badge) will be sold in Europe as North America. However the European car burns fuel mroe efficiently and has FAR better quality materials in the build. No, a Ford Probe is not a Ford Probe everywhere in the world. European Probes will outperform and outlast a North American version...but why?

Hydrocarbon fuels are extremely efficient energy sources, our vehicle are not. In an effort to offer an inexpensive car that still has reasonable emissions levels, we waste fuel energy in the form of heat. Thin materials, inexpensive aterials cause so an inefficient fuel buring process that many joules are lost in the form of heat. Therefors they ae covered with those stupid little tin heat shields todivert extra heat away from parts so they don't fail, tht heat is simply disipated into the air. So the great energy potential of fuel is wasted in order to make a light car, the light car increases economy, not the quality of the components. As we now see, many manufacturer's are resorting to muscle cars again to gain market share, as the cheap tin boxes are passed over by potential buyers. NO we are resoring to moving back to heavier components and lower mileage in order to get the most out of the potential energy and durability, ie the SUV.

In Europe, more stringent standards need to be met, the effort of manufacturers is to build 'Europoean quality' cars that utilize better naterials to increase the fuel efficiency and gain more horsepower form the fuel energy.

The cars they use for the Eurpoean market are far too expensive by North American standards, eve thoguh fuel is far cheaper, cars need to be as well or they just dont sell.

If more people were interested in quality over cost, we would have North American manufacturers providing better quality cars with better fuel efficiency. Less fuel energy wasted as heat and more HP to the rear wheels.

OS we CAn build more efficient cars, however the marketplac edemands acompromise. Unfortunately that cpmpromise comes at the cost of our health, but that is rarely considered.

An example of how we THINK we are efficient:

BC Air Care reports may show an allowable Co level of 8.6ppm. So when the old clunker pulls off a 6.5ppm we say it flew through air care. In actuality it does not, a newer car will often have a max of 2.0ppm.

Based on an air care repoert, one may conclude that his/her car is runnign efficiently, in reality it is far from the truth. Our Canadian emissions are base don US diveability stats, converted to Canadian driving conditons. SO we are not actualy driving these great, fuel efficient cars at all. just what te manufacturer has made us FEEL is a fuel efficient car, becaus ethey offer no other alternative in North America....due to cost of production and a possible drop in sales.

If you ever think anything in North America is not done for the pure sake of makig a dollar, go back to sleep and try again tomorrow.

Money doesnt' make the world go 'round, as the song implies. Money makes North America go 'round, and that's all.

Based on his paranoid ramblings about American caused global warming and he big conspiracy to take over his life and strip him of his liberties. He's a bit like Max, but gone mad.

With respect to your comments:
Science, without any contest has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that our emissions, Hydrocarbons, Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon monoxide are causing illness and death.

That is therefore Scientific fact.

If we have scientific fact that our emissions kill us, and we also have proof that those same emissions contribute to greenhouse gases or acid rain, why must we then debate the feasibility of our emissions contributing to what is also a scientific fact, natural global warming? Do we need to have it kill on contact before we see it as dangerous and wasteful of our energy resources?

We can't breath our emissions, is that really not enough? We don't allow factory's to spew poison into the air, do we? Of course we do, so why not closely regulate them as well?

There should be no further debate that our emissions may or may not increase global warming efects; fact of the mater is, those same emissions are poisonous, what more fact do we need before taking action and becoming responsible as a society?

This is all thwarted because SOME money huggers are just interested in short term income, not long term life expectancy?

.....all at the same time.

I would say he has rights that provide him the freedom for their indiscriminate use -- right up to the point where the consequences hit home. I would not, however, say that he has the [b]right[/b] to use firearms indiscriminately.

Rights do not obligate you to a course of action -- but they do cease to be rights at the point where you violate the rights of another, whether willfully or with depraved indifference.

[i]but they do cease to be rights at the point where you violate the rights of another[/i]

No, they cease to be rights as soon as someone more powerful than you imposes their moral code on you.

It's no different than the law of the jungle.

oz wrote, "Personally, I couldn't give a rats ass if you were inconvenienced in any way. The issue is not about saving your liberties it is about changing as a society to become more aware and responsible."

From such sentiments flow the seeds of tyranny. Listen to the attitude in those two sentences. It is about changing society so that it will be more to his liking. He does not care that we will lose our rights to be free and to pursue happiness. He does not care nor believe that we have a right to enjoy our property unhindered by the state.

deep wrote, "Well, apotheon, how then do you balance the rights ... of one against those of another, if neither has the obligation to exercise such in a responsible manner?"

You really have no idea what a right is do you deep? It is a limit imposed on governments.

"For example, under our 2nd Amendment, I've the right to bears arms."

Yeah. Why do you suppose that is a right? You have the right to defend yourself against others and against the awesome power of the state.

"And, as a hunter, I possess and use a number of firearms."

Interesting, but irrelevant. Your right to self defense is not about hunting. That more rightly falls under your right to pursue happiness.

"Would you hold that I've the right to their indiscriminate use, or that I've the obligation to use them wisely?"

I knew that you had no idea what a right was. The right you mention is the right to defend yourself. It imposes no obligation on you whatsoever.

Maybe, just for practice you ought to try to explain how some other right imposes an obligation on you.

deep wrote, "Why are some, like you, so easily swayed by ignorance?"

Each of us is ignorant in different ways. The science appeals to you. It is unimportant to me. The politics is the dangerous part. It appeals to me. It is unimportant to you.

"By your own words, you neither know and understand the underlying sciences here involved, nor do you care to."

I do not recall saying that I do not understand the science. But you are right that I do not care to know more than I do about it. I know enough to know that the conclusions are wrong anytime they lead to fewer freedoms and greater governmental control over our lives. If you want to convince me that this is about something other than a naked power grab then make it about giving people more power and control over their lives and decisions. Only then will I begin to believe that this is something less than aggression against me.

"Instead, you prefer to simply jump on the bandwagon of those who preach that which you wish to believe."

I choose my bandwagons carefully. Liberty. Freedom. Justice. Merit.

Global warming is about none of those.

"As for Absolutely and myself, we prefer scientific facts to mere beliefs."

Uh-huh.

Oz is the biggest horse's ass I've ever seen. He's an absolute uninformed idiot who thinks he's the smartest person on the face of the earth. He's an idiot. He's an ass. He's an imbecile. He's totally unworthy of serious consideration.

"[i]No, they cease to be rights as soon as someone more powerful than you imposes their moral code on you.[/i]"

Incorrect.

Rights cannot be taken. They are not granted by the magnanimity of others, nor by the forbearance of others to take them away. One person has no effect on the existence of another's rights. Rights are intrinsic and, in the words of the founders of the US, inalienable.

Rights are not taken away by those who impose their will -- they are only [b]violated[/b]. To claim that they are "taken away", or that they cease to exist under circumstances of imposition from above, is to fundamentally misunderstand the meaning of the term "rights".

You might argue that there is no such thing as a "right", and I'd argue against you, but the idea that rights can go away just because someone else doesn't respect it is patently false. That rights, assuming their existence at all, cannot be simply taken from you is a tautology. It's a bit like saying that water is composed of dihydrogen oxide: that is central to the very definition of the the term "water". Analogously, rights are intrinsic and not dependent upon the whims of others: that is central to the very definition of the term "rights".

I speak, of course, of philosophy and ethics -- not of legal precedent. Legal precedent imposes a pragmatic set of half-baked descriptivist definitions on terms that properly have other, more correct, meanings.

edit: broken italics

The one doing the imposing gets to set the definition.

With that level of moral and ethical relativism in your view, TonytheTiger, I'm surprised you bothered to get involved in this discussion at all.

Once you decide that ethics is entirely a matter of might-makes-right definition of terms, you've made yourself entirely irrelevant to a discussion of what constitutes a right. When I say "you", of course, I mean [b]you[/b], TonytheTiger.

My values are quite simple:

I have the right to do whatever I want, to or for whomever I want, as long as I don't harm anyone else.

I have the right to not be harmed by others.

It's the second one I am having trouble with, because a "mighty" government has determined that certain others' rights supercede my right to be free from harm.

[i]I'm surprised you bothered to get involved in this discussion at all.[/i]

Sometimes surprises can be good.

[i]"As for Absolutely and myself, we prefer scientific facts to mere beliefs."[/i]

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=213262&messageID=2210087

It's true that I am interested in the truth about the topics on which I vote, but my interest in science does not [b]supersede[/b] my political belief in my right to conduct my life, liberty, and happiness as I wish without exception other than within the due process requirement of Amendment 4. I do not prefer [b]policy[/b] that places any scientific research above that, nor any other rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States.

I see from posts above that I have given the opposite impression to sn53 as well as to you, but I think maxwell edison knows which side of the relevant questions I espouse.

I think you are putting too much stock -- I won't say faith, because I don't know enough yet to make that accusation -- in the published research itself, and too little stock in the Constitution, based on the fact that you persist in discussing only the science, and that you imply that automobile pollution is equivalent to an infringement by polluters on the rights of others. I disagree.

In what way does becoming more environmentally aware, taking personale responsibility and driving a more efficient vehicle actually impede your right to freedom?

Society changing to MY liking, not bloody likely, but I am wiling to see some change if it is for thebetterment of our health and well being, if we can help reduce harmful effects on our planet at the same time, then that's even better.

Society doesn't have to change, but society needs to become more responsible. People need to accept that they are responsible for their own actions.

From reading your posts, we will never see eye to eye. As for Max;s comments, we established we are thinking from opposite poles many years ago, nobody is fighting for your acceptance here though.

"[i]I have the right to do whatever I want, to or for whomever I want, as long as I don't harm anyone else.

I have the right to not be harmed by others.[/i]"

That actually sounds a lot like what I'd say about what rights people have -- though my phrasing would be different. Of course, that directly contradicts the implications of your earlier statement:

"[i]The one doing the imposing gets to set the definition [of rights].[/i]"

So which is it? Do you have those rights, or are you merely subject to the whim of the guy with the biggest fist? They're mutually exclusive statements about rights.

oz wrote, "In what way does becoming more environmentally aware, taking personal responsibility and driving a more efficient vehicle actually impede your right to freedom?"

We could begin with your statements. You are not asking for awareness. You are asking for the state to compel me to pay and to regulate my behavior.

Now if you want to market benefits that I am willing to pay for I might be all for it. Either way it ought to be my choice. The global warming people want none of that. It is all about treaties, and taxes, and compulsion.

Abso wrote, "I see from posts above that I have given the opposite impression to sn53..."

I have read through many of your posts and admit that I was wrong. Like all of the rest of us you are complicated.

I apologize for getting it wrong.

merely subject to the whim, I guess. The only right I have is the right to think I should have a couple more rights, and even that one is only temporary.

Isn't there a member of the "global warming is all our fault and it'll kill us" team to agree or object? We've got the "this debate was my idea" guy (Absolutely) and a member of the "global warming is a scam designed to get certain politicians elected" team (maxwell edison), but not the a member of the other team.

No interest?

[b]Absolutely[/b]

I raised the issue of firearms simply as an example of a right which can be exercised, in the extreme, to the detriment of others, so as to violate their rights.

[b]Apotheon[/b]

Re. "[i]Knowing deepsand isn't stupid, I must operate on the assumption (unless and until he convincingly disabuses me of the notion) that he chose firearms as the subject of his analogy because he knows I'm a strong libertarian thinker who unequivocally supports a broad interpretation of the protections afforded by the Second Amendment. He's probably aiming to get me to agree to something related that will then relate in turn to the main subject of this discussion, and "score" a point.[/i]"

I choose firearms, not in the hopes of "scoring" a point, but in the belief that you would clearly understand the thrust of my point, which, as evidenced by your statement "[i]I think he brought up firearms only as a more immediate manifestation of principles of social order and ethics, meant to stand in as an analogy for other matters where one may similarly presume an obligation to respect the rights of others[/i]," does seem to be the case.

[b]Tony[/b]

Apotheon has, in his own words, quite accurately and clearly re-stated my point; i.e. "[i]I would say he has rights that provide him the freedom for their indiscriminate use -- right up to the point where the consequences hit home. I would not, however, say that he has the right to use firearms indiscriminately.

Rights do not obligate you to a course of action -- but they do cease to be rights at the point where you violate the rights of another, whether willfully or with depraved indifference.[/i]"

As for your statement "[i]No, they cease to be rights as soon as someone more powerful than you imposes their moral code on you,[/i]" it must be noted that there is a distinction between "natural" and "civil" rights. While it is true that the latter can be granted or withdrawn by force of Law, such is not true for the former; "natural" rights are those which are held to be an inherent quality which accrues to all men by virtue of their simply being "men."

That such may or may not be recognized and respected by others does not serve to either validate or negate them.

[b]sn53[/b]

As usual, you offer up a plethora of opinionated conclusions, both about myself and "rights," but make no attempt to support such.

Furthermore, you fail to make the important distinction between "natural" and "civil" rights.

Rather than individually address the many flaws in your post, I will suggest that you read Apotheon's posts, as he both clearly understands the issue raised by me and has well explained that which you seem to either fail to grasp or choose to ignore.

In the strictly secular sense, of course.

You said "[i]It's true that I am interested in the truth about the topics on which I vote, but my interest in science does not supersede my political belief in my right to conduct my life, liberty, and happiness as I wish without exception other than within the due process requirement of Amendment 4. I do not prefer policy that places any scientific research above that, nor any other rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States.[/i]"

On this we are well agreed.

It was my intended point to make clear to sn53 that neither you nor myself knowingly and with intent choose a particular policy which is contraindicated by the facts.

Absolutely long ago assumed the mantle of "leader" of the "global warming is real" team; maxwell has now commited to acting in opposition to such, although it's not clear as to whether or not he steps forward to lead his team. Therefore, both camps are now represented by willing participants.

What [i]does[/i] remain to be determined is those who will lend their participation.

Oz is in no way asking for that which you state. What he [b]is[/b] asking is that you get your head our of your butt and look beyond your own limited mortality into the future of the Earth that will be.

The tyranny to be most feared is that of small minds.

To view those that you address as "global warming" people and "global cooling" people can be lumped together into a single homogeneous group may make for good tactic on the part of their detractors, but is hardly the truth in fact.

Phrases like "[i]their[/i] silly claims" and "[i]they[/i] can't even make up their own damn minds" are empty of any real meaning.

Really? Clearly you fail to understand the scientific method.

Furthermore, do you in fact live your life based only on those things which are certain, i.e. 100% guaranteed to be true, to happen, to have happened, etc.? I think not.

Most importantly, as re. the matter at hand, using your own stated criteria, since it is [b]not 100% established[/b] that man bears no responsibility for climate change, the claim that such is the case is [b]false[/b].

Yes; and, perhaps one of these days you'll figure out what they are. For the present, however, you are, by your own self-imposed ignorance of the facts, clueless.

Obviously, any reason for the current "debate" is irrelevant to the actual physical facts. On this point I will assume that we agree.

Beyond such, you maintain that the "true" facts are being hidden, or at least knowingly and intentionally distorted, by reason of political motivation. This presumes that you can prove what the "true" facts are. Are you able to provide such proof?

an [i]independent[/i] variable, and has no effect on the actions re. [i]other independent[/i] variables, such as the IR reflectivity of atmosphere components.

To repeat, for [i]any[/i] given level of Solar irradiation, the amount of IR reflected back to Earth is directly proportional to the levels of CO2, H2O, etal., as is the net change in the thermal energy stored within.

deep wrote, "Re. "the road to tyranny."
Oz is in no way asking for that which you state. What he is asking is that you get your head our of your butt and look beyond your own limited mortality into the future of the Earth that will be.

The tyranny to be most feared is that of small minds."

You are a wanna-be tyrant too. It figures.

[i]it must be noted that there is a distinction between "natural" and "civil" rights[/i]

Any distinction is only in the mind of he who makes up the definition.

[i]That such may or may not be recognized and respected by others does not serve to either validate or negate them.[/i]

If they are not recognized or respected by others, what good are they? When the light turns green I have the right to proceed through the intersection. If I get broadsided and killed by a drunken semi-truck driver who blew the light, I would submit that my rights have been quite thouroughly negated!

.....are not "facts" at all, but rather computer model projections of what's predicted to happen in the future. What some people predict will happen are not facts at all. Or are you suggesting they are? I've presented valid and qualified sources of opinion that show those "computer models" are either flawed and/or incomplete, not having taken all possible variables into consideration -- not even close -- and/or ones that started with a predetermined conclusion, and subsequently entered the "data" required to form that conclusion.

The only true "fact" on the table is that the average global temperature has risen, over the past 100 years, about 1 degree Fahrenheit, give or take a 1 degree margin of error. The REASONS for that 1 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, give or take a 1 degree margin of error, are all either a matter of opinion or are all debatable, but none of them are firmly established "facts".

You people are taking one "fact" (rise in temperature), and adding it to another "fact" (increased man-caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere), and drawing a conclusion that may or may not be true and/or without considering all the variables.

A = Rise in temperature.

B = Increased man-caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

C = ?

D = ?

E = ?

F = ?

G...........

Your conclusion: A+B+C+D+E+F+G...... = Mankind is destroying the planet.

Sorry, dude. You have dismally failed the burden of proof test.

If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement's output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?

I'll continue posting data & analysis for the argument that "Global warming is real & caused by humans", although I will be voting for politicians who call that argument a crock of shi!

I didn't get notice of any additions to this thread until today -- when I suddenly got notice of everything in the last month or so. Sorry I didn't notice these responses sooner.

I had intended to consider Absolutely a separate entity for purposes of this from the two teams, but yeah, I guess that'll do. I'll get to setting something up by the end of the weekend at the latest.

Please don't use TechRepublic's hosed-up email server, either, even if that delays our schedule!

It was only about a week's worth of notifications that I received, as a result of a known (and now fixed) issue at TR. I apologize if I made the situation sound worse than it actually was, and thus gave anyone any false impressions.

. . . but no, I won't be using any TR servers for this.

1) You state that you have "presented valid and qualified sources of opinion." You've also stated that you neither do or care to fully understand the science here involved. Therefore, as I've previously noted, you are not qualified to judge the "opinions" of your cited sources.

2) You continue to focus solely on the correlation between observed temperatures and man's contributions to atmospheric CO2 levels, concluding that both are insignificant. This, to the exclusion of the unavoidable physical relationships between the influx of Solar radiation, the Earth's albedo, the atmospheric levels of IR reflectors, such as CO, CO2, CH4 and H2O, the conversion of sub-IR Solar radiation to IR, etal., that have been many times here presented.

In short, you continue to ignore the underlying physical laws which inexorably link increased atmospheric levels of IR reflectors with an increase in Earth's thermal energy.

When you've some understanding of science, along with both knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts, let me know. Until then, your input here is irrelevant, immaterial and inconsequential.

As for yout opinion of me, you've obviously have mistaken me for one who gives a damn about such.

What is the record for number of postings?

...is the longest thread I know of, still presently visible, with 1278 posts. There once was one called "The Evolution Lie" which was removed, largely because of fears that it was becoming a successful implementation of AI. All participants were confident that it would be a malicious implementation, and unanimously agreed to destruction of its 3000+ posts.

deep wrote, "All truths of great import are at first dismissed as fantasy."

Maybe so. For those very rare truths of great import there are vast quantities of bovine excrement dismissed as well. More fantasy is dismissed as fantasy than there are truths falsely accused, in my opinion.

oz wrote, "The only reason people argue AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded for proper emissions control."

Maybe in your small world. I argue against the idea of human-caused global warming for a variety of reasons. In the last one hundred years the temperature has risen about one degree. Most of that warming was in the period prior to the the 1970s. Mars is warming. Other planets are warming. The whole point of global warming "countermeasures" is to increase the size, scope, and reach of governments. Instead of looking to solutions that grant greater freedoms and liberties for the people they only seek to regulate, control, and to tax.

Waste management, despite the claims to the contrary here, is not argued against. The richest nations are also the cleanest nations.

OzMedia: "The only reason people agrue (sic) AGAINST global warming is because of the costs and involvement neded (sic) for proper emissions control."

Is it [i]really[/i] about the science, or will you employ any type of argument, allegory or fallacy necessary, in order to convince voters to be afraid of global warming?

abso wrote, "I challenge you to review my exchanges with sn53, beginning in the thread he started called "Preemptive Surrender Disorder", where you will see that he is obviously very able to engage in rational dialogue, with someone who, to put it mildly, "isn't wholly agreeing with" him."

What? We didn't agree? I suppose we didn't. But that is okay. I enjoyed it and learned a few things in the bargain. Among the things I learned is that every one is at least as complex as I am.

For those who have not come by I invite you. I do not expect many of you to agree with me. If many did the Democrats would not have won, not even by the slim margins they managed, and we would not be in a position where the Dangerous party would control this nation.

https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=211753&messageID=2174443

There have been several that exceeded 1000 posts; the record is over 3000, held by "The Evolution Lie," aka EL.

You'll not find either EL or any of the other monsters here, as TR's PTB have purged them.

Opinions matter, but only when supported by facts.

And, in this case, the facts contradict your opinion.

Get over it.

On the one hand, you rely on supposed correlations which may or may not be relevant, while on the other decrying the decidedly relevant correlations set forth by your opponents.

You can't have it both ways.

The problem is that [b]you do not understand the scientific issues[/b] involved, and therefore seize blindly on those "facts" which seem to serve your desired conclusion, without even knowing which facts are relevant and which are not.

and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.

But, in that same discussion, and elsewhere, is clear evidence to the contrary as well.

"[i]If they are not recognized or respected by others, what good are they? When the light turns green I have the right to proceed through the intersection. If I get broadsided and killed by a drunken semi-truck driver who blew the light, I would submit that my rights have been quite thouroughly negated![/i]"

We concur. Rights are [b]not[/b] unfettered; they are in fact bounded by the responsibility to respect the rights of others.

"[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement's output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]"

Given that I have observed you be be objective, given to rational statements in matters of facts, and studiously avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious utterances, I am at a loss to fathom your above post.

That it contains a multitude of fallacies is, I presume, as clear to you as it is to me. To say that it is quite uncharacteristic of you stands without question.

How to explain? A momentary emotional outburst triggered by some personal trauma? Words unleashed by a temporary loss of one's sensibilities, induced by the partaking of a mind altering substance? Or, perhaps, a missive merely intended to cause some small mischief?

I can but hope that whatever darkness so clouded your mind as to give rise to this passes both quickly and easily.

May the future be kind.

deep wrote, "sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary"

How can you get it so wrong with such regularity? I said that I do not need to understand any more of the science than I do. This is not about science. It is about naked aggression and political control. Consider this clarification if my statements were not clear to you in the past.

You cannot be trusted because you are a useful idiot for the enviro-fascists.

depending on the character of the scientist.

[i]Well, Absolutely, given that motives can and do lead to bias, ...
and that sn53 has clearly stated that he neither understands the science involved nor feels that such an understanding is necessary, all while harping on matters of policy, clearly it is legitimate to suspect that his motives have indeed resulted in a strong bias on his part.[/i]

I was speaking specifically to the claim of environmentalists that the global warming debate is [b]only[/b] about the science. Oz_Media's commentary on his opponents' motives is contrary to that claim of his "team". I agree with sn53's reply to your claim that he has stated that he does not understand the science. He has said no such thing, the closest being that the science is "merely interesting", which I take to mean that [i]on the subject of global warming[/i] science is but a means to an end. Such should always be the case! The purpose of science is not to establish an oligarchy or technocracy, but to learn the truth. When science is subverted to cloak remote possibilities as certain, impending doom, I take offense. I consider it highly probable that such is the case, but am keeping an open mind. Vague, unsubstantiated claims of bias don't cut it with me. I refer you to my dismantling of neilb's claims that Friis-Christensen's research is flawed, and invite you to address that. I also note that sn53 has been consistent about his position (that the debate is primarily about something [b]other[/b] than the science) and that Oz_Media has broken from his "team's" stated position.

[i]Given that I have observed you be be objective, given to rational statements in matters of facts, and studiously avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious utterances,[/i]

Why, thank you!

[i]...I am at a loss to fathom your above post.[/i]

If you will kindly specify the nature of your loss, I will clarify my statement as necessary so as to facilitate your comprehension. :D

[i]That it contains a multitude of fallacies[/i]

Name one!

[i]...is, I presume, as clear to you as it is to me.[/i]

It is not.

[i]To say that it is quite uncharacteristic of you stands [b]without question.[/b][/i]

Is that so[b]?[/b] :D

[i]How to explain? A momentary emotional outburst triggered by some personal trauma? Words unleashed by a temporary loss of one's sensibilities, induced by the partaking of a mind altering substance? Or, perhaps, a missive merely intended to cause some small mischief?[/i]

E) None of the above.

[i]I can but hope that whatever darkness so clouded your mind as to give rise to this passes both quickly and easily.

May the future be kind.[/i]

Likewise.

for "squirrel"? Perhaps you have invented a brand new category, the [i]argumentum ad rodentum[/i] fallacy!

I've given up trying to use TR's emoticons, as they no longer work for me, and I've no time to devote to figuring out the reason.

is pathetic.

Grow up.

As before noted, policy [b]must[/b] follow the facts if it is to be both legitimate and expecting of success.

sn53's persistent attempts to distract others from the scientific facts is nothing but an exercise in sophistry, one that I will not be party to.

"[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why is so much of that movement's output governmental regulation, and so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]"

1) "[i]why is so much of that movement's output governmental regulation?[/i]" - [b]assumes facts not in evidence[/b].

2) "[i]why is ... so little of its output non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]" - [b]assumes facts not in evidence[/b].

3) "[i]governmental regulation[/i]" - as used, assumes that [i]all[/i] regulation is both unnecessary & undesirable; i.e., [b]facts not in evidence[/b].

4) "[i]non-polluting technological innovation?[/i]" - as used, assumes that technology alone can & will solve all problems; i.e., [b]facts not in evidence[/b].

5) "[i]If tyranny is not the goal of environmentalism, why ...[/i]" - Draws a conclusion based on [b]false choices[/b].

And, there is no fallacy in my statement re. sn53.

That he may occasionally give the appearance of engaging in rational discourse does not mean that he generally, let alone always, does so.

.

The events surrounding my birthday have resulted in almost nothing getting done in the last four days. I'm afraid I don't have the site set up by now, after all, though I was sure I would.

It'll get done this week. Peccavi, nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

:)

deep wrote, "sn53: Address your contradiction or withdraw."

No doubt you are aware that many people do not read anything but your headline before they move on. Why else would your entire message be placed there?

You have at least one personal problem. It is not possible for you to resolve it.

Show me my contradiction. Lay it out. I am always happy to help the less fortunate get clarification.

It [i]was[/i] happy, indeed. Thank you.

in plain sight of you.

If you were too lazy to read it, that's not my problem.

"animal activity ," which, by virtue of serving to trap heat, causes more global warming, which cause more animal acitivity, which causes more co2, which causes, ... .

Get the picture yet?

how is it that they can be as certain as they claim?

And how do they explain why CO2 levels continued to rise steadily during the late 1920s and 30s even though human carbon emissions dropped by almost a third during the great depression?

These people (not the scientists necessarily, but the ones who claim to correctly interpret for them. Have been caught in lie after lie, and every time, they say, "Oh, well, it was because of a misunderstanding of this or that and now we understand it perfectly and have adjusted our models to take it into account."

I don't buy it.

As I've stated many times before, one must look to the [i]cumulative[/i] effect of [i]all[/i] inputs; it is the [i]marginal[/i] input that determines the new total input. While it may be the case that the inputs from noncontrollable sources may not be problematic, it is still the case that the marginal input from a controllable source may make the total level problematic.

The issue is not how much straw we heap on the camel's back, but will ours be the straw that breaks it.

As for the 20s & 30s, can you point me to data demonstrating both that man's input to atmospheric CO2 was on the decline while the toatl level was on the increase? The oldest [i]continuous[i] source of data re. atmospheric atmospheric CO2 is that gathered at Mauna Loa, HI, from 1958 to the present.

That data shows, in addition to a 15.2% increase in CO2 since 1959, and seasonal peaks & valleys, correlations with changes in the levels of human industrial activites, such as those following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the modern day growth in the industrializtion of China.

As for "certainty," I know of no scientists claiming such with regard to the data; rather, they are stating a very high probabilty that the data are statistically significant.

Finally, as has previously been noted, that a model fails to track data with the desired accuracy does not serve to alter the validity of the data; rather, it simply means that the modeler has not yet found the proper values for all of the elements of the model. And, such failure does nothing to change the unavoidable physical processes being modeled.

[i]As for "certainty," I know of no scientists claiming such with regard to the data[/i]

Me either, but there is a dogged effort by the more left leaning among us to convince us that scientists ARE claiming that catastrophe is imminent unless the wealthy countries give 5 to 25% of their GDP to "the cause". It's clearly a political power grab, and THAT'S what has me, and many others upset. Unless you (figurative) can prove to 100% certainty that A. there is IS a problem, and B. that I (figurative) am responsible, you have no right to demand that I pay a dime to you for anything!

Most of us have no problem with lowering pollution, economizing energy use (not just transferring the damage somewhere else like they are with these hybrid cars), and cleaning up our planet, we simply don't believe, and have decades of lies from these people as justification for our non-belief. Basically, we don't trust you, or your motives, and since we are in the cat-bird seat, so to speak, it is up to you to prove that you are right.

Have to run now (Movie with my favorite honey :) ). I'll get back to you on the data regarding the depression. I saw a graph showing CO2 concentrations almost identically coinciding with world population, not necessarily with industrial activity, which declined sharply world-wide during the depression. I'll hunt for it again and get back with you.