Global Warming is a Fad

[Luckymoose]

Global warming is a natural occurrence and thus Al Gore is not a scientist.

 

[bob bobato]

Of course Global Warming is a fad. Most popular causes are fads. There's a wonderful youtube video that I saw once (I dont know what its called, though), where 'Free Tibet' protestors were asked to point Tibet out on a map-and couldn't find it. It's just that people want to belong and all. And the media distorting everyones perspective- if you ask some kid in high school and younger, chances are they porbably think the world is going to blow up in 20 years.

 

[Nylan]

No, I ain't. Your post seems to be at least half motivated by the desire to condemn liberals in some way. Global warming isn't the only issue here. It also concerns the divide between conservatives and liberals and how they like to piss on each other's parade, such as the increasingly clear reality of global warming.

What was that about strawmen?

I find the hypocrisy of the posters in this thread laughable, and perhaps further ammunition for the OP's argument. Perhaps you'd like to play your own game and address the content of the argument?

Then again, it IS always easier to attack the person and make strawmen then confront an actual argument. Besides, his political affiliation does not in any way change whether or not his argument is a reasonable one.

 

[LesCanadiens]

You two didn't really read the OP, did you?

Sure did, and everything he claims others are saying no one actually said, or he is too simple minded to understand the complex issue. Either that, or people where he lives are complete and total morons.

 

[Trajan12]

Sure did, and everything he claims others are saying no one actually said, or he is too simple minded to understand the complex issue. Either that, or people where he lives are complete and total morons.

In defense of option number three, he is a Californian.

 

[aelf]

What was that about strawmen?

I find the hypocrisy of the posters in this thread laughable, and perhaps further ammunition for the OP's argument. Perhaps you'd like to play your own game and address the content of the argument?

Then again, it IS always easier to attack the person and make strawmen then confront an actual argument. Besides, his political affiliation does not in any way change whether or not his argument is a reasonable one.

What was that about reading the thread? You know, your points have been answered. Your arbitrary application of 'strawman' doesn't make you right. In fact, it makes you sound more ridiculous.

I didn't start off attacking him, if you have any ability to comprehend, and I said this earlier. My original post was merely about political trends. Go back and read again. Some people just choose think that I'm attacking or accusing him of stuff. I did none of that. His hatred for liberals is obvious and that's all I pointed out.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

imperfect.la, if you haven't allready seen it, I think you might enjoy this

http://www.southparkstudios.com/

Season 10, episode 2. "Smug Alert".

 

[Ammar]

Global warming is a natural occurrence and thus Al Gore is not a scientist.

Of course, after all Al Gore invented the idea of man-caused Global Warming.

 

[bigfatron]

Back on topic....

I think the OP has a point - however it is hard to use the 'cost-saving' approach to energy conservation becaseu the price is not really high enough to incent behaviour change.

While Americans complain about gas at $4.50, how many have actually changed their behaviour as a result so as to use less gas? I honestly have no idea, but I'd guess fairly few?

Here in the UK the price of petrol ('gas' to our transatlantic cousins) has risen from about 80p to £1.20 a litre ($6.30 to $11 a gallon), and diesel from the same price to about £1.32 a litre ($12 a gallon).

It was only when the price went above £1.00 a litre ($9 a gallon) that there was any noticeable impact on usage levels. Right now they are about 15% down, which suggests that there is a pain point when people start to conserve, but it is quite a bit higher than historic prices.

The same applies to home and office use - gas bills in the UK are expected to increase 70% more over the next year, having risen 50% in recent months already. At that level putting in better insulation, having cavity wall foam installed or even fitting double glazing all start to have reasonable pay-back times, and take up is now very strong (I'm waiting up to three months to get my loft insulation upgraded, due to demand outstrippping supply)

IMHO the underlying problem is that the cost of extracting and processing fossil fuels is the price at which they are sold (with a bit of tax on top).

This understates the replacement value of the fuel by:
1 The amount it costs to repair any environmental damage burning the fuel causes (assuming you accept global warming)
2 The cost of 'replacing' the by-products and energy with non-oil/gas/coal based sources in the future

The logical solution would be to increase taxes on fuel to a level which incented moderation, ploughing the funds generated back in to energy saving schemes and alternative energy research/production.

However I can't see any politician winning an election on that platform, which brings us back to the whining and hand-wringing approach...

BFR

 

[El_Machinae]

And the issue of our domestic industry; much of the global warming plans include cutting down on our industry, the largest polluter. Creating cars, goods, and all that other crap creates more CO2 than a graphic designer or a politician. So how do you appeal to a rural worker working at factory, by telling him that he's the cause of the problem and that his job might have to be destroyed in order to combat global warming? Is he going to listen to you? Hell no.

You're mostly right, except I don't think it's the industry worker who's really being looked to for solutions. Their source of energy is what's being targeted. If the energy source can be replaced (or cleaned) then the worker can keep his job.

Taking away his job is not really a solution, since someone else will eventually provide the same product. We want those workers to help us figure out ways of reducing his job's impact.

Al Gore?

I think Gorophobia has become a huge issue. He seems to be the foundational reason why certain people obstruct the Climate Change debate.

And there's a small issue of India and China. Yes, let's make us even more worse off to compete against these two nations that are sure to swallow us whole. Yes, I know that the western world must take initiative. But how can you tell the average person that will need to make personal sacrifice that his sacrifice is in vain because China and India will continue to pollute regardless?

Yes, India and China are an issue. But, really, we need to be able to approach them with some type of solution or (at least) some type of moral high ground.

We've pumped an additional ~100ppm into the atmosphere in the last 50 years, denied it's having an effect, and then refuse to stop because India and China need to pump CO2 too. If we insist on keeping this scenario as a Tragedy of the Commons then they will too.

We're missing an opportunity here. What's your solution for India and China?

 

[AngryZealot]

Though their official message is "Look, Global Warming is real and the longer we wait the worse off we'll be," but actually resonates as "Look, we're right. We're rich, educated, and have been right all along. You (the average person) are too stupid to see that pollution is going to destroy us all. Cut down on your destructive ways (whether you can afford to or not) while we work to cripple our domestic industry. Your way of life is primitive and archaic, you probably voted for Bush, and you better listen to us, or else. We've got politicians, scientists, and more importantly celebrities, on our side; everyone knows they know better than you."

This is the root of the problem. There is an intense distrust of science in America. When the educated speak out on their field of expertise, it gets perceived as arrogance or elitism.

 

[Merkinball]

I think Gorophobia has become a huge issue. He seems to be the foundational reason why certain people obstruct the Climate Change debate. - el mach

Oh yeah man, stupid Gorophobia. Nevermind the fact that his movie is being fed into government run schools to peddle this fad, while it's chocked full of fallacies and outright falsehoods. On top of which, how much of it has been shown to be false since the release of the movie?

How dare people criticize he who sits at the left hand of the father.

 

[LesCanadiens]

Oh yeah man, stupid Gorophobia. Nevermind the fact that his movie is being fed into government run schools to peddle this fad, while it's chocked full of fallacies and outright falsehoods. On top of which, how much of it has been shown to be false since the release of the movie?

How dare people criticize he who sits at the left hand of the father.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist...

"The overwhelming amount of evidence has shown that the official story is false."

 

[GinandTonic]

These debates are used by those who dont like the idea of global warming to justify being an arse. The whole anti-gore anti-eliteist anti-intelectual anti-liberal thing is just a

 

[imperfect.la]

These debates are used by those who dont like the idea of global warming to justify being an arse. The whole anti-gore anti-eliteist anti-intelectual anti-liberal thing is just a

It is easy to sit back and ignore what the other side thinks, regardless of whether it is true or not. However, that's not how politics works, and it's not the way to solve a very serious problem.

 

[Nylan]

What was that about reading the thread?

Witty comeback. I did.

You know, your points have been answered. Your arbitrary application of 'strawman' doesn't make you right. In fact, it makes you sound more ridiculous.

I haven't taken a side in this argument. I simply found the way his attackers unloaded fallacies irritable.

I didn't start off attacking him, if you have any ability to comprehend, and I said this earlier. My original post was merely about political trends. Go back and read again. Some people just choose think that I'm attacking or accusing him of stuff. I did none of that. His hatred for liberals is obvious and that's all I pointed out.

You mean like you "just chose" to flame him and second-guess his motives instead of simply focusing on what he had to say? You're not a psychologist, and even if you were I seriously doubt you could conclude anything that extensive from a small piece of text on the internet. You are the one arbitrarily conjecturing, and your determination to call him names makes others wonder if there is any content behind the fluff, instead of one who simply paraphrases an argument into something it is not in order to "knock it down". It's textbook strawman.

 

[aelf]

You mean like you "just chose" to flame him and second-guess his motives instead of simply focusing on what he had to say? You're not a psychologist, and even if you were I seriously doubt you could conclude anything that extensive from a small piece of text on the internet. You are the one arbitrarily conjecturing, and your determination to call him names makes others wonder if there is any content behind the fluff, instead of one who simply paraphrases an argument into something it is not in order to "knock it down". It's textbook strawman.

Blah, blah. Right-wing posters always claim that the discussion does not exist in a vacuum. Well, that's true. Look at his other OP about AA and you'll know, coupled with evidence from here, that his posts are inclined to condemn liberals however he can. Don't want to be misinterpreted in a certain way? Don't open yourself to such misinterpretation. I thought this is a rather obvious principle, but somehow it isn't to you.

So unless you want to appear like you just want to be a dick here, lay off. This part of the discussion is over, and the anti-liberal bias is for everyone to see. Your die-hard insistence on living in your own shell without seeing the reality is idiotic. Textbook strawman my foot. More like an elephant in the room.

 

[imperfect.la]

Blah, blah. Right-wing posters always claim that the discussion does not exist in a vacuum. Well, that's true. Look at his other OP about AA and you'll know, coupled with evidence from here, that his posts are inclined to condemn liberals however he can. Don't want to be misinterpreted in a certain way? Don't open yourself to such misinterpretation. I thought this is a rather obvious principle, but somehow it isn't to you.

So unless you want to appear like you just want to be a dick here, lay off. This part of the discussion is over, and the anti-liberal bias is for everyone to see. Your die-hard insistence on living in your own shell without seeing the reality is idiotic. Textbook strawman my foot. More like an elephant in the room.

This is one of those guys that all liberals are the same and must believe in the same cookie cutter ideas.

Whatever, if you wanna call me a liberal, conservative, or just a douche, go ahead. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the thread.

And watch that partisanship young man! It's no good for your heart pressure.

 

[aelf]

This is one of those guys that all liberals are the same and must believe in the same cookie cutter ideas.

Whatever, if you wanna call me a liberal, conservative, or just a douche, go ahead. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the thread.

And watch that partisanship young man! It's no good for your heart pressure.

Take your advice yourself. It's pretty clear that your OP contains more than enough venom to be considered partisan. As I said, that is past discussing. I was only responding to point out this fact.

And whatever you actually are doesn't matter. Chances are you are a douche. But your anti-liberal bias is clear as day, and that's all I'm concerned with. Want to be objective? Try again next time.

 

[El_Machinae]

Hey, let's be polite instead ...

What do people think should be done with India and China except for 'them first'?