Global warming mod

[civ_king]

At the risk of sounding heartless... so what? How is that different from what happens every day. People die, and it's a cruel fact of life for a cruel world. Some people have the bad luck to be born in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Good people die, innocent people die. Heck, Jack the Ripper was never even caught, but millions of children die each year in Africa.

From a purely statistical, pragmatic viewpoint, the means justify the ends, and humanity will still be better off, even if Global Warming occurs. Liberals, of all people, should see that the needs of the many outweigh those of the few. I don't like it, but there is nothing I can do to change it. Humanity will adapt, and eventually prosper again, more advanced than before.

After all, what is the alternative? To scuttle all industries? Realistically, to cut emissions at this point, we would have to completely end all manufacturing of any goods, and stop all power generation. Some even think it's too late now, even if we did all of that. And that isn't a feasible option. India, China, and South America won't go along with it. So it's pointless to try. Would turning the titanic 1 degree to the left, a minute before it hit the iceberg have saved any of the passengers? Probably Not.

Note: Any views expressed at ~2am are not representative of my actual opinions, and are a product of looming final exams and sleep deprivation.



Way OT, and the very definition of a strawman argument.

Hundreds of thousands fanatical Muslims and it is the US's fault, complete the thought sequence

 

[DRJ]

I just read page #1 cause I am quite in a bit of hurry - just two questions from my side:

Regarding global warming: How many % of glaciers have actually grown over the last hundred years? If it's less than 10% and I absolutely think so (they melt in Greenland, Switzerland, Antarctica all the same!) you can't tell GW would be a lie. Why else would most of the the glaciers melt if not the global climate has warmed up? Even if that doesn't necessarily prove a "human cause" of the phenomenon - it proves the sheer existance of it.

Do you guys really think that all the mining, drilling, lumberjacking in mother earths body, all that chemical and radioactive waste, all the cars and planes with their toxic output, humanities unimaginable hunger for consumption of energy - do you guys REALLY think, all that won't somehow affect the climate on this earth?!!

Even the bronze age'(?)s excessive lumberjacking (cutting/burning down whole landscapes of forest) had a measureable effect on the climate. Some of you should try to get the broader picture and investigate further.

Nevertheless, I think there are new industries pushing some issues to gain founding, so yeah, there is a lobby. But, as we see these days, to wake up at least some of the brainwashed "drill, baby, drill"-zombies, there usually always has to be a castastrophic event, like Chernobyl or Seweso etc.

 

[Afforess]

Um if the circumstances for other countries worsen - environmentally speaking, because of our countries contributing the most towards climate change, then we have a direct responsibility to help.

According to your idea's about Morality.

But consider a Darwinian belief about global warming. A Darwinian would consider the lives lost completely acceptable, in the name of progress.

Or what about a statist's views? Global Warming could be used as an excellent way to form a NWO. In that case, the responsibility to help only exists if you are a part of the NWO.

Believing that your moral guidelines is the same as the universe's in blindingly arrogant at best.

But... behold... suddenly regular joe knows best on the environment. It's ideological, and your remarks show clearly that your concern is more on a political basis than a scientific one.

Right. So, did Micheal Mann phone you, and give you the right to speak about Global Warming? Where are your credentials?

The entire world is moving to invest in renewable energy for example and are not doing so because they make more money than traditional forms of energy. The only folks dragging there feet on this are really politically motivated sceptics, who are often 'humoured in words' but not by actions too of some conservative politicians.

I'm not for or against renewable energy. As older energy sources become less usable, costs will go up, making renewable energy more feasible. The market innovates by itself, and doesn't need intervention. The results of such intervention are often disastrous, as we have seen with the 2008 ongoing recession, which was caused by the government backing loans to homeowners who lacked the ability to pay their mortgages. If global warming is real, clean energy will quickly become a large part of the market, naturally.

 

[Lawrie]

a castastrophic event, like Chernobyl or Seweso etc.

or like the Deeepwater Horizon too.

After all, what is the alternative? To scuttle all industries? Realistically, to cut emissions at this point, we would have to completely end all manufacturing of any goods, and stop all power generation.

Not at all, to keep working and researching harder on the development of renewable energies. Wind, solar, tidal, ever better batteries, biomass etc. It's going to take an enormous effort to shift our economy to renewables, but its for many purposes.

- The environment. See, it takes just one natural disaster to DEVASTATE an economy, to cripple an industry. Take Katrina for example, how long will its effects dominate? It didn't end just cos it left the news page. Increased instances and ferocity of natural disasters resulting - yes from nature, but increased... due to climate change will soon enough mitigate the advantages of fossil fuels.
- Security, depleting fossil fuels/energies are leading nations into conflict - and will do so, for the remaining reserves. Other forms of energy and investment in renewable energy give countries independent sources of power, regardless. Would half of our forign adventures even take place if oil was no longer a primary fuel?
- We all get to live longer...

In your quote - i don't know why you jump to that extreme... its already happening in the USA and Europe (just don't expect to hear it from Conservative politicians...) that these are being invested in. But we are still dragging our feet.

 

[Lawrie]

But consider a Darwinian belief about global warming. A Darwinian would consider the lives lost completely acceptable

Yeah, just one step away from Eugenics, so called social darwinism was the best inspiration for Victorian colonial policy too. hehe, i think you need to grow up no offence, but real life isn't civ 4.

Believing that your moral guidelines is the same as the universe's in blindingly arrogant at best.

Everyones entitled to a stupid point of view, including one that disregards any moral ethics in foriegn policy. After all it worked great for the Imperial powers of the past right?

Right. So, did Micheal Mann phone you, and give you the right to speak about Global Warming? Where are your credentials?

Yeah my credentials - as in the basis of my opinion rests on the fact that virtually every scientist and every major institute of research in the USA and Europe support climate change theories resulting from man. So... i would entrust into them like i would the scientists designing a power plant, a car, an ipod or chemotherapy. No other scientific basis happens to be questioned unless it strikes an ideological sore point. - Climate change, and evolution.

If global warming is real, clean energy will quickly become a large part of the market, naturally.

Because it is real - climate change. They already are investing heavily!

 

[Afforess]

- The environment. See, it takes just one natural disaster to DEVASTATE an economy, to cripple an industry. Take Katrina for example, how long will its effects dominate? It didn't end just cos it left the news page. Increased instances and ferocity of natural disasters resulting - yes from nature, but increased... due to climate change will soon enough mitigate the advantages of fossil fuels.
- Security, depleting fossil fuels/energies are leading nations into conflict - and will do so, for the remaining reserves. Other forms of energy and investment in renewable energy give countries independent sources of power, regardless. Would half of our forign adventures even take place if oil was no longer a primary fuel?
- We all get to live longer...

Fear-mongering, a time-honored tactic. Nice.

hehe, i think you need to grow up no offence, but real life isn't civ 4.

Ad hominem Attacks. Convincing.

Everyones entitled to a stupid point of view

More ad hominem. Eloquent.

Yeah my credentials - as in the basis of my opinion rests on the fact that virtually every scientist and every major institute of research in the USA and Europe support climate change theories resulting from man. So... i would entrust into them like i would the scientists designing a power plant, a car, an ipod or chemotherapy. No other scientific basis happens to be questioned unless it strikes an ideological sore point. - Climate change, and evolution.

[Citation Needed]

Honestly, if this is the best debate tactics you can do, red-herrings, ad hominem, strawmen, and fear-mongering, you obviously don't care about the real subject at hand. You'd make Nixon proud.

 

[Lawrie]

Boohoo mon amie, if you can't debate on the facts expressed, or take criticism for maintaining views now considered to be archaic and ridiculous (like social darwinism) then i'll hand you a hankerchief.

The consequences of climate change ARE fearful.... that kinda goes hand in hand with the reason why governments and peoples around the world are fighting to minimise our impact on the environment.

Now you can alternate between ridiculous macho chauvanistic statements such as your darwinist rationale... to boo-hooing at my rhetorical smackdowns, but it makes no difference.

Scientific consensus and industry and government are moving with this, but too slowly. Only those with as it happens, ideological reasons - political and not scientific, squeal the loudest 'sceptism' - hand in hand more often than not with those denying evolution.

Incidentally - you'd make Dan Quayle proud

// Regarding your citation, dude... if you have done ANY research you will know there is no existing scientific body at least WITH national or international STANDING in the Western World that disputes mans impact towards climate change. You would know this... if you researched just a little... it's not my opinion see... its a matter of obvious scientific conclusion and research.

 

[Afforess]

Boohoo mon amie, if you can't debate on the facts expressed, or take criticism for maintaining views now considered to be archaic and ridiculous (like social darwinism) then i'll hand you a hankerchief.

More ad hominem.

The consequences of climate change ARE fearful.... that kinda goes hand in hand with the reason why governments and peoples around the world are fighting to minimise our impact on the environment.

Scare-tactics.

Now you can alternate between ridiculous macho chauvanistic statements such as your darwinist rationale... to boo-hooing at my rhetorical smackdowns, but it makes no difference.

Ad hominem again.

Incidentally - you'd make Dan Quayle proud

Red-Herring.

// Regarding your citation, dude... if you have done ANY research you will know there is no existing scientific body at least WITH national or international STANDING in the Western World that disputes mans impact towards climate change. You would know this... if you researched just a little... it's not my opinion see... its a matter of obvious scientific conclusion and research.

Funny. I don't see any citations in that paragraph.

My personal analysis of the debate so far shows that you are getting desperate, hurling more and more extreme, and stereotypical arguments at me; using common defense mechanisms. If you want to seriously debate this topic, everyone needs to stay level-headed about the debate. I suspect we agree on a whole lot of things, but you need to see past the media stereotypes.

 

[konradcabral]

Guys, stop with this... This won't lead us anywhere. Global Warming is a gigantic and nebulous subject to be discussed and proven here. Neither of you will convince or be convinced. So, do you like my new avatar?

 

[Lawrie]

Oh give it a break and stop whining Afforess and playing the poor me game. If you have nothing else to say fine but give it up already.

If you want to debate facts, go for it, but you would be up against scientists and institutes not me... otherwise your gonna exhaust your little quote button bro

Fact
Scientists in an overwhelming consensus, so much so that all major Western national and international scientific bodies agree that evidence points to man's direct cause to contributing (in a bad enough manner for us to do something about it...) climate change.

Scientists tell me that nuclear power works... they also also make claims about the Sun... now hey, im no expert - but i can take there opinion or i can make up my own? But we don't do we? Oh unless it happens to effect a certain political value... which comprises the greatest motivation for most sceptics on climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

 

[Lawrie]

hehehe okay we can call it peace in our time - i just hope we don't get a last dig situation here! hehehe your above that right Afforess?

 

[Afforess]

Guys, stop with this... This won't lead us anywhere. Global Warming is a gigantic and nebulous subject to be discussed and proven here. Neither of you will convince or be convinced.

That's exactly why I get into debates. You can only convince people who are less informed than yourself. I know every debate tactic in the book...but I digress...

So, do you like my new avatar?

Uh, I don't dislike it. I'm rather ambivalent.

hehehe okay we can call it peace in our time - i just hope we don't get a last dig situation here! hehehe your above that right Afforess?

Right.

 

[Lawrie]

This debate is very important for justifying my windfarm minimod! hehehe

 

[konradcabral]

Uh, I don't dislike it. I'm rather ambivalent.

Just because he hasn't magical powers and didn't come back from death...

 

[Afforess]

Just because he hasn't magical powers and didn't come back from death...

Lol.

 

[konradcabral]

At least I have magical powers. I manage to end global warmings debates peacefully. If only I knew about these powers before, I could have ended the Hitler's one too...

 

[NBAfan]

At least I have magical powers. I manage to end global warmings debates peacefully. If only I knew about these powers before, I could have ended the Hitler's one too...

You should step in earlier.


What is your avatar?

 

[konradcabral]

What is your avatar?

It's from "Rome", a HBO historic show. The character pictured is Julius Caesar, magically interpreted by Ciarán Hinds. I strongly suggest history junkies like us to watch this show.

 

[Talin2009]

If we would speak about *warming* aspect of industry, not about pollution in general, so far it's pure theories and media propaganda, with no time-scale available to prove it right or wrong, whereas other theories say it's one huge hoax created by paid "scientists" who would write anything as long you provide grants for it and debated by bureaucrates in countless commissions, who get their salaries for it, and propaganded by "honest and independent" (tm) corporate owned mass-media. Also lots of theories say otherwise, that total effect of industry, cars etc. is somewhere around 5% or so compared to amount of heat coming from volcanoes, sun, shifting of earth axis and other nature-caused things.

For Western countries who have passed industrial stage, modernized their industry and are now in post-modern technocratic society, putting this kind of tax on countries who are now having their industrial revolution stage, (building their heavy machinery, infrastructure, cement plants, energy plants) (China, India and others in Asia and South America) gives serious advantage in production costs or reduces their (developing countries) capabilities and speed of industrialization. And don't forget that in China like 800 million people who live in villages get to eat one cup of rice a day, living same way they lived thousand years ago, and same applies to India where situation is even worse with 90% living like cattle (i mean living conditions here).

The problem isn't in industrial wastages, it's in nature of liberal capitalism and bankers interest itself, where you MUST expand endlessly, and if you don't you have recessions and depressions, with war only possible outcome. And of course overconsumeristic nature of today's western civilization. Imagine what will happen to resources if China and India (3 bill. people) start consume as West does? I mean houses, cars etc. etc. etc. One of those we are witnessing right now and things going very rapid this year... I seriously hope we won't have nuclear WWIII, because regular WW is inevitable now.

Sorry for long rant, all this imho ofc.

 

[Afforess]

The problem does not live in industrial wastages, it's in nature of liberal capitalism and bankers interest itself, where you MUST expand endlessly, and if you don't you have recessions and depressions, with war only possible outcome. One of those we are witnessing right now. And of course overconsumeristic nature of today's western civilization. Imagine what will happen to resources if China and India (3 bill. people) start consume as West does? I mean houses, cars etc. etc. etc. One of those we are witnessing right now and things going very rapid this year... I seriously hope we won't have nuclear WWIII.

Sounds like I should invest heavily in Virgin Galactic.