1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Scientists Agree - We are Ruining the World

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Narz, Jan 27, 2007.

  1. Masquerouge

    Masquerouge Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    17,790
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    No, I'm just saying the guy is controversial.

    But he can very well choose the data he interprets, which is one of the complaints about his book, that is apparently still being reviewed...

    I agree on the second part (and I never said anything to the contrary), but not the first one. The scientific community is pretty much in agreement that there is a global warming.
    Plus if the scientific community did not have a unique voice, why then would so many scientists be mad about that guy? And where are the scientists supporting him?


    I never denied we were making improvement, which is in no part due to an acknowledgment that yes, we have an impact on the environment.



    Have you checked any source other that the guy's own website? ;)
    I think it was only fair to show the controversy surrounding that guy.

    But if you have no expertise in a given field, how can you be certain your interpretation is correct?



    As I said, I don't care if people get it wrong or are stupid. I care about what the scientists say. And I believe there is a great discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the media say, and my opinion is that this discrepancy is the cause of the current confusion, more than the minimal disagreement in the scientific community.

    Once again, I'm not saying Lomborg is wrong.
    I'm saying Lomborg is controversial because he goes against the scientifical consensus (which as I stated is a good thing for science), and that given that I have no expertise on the subject, I will rather trust the opinion of the scientific community than that of a lone maverick, or you (but nothing personal :) ).
    Should the scientific community acknowledge that Lomborg's right, then I will give the guy credit.
     
  2. EdwardTking

    EdwardTking Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2002
    Messages:
    3,794
    Location:
    Norfolk

    ??? Let me guess the logic. Global warming is an islamic terrorist plot ???
     
  3. Brighteye

    Brighteye intuitively Bayesian

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Location:
    Oxford

    Yes, but scientists have never been right before? Mechanics, biology, medicine, engineering and so on are all untrustworthy because scientists can be wrong? So now you're going to stop using your car, electricity, your artificial fabrics and crops grown with pesticides or GM modifications?

    I think science has a pretty good record for being right about things. The fact that it's been wrong before is entirely irrelevant to the current consensus. Science cannot prove ideas: merely disprove them. inevitably you'll be able to quote ideas that have been disproven. That's how science works. If we didn't have some ideas that were wrong we'd never need science at all: we'd know it all already!
    As it is, there is a huge array of data and evidence to suggest that we are causing global warming. Maybe it's wrong... but given the result if this conclusion is right, it makes sense to avoid the result, even if it's more likely not to be true.
     
  4. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    No. I am referring to the pre-industrials who pollute the earth with their slash/burn deforestation tactics.

    Why should they listen to a guy in a labcoat? Answer: they wont. So unless you want to make them comply via violence, polluting will continue.
     
  5. Xanikk999

    Xanikk999 History junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,232
    Location:
    Fairfax county VA, USA
    Are you calling brazil a pre-industrial country? :hmm:
     
  6. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,989
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    I never said I actively wished harm on anyone. But the fact is, most people are probably not going to change and are going to keep on thinking their culture and way of life is invincible (or if religious, that they will somehow be saved from the consequences of their actions). I share your sympathy for the young and poor people who will be stuck and helpless during any kind of emergency.

    pre-industrials? I don't recall the destruction of the rain forest being a major world issue in the early 1800's. The rainforest is cut down because of industry (often the fast food industry) as well as overpopulation.

    So make them comply via violence (aka : laws) then. Would you stand idly by while someone smoked a cigarette and blew smoke in your face? Well that's what many industries are doing and if will take stringent laws (enforced by violent action if necessary) I say so be it.
     
  7. Urederra

    Urederra Mostly harmless

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,310
    Location:
    Sea of tranquility
    Well, I took some of my precious time (10 minutes, lol) to look for some easy to access news about pollution. I focused mainly on two issues, atmospheric SO2 levels and the most important ecological dissaster of modern times, the Aral sea. I didn't even bothered about the ozone layer thing, since everybody already knows that is getting thicker. That is what I found:

    SO2 levels

    http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/2.html

    The link I posted have links to the sources of scientific data. That is the sort of things Lomborg report in his book.

    The Aral sea thingy.

    I just went to wiki for that. :blush:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

    So, the ecological situation of the North Aral Sea is improving since 2003. and it is able to support living fish again. Is not published in a scientific paper but the improvement is so clear that you can't deny it. (I recall reading an article about the recovery on Science or Nature, though, but I am too lazy to look for it and only a few people in this board have access to it anyway.

    http://www.worldbank.org.kz/WBSITE/...K:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:361869,00.html

    So, the worst ecological dissaster of the modern era is getting better.

    You may find the levels of other pollutants getting worse, but you can hardly argue that everything is getting worse.

    What do you suggest to fight against overpopulation? Kill people? Castrate/sterilize certain subgroups of population?
     
  8. Norlamand

    Norlamand Procrastinator Rex

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    2,154
    Location:
    Occupied Mexico
    Don't try to bring reason or logic into this...............you know damned well it has no place in such a discussion. Stick to emotion and dogma.
     
  9. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Uhhh....actually, that's not far off the mark. Some governments around the world are in fact saying global warming is a farce cooked up by the United States to keep developing nations down.

    (No, I don't believe them either, but they are saying it....)
     
  10. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    I'd prefer you refrain from using those first five words again.

    I understand the issue better than most. In the 70's, nobody was worried much about global warming--they were worried about pollution. As in soot and smoke. That's what we were trying to clean up.

    What global dimming goes to show (in addition to other things) is that back in the 70's we took action based on our best knowledge at the time--and SURPRISE, suddenly it appears we may have merely been doing more damage.

    You need to learn from that. You need to be aware that you might make the same mistake again (in the long term, it's very probable you will). And there are already several theories out there about things that could go wrong as a result of a sudden reduction in human CO2 emissions.....


    Side note: Urederra posted some good stuff showing that supposedly Doomsday-level problems, were not. Good job there man! :goodjob:
     
  11. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,989
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    What makes you say that it is the "worst" and how can you really judge until after you see what happens in the next hundred years or so?

    A one-child mandate maybe. One things for sure, a whole lot of Indians, South-East Asians and Africans (and to a lesser extent Americans) are gonna be wishing their parents had been a bit more careful in the years to come.
     
  12. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Are their a bunch of primatives that live in the rainforests still? Anyway, I withdraw the pre-industrial comment, and let the slash and burn comment stand.

    Once again, it does no good to say thus and so with no way to ensure people comply. People who dont want to will keep on doing what they will, and those that do comply will feel cheated.

    Instead of reinventing the 'blamegun mk II' scientists need to invent a fix for the problem; not just another 'I told you so'.
     
  13. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Huh? The fast food industry is responsible? How?

    Will not do one iota of good unless their government backs it. And what government in its right mind will back legislation that hurts its GDP?

    Very bad analogy for the situation. Brazil isnt blowing smoke in the fact of the UK, nor, I suspect, do britons feel that way.

    *cough* ah...who exactly is going to enforce these 'violent laws' with 'violent action'? The '17 resolutions in 14 years' UN? Tell me another whopper because there is no way in hell I would ever believe that.
     
  14. Pontiuth Pilate

    Pontiuth Pilate Republican Jesus!

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,980
    Location:
    Taking stock in the Lord
    Rainforest is cheap land (sometimes it can even be stolen) and it's rich, so it's good for raising beef on, at least for two or three seasons until all the nutrients are leached from the soil. Then they move on to another area.

    McDonald's slashes-n-burns a ****ton more rainforest than some pygmy tribe :lol:
     
  15. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,989
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    What Pontiuth Pilate said.

    One that realizes there are more important things to take care of than GDP. Perhaps even one that realizes that an economic model based on exponential growth in a world with finite resources is fundamentally insane and untenable (someone's bound to realize it sooner or later).

    It's not about Brazil or Brittan. Every individual anywhere (especially those in power) who are contributing to pollution (and yes we all are in our own way, I personally am trying to do enough for the good to more than make up for my carbon footprint) is metaphorically blowing smoke in everyone else's face, and especially the yet undeveloped faces of future generations.

    You're probably right (for now), sadly. The UN has yet to get serious. Kyoto is far too soft.
     
  16. MobBoss

    MobBoss Off-Topic Overlord

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    46,853
    Location:
    In Perpetual Motion
    Now wait a second. How does raising beef on land 'leech' the nutrients from the soil?

    Huh?

    People have been raising beef all across the USA since forever....I dont recall ever reading about how the soil was 'leeched' out.
     
  17. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    Once such a government comes into existence (assuming same hasn't happened already!), how can that model be imposed on nations where the realization hasn't occurred?

    Unless you're willing to point nukes at them--and demonstrate you're not bluffing by actually detonating a few--there's just no way to do it. Lots of nations around the world are determined, totally and absolutely, to industrialize no matter what. Virtually every nation that signed Kyoto has already defaulted on it, proving that everybody's hoping somebody else will solve the problem for them.
     
  18. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,989
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Perhaps you should start reading about it then. Topsoil depletion has been as issue in the US since even before you were born. Overfarming and grazing has been a major factor in the fall of empires.

    It's never to late for an education. :)

    Here's a start : Google : soil + erosion

    And a potential solution : Wikipedia on Permaculture
     
  19. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    27,989
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Hopefully it won't come to that.

    Ideally, as global environmental problems become more pronounced and undeniable governments will adapt prophylactic measures of their own accord. There will also be the fact that nations that spend more of their resources on sustainable infrastructure will fare better than those that don't.
     
  20. StarWorms

    StarWorms Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    2,348
    Location:
    England
    So you believe the best action to take is none whatsoever? To deliberately go against the stacks and stacks of evidence because it's only around 95%? Not tackling general pollution or greenhouse gas emissions will lead us to an even worse situation.
     

Share This Page