• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Do YOU care about global warming?

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
http://www.theaustralian.news....,23411799-7583,00.html
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued.

[...]

If Marohasy is anywhere near right about the impending collapse of the global warming paradigm, life will suddenly become a whole lot more interesting.
[...]
With catastrophe off the agenda, for most people the fog of millennial gloom will lift, at least until attention turns to the prospect of the next ice age. Among the better educated, the sceptical cast of mind that is the basis of empiricism will once again be back in fashion. The delusion that by recycling and catching public transport we can help save the planet will quickly come to be seen for the childish nonsense it was all along.

The poorest Indians and Chinese will be left in peace to work their way towards prosperity, without being badgered about the size of their carbon footprint
, a concept that for most of us will soon be one with Nineveh and Tyre, clean forgotten in six months.
[...]
Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.

It will all be vastly entertaining to watch.
Now, I'm not saying we should punish China and India for growing.
I'm not saying our lives should be dictated by fear of global warming.
I'm not saying whether global warming is real or not - I don't care.

In my opinion global warming is, if anything, very similar to religion.
Cicero wasn't a huge fan of religion per-se, but he saw it as a means of controlling the masses.
IMO global warming is the current best means of trying to get people to be concerned about the environment, until oil prices go even higher than they are at the moment.

It doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not, across the world we ARE wasting water, we ARE polluting, we ARE destroying habitats, and we ARE using non-renewable fuels which WILL run out.
Better than global warming stays around, even if it's not real, so it gives us a kick up the ass in terms of trying to address problems that ARE problems.
Even if you don't think the whole world needs to go eco-mad, it's not a bad thing that people are looking to make vehicles more fuel efficient, buildings more "green", and reduce consumption of finite resources like oil.

Lets look at China. Olympic runners aren't too happy about doing things like marathons because of all the pollution. Does global warming matter? Who cares. Emissions are causing serious problems anyway, even if they aren't causing global warming.


I like global warming because it's giving a considerable number of people pause for thought about pollution and emissions and use of non-renewable fuels, even if it's not necessarily doing it for the right reasons. That's why I hope that global warming doesn't go away.
 

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,549
650
126
There are more articles out there saying the opposite.

But I agree, pollution and health due to emissions need to addressed.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,556
735
126
So far as GW is concerned...so much of it is speculation, but...lets say it is. Earth goes in cycles, and this is a cycle that we have SOME influence on, although no one knows exactly how much. From things Ive read, not alot. But, theres been a bazillion threads on THAT.

Yeah pollution and waste are issues we have MUCH more control over than GW. However, realistically, we can only really affect our own country. We cant really dictate what India and China do about their waste and pollution.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
There are more articles out there saying the opposite.
Indeed...and many of them contain climate science as expressed by actual climate scientists. The woman, Jennifer Marohasy, being quoted as an authority on the topic, is a biologist...which is better than asking the pizza delivery guy what he thinks about the climate, but not that much better.

I also question her objectivity, since she commits an error that scientists in ANY field should know enough to avoid. She tries to draw a trend line by picking a recent starting point rather than by calculating an average temperature growth. Because climate can vary significantly from year to year along a trend line, picking single points carefully can allow you to argue pretty much any trend you like.

A basic example of this that everyone should know is the stock market. It has returned, over something like the last 60 years, about 10% per year. Yet the difference between now and the height of the bubble in 2000 is about 0 (for the S&P 500 index). Does this mean the stock market isn't growing about 10% every year?

The reason I bring it up is because it's a pretty stupid mistake to make, even for someone not an expert in climate change. Which means in addition to not being an authority on the subject, Jennifer Marohasy is probably pushing an agenda as well. I'd prefer to take my advice from real scientists, thanks.

But I agree, pollution and health due to emissions need to addressed.
Agreed.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Hmm. Let's see: Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

IPA

It is funded by its membership and also by corporate interest groups (including Gunns Limited, Monsanto and tobacco, mining and oil companies).
A few of the items on it's agenda (also from Wiki):

Since the early 1980s, the Institute has argued the case for a range of neoliberal public policies, such as:
* lower taxation;
* deregulation of the Australian economy particularly as affecting industrial relations and trade unionism;
* privatisation of government businesses and reduced government spending;
* alleged left wing ideological bias in Australia's national broadcaster - the publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation;
Golly gee, sounds likes good ol' right-wing ideology to me. And Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist, not a climatologist.

So explain to me again why anyone should pay any attention to this interview?



 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: shira
Hmm. Let's see: Marohasy is a senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

IPA

It is funded by its membership and also by corporate interest groups (including Gunns Limited, Monsanto and tobacco, mining and oil companies).
A few of the items on it's agenda (also from Wiki):

Since the early 1980s, the Institute has argued the case for a range of neoliberal public policies, such as:
* lower taxation;
* deregulation of the Australian economy particularly as affecting industrial relations and trade unionism;
* privatisation of government businesses and reduced government spending;
* alleged left wing ideological bias in Australia's national broadcaster - the publicly funded Australian Broadcasting Corporation;
Golly gee, sounds likes good ol' right-wing ideology to me. And Jennifer Marohasy is a biologist, not a climatologist.

So explain to me again why anyone should pay any attention to this interview?
An shira here is demonstrating an even more important scientific principle...proving your argument. My statements about Marohasy pushing an agenda were inferred from the bad science she was displaying, but shira here dug a little deeper and proved she's probably not on the level. I had a hypothesis, shira tested it...it's science! ;)
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Anything that could help stop pollution that DOES ruin parts of the environment and the health of humanity.. would be nice.. but we humans will not change... it would take great plagues to affect our conscience
 

Illusio

Golden Member
Nov 28, 1999
1,449
0
76
could have used a little global warming this winter in the midwest. That was freakin cold.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,933
3,446
126
Originally posted by: Lonyo
I like global warming because it's giving a considerable number of people pause for thought about pollution and emissions and use of non-renewable fuels, even if it's not necessarily doing it for the right reasons. That's why I hope that global warming doesn't go away.
More like Global Wanking.

So when dealing with this issue ? I often come across this notion. An entire argument that we must believe and support lies because the result is favorable against something I support ? reducing emissions.

Well hell, I am in favor of killing terrorists, should we have destroyed Iraq to lure them into the battlefield? Lies do not beget a noble reason. There is something very horrifically broken with your argument if you cannot wage it on its own merits and must instead insist that it?s global warming, the world is coming to an end. Oceans will rise, dogs and cats, mass hysteria.

I cannot and will not support misinformation and lies.

Of course this issue isn?t as simple as that. There?s no proof we?re not warming (overall), and there are some correlations, and there are alternative theories that also remain unproven. The science is anything but finished on this matter, and we need more time to study it and determine what is correct and accurate.

In the meantime, I?d rather not buy into cult madness but would much rather see pollution reduced on its own merits. Imagine the damage and disservice you do yourself if you abandon the pollution argument, sell the public on GW, only to have nature prove GW to be false.

You?re betting the whole farm that the dogma turns out to be true in the end. While in the meantime promoting bad science and a whole machine of misinformation for political purposes.

Pardon me if saying ?the end justifies the means? comes across as wrong.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,556
735
126
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Lonyo
I like global warming because it's giving a considerable number of people pause for thought about pollution and emissions and use of non-renewable fuels, even if it's not necessarily doing it for the right reasons. That's why I hope that global warming doesn't go away.
More like Global Wanking.

So when dealing with this issue ? I often come across this notion. An entire argument that we must believe and support lies because the result is favorable against something I support ? reducing emissions.

Well hell, I am in favor of killing terrorists, should we have destroyed Iraq to lure them into the battlefield? Lies do not beget a noble reason. There is something very horrifically broken with your argument if you cannot wage it on its own merits and must instead insist that it?s global warming, the world is coming to an end. Oceans will rise, dogs and cats, mass hysteria.

I cannot and will not support misinformation and lies.

Of course this issue isn?t as simple as that. There?s no proof we?re not warming (overall), and there are some correlations, and there are alternative theories that also remain unproven. The science is anything but finished on this matter, and we need more time to study it and determine what is correct and accurate.

In the meantime, I?d rather not buy into cult madness but would much rather see pollution reduced on its own merits. Imagine the damage and disservice you do yourself if you abandon the pollution argument, sell the public on GW, only to have nature prove GW to be false.

You?re betting the whole farm that the dogma turns out to be true in the end. While in the meantime promoting bad science and a whole machine of misinformation for political purposes.

Pardon me if saying ?the end justifies the means? comes across as wrong.
/agree. Well said.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
What would your conscience handle better.. Global Killing or Global Environmentalism

Religion destroys the environment.. these people are tricked to believe the Earth belongs to the Devil and we should just destroy it now ;)
 

ultra laser

Banned
Jul 2, 2007
513
0
0
Originally posted by: Excelsior
I'd just like lower pollution. I don't care what some nuts on either side of the fence say.
A great way to achieve this would be to lower the population dramatically - let's say to around 500 million. I think that's a reasonable number.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Lonyo
I like global warming because it's giving a considerable number of people pause for thought about pollution and emissions and use of non-renewable fuels, even if it's not necessarily doing it for the right reasons. That's why I hope that global warming doesn't go away.
More like Global Wanking.

So when dealing with this issue ? I often come across this notion. An entire argument that we must believe and support lies because the result is favorable against something I support ? reducing emissions.

Well hell, I am in favor of killing terrorists, should we have destroyed Iraq to lure them into the battlefield? Lies do not beget a noble reason. There is something very horrifically broken with your argument if you cannot wage it on its own merits and must instead insist that it?s global warming, the world is coming to an end. Oceans will rise, dogs and cats, mass hysteria.

I cannot and will not support misinformation and lies.

Of course this issue isn?t as simple as that. There?s no proof we?re not warming (overall), and there are some correlations, and there are alternative theories that also remain unproven. The science is anything but finished on this matter, and we need more time to study it and determine what is correct and accurate.

In the meantime, I?d rather not buy into cult madness but would much rather see pollution reduced on its own merits. Imagine the damage and disservice you do yourself if you abandon the pollution argument, sell the public on GW, only to have nature prove GW to be false.

You?re betting the whole farm that the dogma turns out to be true in the end. While in the meantime promoting bad science and a whole machine of misinformation for political purposes.

Pardon me if saying ?the end justifies the means? comes across as wrong.
It seems to me that the real cult madness is dismissing science as "dogma" and embracing an idea that isn't backed by a shred of evidence or scientific argument.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Originally posted by: Lonyo

It doesn't matter whether global warming is real or not, across the world we ARE wasting water, we ARE polluting, we ARE destroying habitats, and we ARE using non-renewable fuels which WILL run out.
Better than global warming stays around, even if it's not real, so it gives us a kick up the ass in terms of trying to address problems that ARE problems.
This is the important point to take away. It's a shame that environmental issues have become such a charged political issue, when it should be common sense to not hurt your own home.

Regardless of how much or how little you want to believe human industrialized society affects the planet, it's just plain foolish that we knowingly let it happen at all, and selfish/shortsighted that most people don't care.

The vulgar version is, "don't shit where you sleep."
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Lonyo
I like global warming because it's giving a considerable number of people pause for thought about pollution and emissions and use of non-renewable fuels, even if it's not necessarily doing it for the right reasons. That's why I hope that global warming doesn't go away.
More like Global Wanking.

So when dealing with this issue ? I often come across this notion. An entire argument that we must believe and support lies because the result is favorable against something I support ? reducing emissions.

Well hell, I am in favor of killing terrorists, should we have destroyed Iraq to lure them into the battlefield? Lies do not beget a noble reason. There is something very horrifically broken with your argument if you cannot wage it on its own merits and must instead insist that it?s global warming, the world is coming to an end. Oceans will rise, dogs and cats, mass hysteria.

I cannot and will not support misinformation and lies.

Of course this issue isn?t as simple as that. There?s no proof we?re not warming (overall), and there are some correlations, and there are alternative theories that also remain unproven. The science is anything but finished on this matter, and we need more time to study it and determine what is correct and accurate.

In the meantime, I?d rather not buy into cult madness but would much rather see pollution reduced on its own merits. Imagine the damage and disservice you do yourself if you abandon the pollution argument, sell the public on GW, only to have nature prove GW to be false.

You?re betting the whole farm that the dogma turns out to be true in the end. While in the meantime promoting bad science and a whole machine of misinformation for political purposes.

Pardon me if saying ?the end justifies the means? comes across as wrong.
It seems to me that the real cult madness is dismissing science as "dogma" and embracing an idea that isn't backed by a shred of evidence or scientific argument.

Just what I was thinking.

I am continually baffled by people who, when confronted with a strong scientific consensus, choose the minority view. And it's not as if they even UNDERSTAND the evidence. All they know is that there's a LOT of evidence in favor of one position and a small amount of evidence against the position. Yet they go along with the minority, and label the majority view "dogma." Truly bizarre.

 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,504
14,434
136
It is almost enough to make me believe in a benevolent god:

1) Put fossil fuels on earth for the use of humanity.
2) Recognize that humanity consists of a bunch of goofs who pee on their own feet.
3) Limit the amount of fossil fuels so that fuels run out at the same rate that global warming kicks in.
4) Prophet!
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,560
2
76
We should go ahead and legislate ourselves so hard that we can't compete on the global market anymore. At least the greenies would have finally got their way and be quiet.
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
We should go ahead and legislate ourselves so hard that we can't compete on the global market anymore. At least the greenies would have finally got their way and be quiet.
Do you believe there are no business opportunities to be made in creating "Green" products and services?

Be serious.
 

Cold Steel

Member
Dec 23, 2007
168
0
0
Originally posted by: shira


I am continually baffled by people who, when confronted with a strong scientific consensus, choose the minority view.
At my job, we recently had a very difficult technical problem with one of the company's largest contracts. One engineer took the minority view against all the other engineers in the company. He was, in the end, proven very conclusively to be correct. The "concensus" was wrong.

Granted, entirely different technology than warming. I'm just saying.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
20,556
735
126
Originally posted by: Cold Steel
Originally posted by: shira


I am continually baffled by people who, when confronted with a strong scientific consensus, choose the minority view.
At my job, we recently had a very difficult technical problem with one of the company's largest contracts. One engineer took the minority view against all the other engineers in the company. He was, in the end, proven very conclusively to be correct. The "concensus" was wrong.

Granted, entirely different technology than warming. I'm just saying.
Yep. Everyone (pretty much EVERYONE) thought Einstein was off his rocker as well. As did the medical community when Louis Pasteur when he published his research.

Majority opinion =!= correct.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: Lonyo
I like global warming because it's giving a considerable number of people pause for thought about pollution and emissions and use of non-renewable fuels, even if it's not necessarily doing it for the right reasons. That's why I hope that global warming doesn't go away.
:thumbsup:

I've said all along: What's the worst that could happen if we use "global warming" as an excuse to revise our practices? could our environment and planet become TOO healthy? I don't think so.

As long as you dont preach it to me like it's some form of Armageddon (*cough* Gore *cough*), then I can't see anything bad coming from a renewed focus on living more cleanly.

Just dont over-legislate, or over-regulate, and we'll all get through whatever is happening just fine...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
No. I was already a tree hugger/ Conservationist type before this political nonsense hit the scene. I think in the long run it'll do alot of damage to the credibility of us Conservationist types due to crazy MMGW followers. If these people were for real they'd be doing more themselves instead of trying to make everyone else conform. IMO ofcourse :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY