Climate Change Discussion [Split from Election 2008 Thread]

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

No need to post anything more for you to twist Bagor.

I've explained what I said a half dozen times and you've ignored it and put your own spin on it every single time.

I'm through.

Twisting? Excuse me? And ...... exactly what have I twisted? Zero... Nada.... Nothing.

The only thing I could potentially twist is your stance on the issue given your reluctance to state it except for saying Palin's stance is perfect. Given this I can only assume that Palin's stance = your stance.

I repeat. The basic fundamental starting point of problem solving is determining what the problem is.

You appear to think Palin's stance of not arguing what the problem is, but tackling the consequences/impacts (adaptation)of the problem is the perfect solution. It makes sense for Alaska, yes, considering they have a huge potential for income from hydrocarbons and are getting a more than significant brunt of the impacts of CC. You appear to be in favour of adaptation over mitigation.

I grant you and concede that (economically, not environmentally) it's a perfect stance from an Alaskan's POV. Are you Alaskan?

You've stated how Palin's stance is perfect. I've counter argued how it is flawed in that it says little about mitigation and plenty about adaptation. How she talks about cleaning up the planet but supports drilling in one of the last remaining clean areas of the planet.

She advocates for adapting to the problem but argues for exacerbating it. Laughable.

I'm not through.

[Phanuthier]

Bagor - are you a scientist by any chance?

When it comes to problems like these, one simply does not "solve" the problem. Its a matter of perspective. An tree hugger will say its people causing it, a oil&gas businessman will say its a natural cycle. There's no grams per mole or anything like that to do.

I just don't get opinions like yours and myk where you must find the cause and then look for a quick fix if need by, like building something that starts pumping ozone into the atmosphere. Anyone who knows the first thing about science knows that it simply just doesn't work that way.

IMO Dis's stance is the only stance people should take. Stop arguing about the cause of the problem, its just a matter of perspective. Its a big waste of time. Instead of all this bickering so we can live the wasteful life we do, we should be more environmentally lean.

[Cube Inmate]

It's stupid for people who don't have any first-hand knowledge of the science to argue as to whether it's valid or not. Worse still, even the science is politicized because scientists rely on public funding which flows more freely when the scientific results lead to desirable political outcomes. Since the concept of "man-made climate change" can so easily be used to shame rich nations into supporting poor nations, it is a highly desirable concept for socialists and for those who can get rich based on other people's self-loathing (e.g. Al Gore).

But I didn't mean to release all that above...it just naturally comes out when someone claims that "the debate is over." What I came here to say is this: if you climate-change alarmists actually wanted an effective way to get people on your side, you'd focus not on an unproven, impersonal, long-term thing such as catastrophic global warming (you hear me Ms. May?), but on things that hit people personally:

1) The cost of oil, which is only going up
2) The type of people who benefit from our high oil consumption (i.e., OPEC nations)
3) The actual pollutants that result from burning certain fossil fuels...like the sulphur and other crap coming out of coal
4) How our kids will afford to heat their houses and get around when oil is $1000/bbl

Your tactics are based on shaming people for their behaviour, when in reality people should be proud of all that western civilization has accomplished. If we weren't, what would motivate us to continue being productive...to continue working hard? To change behaviour, it is always better to incent change by making people think positively about what they're doing, rather than trying to make them feel bad about not doing what they're told (by holier-than-thou ...hypocrites... like Gore & Suzuki).

I've said it before, and here it is again: a person can be smart, but people as a group are really dumb ("K" taught me that). As a society, the politicians and the ruling elite (again, Gore) are like the parents who repeatedly tell us how to behave. Whether they're correct or not, the natural reaction to being ordered around is to rebel and tell the rulers to take a hike. It'll continue until you quit with the "the debate is over" crap, which is equivalent to the infamous line uttered by every parent: "because I say so."

</rant>

[Stranger]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

It's stupid for people who don't have any first-hand knowledge of the science to argue as to whether it's valid or not. Worse still, even the science is politicized because scientists rely on public funding which flows more freely when the scientific results lead to desirable political outcomes. Since the concept of "man-made climate change" can so easily be used to shame rich nations into supporting poor nations, it is a highly desirable concept for socialists and for those who can get rich based on other people's self-loathing (e.g. Al Gore).

But I didn't mean to release all that above...it just naturally comes out when someone claims that "the debate is over." What I came here to say is this: if you climate-change alarmists actually wanted an effective way to get people on your side, you'd focus not on an unproven, impersonal, long-term thing such as catastrophic global warming (you hear me Ms. May?), but on things that hit people personally:

1) The cost of oil, which is only going up
2) The type of people who benefit from our high oil consumption (i.e., OPEC nations)
3) The actual pollutants that result from burning certain fossil fuels...like the sulphur and other crap coming out of coal
4) How our kids will afford to heat their houses and get around when oil is $1000/bbl

Your tactics are based on shaming people for their behaviour, when in reality people should be proud of all that western civilization has accomplished. If we weren't, what would motivate us to continue being productive...to continue working hard? To change behaviour, it is always better to incent change by making people think positively about what they're doing, rather than trying to make them feel bad about not doing what they're told (by holier-than-thou ...hypocrites... like Gore & Suzuki).

I've said it before, and here it is again: a person can be smart, but people as a group are really dumb ("K" taught me that). As a society, the politicians and the ruling elite (again, Gore) are like the parents who repeatedly tell us how to behave. Whether they're correct or not, the natural reaction to being ordered around is to rebel and tell the rulers to take a hike. It'll continue until you quit with the "the debate is over" crap, which is equivalent to the infamous line uttered by every parent: "because I say so."

</rant>

Awesome post!

[Rathji]

This thread is making my head hurt, so I stopped reading after page 3.

I don't give a flying fata what causes global warming, but I do think that is a result of many factors, some of which the human race might have no control over. We are spending absurd amounts of money, time, and scientific expertise to figure it out when the bottom line is that it really doesn't matter.

We are gonna run out of oil soon (relatively) so we better figure out a financially viable alternative(s) so we can actually maintain some of our lifestyle. Why don't we put this effort into finding these sources of energy, which will eliminate the supposed human cause of it? At that point it won't matter if CO2 emissions caused it.