Portuguese island to become first CO2-free island

reply to post by Neo_Serf


lol well I'm glad you have it all figured out then.

Your post reeks of the same overconfidence that beset all those people who declared the Titanic was unsinkable too, but whatever.

Anyway ArMaP's thread doesn't even really have anything to do with AGW, so I have no interest in derailing it into yet another pointless debate. But since you apparently have "the deepest respect" for science - I'll say this:

Why don't you try engaging in some yourself instead of hanging your hat on a narrow minded, naive idea of what you deem to be "strikingly obvious" BS. That's your downfall. From the wording in your posts it is strikingly obvious to someone like me that you have only ever looked at one side of the story, most likely on purpose - because it's much easier to just pick and choose whatever conforms to your political ideology, rather than something as complicated as the scientific truth.

If you really have this deep respect for science, then have a go over to a site like www.skepticalscience.com - where they lay out the full spectrum of climate science in very layman terms, but also back up all their claims with direct links to the original peer-reviewed literature and source data.

And while you're at it, be sure to also take a close look at the full story behind the supposed self-admitted "lies, coverups, incorrect predictions, bungling of data", blah blah...which are so strikingly obvious apparently...because?...somebody reported it lol?

I guess that means it must be true right? I mean it's utterly inconceivable that the person spreading the rumour is the one who's actually incorrect, bungling the data, covering something up, or flat out lying to you. Everyone knows the media is completely honest and accurate when it comes to these things, while those damn scientists are the notoriously sloppy and shady ones.

So here, let me even give you some links to get you started on this one:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
The Fake Scandal of Climategate
And just in case you want to cop out and tell me this is all just propaganda - here's some emails I debunked myself in another ATS thread, just by reading the FULL message instead of the cherry picked excerpts someone tried to exploit to mislead everyone.


Meanwhile here's what numerous independent investigations turned up:

Inspector General’s Review of Stolen Emails Confirms No Evidence of Wrong-Doing by NOAA Climate Scientists
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again
Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing
Final ‘forensic’ UK report on emails vindicates climate science and research underlying the Hockey Stick


Guess you must've missed that part. Not surprising, you wouldn't be the only one:

"ClimateGate" Scientists Cleared Yet Again, Story Ignored by Media Yet Again
'Climategate' Debunking Gets Less Coverage Than Original Trumped-Up Scandal
Newspapers Retract 'Climategate' Claims, but Damage Still Done


So notice a pattern yet:

"Climategate" exposed: Conservative media distort stolen emails in latest attack on global warming consensus
Sunday Times retracts and apologizes for shameful and bogus Amazon story smearing IPCC
Sea Level Researchers Debunk Wash. Times' Distortion Of Their Work
A Newspaper Apologizes to United Nations’ Climate Chief
Fabricated quote used to discredit climate scientist
CRU climate scientists 'did not withhold data'


...and what about the scientist that "admitted" there was no global warming since 1995?

Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
Journalistic malpractice on global warming
Flogging the Scientists



So how's that strikingly obvious BS detector functioning now? Probably hasn't changed much, since if I've learned anything about ATS these days it's that people won't change their initial convictions no matter how much the facts say otherwise...

But maybe when you've read through all that, like I have, then come talk to me about scrutiny. Try giving your own admittedly-untrained eyes some perspective, so you can comment a little better about the supposedly obvious lies, scams, and hidden agendas.

Because that's the funny thing about hidden agendas - they usually like to be hidden.

Following the "strikingly obvious" path is exactly why so many people are completely clueless sheep when it comes to this conspiracy. They follow their egos instead of their brains. I'm just really tired of being lectured by them.

lol well I'm glad you have it all figured out then.

I most certainly do not. I certainly am not qualified to state with absolute certainty that AGW is incorrect. It simply does not pass this taxpayers smell test, and since I am the one who will (and am) footing the bill for the 'misguided' policy of carbon taxation, I am obligated to do my best within my limited capacity to judge the validity of these claims.

IM (layman) O there are simply too many holes and contradictions for this theory to stand. I may indeed be wrong.

Your post reeks of the same overconfidence that beset all those people who declared the Titanic was unsinkable too, but whatever.

The only thing I am really confident in is my ability to rationally perceive the world. My world includes people like you who are forcing me to relinquish my time and energy in the name of what appears to be a 'misguided' hypothesis. (forced because my money/time is being taken from me under the justification of AGW) Your acting upon my life in this manner compels me to find out the truth in this matter, to the best of my ability, with logic as my only tool.

Anyway ArMaP's thread doesn't even really have anything to do with AGW, so I have no interest in derailing it into yet another pointless debate.

Are you saying to me that the creation of a 'CO2 FREE' island has nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of man made global warming?

But since you apparently have "the deepest respect" for science - I'll say this:

Notice I said 'science' and not 'scientists'...but yes, continue...

Why don't you try engaging in some yourself instead of hanging your hat on a narrow minded, naive idea of what you deem to be "strikingly obvious" BS. That's your downfall.

Science is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is something I engage in everyday. I may not be surrounded by bubbling beakers and nerdly lab assistants all day, but I do apply the scientific method in my life only a daily basis.

If I have overstated the 'obvious' nature of the case against AGW, perhaps I shouldnt have been so strong in my assertion, and perhaps that is my downfall. But I simply do not think I have, and while I will not state as fact that your theory is bogus, I will say that I have a strong, fact based opinion against it.

History will show whos downfall this was.

From the wording in your posts it is strikingly obvious to someone like me that you have only ever looked at one side of the story, most likely on purpose - because it's much easier to just pick and choose whatever conforms to your political ideology, rather than something as complicated as the scientific truth.

Actually I was totally pro AGW and carbon tax until a few short years ago, and I even remember glowing with naive and foolish pride when my home province of BC was one of the first to implement carbon taxes on gas.

When the holes and deceptions began to pile up against, I simply had to reevaluate.

4 years ago I would be starring and flagging all your posts, trust me.

If you really have this deep respect for science, then have a go over to a site like www.skepticalscience.com - where they lay out the full spectrum of climate science in very layman terms, but also back up all their claims with direct links to the original peer-reviewed literature and source data.

Having looked at both sides of the argument in detail, I can pretty much tell you that what youve linked I have read, in one form or another. But since youve input time and energy, you must have had some sliver of hope that I wouldnt disregard your info, so for that reason and for my own I will definitely check out your link and do my best to remain objective. This will be challenging as my confirmation bias is admittedly geared against AGW at this point. (and I dont think unreasonably so.)

And while you're at it, be sure to also take a close look at the full story behind the supposed self-admitted "lies, coverups, incorrect predictions, bungling of data", blah blah...which are so strikingly obvious apparently...because?...somebody reported it lol?

Climategate is something I looked at in detail, so im pretty familiar with the whole debacle. When those emails leaked I was already firmly in the anti AGW camp, so the huge toxic data dump definitely served as confirmation.

If you honestly think no information in those emails (which I read at source) that does not seriously compromise if not totally destroy the AGW theory (or at least the believability of its adherents) then you have either not read them or suffer from some serious cognitive dissidence. And not, that they held a one day mock trial exonerating themselves from any corruption does not hold weight with this critical mind.

I guess that means it must be true right? I mean it's utterly inconceivable that the person spreading the rumour is the one who's actually incorrect, bungling the data, covering something up, or flat out lying to you. Everyone knows the media is completely honest and accurate when it comes to these things, while those damn scientists are the notoriously sloppy and shady ones.

Just to clarify - Im not making any truth statements about the validity of AGW since I cannot. (and neither can you.) I did not reference or source the 'media' once in any of my posts (in terms of my opinion), and besides watching the odd ron paul or judge napilitano clip on youtube,(omg proof of right wing bias thus argument is invalid lol!) I pay zero attention to the MSN.

Its not scientists in general I blame, (as they brought me this awesome computer) it is those agenda driven establishment sycophants that fawn at the foot of the state and sell their intellectual integrity for some state directed grant...it is them I find error in. They are a constant in history, and one of their current manifestations, imo, are the AGW scientists. They are todays sophists.

So here, let me even give you some links to get you started on this one:

I promise to review them critically.

Meanwhile here's what numerous independent investigations turned up:

'Independent' is a nebulous word. For example, if you were to review the material for wrongdoing, you would (im assuming) be considered an 'independent'. But your confirmation bias is clearly jacked in favor of AGW.

Also, having knowledge of the nature of power and its reliance and symbiosis with the intellectual class who provide much of the justification for the current power structure, you must realize that if the theory *is* false and an attempt to discredit it is made, the power structure will almost instinctively move to discredit its opponents by any means necessary, in order for it to survive. Thus if the theory(upon which the establishment rests a massive pillar of its agenda upon) is false, and a major blow is dealt to its credibility, we would expect a massive flotilla of state supporters to rally and denounce the threatening agent, in the same way that the immune system masses white blood cells against a foreign entity.

No 'conspiracy' needed here, its just the inevitable response when an entity is threatened. Considering the vast resources of this particular beast, (the state and its cronies) we would expect the counterattack to be vast, as is highlighted by climategate, and probably by your links. (i dont know yet I havent looked.)

The above is of course assuming AGW is indeed a false theory, which I believe it is.

Guess you must've missed that part. Not surprising, you wouldn't be the only one:

You have no way of knowing what I have missed, and what I have not. (neither do I for that matter)

So notice a pattern yet:

Yes. Their friends appear to be clearing them of all charges. This is just an assumption based on what I saw of the first trial/hearing whatever, which was a complete and total farce, and I think if you disagree completely with what I just stated then you forfeit a gross amount of integrity. (not that you should or do give a damn what I say)

...and what about the scientist that "admitted" there was no global warming since 1995?

Im sorry I should have been more clear from the outset. I have no problem with 'global warming' per say being influenced by humans. No one is (or should be) denying that CO2 concentrations have zero effect on climate.

What I find to be suspect and alarmist is the catastophic model of AGW. It simply does not hold that a few degrees C increase will lead to cataclysm. I find the ME warm period info to be particularly supportive of my suspicions.

Is it not true that CO2 concentrations, in Earths recent geologic history, have been, by order of magnitude higher than today? If this is true, why arent we Venus by now?

Why has 'runaway global warming' never occurred in the past, with far higher concentrations than your theory which holds a mere doubling of CO2 would end the world? Im no expert, but this just does not compute, in my mind.

But I wont debate data and details with you because im clearly outmatched. That you are more proficient in this field than me does not validate your argument. (as many more qualified scientists than you oppose your position,)

So how's that strikingly obvious BS detector functioning now? Probably hasn't changed much, since if I've learned anything about ATS these days it's that people won't change their initial convictions no matter how much the facts say otherwise...

You and I share this frustration with the incomprehensible irrationality of most people. Trust me, I run into it everyday, where people guide their perception of the facts by the convenience of their feelings. That you perceive that which I also contempt gives me pause and forces me not to be one of them, those who are impervious to facts and rational argument. In that I totally feel you brother.

But you see, it is not unthinking and arbitrary whim that has led me to oppose, and argue against, this theory that you see to be crucial. Ive been on both sides, Ive weighed both arguments as objectively and carefully as I am able, and I tallied up the pros and cons. To the best of my perception, I simply have found that this theory that proposes that the life giving gas that is CO2 is somehow deadly and must be taxed and controlled...I find this theory to be wrong, incorrect, invalid. I feel it belongs in the dustbin of science just as the ptolemaic system and the ether now are. I believe it is an immense waste of resources and intellectual capital (like yourself), and most importantly I see it as a justification for a much wider system of taxation and control.

I know the last sentence will earn me ridicule as a biased reactionary, but please, save that flimsy counter for a noob who actually hasnt studied history and the dynamics of power. I could give you countless, no, endless examples of the intellectual class being the mouthpiece for the lies and dark ambitions of the state. The relationship between the two is basically a constant in history.

But maybe when you've read through all that, like I have, then come talk to me about scrutiny. Try giving your own admittedly-untrained eyes some perspective, so you can comment a little better about the supposedly obvious lies, scams, and hidden agendas

.

I think Ive addressed this point above. I will review your links though, as per our agreement.~

they usually like to be hidden.

Liars must be hidden due to their nature and survival strategy.

Following the "strikingly obvious" path is exactly why so many people are completely clueless sheep when it comes to this conspiracy. They follow their egos instead of their brains. I'm just really tired of being lectured by them.

Again, Im constantly at odds with the people who think with their feelings. To the extent that I can remain objective, this is what Ive concluded.

Im tired of being lectured by them too. Apologies for assuming too much. If I came off as overly aggressive it is only because the fuel carbon tax was just raised in my province~

Global warming is the direct result of all the corporations and the politicians that take their money allowing all the forests to be cut down.

Look at what has been done to the Amazon rain forest and the rain forest along the western coast of the U.S and southeast Asia.

Does anybody even know why they are called "Rain forests"?

The weird weather and flooding and droughts we are having worldwide is directly related to the clearing of thousands of acres of old growth trees.

Everyone over the age of 50 can remember in grade school being told how important the rain forests are to the survival of all species on this planet.

There is only one type of fossil fuel and it is coal.

Petroleum is NOT a fossil fuel.

If it was we would be finding dinosaur bones in Saudi Arabia and all those other Mideast countries and we have not.

One small island eliminating CO2 is not going to do a dang thing as long as China Russia and India keep spewing toxins in the air.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


You'd rather we worship at the monolith of $5 gas, watered with regular mass sacrifices of brown people in oil-producing regions, then. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

You'd rather we worship at the monolith of $5 gas, watered with regular mass sacrifices of brown people in oil-producing regions, then. Good luck with that.

I just wanted to highlight that so you can reread it more clearly than you typed it, and spot the numerous fallacies and strawmen in your non response.

Good luck with that.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
I most certainly do not. I certainly am not qualified to state with absolute certainty that AGW is incorrect. It simply does not pass this taxpayers smell test, and since I am the one who will (and am) footing the bill for the 'misguided' policy of carbon taxation, I am obligated to do my best within my limited capacity to judge the validity of these claims.

IM (layman) O there are simply too many holes and contradictions for this theory to stand. I may indeed be wrong.

Okay. You don't like the tax that your lawmakers have imposed, as their own idea to respond to what the science says, therefore you think the science involved is fake?

Couldn't it just be that the idea and implementation of the lawmakers is inept and asinine, even though the science is good?

The only thing I am really confident in is my ability to rationally perceive the world. My world includes people like you who are forcing me to relinquish my time and energy in the name of what appears to be a 'misguided' hypothesis. (forced because my money/time is being taken from me under the justification of AGW) Your acting upon my life in this manner compels me to find out the truth in this matter, to the best of my ability, with logic as my only tool.

Your rational perceptions need a new eyeglass prescription then; again, you are faulting science for the ineptitude of your politicians - no, I stand corrected - you are blaming someone on the internet who acceptsthe science for the ineptitude of your politicians.

Science is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is something I engage in everyday. I may not be surrounded by bubbling beakers and nerdly lab assistants all day, but I do apply the scientific method in my life only a daily basis.

Uh... no. Science is philosophy in the same way that a horse is an edible fruit.

Philosophers - like theologians and economists - like to claim to be a sort of scientist - with heavy, heavy, HEAVY emphasis on the "sort of." None of them actually practice science, however. Economics is astrology for math nerds, theology is the study of what happens when you talk to yourself in a crowd, and philosophy is basically a competition where the participants try to confuse their audience; whoever scores the most blank expressions wins! All three might be entertaining, but none of them follow the scientific method in any way, shape, or form, and are therefore not science.

If I have overstated the 'obvious' nature of the case against AGW, perhaps I shouldnt have been so strong in my assertion, and perhaps that is my downfall. But I simply do not think I have, and while I will not state as fact that your theory is bogus, I will say that I have a strong, fact based opinion against it.

That fact being, you dislike paying taxes.

History will show whos downfall this was.

As far as history is concerned, we all pretty much exist to feed plants.

Actually I was totally pro AGW and carbon tax until a few short years ago, and I even remember glowing with naive and foolish pride when my home province of BC was one of the first to implement carbon taxes on gas.

When the holes and deceptions began to pile up against, I simply had to reevaluate.

4 years ago I would be starring and flagging all your posts, trust me.

Fourth time; the ineptitude of your territory's politicians does not actually impact the science.

Having looked at both sides of the argument in detail, I can pretty much tell you that what youve linked I have read, in one form or another. But since youve input time and energy, you must have had some sliver of hope that I wouldnt disregard your info, so for that reason and for my own I will definitely check out your link and do my best to remain objective. This will be challenging as my confirmation bias is admittedly geared against AGW at this point. (and I dont think unreasonably so.)

you're - shall we say - fibbing here. More in a second.

Climategate is something I looked at in detail, so im pretty familiar with the whole debacle. When those emails leaked I was already firmly in the anti AGW camp, so the huge toxic data dump definitely served as confirmation.

See, here's where I can tell you're talking out the wrong end of your digestive tract. See, There was no "climategate." if you looked at "both sides" in any amount of "detail", and if you were "familiar with the whole debacle" you would realize that the fiasco was make-believe. It was pounced on by deniers, who selectively edited and cherry-picked what they would show their audiences, with no explanation of meaning or context.

If you honestly think no information in those emails (which I read at source) that does not seriously compromise if not totally destroy the AGW theory (or at least the believability of its adherents) then you have either not read them or suffer from some serious cognitive dissidence. And not, that they held a one day mock trial exonerating themselves from any corruption does not hold weight with this critical mind.

In other words, they lost you at "dendrochronology" and "maximum lightwood density"?

Just to clarify - Im not making any truth statements about the validity of AGW since I cannot. (and neither can you.) I did not reference or source the 'media' once in any of my posts (in terms of my opinion), and besides watching the odd ron paul or judge napilitano clip on youtube,(omg proof of right wing bias thus argument is invalid lol!) I pay zero attention to the MSN.

Well, actually, you are making inferred "truth statements." Even to the point of accusing others of suffering "serious cognitive dissonance" of htey happen to disagree with your (awkwardly admitted) ill-informed opinion. From your position it's very easy to see that while you may not pay much attention to the "MSM" you probably DO gulp down whatever the denialist "community" hocks into your mouth.

Its not scientists in general I blame, (as they brought me this awesome computer) it is those agenda driven establishment sycophants that fawn at the foot of the state and sell their intellectual integrity for some state directed grant...it is them I find error in. They are a constant in history, and one of their current manifestations, imo, are the AGW scientists. They are todays sophists.

Uh... you know that your computer, and this "internets" that you're using... were all created by scientists who fawned at the foot of the state and sold their intellectual integrity for some state-directed grant, right? 'Cause, I hate to tell you man, but scientists don't get paid very much.

Neither, for that matter, do bullsh- uh, philosophers.

Again, you show that you fail to understand the concepts being discussed, and choose to veil your ignorance by some murky anti-state chest-thumping that saves you from having to either understand the matter at hand, or accept that others understand it better than you.

After all, your entire point of view in this debate has hinged around British Columbia's government taxing you for Carbon emissions and how much you dislike that.

I promise to review them critically.

I heard you gigglesnort there.

'Independent' is a nebulous word. For example, if you were to review the material for wrongdoing, you would (im assuming) be considered an 'independent'. But your confirmation bias is clearly jacked in favor of AGW.

It's easy to get "jacked" in favor of actual science with avctual evidence. especially when you understand what they're talking about.

Also, having knowledge of the nature of power and its reliance and symbiosis with the intellectual class who provide much of the justification for the current power structure, you must realize that if the theory *is* false and an attempt to discredit it is made, the power structure will almost instinctively move to discredit its opponents by any means necessary, in order for it to survive. Thus if the theory(upon which the establishment rests a massive pillar of its agenda upon) is false, and a major blow is dealt to its credibility, we would expect a massive flotilla of state supporters to rally and denounce the threatening agent, in the same way that the immune system masses white blood cells against a foreign entity.

A self-proclaimed philosopher, decrying intellectuals. My, your roots are showing, dear!

I like how suddenly climate scientists are part of the "power structure". Which climate scientists? ALL OF THEM. Worldwide. Chinese, Namibian, Australian, and US scientists, all feeding at the same trough of the global elite, who want us all to believe in AGW so that we'll stop buying petroleum and and and... wait, what?

Even in the cosmic scheme of goofy "secret world government conspiracy theories" this idea is wacky. Most governments around the world are intensely invested in, if not outright owned by, oil companies (the US and Nigeria come to mind, respectively).

While your numbers could hardly be called "massive" (unless you count the teeming masses of people who just believe the most recent thing they hear) it's the denialists who are sitting with their respective governments, because the denialists are playing for - and often paid for by - the very same industries, companies, and persons that governments are bound to in the energy industries.

No 'conspiracy' needed here, its just the inevitable response when an entity is threatened. Considering the vast resources of this particular beast, (the state and its cronies) we would expect the counterattack to be vast, as is highlighted by climategate, and probably by your links. (i dont know yet I havent looked.)

The above is of course assuming AGW is indeed a false theory, which I believe it is.

Well, scientifically speaking, "false theory" is an oxymoron. You get false hypotheses all the time, but if something is a scientific theory, then that is the absolute best and truest you can get outside of pure mathematics.

Assuming that it's a false theory also assumes a global conspiracy between all scientists, which, as you just pointed out, relies on assuming that it's a false theory.

Youclaim to be a philosopher. Tell me, what happens when your conclusion creates an infinite loop paradox?

Yes. Their friends appear to be clearing them of all charges. This is just an assumption based on what I saw of the first trial/hearing whatever, which was a complete and total farce, and I think if you disagree completely with what I just stated then you forfeit a gross amount of integrity. (not that you should or do give a damn what I say)

You admit you saw only a portion of a portion. Then make a declarative of the entire process being a "complete and total farce." And then threaten that if the other person disagrees with you, they "forfeit a gross amount of integrity."

For a philosopher, you really do suck at rational debate. Did you know that? Might I suggest a change in nomenclature?

Observable fact from your stance is that you have no idea what in the world you're talking about (since, as you admit, you only saw a fraction of a fraction, regarding something you clearly have no understanding of , while holding a strong bias against it anyway). I'm afraid you're the one shedding integrity.

Im sorry I should have been more clear from the outset. I have no problem with 'global warming' per say being influenced by humans. No one is (or should be) denying that CO2 concentrations have zero effect on climate.

And here's where you realize your foot's stuck in the trap and, faced with your options, decide to try squirming around in the snare before gnawing said foot off.

if you agree with this statement, then you have no actual beef with AGW. Because, well, that is AGW.

What I find to be suspect and alarmist is the catastophic model of AGW. It simply does not hold that a few degrees C increase will lead to cataclysm. I find the ME warm period info to be particularly supportive of my suspicions.

Except the Medieval Warm Period wasn't exactly happy times all around. While I'm sure England was happy to grow grapes, the Maya and Cahokians weren't too happy with decades of drought and resultant population crashes from famine. Eastern Australia had some pretty extreme flooding during this period. Eastern Africa became much drier, which probably resulted in the decline of Zimbabwe. out in central Asia, the increased yields caused a population boom that, when met with the following "little ice age" set the stage for the mongol-turkic conquest of just about everybody.

This is just looking at the human conditions at the time, of course - it probably wasn't a happy time for the many creatures that can't adapt their environment to themselves.

Also keep in mind, the population of the world now is seven times larger than it was during the MWP. let's do a little thought experiment.

As I stated, the MWP coincided with a period of drought in central north America. This drought was severe enough as to probably cause the collapse of a burgeoning empire, now known posthumously as Cahokia. Even at the most generous estimate, maybe two and a half million people lived under the influence of this nascent nation. It collapsed because they couldn't feed that many people on the meager crops they were pulling in because of this drought.

Ohio - one of the states that has the most relics of Cahokia - currently has a population of eleven and a half million people. Most of them live pretty far from local food or water sources, and probably most don't really know how to grow their own.

If a drought like the one during the MWP were to strike the same area of the United States, with the same intensity and duration, what do you think the effect on those eleven million people in Ohio would be? or the three million in Iowa? The thirteen million in Illinois?

I think a lort of those people might call it a catastrophe, don't you?

Is it not true that CO2 concentrations, in Earths recent geologic history, have been, by order of magnitude higher than today? If this is true, why arent we Venus by now?

"Recent geological history" - nice one. Yes, during recent geological history, there were times when CO2 was orders of magnitude higher. What happened? Well, in part, plants evolved and started poisoning the planet with oxygen.

"Recent geological history" isn't really that recent, you know.

The reason we're "not Venus" is partly a matter of methane, partly a matter of sulphur dioxide, and partly a matter of distance to the sun. Also, unlike Venus, we have oceans full of water that sucks up CO2 like a sponge, plenty of organisms that do the same, and are still a geologically active world that eats some CO2 (and also releases some)

Why has 'runaway global warming' never occurred in the past, with far higher concentrations than your theory which holds a mere doubling of CO2 would end the world? Im no expert, but this just does not compute, in my mind.

Maybe it's the part where someone filled your head with lies about how we think it'll "end the world." There's a big difference between "end the world" and "it would be a very unpleasant environment for everything currently living here for several million years"

You do understand the difference, yes?

But I wont debate data and details with you because im clearly outmatched. That you are more proficient in this field than me does not validate your argument. (as many more qualified scientists than you oppose your position,)

Actually, being more learned in a field does validate one's argument. This is why no one really pays attention to your vaunted scientists who are critical of AGW - most of them are physicists and dentists, and are not actually learned in any of the fields relevant to climate. Or biology. or geology.

Interestingly, a lot of dentists seem to doubt evolution, too. I wonder what it is about the field of oral medicine.

But you see, it is not unthinking and arbitrary whim that has led me to oppose, and argue against, this theory that you see to be crucial. Ive been on both sides, Ive weighed both arguments as objectively and carefully as I am able, and I tallied up the pros and cons. To the best of my perception, I simply have found that this theory that proposes that the life giving gas that is CO2 is somehow deadly and must be taxed and controlled...I find this theory to be wrong, incorrect, invalid. I feel it belongs in the dustbin of science just as the ptolemaic system and the ether now are. I believe it is an immense waste of resources and intellectual capital (like yourself), and most importantly I see it as a justification for a much wider system of taxation and control.

Again, we note that your opposition is not actually based on any opinion on the science, but because you're bitchy about paying a tax. Are all philosophers so small-minded and prone to avarice?

You're also being disingenuous here. No one's arguing that CO2 is deadly or toxic (though I wouldn't recommend huffing dry ice - just trust me on that one) but rather that because it's a dense gas, it holds heat - and displaces lighter, less insulating gasses (like oxygen and nitrogen).

I know the last sentence will earn me ridicule as a biased reactionary, but please, save that flimsy counter for a noob who actually hasnt studied history and the dynamics of power. I could give you countless, no, endless examples of the intellectual class being the mouthpiece for the lies and dark ambitions of the state. The relationship between the two is basically a constant in history.

Save it for a noob who hasn't studies history or the dynamics of power? heh. Okay.

I'm ridiculing you as a biased reactionary, because you are a noob who has not studied history or the dynamics of power. You also have no inkling about science in general, nor about climate science in particular. You claim to have studied philosophy, but you are just... bad at it. granted, there are bad students in every field, byut most of them have the self-realization to not claim the field as their own.

Allow me to reiterate. Your entire basis for your position is that you don't want to pay a tax. because you don't want to pay a tax, you believe global warming is a hoax. To support your belief that global warming is a hoax (because you don't want to pay a tax) you've concocted a global conspiracy theory comprising every geologist, climatologist, and biologist on earth, who are all, of course, embroiled in a deeper globalist conspiracy that wants to tax you. yes, you. Specifically you. They're out to get you, with science!

When you could just say "I don't like being taxed. I think I'll write my MP, and failing that, move somewhere where I'm not taxed for driving my 5 MPG Dodge!"

As for ENDLESS examples of intellectuals and states frolicking together, you might want to confer with the many thousands of philosophers who have been shot in the head (or fed hemlock, hanged, set on fire, dismembered, etc) by the state. Or the number of scientists who have had their work, and often lives destroyed by the state (Ever heard of Alan Turing?) And I'm going to wager that the majority of your "endless examples" come either at the hands of economists (remember, the modern voodoo witchdoctors) or my stupid-ass laymen with pretentions of intellectualism.

Such as ridiculous reactionary noobs.

Liars must be hidden due to their nature and survival strategy.

Finally, an expert opinion on a subject you're deeply knowledgable of!

Again, Im constantly at odds with the people who think with their feelings. To the extent that I can remain objective, this is what Ive concluded.

Again, allow me to reiterate - your position is solely based on being bitchy and petulant that you're paying a tax, combined with a knee-jerk reactionary hatred of people who you deem "intellectuals." because, in your wild imagination, they are in cahoots with "the state" which you also hate and revile.

Your entire stance is based on knee-jerk emotional hysteria.

Im tired of being lectured by them too. Apologies for assuming too much. If I came off as overly aggressive it is only because the fuel carbon tax was just raised in my province~

Bitch, bitch, bitch. See?

Originally posted by Neo_Serf

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

You'd rather we worship at the monolith of $5 gas, watered with regular mass sacrifices of brown people in oil-producing regions, then. Good luck with that.

I just wanted to highlight that so you can reread it more clearly than you typed it, and spot the numerous fallacies and strawmen in your non response.

Good luck with that.

What's the matter, philosopher-man? Not interested in a quick bout of comparative religion?

Okay. You don't like the tax that your lawmakers have imposed, as their own idea to respond to what the science says, therefore you think the science involved is fake?

Youre playing leapfrog with your logic there pal. I reject taxation in principle as a violation of the Non Aggression Principle, (taxation = force, but thats another thread...) but I certainly never said I thought the science was wrong based on that idea alone.

Couldn't it just be that the idea and implementation of the lawmakers is inept and asinine, even though the science is good?

If the science were good but the plan was not executable because of the (monopoly of violence) government, I would still have to oppose the implementation of this flawed that is plan based on good science. Either way I would be forced to oppose action against me based on the flawed/good science.

And this is certainly the case. How do we know? The 'leaders' of this plan do not act as if they see the threat of CO2 as threatening. Al Gores beachfront home and the endless cavalcade of gas guzzling private jets and limos at every climate summit are a testament to that.

Our so called 'leaders' constantly shame us for our 'carbon footprint' while they themselves own lavish, energy intensive properties and have 5 children. If out leaders who propose to be the saviors of us all from da ebil CO2 actually *believed* what they are pushing on us, they would not act in this manner.

So we know *for certain* that the proposed solutions are BS, regardless of the validity of the science. But power and the intellectual class always form a positive feedback loop, with one reinforcing and sustaining the other, to the detriment of everyone else, of course. (as is the nature of parasites)

Your rational perceptions need a new eyeglass prescription then;

Please teach me, oh wise one.

again, you are faulting science for the ineptitude of your politicians - no, I stand corrected - you are blaming someone on the internet who acceptsthe science for the ineptitude of your politicians.

As I stated above, the political and intellectual class are usually creatures serving the same master - power. The political class typically protects, funds, and elevates the intellectual class in return for the vocal moral and cultural sanction the intellectual class provides. The relationship is timeless, and goes back to tribal days when the warlord would be legitimized by the shaman, and the shaman would be given moral authority by the warlord. (this mechanism probably emerged through the ageing warlords desire to retain power over younger and stronger challengers, but i digress...)

The same relationship between a priest or intellectual class and the ruling power elite can be found in any society. The modern manifestation includes AGW supporters, IMO.

Uh... no. Science is philosophy in the same way that a horse is an edible fruit.

So youre suggesting that science, which is based in the logic of valid philosophy, is unrelated? Are you saying that logic and science are unrelated?

Philosophers - like theologians and economists - like to claim to be a sort of scientist - with heavy, heavy, HEAVY emphasis on the "sort of."

Are you trying to tell me that post modern philosophy is a pile of horse #? What a stunning revelation!

Luckily I agree with you on that point. The realm of 'sort of' is not science, nor truly valid philosophy. Valid philosophy starts with A=A, which im sure we can all agree to.

None of them actually practice science, however.

None of them? Ever?

When did I refer to 'them'? I wasnt speaking for anyone else.

TextEconomics is astrology for math nerds,

I couldnt agree with you more, with one qualification - *keynesian* economics is astrology (with the Mises Austrian school being astronomy)

theology is the study of what happens when you talk to yourself in a crowd, and philosophy is basically a competition where the participants try to confuse their audience; whoever scores the most blank expressions wins!

We definitely share a much deserved contempt for post modern, relativistic philosophy. This is invalid philosophy, IMO, in the same way that I see AGW as incorrect science.

Objectivist philosophy is what I refer to. That A=A, and not A=sort of A.

In other words the foundation of science. You think we would have the scientific method *without* socrates?

All three might be entertaining, but none of them follow the scientific method in any way, shape, or form, and are therefore not science.

Ive addressed this above, but no, valid philosophy = Aristotles 3 rules of logic. Scientific method = applied logic.

Thus philosophy is the foundation for science.

That fact being, you dislike paying taxes.

You say this as if my not wanting my own money violently taken from me (for bogus reasons, not that it matters) is somehow a slight on me.

Yes, I dislike paying taxes because I dislike being stolen from.

As far as history is concerned, we all pretty much exist to feed plants.

You see, you discount philosophy while at the same time shaping your argument around your philosophy. A=/A

Fourth time; the ineptitude of your territory's politicians does not actually impact the science.

As if repetition of an invalid argument somehow makes it true...?

See, here's where I can tell you're talking out the wrong end of your digestive tract. See, There was no "climategate." if you looked at "both sides" in any amount of "detail", and if you were "familiar with the whole debacle" you would realize that the fiasco was make-believe. It was pounced on by deniers, who selectively edited and cherry-picked what they would show their audiences, with no explanation of meaning or context.

lulz man, youre too easy. I had to at least give MCs arguments a moments pause.

I bet dollars to carbon credits that i have personally read, at source, many times the amount of raw emails you have. How do I state this so confidently? Because if you read what I read, you seriously wouldnt be blustering around like this in your false certainty. Those emails were toxic and damning, and that you dont see that means you A) havent read them or B) cant read too well.

That you slap on the 'denier' label for good measure is just a flagpole displaying your ignorance. To compare legitimate skeptics to Nazi supporters to prop up your sh***y argument is both vile and loathsome.

In other words, they lost you at "dendrochronology" and "maximum lightwood density"?

OOo duuuuur yer usin big werds, no fair smartie pants duuuuuur...

As a side note, do you think me incapable of grasping the above terms? *shrug*

Well, actually, you are making inferred "truth statements." Even to the point of accusing others of suffering "serious cognitive dissonance" of htey happen to disagree with your (awkwardly admitted) ill-informed opinion.

No, ive never once stated that AGW was 100% false. I inferred nothing except my conclusions based on my very strong opinions.

Im sorry if my presentation isnt up to your standards, I will steadfastly aspire to bring myself up to your lofty standards.

...NOT

From your position it's very easy to see that while you may not pay much attention to the "MSM" you probably DO gulp down whatever the denialist "community" hocks into your mouth.

OOooO now were gettin duuurty, bring it on Fox boy~

Uh... you know that your computer, and this "internets" that you're using... were all created by scientists who fawned at the foot of the state and sold their intellectual integrity for some state-directed grant, right? 'Cause, I hate to tell you man, but scientists don't get paid very much.

The ones who produce useful inventions sure the hell do~

Neither, for that matter, do bullsh- uh, philosophers.

Ya, and socrates drank the hemlock and died penniless, and yet you owe youre entire world to him. Oh and im an entrepreneur by day. You know, the guys who produce all the wealth you students and government employees suckle upon for your daily bread?

After all, your entire point of view in this debate has hinged around British Columbia's government taxing you for Carbon emissions and how much you dislike that.

Yeah, I generally dislike being stolen from under threat of force. One of my pet peeves really.

I heard you gigglesnort there.

Im sorry mods but I think this is valid. Youre a real s*ithead, buddy. Way to corrupt what was meant to be an olive branch across a canyon.

It's easy to get "jacked" in favor of actual science with avctual evidence. especially when you understand what they're talking about.

Man, stop beating me about the head with your orthodoxy and understand that I have indeed weighed both sides. Plenty of far more brilliant man than you or I oppose what you assert to be unquestionable. I happen to agree with them. Capish?

A self-proclaimed philosopher, decrying intellectuals. My, your roots are showing, dear!

The funny thing is that you are also a philosopher, as are all thinking beings. You just happen to adhere to a contradictory and thus invalid form.

What the # do intellectuals have to do with me or what im saying? Clearly, if youve noticed, im not decrying *all* intellectuals, as i source the opposing faction of intellectuals as the valid party. I have nothing against intellectuals, or thinking men in general. What I oppose is *error*, and I believe your camp is steeped in it.

And dont call me 'dear', its just weird.

I like how suddenly climate scientists are part of the "power structure". Which climate scientists? ALL OF THEM. Worldwide. Chinese, Namibian, Australian, and US scientists, all feeding at the same trough of the global elite, who want us all to believe in AGW so that we'll stop buying petroleum and and and... wait, what?

Government grants.

Taxing gasoline will not curtail its use, its use will just increasingly come at the cost of others goods. Until a viable alternative is *allowed* err invented, were stuck with gas. Making it more expensive just makes us all poorer.

Even in the cosmic scheme of goofy "secret world government conspiracy theories" this idea is wacky. Most governments around the world are intensely invested in, if not outright owned by, oil companies (the US and Nigeria come to mind, respectively).

Hmmm and yet it was Enron who largely wrote and drafted cap and trade hmmmmmmm....not like the state protected monoplized energy concerns could ever have an interest in limitless selective enforcement upon their competitors under the guise of 'carbon reduction' lol.

Youre thinking checkers. Were playing chess.

While your numbers could hardly be called "massive" (unless you count the teeming masses of people who just believe the most recent thing they hear) it's the denialists who are sitting with their respective governments, because the denialists are playing for - and often paid for by - the very same industries, companies, and persons that governments are bound to in the energy industries.

Do you expect these actors to act any differently considering they could be facing massive state intervention and regulation? When the gun is pointed at you, dude, youll do anything to get it pointed at someone else.

You also do realize that your whole way of life depends on those evil industries? Can you imagine the megadeath that would ensue if they all went bankrupt tomorrow?

I agree we gotta get off the gas, but come on man, the very computer your using now is all because of oil.

Well, scientifically speaking, "false theory" is an oxymoron. You get false hypotheses all the time, but if something is a scientific theory, then that is the absolute best and truest you can get outside of pure mathematics.

Ok so creationism isnt a false theory then, right? Am i missing some technical detail when i use those two words together to describe a bs theory?

Assuming that it's a false theory also assumes a global conspiracy between all scientists, which, as you just pointed out, relies on assuming that it's a false theory.

If the theory is valid then the burden would swing in the opposite direction, of course. I just dont believe this to be the case.

Youclaim to be a philosopher. Tell me, what happens when your conclusion creates an infinite loop paradox?

I never claimed anything besides my rational ability to perceive the world. In the event of a paradox, or contradiction, one must check ones premises. I dont have an example to work with here so perhaps you could educate me.

You admit you saw only a portion of a portion. Then make a declarative of the entire process being a "complete and total farce." And then threaten that if the other person disagrees with you, they "forfeit a gross amount of integrity."

Based on the portion I was referring to.

For a philosopher, you really do suck at rational debate. Did you know that? Might I suggest a change in nomenclature?

Its hilarious in its irony that you should say this because if you were actually involved in a rational debate what you have said above would disqualify you immediately. Basic stuff you miss.

To quote bart simpson 'hu hu hu the ironing is delicious'~~~~~

Observable fact from your stance is that you have no idea what in the world you're talking about (since, as you admit, you only saw a fraction of a fraction, regarding something you clearly have no understanding of , while holding a strong bias against it anyway). I'm afraid you're the one shedding integrity.

Ive admitted repeatedly that I am not qualified to make a truth statement on the matter. (as neither are you) The fact that force has been initiated against me under AGWs name forces me to form my best opinion possible. You make no convincing arguments, and others in the opposing camp certainly have you beat on many fronts.

Your personal attacks make this whole charade even more transparent. You have the smell of desperation.

And here's where you realize your foot's stuck in the trap and, faced with your options, decide to try squirming around in the snare before gnawing said foot off.

OooO, you think youve got me, huh? You realize I admitted my error and corrected myself openly....right?

if you agree with this statement, then you have no actual beef with AGW. Because, well, that is AGW.

Fine. I agree with AGW to the extent that a few degrees temp change can reasonably be expected. No s*it.

Except the Medieval Warm Period wasn't exactly happy times all around. While I'm sure England was happy to grow grapes, the Maya and Cahokians weren't too happy with decades of drought and resultant population crashes from famine. Eastern Australia had some pretty extreme flooding during this period. Eastern Africa became much drier, which probably resulted in the decline of Zimbabwe. out in central Asia, the increased yields caused a population boom that, when met with the following "little ice age" set the stage for the mongol-turkic conquest of just about everybody.

So in conclusion primitive cultures were unable to cope, in some instances, with increased temp. Big friggin woop.

You realize were like star trek to them, right?

If a drought like the one during the MWP were to strike the same area of the United States, with the same intensity and duration, what do you think the effect on those eleven million people in Ohio would be? or the three million in Iowa? The thirteen million in Illinois?

Probably not good? But you ignore potential increased productivity of land further north. *shrug* How am I to know what exactly might play out in some hypothetical warming situation? Suppose we just plan rationally and adapt to changing conditions?

Actually, being more learned in a field does validate one's argument.

Argument from authority only works if the source is actually an authority, which you are not.
.

nterestingly, a lot of dentists seem to doubt evolution, too. I wonder what it is about the field of oral medicine.

were not talking about the evolution or dentistry.

Again, we note that your opposition is not actually based on any opinion on the science, but because you're bitchy about paying a tax. Are all philosophers so small-minded and prone to avarice?

Again, me no likey being stolen from. Basic moral stuff, wouldnt expect you to know.

You're also being disingenuous here. No one's arguing that CO2 is deadly or toxic (though I wouldn't recommend huffing dry ice - just trust me on that one) but rather that because it's a dense gas, it holds heat - and displaces lighter, less insulating gasses (like oxygen and nitrogen).

Yup. Got all that. EPA lists CO2 as a top pollutant. (and yet refuses to test for fallout regularly...hmmmmm)

Save it for a noob who hasn't studies history or the dynamics of power? heh. Okay. I'm ridiculing you as a biased reactionary, because you are a noob who has not studied history or the dynamics of power. You also have no inkling about science in general, nor about climate science in particular. You claim to have studied philosophy, but you are just... bad at it. granted, there are bad students in every field, byut most of them have the self-realization to not claim the field as their own.

Whatever you say.

Allow me to reiterate. Your entire basis for your position is that you don't want to pay a tax. because you don't want to pay a tax, you believe global warming is a hoax. To support your belief that global warming is a hoax (because you don't want to pay a tax) you've concocted a global conspiracy theory comprising every geologist, climatologist, and biologist on earth, who are all, of course, embroiled in a deeper globalist conspiracy that wants to tax you. yes, you. Specifically you. They're out to get you, with science!

*yawn* Buncha BS in there dont feel like addressing.

When you could just say "I don't like being taxed. I think I'll write my MP, and failing that, move somewhere where I'm not taxed for driving my 5 MPG Dodge!" As for ENDLESS examples of intellectuals and states frolicking together, you might want to confer with the many thousands of philosophers who have been shot in the head (or fed hemlock, hanged, set on fire, dismembered, etc) by the state. Or the number of scientists who have had their work, and often lives destroyed by the state (Ever heard of Alan Turing?) And I'm going to wager that the majority of your "endless examples" come either at the hands of economists (remember, the modern voodoo witchdoctors) or my stupid-ass laymen with pretentions of intellectualism.

Yup, big damn blood clusterfawk of historical mess. Youre part of that fine tradition. Be proud.

Such as ridiculous reactionary noobs.

You sure are a fine fellow arent you.

Finally, an expert opinion on a subject you're deeply knowledgable of!

Blah x5. Boooring.

Again, allow me to reiterate - your position is solely based on being bitchy and petulant that you're paying a tax, combined with a knee-jerk reactionary hatred of people who you deem "intellectuals." because, in your wild imagination, they are in cahoots with "the state" which you also hate and revile.

Im just gonna go ahead and state that you have no clue as to how society actually operates, and you are willfully ignorant of this. Blah blah blarh.

Bitch, bitch, bitch. See?

What an odd little man you are.

Dont bother responding, I wish I hadnt.

I have learned a lot from this debate, but I know very little about how the island will generate their power from non-CO2 producing sources. That would have been interesting. The benefits of the experience could solve a lot of issues, and bring other issues to light, that have more to do with self-sustainability, reduction of other pollutants, economic issues, etc, that the world as a whole need to learn to apply.

We need the experience to move away from oil (which IMO has already damaged us for an unforseen future from the ocean contamination) and nuclear (which is in the process of shortening the lifespan of all creatures in the north hemisphere as we speak) so this experiment to me could be useful. However it is too small a scale to give useful results or make a useful contribution, except to the 5000 people on the island.

The things I did learn? Not much. I have came to some conclusions of my own, but they are just opinions, as I have also came to the conclusion that we do not have enough data. I have re-affirmed some of my opinions thru this thread.

1) Much of the research is based on statistics and scientific analysis.

2) Statistics lie - especially when we do not have the ability to establish controls that give a point of reference, and do not account for external factors that can change the interpretation.

3) The scientific analysis can only tell us precisely what we have done within a very short time span, and once again can only project where we are accurately, without a control reference and full accountability for the external factors affecting our environment, can only produce a hypothesis. No theory and no certainty.

4) The community of acedaemia are a bit more combative about their 'hypotheses' and often present them as 'fact'; and are more prone to discount opposition or disagreement if it comes from outside fields of study or other areas of expertise.

5) Fox News is often claimed to be the boogyman by people that oppose a position taken by others, but most people that come here regularly have already accepted that all MSM are the boogyman and get their information and opinions elsewhere. That's how I got here.

I don't think the AGW debate will ever be settled, but it will end in the future at some point, when a greater external factor makes the argument a moot point (example - any number of volcanoes that have erupted in the past and will most certainly erupt in the future).

We have more science that proves the Earth has gone thru many changes in the past and will go thru more in the future, than we have that man's interaction with the Earth can override these natural cycles; and for the Earth changes we do have some examples in our solar system that we can reference as controls, but no reference for Man's interaction as (to our 'common' knowledge) we are the sole experiment and the sole reference.

Now, anyone got any detail of the plans of the island? What methods are they employing? Expense? Compromises? Expected results?

Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
One small island eliminating CO2 is not going to do a dang thing as long as China Russia and India keep spewing toxins in the air.

No, but if it works on a small island, that can be used in bigger places, and small countries (like Portugal) can get nearer to be independent from fossil fuels.

When smaller countries get their fossil-fuel independence, the market will be ready for small areas (or states) of the larger countries, specially if a new market can be sensed by the capitalists (in the sense of someone that supplies the capital) as new source of income.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by IamJustanAmerican
.... but if it works on a small island, that can be used in bigger places, and small countries (like Portugal) can get nearer to be independent from fossil fuels.

When smaller countries get their fossil-fuel independence, the market will be ready for small areas (or states) of the larger countries, specially if a new market can be sensed by the capitalists (in the sense of someone that supplies the capital) as new source of income.

Thats the things I was hoping to learn about when I clicked this thread. The AGW debate is worn out elsewhere.

Wow. I thought this thread was dead and buried... All of a sudden eeeeet's aliiiiiive!!! And thoroughly derailed lol.


Anyway - Neo_Serf thanks for the open-minded, constructive response to my last post. I mean that. It's been a long time since I've seen one of those from somebody, because as you can see it all tends to quickly unravel instead into some emotionally charged intellectual shoutfest.


So if you actually want a polite, sane discussion on the issue I'm more than happy to participate - just kinda shocked haha.

I'd be very curious to hear more about some of your specific issues with AGW, both the science and the politics, and see if we can come to a more reasonable two-way dialogue there.


However I do think it's off-topic for this thread. You asked before how a CO2 free island has nothing to do with AGW. It's not that it has nothing to do with it, it's that there are plenty of other reasons to switch to renewables. I mean just with everything that's happened in the last year: Fukushima, BP, Fracking, the perpetual daily disaster that is coal mining, this should be self-explanatory.

However that clear message seems to constantly get lost in all the politics and bickering, which is why I don't want to do that here.


I would suggest starting a new thread - we can call it: Olive branch across a canyon. A sane discussion on global warming between a "warmist" and a "denier" and try to set an example or something (easier said than done of course, but I'm game).

I would even ask - if ArMaP doesn't mind, since he's a moderator on this forum - to help out by strictly enforcing the T&C on such a thread, and giving any drive-by trolling (it's almost a guarantee there will be some) the swift OFF-TOPIC boot to keep things moving forward.

In my opinion the Fragile Earth forum is loooooong overdue for something like this. I think it would class the place up a little

Wow. I thought this thread was dead and buried... All of a sudden eeeeet's aliiiiiive!!! And thoroughly derailed lol.

I returned to this thread expecting my post and points to be throughly owned, (and not Fox) but was instead thrilled by your acceptance of my dissent, even after my crass first couple posts which likely earned me some deserved ridicule. (:up

Anyway - Neo_Serf thanks for the open-minded, constructive response to my last post. I mean that. It's been a long time since I've seen one of those from somebody, because as you can see it all tends to quickly unravel instead into some emotionally charged intellectual shoutfest.

And to you too as I see this exchange as something of a message board first~ In then end you and I share the same goal of a good and productive life for humanity. Only in our methods do I think we may differ.

So if you actually want a polite, sane discussion on the issue I'm more than happy to participate - just kinda shocked haha.

Having lurked on many of your previous threads and enjoyed your previous exchanges, I realize I cannot match you in terms of technical understanding or factual knowledge on the subject. I admit the same kind of self realized ignorance when I read the findings of the sources you site, and those sources that contradict your claims.

Perhaps there is a time and place where I could question you, in my ignorance, on the finer points of the AGW model that dont add up, to me. But I think my questions have been debated, with far greater skill, on previous threads of yours, and I dont think I could have much to offer in the way of persuasion to you, or you to me, if I were to be frank.

Lets be honest here - far more intelligent people than you are I hold vastly differing opinions on the matter, each with convincing and rational arguments that would seem concrete. Thus if the top AGW supporters cannot convince me, (and I say this without an ounce of disrespect), I doubt that you would be able to.

I say that not in a rigid faith based sense, but more in a realization that I have no way of judging the data accurately, while you indeed have an elevated level of understanding, and consequently your superiors have even a greater grasp of the subject. Conversely, the opponents of AGW are far better versed (rightly or wrongly) in their understanding and criticism of the theory, and thus it is their findings I compare to the findings of the elite in your circle.

So not to slight you at all, as you are clearly brilliant, but Im not sure that any arguments you could muster would be in any way different from those of the scientific elite in the school you hold as valid. Since it is the main body of AGW science that I see as suspect (for many reason, some of which ive talked about above) and not your personal arguments or person in general, Im not sure that any exchange on the details between us could yield results. I fully admit my reluctance to take you on head to head in a scientific debate may indeed be due to my ignorance in relation to your talent on the matter.

I'd be very curious to hear more about some of your specific issues with AGW, both the science and the politics, and see if we can come to a more reasonable two-way dialogue there.

But hey, next thread you start claiming some new finding or evidence on I will be happy to humbly question you on the matter. (sans falsely confident bravado)

However I do think it's off-topic for this thread. You asked before how a CO2 free island has nothing to do with AGW. It's not that it has nothing to do with it, it's that there are plenty of other reasons to switch to renewables.

Holy sh*t yes, in this we cannot be more in agreement. A week after Fuk-you-shima blew I started a full detox and supplement cycle to mitigate the fallout I'm ingesting over here on the west coast of Canada. (extreme west coast, vancouver island.) My 'country' (finding that anarcho capitalism is the only valid application of the NAP, I use the term 'country' as an invalid abstract) is currently engaged in two aggressive and immoral wars that are no doubt primarily motivated by oil dependency. My stolen, err, taxed money is taken from me under threat of force in order to pay for the murderous acquisition of these largely unnecessary resources. (unnecessary in that alternatives are readily available if the corporate monopolies were not actively suppressing them.)

One of my main problems with AGW is that is stands in the way of 'clean coal', which I understand only releases CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere. Thus, this abundant and 'clean' energy source (modern scrubbers eliminate almost all toxic emissions, *except* CO2, from what Ive learned) is heavily restricted and regulated out of viability by the state, who indeed has a major interest in *not* moving away from oil. (which is, from what I understand, far dirtier, in terms of environment a geopolitical meddlings.)

I mean just with everything that's happened in the last year: Fukushima, BP, Fracking, the perpetual daily disaster that is coal mining, this should be self-explanatory.

Knowing many coal miners personally, I wonder if you refer to the human cost of working in deep mines, or the environmental? It is my understanding that modern coal mines are, by order of magnitude, far less intrusive and impactful than any other energy source currently available that is capable of powering our civilization. (though I have heard that solar panels in Germany produce more power than the nuke plants in Japan)

I *desperately* yearn for the day when we no longer need to kill strangers in the name of our energy needs. I dream of a time when we, as a people, reach some sort of sustainable, clean and local energy source. But the reasons we continue to wage war in the name of oil are far deeper, and I would say far *truer*, than what I feel to be the false misdirection that is AGW.

I certainly could be wrong. But on a principled level, anything the state ferociously advocates, to me, is automatically suspect.

If the state actually cared about our environment, as you and I *genuinely* do, Fukyshima and its constant deadly releases would be getting the massive coordinated effort Chernobyl received.

]However that clear message seems to constantly get lost in all the politics and bickering, which is why I don't want to do that here.

Its a shame that we dont not currently live in a rational society, where reason is the final arbiter. Unfortunately, state funded science and the state are inextricably intertwined and one cannot be discussed reasonably without the other.

The state, being a monopoly of the initiation of force , cannot pour mega millions into a field of study without that field inevitably becoming corrupt. Such is the nature of force. Such is the source of my skepticism

So yes, to admit my bias, the two sides being equal, to me the burden of proof is always weighed against whatever the state claims to be true. Considering the history and megadeath of the state, I do not think this cynicism is unfounded. (to understate it)

I would suggest starting a new thread - we can call it: Olive branch across a canyon. A sane discussion on global warming between a "warmist" and a "denier" and try to set an example or something (easier said than done of course, but I'm game).

Haha I would certainly be outclassed in a 1v1, as Im struggling here as a mere 3rd party. But if such a thread were to exist, I would hope we could drop the labels and simply address each other as two genuinely concerned people who agree to the ends but differ on the means.

Im sure youre not a 'warmist' anymore than youre a 'evolutionst'; youre simply a scientist who holds AGW to be valid, and Im positive if the evidence showed otherwise you would accept the new facts and conclusions as true, in the same way that I hold 'objectivism' to be the only valid philosophy. But if disproved it would only be through a more valid philosophy, and thus I would remain a 'philosopher', (*puke* at that term, I prefer thinker) just as you would remain a 'scientist' if you came to reject AGW.

So were both after truth.

I would even ask - if ArMaP doesn't mind, since he's a moderator on this forum - to help out by strictly enforcing the T&C on such a thread, and giving any drive-by trolling (it's almost a guarantee there will be some) the swift OFF-TOPIC boot to keep things moving forward.

Problem is, if we adhered to our own rules, the thread would be closed as weve both gone waay off topic~ I certainly Im not credentialed enough to presume to be able to defeat you in a debate, and this probably indicates that I should make less certain claims on the topic. But if you were to start a threat on a related topic, I would be sure to wade in with plenty of unsubstantiated heresay.

In my opinion the Fragile Earth forum is loooooong overdue for something like this. I think it would class the place up a little

Ethical philosophy is certainly more my bag, and I would be pleased to contribute my thoughts in any thread you put together on the matter. But your words have me reconsidering if I should even be participating in a debate over which I am truly a N00b.~

Even if we made no progress in the original matter itself, I totally appreciate your compassion and concern for the wider world, which I totally share. Where we differ on means, we agree on ends, and that a reasonable exchange can take place when such divergent opinions exist gives me just a little more hope that we can come together as a species and actually address our collective problems.

/salute to you, brother!~ Perhaps Ill add a rant to your next well thought out thread.

Now Im off to continue making wild assertions about things I have little knowledge over.

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
This rediculous AWG religion simply must end. What a joke.

Exactly my thoughts i have a thread debunking AWG for that matter here.

Heres Proof Global Warming ( Climate Change) Is a Fraud

Of course my title should have been Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change) is a fraud but i wanted to keep the title short.

I'd like to know what the OP has to say about this thread too i have had many great responses and de-bunked so many people they simple didn't respond.


C02 is actually good for plants

The Natural processes of the Earth emissions account for 40 times as much C02 output compared to Human Out put of C02 *FACT*

Although i do agree we need to stop Polluting in ways such as Nuclear and Toxic waste etc....

If you do not want this posted on the thread i can remove them just say so if you wish....

In the spirit of derailment and as food for thought, and also to quell the inevitable cries against a free society on the basis that without centralized control, no inherently highly collectivized problems (like AGW) could be solved...(assuming anyone besides MC and I are reading...)

I propose that, due to the inherent inefficiency and basic unyielding stupidity of highly centralized and monopolized control systems (governments aka monopolies of force) makes them *unable - not just unwilling but fundamentally unable to effectively confront problems like AGW, if we assume such problems exist.

The fundamental problem here is that the modern state is totally and completely bought, owned and run by the very same interests that are the source of the supposed problem. It takes a fool to not realize that in todays world, government dont even pretend to be accountable to the people they claim to represent and to protect. Indeed the opposite is true. The modern mega state is beholden to, and answers to, the interests that lobbied, or more accurately, *bribed* the people who are supposedly given authority to 'regulate' said interests.

It takes only a moments thought to see this inevitable and cancerous relationship for what it is. Since energy concerns have the most to lose through adverse regulations against them, and the most to gain through regulations against their competitors, theses 'corporations' (a totally artificial and destructive construct erected as a liability shield by the state) have an overwhelming incentive to influence and basically bribe the regulators that could cause them harm, and and even greater interest in influencing policy that could squash potential competition.

Anyone can see, if they care to look, that the large energy companies *conspire* (using the word for its literal meaning and without the baggage of tinfoil) with governments through regulatory bribery to erect favorable rules and regulations to wield the violence of the state away from themselves and towards their competitors. This problem is inherent to government and cannot be solved. (who will watch the watchers = unsolvable within a state system.)

Since this symbiosis will always arise and will always escalate until collapse, I propose that *even if* AGW is a real threat, it is unsolvable within the current statist system. If massive regulatory powers are granted to some supernational central authority, all that will happen is the offending concerns will use all their massive resources and power to co-opt the regulatory body, as those concerns will have an unlimited incentive to do so. (if regulation will result in a billion dollars in losses, evil energy concern has $999 999 999 worth of incentive to control regulations.)

Thus regulations, even if well intentioned by naive politicians and greenies, will in practice always serve the opposite than intended effect, as now the energy concern itself will basically control its own regulations. The vampire watching the bloodbank scenario must always result in more suckled blood, and not less. This dynamic is seem throughout the western world, and I believe is inherent to any statist system.

Since then, the state itself stands in our way, it would seem the logic step would be to remove it. Heres a quick rundown as to how a stateless society would address a problem like AGW. (and since a statist society cannot handle this problem, even if an anarchist society cannot, it would still be at least = to the state in this regard.)

In a truly free society, a central monopoly of violence would not exist. But of course disputes would still have to be settled and security ensured. Thus the Dispute Resolution Organization (DRO) emerges, and offers insurance to any party who wishes to trade with another. In other words, if I sell you a bike for $100, and you dont know me and thus need assurance of some kind that I wont rip you off, we both defer to a trusted DRO and pay it say $2 each (rates would of course be guided by credit history.) to insure the transaction. If you give me the $100 and I ride away on your bike, you dont have to worry as our broken transaction is covered by our DRO. You get your $100, I get the bike, but at the cost of a massive hit to my reputation and thus my DRO rates. Perhaps no DRO would even deal with me until I made restitution. (compare this to the current statist system...bring me to small claims court if you enjoy frustration and futility.)

Now scale this DRO system up to the coastal properties around the world that may be threatened by a rise in sea levels due to AGW. These venerable properties have of course been insured by DRO against property damage and pollution. Thus eacg DRO that represents each individual property has its very survival staked in not allowing sea levels to rise or for air to become polluted. Since waterfront properties make up some of the highest land value in the world, the mega billions in losses that would accrue to the DROs if they were to be flooded would indeed wipe them out.

So imagine the near infinite financial incentive there insuring entities would have to make sure there was no sea level rise. Basically all the insuring capital of each DRO would be thrown into truly productive solutions to the perceived problems. And not just property DROs would be involved, but even secondary and dependent DRO whos survival depends on maintaining the infrastructure would be thrown into solving the problem of seal level rise.

Massive investment in clean fuels, filtering, carbon sequestering and the like would become the only viable survival option for these DROs. And if they did not address these threats in an adaquate way to their customers, they would simply go out of business and be replaced by concerns who more effectively addressed the problem.

What would result would be a massive, spontaneous, decentralized and organic response to AGW or any other collectivized threat that could injure the customers of the DROs. The response would be immediate, effective and coordinated between DROs to the extent that coordination would be most efficient. Failing that, every DRO would not only go out of business, but would be drowned and thus destroyed by the threat.

Compare this to the state, which *cannot* go out of business and *cannot* be optimized by competing models. No government officials own money is on the line, none of them will face jail time for failure to act while New York is flooded, and no accountability besides a meaningless baton handoff will occur in response to the publics outrage. The state, in short, has not stake in the game, and it usually even *benefits* through catastrophe in the form of increased powers.

Sorry to veer so far of course, but I think its crucial to understand that even if AGW is a real threat, our current system is unable to solve it.

/massive derail~~

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Nice Post Starred

The fundamental problem here is that the modern state is totally and completely bought, owned and run by the very same interests that are the source of the supposed problem. It takes a fool to not realize that in todays world, government dont even pretend to be accountable to the people they claim to represent and to protect. Indeed the opposite is true. The modern mega state is beholden to, and answers to, the interests that lobbied, or more accurately, *bribed* the people who are supposedly given authority to 'regulate' said interests.

It takes only a moments thought to see this inevitable and cancerous relationship for what it is. Since energy concerns have the most to lose through adverse regulations against them, and the most to gain through regulations against their competitors, theses 'corporations' (a totally artificial and destructive construct erected as a liability shield by the state) have an overwhelming incentive to influence and basically bribe the regulators that could cause them harm, and and even greater interest in influencing policy that could squash potential competition.

I think you hit the nail on the head as well take a look above your post and you can see my thread on debunking AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change))

I agree with you whole heartedly my friend and your post is one of the best i have ever seen on ATS ever

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
I'd like to know what the OP has to say about this thread too i have had many great responses and de-bunked so many people they simple didn't respond.

No my type of discussion, I stopped reading at half of the first page.

But I corrected your external quotes, so thanks for pointing me that thread.

This guy looks more worried about the "Greens" than pollution, so I guess he is also politically motivated.

Some of the things he says are strange, like saying that tropical forests have bigger trees because the warm climate has more CO2; what about the Sequoias?

And the fact that CO2 is natural doesn't mean a thing, there are many natural poisons, that doesn't mean we could eat or breath them.

C02 is actually good for plants

Nobody is saying that we should end CO2, that would be stupid, but if we are responsible for 3% (according to the link in your thread) or 6% (according to the guy in the video) of all yearly production of CO2 then that means that we are really in a position of affecting the balance between the production and consumption of CO2.

Nature will find a way of adapting, after, we are the result of one of those adaptations; there was little or no oxygen at first, but some of the early Earth life produced so much that they killed everything with it, so oxygen breathing creatures started appearing to replace the ones that could not live in an oxygen-rich environment.

The Natural processes of the Earth emissions account for 40 times as much C02 output compared to Human Out put of C02 *FACT*

According the guy in the video is 14 times, not 40.

If you do not want this posted on the thread i can remove them just say so if you wish....

No problem.

reply to post by ArMaP


The C02 been raising dramatically a long time before pesky humans started adding their meager contributions of C02 compared to the Natural Cycle of C02 Emissions

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0893133fa50a.gif[/atsimg]

Next Ice Age may be within a few thousand years.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2b4d86b570fb.png[/atsimg]

Originally posted by XRaDiiX
The C02 been raising dramatically a long time before pesky humans started adding their meager contributions of C02 compared to the Natural Cycle of C02 Emissions

One more reason to try to avoid producing more, right?

If natural production of CO2 has been rising and we produce between 3% and 6% of all that, then we are helping the problem getting bigger.

reply to post by ArMaP


Not exactly we may be bringing the next ice age quicker. No one is sure how it starts yet though but it seems to have a cycle when you check out the graph in my above post.

There is no "problem" The Cycle of Temperature Changes Dramatically and that is what is the Norm when you examine the Data.

The Fact that they want us to believe Anthropogenic Global Warming (Climate Change) is caused mostly by humans is fraudulent and misleading at best.

But still We all know polluting the environment Via Nuclear plants and Toxic waste is a bad thing so that is something we need to sort out...