# The War On Science



## Mike (Feb 26, 2015)

I cannot wait to get home and read this issue of nat geo that's waiting for me.







Very interesting article about the recent wave of science doubt that has been going on in the country:

Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science? - National Geographic Magazine


----------



## vilk (Feb 26, 2015)

I've just finished the article, but it seems to be implying that science doubters have difficulty believe science because of accesses to online conspiracy websites, or because they are contradicting our immediate senses or internal logic, or because modern technology is (very, very) reminiscent of distopian future sci-fi books of the past.

I'd like to raise a point that the reason I would ever doubt science, and that many "reasonable" (read: not including religious fundamentalcases) people may doubt science is because we know for certain that humans are weak to greed, and that we have a tendency to the easier path. The people at the top would, have, can, and will create situations that are harmful to the general public. The scientists in the middle, while most of them probably have good integrity, are still just *human*. Subject to want and greed for money/success like we all are. I assume that they are consciously or otherwise taken advantage of by companies who stand to make a buck by selling dangerous goods/ideas/decisions.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Feb 26, 2015)

I like how they used the term climate change instead of global warming when they no full well it's specifically man-made global warming that is the target of skeptics.
I've yet to hear any skeptics deny or doubt that our climate is continually evolving.
As for the moon landing being faked, I'd say that's just a very tiny % of people (the conspiracy theorist hardcores)


----------



## FretsOnFyre (Feb 26, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I like how they used the term climate change instead of global warming when they no full well it's specifically man-made global warming that is the target of skeptics.



I think that's probably in response to the people who say "Oh, northeastern US is having a cold spell, climate change isn't real!"


----------



## flint757 (Feb 26, 2015)

vilk said:


> I've just finished the article, but it seems to be implying that science doubters have difficulty believe science because of accesses to online conspiracy websites, or because they are contradicting our immediate senses or internal logic, or because modern technology is (very, very) reminiscent of distopian future sci-fi books of the past.
> 
> I'd like to raise a point that the reason I would ever doubt science, and that many "reasonable" (read: not including religious fundamentalcases) people may doubt science is because we know for certain that humans are weak to greed, and that we have a tendency to the easier path. The people at the top would, have, can, and will create situations that are harmful to the general public. The scientists in the middle, while most of them probably have good integrity, are still just *human*. Subject to want and greed for money/success like we all are. I assume that they are consciously or otherwise taken advantage of by companies who stand to make a buck by selling dangerous goods/ideas/decisions.



There are easier ways than going to school for a decade and researching your subject intensely for years and years to make a quick buck. Most research scientists aren't being paid that well, unless they work in R&D at a large firm or something. You want to make good money in the US go in to the oil industry, become a politician, invest on Wall Street, etc.. It'd certainly be far easier.

It's the open source nature of academic research that keeps it honest anyhow. Their research is out in the world for everyone to read and test for themselves. When one scientist in India and another in the Uk and another in the US come to the same or similar conclusion its kind of hard to bite into a money conspiracy. People who think that may not be full blown quacks, but they certainly haven't thought it completely through.


----------



## groverj3 (Feb 26, 2015)

I'm actually really interested in reading this issue. Where does one buy a single issue of Nat Geo these days?

Never mind. Found the article online. Unless there's stuff in the issue that isn't online.

I tend to be of the opinion that scientists, in the past, haven't done enough to communicate their ideas with the general public. For a long time it was generally thought that wasn't the job of serious scientists. It's thought to be part of the reason that Sagan wasn't admitted to the national academy of science and was denied tenure, because he was considered to be an "educator" and not a scientist by some. A bunch of nonsense.

Luckily, I think opinions on outreach have shifted within the scientific community these days. Maybe because we've recognized the damage this former attitude has had. It's probably part of the reason that some people are profoundly anti-science. A lot of people have this weird idea that scientists (and academics) look down on them, live rich, lavish, lifestyles and, are elitist. While some of that is true for individuals, that's hardly the trend. This view is one reason funding for the NIH and NSF continually is getting slashed and anti-intellectualism is so prominent in some communities.

Of course, I'm mostly talking out of my ass and rambling here


----------



## bostjan (Feb 27, 2015)

Maybe the problem with this era is that you could invent a cure for the common cold, and, if some idiot announces publicly that he thinks gravity doesn't exist, and that we are all held to the Earth by air pressure, and that the air is held in by an invisible bubble, your cure for the cold will receive no attention.

It's like people are confusing science with entertainment. Maybe that is a long-term effect of science fiction.  I don't know.

Anyway, maybe another part of this is the DIY mentality these days. In the "old days," if you needed a new toilet, you'd call a plumber. Now most people try to do it themselves. You see a lot of really kludgy installations of this-n-that when you want to buy a house. For example, I had to rewire my own house, because the DIY wiring from the previous owners was a fire hazard, and they obviously had no idea what they were doing when they installed it. But if you are going to DIY your own home repairs, DIY your own automotive repairs, DIY your own etc., what do you do when you get sick? You should see a medical professional, but hey, you installed your own backyard pool, and you have access to WebMD - "wow, my symptoms look exactly like tuberculosis, and I need antibiotics. Well, probiotics sound like the same thing, so I'll take that instead." And thus is the crumbling of the general public's reliance upon science.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 27, 2015)

Gotta love Nat Geo. I remember being at the grocery store once and seeing this cover:











Then I picked it up and opened it to the first page of the article, which was this:










...and had a laughing fit right there in the store. Well played, NG. Well played.


----------



## Shimme (Feb 27, 2015)

vilk said:


> The people at the top would, have, can, and will create situations that are harmful to the general public. The scientists in the middle, while most of them probably have good integrity, are still just *human*. Subject to want and greed for money/success like we all are. I assume that they are consciously or otherwise taken advantage of by companies who stand to make a buck by selling dangerous goods/ideas/decisions.



See, the only reason that anyone cares about the scientific method is that it enables us to overcome our emotional/rational/intellectual limitations and discover something that is closer to the truth. When someone has learned something they bundle up all of the information about what they were doing and how they were doing it and send it off to scientists in related fields to double check whether they were actually following the scientific method before it's sent off to be published and shared with others. This scientific method is specifically designed to filter out any bullshit, lies or misinformation and only allow in information that conforms with reality.

The _only_ position that has been frequently shown to have ties with corruption, bribery, and complete and total failings in the application of this scientific method are in the climate *denialists* (You are not a skeptic if you've been shown proof that would be convincing to a rational person). I recently came across this little nugget - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

I have to wonder, now that you have seen some evidence of corruption and poor methodology, will you be equally as distrustful of denialists as you are of your average scientist?

(not trying to be a dick, just have seen these kinds of assertions that scientists are a bunch of corrupt liers while completely ignoring the evidence of corruptions and lies in a position that they happen to like, and it is driving me nuts)


----------



## vilk (Feb 27, 2015)

Dude, I believe scientists like 99% of the time. I'm just saying my reason for ever doubting a scientist would have less to do with the reasons stated in the article than it does with my lack of faith in humanity.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Feb 27, 2015)

vilk said:


> The people at the top would, have, can, and will create situations that are harmful to the general public.



I remember reading that during testing for the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project that the people doing it were told "it could rip or tear a hole into the ozone", and that their response to that was basically to blow the thing up closer to the ozone to see if it would. Not sure the validity of that, but if that's true, I think it'd definitely apply.


----------



## Shimme (Feb 27, 2015)

vilk said:


> Dude, I believe scientists like 99% of the time. I'm just saying my reason for ever doubting a scientist would have less to do with the reasons stated in the article than it does with my lack of faith in humanity.



Okay, that's fair. You gotta consider though that just bribing a few scientists wouldn't be enough to make the whole scientific community start spouting off lies though - they would see the work being put out by the shills, take one look at it and laugh at it. For instance, this Dr. Soon character, who from the sounds of the article is having internal investigations launched about his behavior.

The nice thing about science is that doesn't require faith. If you've got an understanding of the topic and a working bullshit detector you can look at the information and decide for yourself.


----------



## USMarine75 (Feb 27, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I remember reading that during testing for the atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project that the people doing it were told "it could rip or tear a hole into the ozone", and that their response to that was basically to blow the thing up closer to the ozone to see if it would. Not sure the validity of that, but if that's true, I think it'd definitely apply.



Edward Teller (also one of the first Climate Change advocates lol), one of the chief scientists that worked on the Manhattan Project and developing the bomb, was concerned that an initial fission reaction in the atmosphere would set off a self-sustaining fusion chain reaction with the existing nitrogen in the atmosphere, and that this reaction would be exothermic, thereby releasing more energy and continuing the runaway chain reaction until the entire atmosphere of the earth burnt away. IIRC Hitler's weapon guy Speer was also concerned that this would happen.


----------



## Dutchbooked (Apr 18, 2015)

Whoever is at war with science is losing to a laughable degree. Acting like we are returning to the dark ages is just ridiculous. 

We live in a golden age of science. All published research is a click away along with searchable databases of the sum of human knowledge and basically every class you would want to take for free from the world's best universities is also at your fingertips.

Not all scientist are created equal. Feynman knew that all that was nonsense and didn't even wear the goggles everyone else had on at the trinity test because he knew you just had to be behind glass to block the UV light.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 18, 2015)

Dutchbooked said:


> We live in a golden age of science. All published research is a click away along with searchable databases of the sum of human knowledge and basically every class you would want to take for free from the world's best universities is also at your fingertips.



OT, but as a librarian I can't let this pass without chiming in. This is absolutely not true. A great deal of the published material of the last century, at least, is only accessible if you pay for it, or if someone pays on your behalf. The databases that index and make that knowledge more easily discoverable are likewise commercial products (by librarian standards, Google and Google Scholar are pretty blunt instruments). I work at one of the best universities in the country, if not the world, and I can assure you that only a minuscule fraction of our educational offerings is freely available online.


----------



## asher (Apr 18, 2015)

Dutchbooked said:


> Whoever is at war with science is losing to a laughable degree. Acting like we are returning to the dark ages is just ridiculous.
> .



Having half of your country's political system firmly against making any necessary (and it is VERY necessary) action to reduce anthropogenic climate change, or even pollution, isn't exactly winning.


----------



## rectifryer (Apr 18, 2015)

asher said:


> Having half of your country's political system firmly against making any necessary (and it is VERY necessary) action to reduce anthropogenic climate change, or even pollution, isn't exactly winning.


Not to mention it's half of arguably the most power country to have ever existed.


----------



## Edika (Apr 18, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Most research scientists aren't being paid that well, unless they work in R&D at a large firm or something.



And unfortunately that's not the case either unless you're working for pharma companies. It's not that it's low paid but not worth the 12+ years of studying. But if I wanted to get rich I'd go in finance. Again unfortunately I have a consciense.


----------



## Bodes (Apr 18, 2015)

celticelk said:


> OT, but as a librarian I can't let this pass without chiming in. This is absolutely not true. A great deal of the published material of the last century, at least, is only accessible if you pay for it, or if someone pays on your behalf. The databases that index and make that knowledge more easily discoverable are likewise commercial products (by librarian standards, Google and Google Scholar are pretty blunt instruments). I work at one of the best universities in the country, if not the world, and I can assure you that only a minuscule fraction of our educational offerings is freely available online.



So very true, I strongly recommend watching the documentary about Aaron Schwartz and his want for freedom of information. "The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz".

A little scary but what he set out to achieve is what should be freedom of information.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 18, 2015)

Global warming has changed to "climate change" which in of itself is recognition of not really knowing the truth 

BTW, just in case anyone is interested, it's happened over and over again on earth. Not saying we are not effecting changes, but there is no *proof* that it's just *us* who's causing it. 



Now, let the flames begin!


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 18, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Global warming has changed to "climate change" which in of itself is recognition of not really knowing the truth
> 
> BTW, just in case anyone is interested, it's happened over and over again on earth. Not saying we are not effecting changes, but there is no *proof* that it's just *us* who's causing it.
> 
> ...



Huh?

Global Warming and Climate Change are both descriptive of what's happening. The planet's overall climate is changing and getting warmer.

If you can't provide evidence to back up your claims that disagree with 90% of scientists worldwide you should probably keep your opinions to yourself and stop pretending you know anything about the topic.

Human activity has released carbon dioxide and other chemicals which absorb heat into the atmosphere. That is a fact. Sure the temperature of the planet fluctuates over time, but we're pretty damn good at burning fossil fuels and engaging in other activities that cause this.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 18, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Global warming has changed to "climate change" which in of itself is recognition of not really knowing the truth



You do know that the Republicans encouraged the use of "climate change" rather than "global warming" as a way to control the conversation about the issue, yes? This is well documented for anyone who wants to take the time to do a little Googling.

ETA: http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 18, 2015)

celticelk said:


> OT, but as a librarian I can't let this pass without chiming in. This is absolutely not true. A great deal of the published material of the last century, at least, is only accessible if you pay for it, or if someone pays on your behalf. The databases that index and make that knowledge more easily discoverable are likewise commercial products (by librarian standards, Google and Google Scholar are pretty blunt instruments). I work at one of the best universities in the country, if not the world, and I can assure you that only a minuscule fraction of our educational offerings is freely available online.



The easiest way around this is for someone to go to the library at your local university and look up papers on their campus network. I'm not sure if community colleges subscribe to scientific journals (or have the funds... because we've decided as a society to say ".... education"), but that may be an option as well.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 18, 2015)

groverj3 said:


> The easiest way around this is for someone to go to the library at your local university and look up papers on their campus network. I'm not sure if community colleges subscribe to scientific journals (or have the funds... because we've decided as a society to say ".... education"), but that may be an option as well.



Like I said: or if someone else pays on your behalf.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Global warming has changed to "climate change" which in of itself is recognition of not really knowing the truth
> 
> BTW, just in case anyone is interested, it's happened over and over again on earth. Not saying we are not effecting changes, but there is no *proof* that it's just *us* who's causing it.
> 
> ...



Lets pretend for a moment this line of thinking had any validity. What's wrong exactly with reducing pollution? Smog and dangerous chemicals are not healthy to breathe. Hell, in China everyone is wearing face masks to protect themselves from the chemical pollutants. I myself suffer from asthma and some other allergies. I'm certainly not the only one on the planet to suffer these ailments. Do you think having clean air to breathe isn't an important endeavor?

What about what fracking has done to the environment, what leaky oil pipes have done to some local water tables or the fact that we do a lot of business with heavy conflict zones just because of their oil exports. 

There's plenty of good reasons to go clean energy or alternative energy than just climate change.

That all being said, I only hear scientifically ignorant people say that about climate change (as in little knowledge on the subject, not stupid).


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 18, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Lets pretend for a moment this line of thinking had any validity. What's wrong exactly with reducing pollution? Smog and dangerous chemicals are not healthy to breathe. Hell, in China everyone is wearing face masks to protect themselves from the chemical pollutants. I myself suffer from asthma and some other allergies. I'm certainly not the only one on the planet to suffer these ailments. Do you think having clean air to breathe isn't an important endeavor?
> 
> What about what fracking has done to the environment, what leaky oil pipes have done to some local water tables or the fact that we do a lot of business with heavy conflict zones just because of their oil exports.
> 
> ...



Dude, don't you know? Jesus won't let us ruin the planet


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 18, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Lets pretend for a moment this line of thinking had any validity. What's wrong exactly with reducing pollution? Smog and dangerous chemicals are not healthy to breathe. *Hell, in China everyone is wearing face masks to protect themselves from the chemical pollutants.* I myself suffer from asthma and some other allergies. I'm certainly not the only one on the planet to suffer these ailments. Do you think having clean air to breathe isn't an important endeavor?
> 
> There's plenty of good reasons to go clean energy or alternative energy than just climate change.



Yeah, so pass those carbon emission tax laws in China. I'm not against clean energy if it's actually viable in terms of affordability and all that, but go .... with countries that have a much bigger impact.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2015)

[EDIT]

True testament of someone grasping at straws. Breakdown someones statement and pick the one thing they 'think' they can argue against. 

As I recall you don't think climate change is an issue/thing so your 'solution' is a poorly guised attempt at moving the goal post anyhow.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 18, 2015)

"Grasping at straws" to expect others clean their .... up instead of being the world's babysitter. 

And I'm still wondering what we're calling it this year. Funny how the name changed after Climategate.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 18, 2015)

Exactly the responses I'd expect. It's all the republicans fault, they made it up, etc.

I never said either one didn't exist (which was conveniently "left" out of many responses  )


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> "Grasping at straws" to expect others clean their .... up instead of being the world's babysitter.
> 
> And I'm still wondering what we're calling it this year. Funny how the name changed after Climategate.



Grasping at straws because you conveniently redirected the point of my post to fit what you were trying to accomplish. I pointed out local problems as well and shocker many of our major cities have rather heavily polluted air as well. Smog is a localized effect, not global. But yes lets do nothing because a nation across the world hasn't done anything. That will totally make the problem better. 

You're the one who suggested we should babysit China FYI, no one else. Keep moving that goal post until you get to your final destination.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Exactly the responses I'd expect. It's all the republicans fault, they made it up, etc.
> 
> I never said either one didn't exist (which was conveniently "left" out of many responses  )



I made no reference to political parties...

Also, there is proof, it's just proof you don't find valid despite likely not doing any research yourself. Lets pretend again that there wasn't though. That does not change anything I said in my reply to you for one. And two, since when did doing nothing seem like a good option because 'your'e not sure'. Is there something sinister about clean energy that everyone is unaware of (except those who vehemently oppose it)? The lions share of people who oppose climate research are people who work in the oil industry. Does that not strike you as a conflict of interest?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 18, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Grasping at straws because you conveniently redirected the point of my post to fit what you were trying to accomplish. I pointed out local problems as well and shocker many of our major cities have rather heavily polluted air as well. Smog is a localized effect, not global. But yes lets do nothing because a nation across the world hasn't done anything. That will totally make the problem better.
> 
> You're the one who suggested we should babysit China FYI, no one else. Keep moving that goal post until you get to your final destination.



Again, why do we need to do everything while the rest of the world's countries couldn't care less?


----------



## flint757 (Apr 18, 2015)

Because their are other environmental factors at play than just global climate change, whether you believe it exists or not. Those things can be improved upon whether or not the rest of the world does anything.

We don't need to do 'everything'. Something is not everything. You're turning this into something big in an attempt to make the whole idea seem worthless, but that's just not reality. Local changes effect local areas as well as the global makeup. In Pasadena, near where I work, there used to be a paper mill. Created all sorts of nasty pollution and the city smelled like a fart no matter where you were. Eventually it closed down and voila the stench disappeared. That had nothing to do with the EPA or environment, but the point to that story is fixing something locally improved the area within its vicinity. That is completely aside from global factors which is what I've said from the start.

Your position is quite childish when you think about it. 'Well they won't so why should I'. Sounds like my niece when we ask her to clean up her mess.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 18, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Because their are other environmental factors at play than just global climate change, whether you believe it exists or not. Those things can be improved upon whether or not the rest of the world does anything.
> 
> We don't need to do 'everything'. Something is not everything. You're turning this into something big in an attempt to make the whole idea seem worthless, but that's just not reality. Local changes effect local areas as well as the global makeup. In Pasadena, near where I work, there used to be a paper mill. Created all sorts of nasty pollution and the city smelled like a fart no matter where you were. Eventually it closed down and voila the stench disappeared. That had nothing to do with the EPA or environment, but the point to that story is fixing something locally improved the area within its vicinity. That is completely aside from global factors which is what I've said from the start.
> 
> Your position is quite childish when you think about it. 'Well they won't so why should I'. Sounds like my niece when we ask her to clean up her mess.



When this proverbial "something" you are talking about involves only one country doing anything, that is "everything". And since they do more damage, they should be held more accountable.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 18, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Again, why do we need to do everything while the rest of the world's countries couldn't care less?



Like it or not, the US sets world opinion on a number of fronts. If we lead, others will follow. And if we lead, then we can get the jump on developing the technologies that everyone else will use, which could be very lucrative. There's also the fact that our CO2 emissions per capita are almost three times the Chinese levels, and over 10x the Indian levels (CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | Data | Table), which I would argue gives us some moral responsibility to step up our efforts. Based on your responses so far, I don't expect you to agree.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 18, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Like it or not, the US sets world opinion on a number of fronts. If we lead, others will follow. And if we lead, then we can get the jump on developing the technologies that everyone else will use, which could be very lucrative. *There's also the fact that our CO2 emissions per capita are almost three times the Chinese levels, and over 10x the Indian levels *(CO2 emissions (metric tons per capita) | Data | Table), which I would argue gives us some moral responsibility to step up our efforts. Based on your responses so far, I don't expect you to agree.



I find that just a *bit* hard to believe that we produce more CO2 emissions than China or India. Now if you spun that as "American" companies utilizing Chinese labor as a reason for those emissions, then I'd see where you're coming from.


----------



## ToS (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Again, why do we need to do everything while the rest of the world's countries couldn't care less?



Nice attitude.....well, you (or better: your government) have never been asked to "do everything". What (most of) the rest of the world is expecting from you is that you just contribute *your part*. And of course you do realize that many of the world´s nations are acutally doing a lot (right now), while your country somehow managed to still argue about the solid fact of human-induced environmental change....please wake up and take a look outside of your US bubble before making such uninformed comments.


----------



## dante511039594 (Apr 19, 2015)

Common people only believe the thing they want to believe. Scientist believes data and clues.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Again, why do we need to do everything while the rest of the world's countries couldn't care less?



Where do you get your information that says the rest of the world doesn't care?

The US is certainly right up there in terms of producing renewable energy, but is hardly the only country doing it. Germany has a pretty damn good reputation for solar power. And if you scroll down to 'All countries' on this list and then click '% of total generation' you'll see that many countries are nearly 100% run on renewable energy. Those countries tend to have small populations, but Brazil is on roughly 84%, Canada on 64.5%, the Scandinavian countries range from 60-90%, and China produces double the renewable energy of the US, though it's only 20% of it's total power.

Just for fun, I'll throw out a claim on the worst country on the list: Australia. 10% of our total power generation, and we live if a country that gets so much sun that roughly half the people I know have had skin cancers removed. Why we don't have solar panels on every rooftop is not only sad, it's a fucking disgrace. Coal mining companies have too much political clout in this country. 

Edit: words


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I find that just a *bit* hard to believe that we produce more CO2 emissions than China or India. Now if you spun that as "American" companies utilizing Chinese labor as a reason for those emissions, then I'd see where you're coming from.



Which is why I gave you the link for my data source. If you want to argue with that, be my guest. (I also specified "per capita"; based on those numbers and my rough understanding of population sizes, Chinese overall emissions are probably higher than ours, but Indian emissions are lower.)


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced brings up valid points. The typical "shoot all down that dares" thing is tired and droll. 

Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 19, 2015)

My favorite part of this thread is that flint is trying to act like he's smarter than spaced, yet he's the one who said it's easy to get rich investing in stocks. Not your best example there, bud


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Spaced brings up valid points. The typical "shoot all down that dares" thing is tired and droll.
> 
> Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure



So do you have anything else to add other than to pretend like you're some sort of victim. Your points certainly 'shoot down' our respective opinions as well. It's called a discussion, quit trying to play the martyr. Spaced's POV 'shot down all that dares' as well (same as you when you aren't just pointing out how unfair this thread is repeatedly rather than contributing). It's called a polarized discussion with two distinct sides.



Gothic Headhunter said:


> My favorite part of this thread is that flint is trying to act like he's smarter than spaced, yet he's the one who said it's easy to get rich investing in stocks. Not your best example there, bud



Ooooh edgy. Personal attacks always makes ones side seem so much more valid. Maybe before 'trying' to insult me you should have actually read my post properly. I said easier, not easy. And it is easier because you are not likely to get rich AT ALL being a research scientist. No chance vs some chance. Sounds like it might just be easier.  Irrelevant to that, it was just an example, but I don't expect opposing parties to actually read the full discussion. I fully expect them to nitpick on only specific things they think they can tear apart (like you just did).

My knowledge on one subject does not effect my knowledge on another or the lack of knowledge on a subject by a few posting here. I mean seriously, all the naysayers thus far have resorted to grade school tactics of conversing on this topic. Now THAT's funny.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 19, 2015)

I have no stance on the subject at all, flint. I don't know much about global warming, I don't read the reports, and other than the daily show, I don't really keep up with whatever nonsense the republican party is doing these days. In my opinion, I thought you were acting like a jerk by pretending to know something that you don't. Don't make this out to be something that it's not. I'm not taking spaced's side on this, either, before you throw that argument at me. Looking back at it, yes, you did say easier, so I misread that part of it. That still doesn't change that it was a really, _really_ ....ty analogy. 

I'm not an opposing party, flint, I just hate when people talk out their asses and expect no one to call them on it. (also, you do know that pushpull7 was just quoting aliens, right?)


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2015)

Read all of his posts in this thread and all he has been is deflective while pretending he's right without bringing ANYTHING to the table. Where his reference came from doesn't change that. Since his first post his contribution to this thread has been 'I knew they'd say that'. Really adding to the conversation ...

You have no clue how much or little knowledge I hold on the subject anyhow. I've actually done environmental research when I was studying hydro-power turbines back in my third year of college. While I don't hold the vast knowledge most environmental scientists hold on the subject I definitely know more on it than some posters here.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

Flint's nose officially thumbed at naysayers and doubters. Let that be a warning to anyone that questions his almighty, omnipresent power.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Flint's nose officially thumbed at naysayers and doubters. Let that be a warning to anyone that questions his almighty, omnipresent power.



So, let's get back to the argument itself instead of the people involved in it.

You said you think the rest of the world doesn't care about their role in global warming. Where did you get that information?

I ask because if you're basing it on evidence, it contradicts the articles that show up on Google when you type in any kind of phrase connected to climate change. If you're basing it on an assumption, then you're ill informed. If you distrust any information that contradicts your existing perspective, then you're suffering from a pretty bad case of confirmation bias.

I've disagreed with Flint several times in the past, and have no interest whatsoever in what side he stands on. What interests me is the topic. Please stop making this thread about you and your feelings.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 19, 2015)

flint757 said:


> *You have no clue how much or little knowledge I hold on the subject anyhow. *I've actually done environmental research when I was studying hydro-power turbines back in my third year of college. While I don't hold the vast knowledge most environmental scientists hold on the subject I definitely know more on it than some posters here.



You mean just like you have no clue how much I know about the stock market?

I know very little about the stock exchange, but my point is this, you're acting like your .... doesn't stink and you assume that criticism is an attack on your character. Just because I thought you made a forced, terrible and basically ignorant analogy, doesn't mean I think you're stupid, it means I think that specific analogy was stupid.

EDIT: I agree with the above post ( I was typing this response up while he posted his) the topic at hand is more important that arguing over who hurt whose feelings


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I find that just a *bit* hard to believe that we produce more CO2 emissions than China or India. Now if you spun that as "American" companies utilizing Chinese labor as a reason for those emissions, then I'd see where you're coming from.



An additional data set for you: &bull; Largest emitters of CO2 worldwide 2014 | Statistic. The US is the #2 global emitter in 2014 (behind China); our emissions are well over double India's, and are as much as the next three countries (India, Russia, Brazil) combined. We have less than 5% of the global population within our borders, but emit 15% of global CO2. I'd say that gives us some responsibility to get our act together.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> So, let's get back to the argument itself instead of the people involved in it.
> 
> You said you think the rest of the world doesn't care about their role in global warming. Where did you get that information?
> 
> ...



In case it wasn't stated clearly enough, my issue is with those having a bigger impact seemingly taking less of a responsibility, such as China, to which Flint [I believe it was him anyways], trying to make the case that America has a higher impact per capita, which I just don't buy. Which I also stated, and added that I'd buy into that more if they had tried to tie it into the fact that the pollution in China is caused by American companies outsourcing to them and thus making them pollute.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

celticelk said:


> An additional data set for you: &bull; Largest emitters of CO2 worldwide 2014 | Statistic. The US is the #2 global emitter in 2014 (behind China); our emissions are well over double India's, and are as much as the next three countries (India, Russia, Brazil) combined. We have less than 5% of the global population within our borders, but emit 15% of global CO2. I'd say that gives us some responsibility to get our act together.



What are we emitting so much CO2 from? Manufacturing? We don't manufacture much of anything anymore, which is why I suggest people try to tie that into being behind China's pollution because we outsource to them and they make .... for us, and thus placing the blame on us. Power? We're going away from coal, so must not be that either. Cars? Last I checked, it released lots of carbon monoxide though I could be wrong. So yeah, color me skeptical cuz I don't really buy it.

And if the only means we have in our power to control and balance the dreaded carbon monoxide and dioxide is a tax, then I'll pass because it just seems like an easy way to scare people into giving the government more money when they are already taking us for more than their fair share. If we really think we can destroy the earth with plastic bags and other stupid bull.... released into the air such as carbon, we're a tad delusional. When we become too much for Earth, we're gonna have to pack our bags because the only thing that's going anywhere is us and we're going far far away. The Earth will shake us off like a bad cold. The Earth hasn't had issues dealing with undesirables [ie, among other things, dinosaurs and other creatures that have ceased to exist] in the past, and I don't think it'll have issues with dealing with undesirables [ie, us] in the future. It seems to have a lot better ability to adapt than we do.


Ice ages, comets, extinction, natural disasters... and we think carbon emissions and bags are going to somehow destroy a big blue orb.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What are we emitting so much CO2 from? Manufacturing? We don't manufacture much of anything anymore, which is why I suggest people try to tie that into being behind China's pollution because we outsource to them and they make .... for us, and thus placing the blame on us. Power? We're going away from coal, so must not be that either. Cars? Last I checked, it released lots of carbon monoxide though I could be wrong. So yeah, color me skeptical cuz I don't really buy it.



Sources | Climate Change | US EPA

Electricity + transportation + industry = ~80% of US GHG emissions



Spaced Out Ace said:


> And if the only means we have in our power to control and balance the dreaded carbon monoxide and dioxide is a tax, then I'll pass because it just seems like an easy way to scare people into giving the government more money when they are already taking us for more than their fair share. If we really think we can destroy the earth with plastic bags and other stupid bull.... released into the air such as carbon, we're a tad delusional. When we become too much for Earth, we're gonna have to pack our bags because the only thing that's going anywhere is us and we're going far far away. The Earth will shake us off like a bad cold. The Earth hasn't had issues dealing with undesirables [ie, among other things, dinosaurs and other creatures that have ceased to exist] in the past, and I don't think it'll have issues with dealing with undesirables [ie, us] in the future. It seems to have a lot better ability to adapt than we do.
> 
> 
> Ice ages, comets, extinction, natural disasters... and we think carbon emissions and bags are going to somehow destroy a big blue orb.



You're the only one talking about destroying the Earth. The rest of us are looking for ways to avoid unnecessary human suffering, economic loss, and damage to the biosphere. Damage, not destruction.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Sources | Climate Change | US EPA
> 
> Electricity + transportation + industry = ~80% of US GHG emissions
> 
> ...



What industry? We don't produce much of anything. As for electricity, we're moving away from coal and don't a lot of companies outsource to other countries anyways?


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 19, 2015)

I often lolz at these threads. All those things you buy, use and get shipped from all over the world? Take a guess: They are not helping 

Does that mean we do nothing? Of course not. But RARELY do people who complain about gw/cc actually do anything that is really helping. They just bitch about republicans (which think of how much worse it would have been if Nixon hadn't have put through all those bills to help with enviornment/parks/etc) 

Solar panels? Where do you think they come from, thin air? They require much toxic pollution to manufacture from the computers, to the materials, to the shipping, to the installation. Does that mean we shouldn't use them? No, but you're just using that for supplying power to all the gadgets which provide yet more toxic materials. 

In the end, unless everyone goes back to the native american indians way of life (pre european intrusion) it won't matter. Another Scientific fact.

One other little small detail: You can't got from 2.5 billion people to over 7 billion people in a few decades (scientific FACT) and not expect consequences.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> I often lolz at these threads. All those things you buy, use and get shipped from all over the world? Take a guess: They are not helping
> 
> Does that mean we do nothing? Of course not. But RARELY do people who complain about gw/cc actually do anything that is really helping. They just bitch about republicans (which think of how much worse it would have been if Nixon hadn't have put through all those bills to help with enviornment/parks/etc)
> 
> ...



And another scientific fact: If we were damaging the Earth so much, it'd get rid of us quicker than you can scream "holy ....".


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 19, 2015)

We're discovering societies that existed in grand fashion further back in time than we originally thought possible. Maybe that already happened since nobody knows where those people went. 

Maybe we could move on to that instead of this silly global warming argument. If people can excavate ruins and USING SCIENCE can carbon date back 10/12/maybe even 20 thousand years ago, how can someone be stupid enough to think that it's all made up? (please don't post that video of the that chick that we had recently  )


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What industry? We don't produce much of anything. As for electricity, we're moving away from coal and don't a lot of companies outsource to other countries anyways?



"I don't believe you" is not an effective rebuttal. If you've got data to contradict the figures I've given, please provide it. I have exactly no reasons at the moment to believe that you understand US GHG production better than the EPA.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> And another scientific fact: If we were damaging the Earth so much, it'd get rid of us quicker than you can scream "holy ....".



How? Please provide examples.


----------



## Hachetjoel (Apr 19, 2015)

I think science doubters are very damaging, I honestly though gmo food was killing us for the longest time because I saw so much about it, I ha to look very very hard to find anything not showing GMOS as evil, and a lot of it was very buried, it wasn't until I joined the facebook group GMOLOL on facebook that I realized how out of hand anti vaxers, climate change deniers and anti GMO people really are and how much overwhelming evidence there is in support of this.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Hachetjoel said:


> I think science doubters are very damaging, I honestly though gmo food was killing us for the longest time because I saw so much about it, I ha to look very very hard to find anything not showing GMOS as evil, and a lot of it was very buried, it wasn't until I joined the facebook group GMOLOL on facebook that I realized how out of hand anti vaxers, climate change deniers and anti GMO people really are and how much overwhelming evidence there is in support of this.



Fortunately, there are plenty of reasons to oppose GMO agribusiness that have nothing to do with the "OMG GMOs cause cancer" arguments.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 19, 2015)

Yeah, cuz those people go through at least a pack a day


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What are we emitting so much CO2 from? Manufacturing? We don't manufacture much of anything anymore, which is why I suggest people try to tie that into being behind China's pollution because we outsource to them and they make .... for us, and thus placing the blame on us. Power? We're going away from coal, so must not be that either. Cars? Last I checked, it released lots of carbon monoxide though I could be wrong. So yeah, color me skeptical cuz I don't really buy it.
> 
> And if the only means we have in our power to control and balance the dreaded carbon monoxide and dioxide is a tax, then I'll pass because it just seems like an easy way to scare people into giving the government more money when they are already taking us for more than their fair share. If we really think we can destroy the earth with plastic bags and other stupid bull.... released into the air such as carbon, we're a tad delusional. When we become too much for Earth, we're gonna have to pack our bags because the only thing that's going anywhere is us and we're going far far away. The Earth will shake us off like a bad cold. The Earth hasn't had issues dealing with undesirables [ie, among other things, dinosaurs and other creatures that have ceased to exist] in the past, and I don't think it'll have issues with dealing with undesirables [ie, us] in the future. It seems to have a lot better ability to adapt than we do.
> 
> ...



I'm just throwing this question out there, if anyone has an answer I'm interested in hearing it- even if cars only released carbon monoxide, isn't it possible for a large amount of those molecules to just pick up another oxygen atom from the atmosphere and become CO2? 

you also might want to give George Carlin credit for your 2nd paragraph


----------



## asher (Apr 19, 2015)

Pretty damn sure that's not at all how the chemical bonding process works to make CO2.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 19, 2015)

Right. I don't remember my chemistry class that well 

EDIT: I did some quick googling and found some people saying that that does happen, but nothing too credible. This is the best I've found https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080319203036AAkWC4u
I'll try to find something better tomorrow


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

Hachetjoel said:


> I think science doubters are very damaging, I honestly though gmo food was killing us for the longest time because I saw so much about it, I ha to look very very hard to find anything not showing GMOS as evil, and a lot of it was very buried, it wasn't until I joined the facebook group GMOLOL on facebook that I realized how out of hand anti vaxers, climate change deniers and anti GMO people really are and how much overwhelming evidence there is in support of this.



If there was overwhelming evidence, they wouldn't have selected data to support their point while ignoring other points.


----------



## asher (Apr 19, 2015)

The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> I'm just throwing this question out there, if anyone has an answer I'm interested in hearing it- even if cars only released carbon monoxide, isn't it possible for a large amount of those molecules to just pick up another oxygen atom from the atmosphere and become CO2?
> 
> you also might want to give George Carlin credit for your 2nd paragraph



I figured my second paragraph was obvious enough to forgo giving him credit. As for CO2, plants use it for photosynthesis.

@Joel, you mention antivaxxers but the guy who spent a large portion of his life towards vaccines [including the polio vaccine] has said they are essentially bargain basement medicine. I trust him a little more than I trust Jenny McCarthy or yourself.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 19, 2015)

asher said:


> The 97 percent: Three key papers quantifying scientific concensus on climate change



Yeah, except climategate.


----------



## asher (Apr 19, 2015)

What the heck is "climategate" actually supposed to be? The fact that there are multiple terms in use...?


----------



## celticelk (Apr 19, 2015)

Ace, have you got anything to offer *besides* blithe dismissals with no corroborating data or evidence? That shtick's getting old.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 19, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> @Joel, you mention antivaxxers but the guy who spent a large portion of his life towards vaccines [including the polio vaccine] has said they are essentially bargain basement medicine. I trust him a little more than I trust Jenny McCarthy or yourself.



You've brought that up before. That statement you keep referring to is completely out of the context of how he actually meant it. 

Interesting that you trust an expert when he agrees with you, but vehemently disagree with them when they don't. You're confirmation bias is showing.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 19, 2015)

Why never any threads about the "war on successful white men"?  Or how about the "war on cops"?


----------



## asher (Apr 19, 2015)




----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 20, 2015)

The moon landing wasn't real. They didn't have apple yet.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 20, 2015)

Like it or not, what they should be focusing on is "how do we best implement forced population reduction/management programs the world over without going nazi-style about it".


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 20, 2015)

Dinosaurs are not real. God didn't mention them.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 20, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Like it or not, what they should be focusing on is "how do we best implement *forced population reduction/management* programs the world over *without going nazi-style* about it".



Contradiction in terms, Trench. Any "forced" program is going to be inherently fascist. My opinion is that the only way to reduce the human population (short of a major catastrophe) is to improve education and political and economic rights for women, which has demonstrably lowered birth rates in developed countries, and creation of incentive programs that will encourage people to choose childlessness. "Encourage" is a key word here.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2015)

Thanks for clearly illustrating the point of the article. Un-educated/mis-educated/willfully-ignorant/irrational-deniers have very easy to access, widely distributed forums for their mis-information/outright-lies/irrational nonsense and other un-educated/mis-educated/willfully-ignorant/irrational-deniers succumb to their conformational bias and just roll with it. It used to be "don't give the nuts any more publicity and they'll die-out"; however, given today's mass media, social networks, connected 24/7 population, the nonsense spreads faster than fungus in a hot moist environment. Now, it takes a huge amount of concerted effort to squash & re-squash & re-squash & re-squash & re-squash & re-squash & re-squash the nonsense being spewed by the un-educated/mis-educated/willfully-ignorant/irrational-deniers.


pushpull7 said:


> Global warming has changed to "climate change" which in of itself is recognition of not really knowing the truth


Bzzzzzzzzzz! Wrong Answer. It's the anthropogenic climate change deniers that started forcing the term "Climate Change" on all because it sounded less scary than "Global Warming". Now the deniers are using that change as solipsistic nonsense in an attempted to argue against the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Much like the narcissistic SO that makes you change and then dumps you because "You're just not the person I started this relationship with."


pushpull7 said:


> BTW, just in case anyone is interested, it's happened over and over again on earth. Not saying we are not effecting changes, but there is no *proof* that it's just *us* who's causing it.


Again, wrong answer. There is a large body of evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic. Anybody who claims otherwise has their head in the sand and is in the same league as flat-earthers, young-earth Creationists, Moon landing Hoax supporters, anti-vax nuts, Holocaust Deniers, Food Babe supporters, etc.

Here's two simple sites to learn something, unless you choose to remain willfully ignorant:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence

The NASA site has a very simple, clear image of CO2 levels:





You want to claim that's not anthropogenic?

Look at geological history of CO2 and temperature. Whats one of the highest temperature periods in the past? The period when all that Carbon that's sequestered in the plans that made the coal and oil we've been burning since the beginning of the industrial era was free in the atmosphere.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> I like how they used the term climate change instead of global warming when they no full well it's specifically man-made global warming that is the target of skeptics.


Again, you're missing the fact that it's the deniers that started using the term "climate change" to detract from "global warming" fears. Also, "Climate Change" is the correct term, whether it's anthropogenic, or not. Finally, there's no diversion, or other irrational nonsense, behind the change in the prevalence of which term is being used. That is a complete redherring, irrational, diversion being spewed by the anti-anthropogenic climate change deniers because they don't have the data to support their claims.


TRENCHLORD said:


> I've yet to hear any skeptics deny or doubt that our climate is continually evolving.


1) Don't lump the anti-anthropogenic climate change deniers (which are essentially 100% of the anti-anthropogenic climate fanbois) with true skeptics (who account for ~3% of the research). They aren't the same. The deniers ignore the data, cherry-pick data sets, take facts out of context, and focus on nonsensical rhetoric like a change in terms from "global warming" to "[anthropogenic] climate change". You've shown yourself to be firmly in the deniers camp, and not anywhere near the skeptics camp. Don't worry, you've got plenty of company with the moon-landing deniers, the young-earth creationists, creationists in general, anti-vaxers, Holocaust Deniers, etc.

2) It is likely true that you haven't heard any skeptics claim that there is no warming, because that is undeniable; however, the incredibly tiny number of true skeptics out there are drowned-out by the howls of the irrational deniers. Deniers regularly scream that there is no evidence of warming. To claim otherwise is denying reality. It's also misleading, solipsistic, diversionary, etc. etc.


TRENCHLORD said:


> As for the moon landing being faked, I'd say that's just a very tiny % of people (the conspiracy theorist hardcores)


True, but irrelevant. Look at what we've got that's in the same league:
Creationists
Young-Earth Creationists
"Some god guided {so it absolutely must be my god}" Evolutionists
Biblical literalists
Anti-Vaxers
Homopathy Supporters
Holocaust Deniers
Food Babe Fans
Dr. Oz Fans
Fans of both "Dr." non-Sanjay Guptas
Obama is a Muslim Nuts
etc.
Again, pointing out your wild-assed guess of the percentage of moon-landing deniers is nothing more than deconstructionist, solipsistic, irrational nonsense.


----------



## vilk (Apr 20, 2015)

^homopathy... it's like herbal remedies for gay people?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 20, 2015)

flint757 said:


> You've brought that up before. That statement you keep referring to is completely out of the context of how he actually meant it.
> 
> Interesting that you trust an expert when he agrees with you, but vehemently disagree with them when they don't. You're confirmation bias is showing.



You mean an expert that spent most of their career working on vaccines? Yeah, I'm probably going to believe him since he knows what he's talking about. You know, because he has actual experience in the field of developing numerous vaccines.


----------



## asher (Apr 20, 2015)

That still doesn't mean it wasn't horribly taken out of context and at odds with all the other evidence.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Apr 20, 2015)

vilk said:


> ^homopathy... it's like herbal remedies for gay people?



I think they forgot an E. homeopathy.


----------



## vilk (Apr 20, 2015)




----------



## FretsOnFyre (Apr 20, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> I think they forgot an E. homeopathy.



Homopathy actually does make sense in that post, if it's referring to "gay conversion" therapy.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> What are we emitting so much CO2 from?


Others have answered this. Time to add one more tally to the "I'm ignorant about the subject, but I'm still going to deny the science" column. Maybe you're a graphical learner, in that case, here's a graph of the sources of greenhouse gasses produced in the U.S.:

See, the top three are Manufacturing, Cars and Power. Two of which you ignorantly claim have little to no contribution.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> ... Cars? Last I checked, it released lots of carbon monoxide though I could be wrong.


 Yup -- you're wrong. And ignorant too. 1) CO is a greenhouse gas. It doesn't retain heat in the same was as CO2, but it reacts with OH free radicals, which slows the degradation of other greenhouse gasses. So it indirectly increases the affects of other greenhouse gasses by keeping them around longer. 2) Every gallon of gas produces 24 pounds of carbon dioxide and other global-warming gases. Over 19 straight from the tailpipe, the other ~5 from the processing, delivery and storage. 3) Catalytic converters INCREASE the amount of CO2 and decrease the amount of CO, so your mostly CO claim is even more idiotic than you even realize.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> So yeah, color me skeptical cuz I don't really buy it.


You're not a skeptic. You're an ignorant denier that is poo-pooing something you're admittedly and demonstrably ignorant about. Again, you're in the same league as flat-earthers, creationists, anti-vaxers, moon-landing deniers, etc., etc., etc.

I don't mind people that are truly skeptical, because they have knowledge. It's the admittedly ignorant deniers (like yourself) and the arrogantly ignorant deniers (like the GOPuritan wing of the Republican Party) that claim to be skeptics, that give true skeptics a bad name. What's worse, is when they pretend to be "curious" and "unsure" and "doubtful" and "curious to learn", when in reality, they've already made-up their mind and are just begin disruptive. This has gotten so bad, it even has it's on meme: "Sealioning":


Its times like this, when knowingly ignorant buffoons post their ignorant crap, that I miss the rep system.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2015)

celticelk said:


> ... Any "forced" program is going to be inherently fascist. ...



Yes. Including those that are so far left, that they're actually far-right.


----------



## asher (Apr 20, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Yes. Including those that are so far left, that they're actually far-right.



Not to mention the whole issue is a red herring in the discussion of climate change anyhow.

"Why should _I_ have to change my lifestyle when I can blame it on other people?"


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 20, 2015)

You guys need to lay off the chronic


----------



## flint757 (Apr 20, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> You mean an expert that spent most of their career working on vaccines? Yeah, I'm probably going to believe him since he knows what he's talking about. You know, because he has actual experience in the field of developing numerous vaccines.



That's precisely my point. You are agreeing with what you believe he believes because he is an expert in his field yet when you disagree with a topic, like climate change, you disagree with the experts (while also admitting to knowing very little on the subject to begin with). Logically this can only be because you agree with one already and disagree with the other. That's what we call confirmation bias.



asher said:


> That still doesn't mean it wasn't horribly taken out of context and at odds with all the other evidence.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 20, 2015)

Typical. The deniers have zero facts to support their claims, they resort to attacks and logical fallacies.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> And I'm still wondering what we're calling it this year. Funny how the name changed after Climategate.


This is technically a non-sequiter, but they way you're using it, it's a borderline ad hominem attack.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> I find that just a *bit* hard to believe that we produce more CO2 emissions than China or India. Now if you spun that as "American" companies utilizing Chinese labor as a reason for those emissions, then I'd see where you're coming from.


Argument from incredulity.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> What are we emitting so much CO2 from? ... though I could be wrong. So yeah, color me skeptical cuz I don't really buy it.


Argument from Ignorance.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> Ice ages, comets, extinction, natural disasters... and we think carbon emissions and bags are going to somehow destroy a big blue orb.


Strawman Argument.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> Again, why do we need to do everything while the rest of the world's countries couldn't care less?


This is a tough one. Not quite "The Bib Lie", not quite "A Half Truth", not quite a "non-sequiter", not quite a "Red Herring", not quite an "Overgeneralization", etc., etc. "Tu Quoque" seems to be the best fit, but regardless, it's a logical fallacy.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> Yeah, except climategate.


Again, multiple fallacies all in one: "Ad Hominem", "Appeal to Pity", "Argument from Motives", "Big Lie Technique", etc. etc. etc. But at the core, this is mostly an ad hominem attack, because "climate gate" was pure nonsense and a complete fabrication by the deniers.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> If there was overwhelming evidence, they wouldn't have selected data to support their point while ignoring other points.


This one is pure hypocrisy/projection. They only ones cherry-picking data are the deniers.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> And another scientific fact: If we were damaging the Earth so much, it'd get rid of us quicker than you can scream "holy ....".


Many in one again: Strawman, Equivocation, Reductionism, Appeal to Heaven, etc.


Spaced Out Ace said:


> When this proverbial "something" you are talking about involves only one country doing anything, that is "everything". And since they do more damage, they should be held more accountable.


Another "Tu Quoque"


Spaced Out Ace said:


> Flint's nose officially thumbed at naysayers and doubters. Let that be a warning to anyone that questions his almighty, omnipresent power.


Another "Ad Hominem" + a smidge of "Guilt by Association"/Reverse-"Testimonial"

And there's plenty of repeats, especially "Argument from Ignorance", "Argument from Incredulity" and a surprising amount of "Tu Quoque".


----------



## groverj3 (Apr 21, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Stuff



You're my hero.


----------



## Noxon (Apr 21, 2015)

Ray, you are on fire, man. Keep going...


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 21, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Contradiction in terms, Trench. Any "forced" program is going to be inherently fascist. My opinion is that the only way to reduce the human population (short of a major catastrophe) is to improve education and political and economic rights for women, which has demonstrably lowered birth rates in developed countries, and creation of incentive programs that will encourage people to choose childlessness. "Encourage" is a key word here.




Actually it's not a contradiction in terms. (not automatically)
You're assuming that I meant to "force the people".

Forced population reduction also means to force a decline in population (through our actions), it could be through a carefully implemented system, or it could indeed mean to do so by using nazi-style tactics in which people are killed or forced to be sterilized. (or shown pictures of a naked Hillary Clinton, or even clothed for that matter)


----------



## flint757 (Apr 21, 2015)

As nations become more modern and healthy they tend to also have fewer children. The world as a whole is moving towards 0-1 per household. The issue at the moment is more that people just aren't dying as quickly as they used to. I'm not really sure I want that problem resolved either as I'd like to live a long life if possible.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 21, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Typical. The deniers have zero facts to support their claims, they resort to attacks and logical fallacies. This is technically a non-sequiter, but they way you're using it, it's a borderline ad hominem attack.Argument from incredulity.Argument from Ignorance.Strawman Argument.This is a tough one. Not quite "The Bib Lie", not quite "A Half Truth", not quite a "non-sequiter", not quite a "Red Herring", not quite an "Overgeneralization", etc., etc. "Tu Quoque" seems to be the best fit, but regardless, it's a logical fallacy.Again, multiple fallacies all in one: "Ad Hominem", "Appeal to Pity", "Argument from Motives", "Big Lie Technique", etc. etc. etc. But at the core, this is mostly an ad hominem attack, because "climate gate" was pure nonsense and a complete fabrication by the deniers.This one is pure hypocrisy/projection. They only ones cherry-picking data are the deniers.Many in one again: Strawman, Equivocation, Reductionism, Appeal to Heaven, etc.Another "Tu Quoque"Another "Ad Hominem" + a smidge of "Guilt by Association"/Reverse-"Testimonial"
> 
> And there's plenty of repeats, especially "Argument from Ignorance", "Argument from Incredulity" and a surprising amount of "Tu Quoque".








When people start resorting to this nonsense (and people start swarming in like a pack of hyenas to take sides) it's time to go.

While you use all these things that added to global warming to try and beat your POV into others, just remember: You are not any better.

Now, forgive me while I go write my book on how global warming was caused by aliens who live on the moon (you know, the one we didn't go to) and how evolution is only 2015 y.o.. Oh, and how dick cheney flew remote control planes into buildings that had explosives planted.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Apr 21, 2015)

flint757 said:


> As nations become more modern and healthy they tend to also have fewer children. The world as a whole is moving towards 0-1 per household. The issue at the moment is more that people just aren't dying as quickly as they used to. I'm not really sure I want that problem resolved either as I'd like to live a long life if possible.



True, but nevertheless.





Houston, we have crowded planet and it's getting much worse before it gets better.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 21, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> True, but nevertheless.
> 
> Houston, we have crowded planet and it's getting much worse before it gets better.



Yes, but the continued rise isn't inevitable.



There's a one hour documentary made by the Gapminder website on this that I've been meaning to watch, but haven't gotten around to it yet:

DONT PANIC

In short, if we raise the living standards of the poorest people on the planet, we will by proxy stabilise, or even reduce the population of the planet.

As for whether or not we can continue to sustain such a high population:



The above is a David Attenborough documentary that's very enlightening. I'll just leave a spoiler here for those that don't have time to watch it. At the end of the video, and I'm relying on my memory here, Attenborough breaks down the numbers of what population the planet can sustain based on the rates of consumption of resources (food, water, fossil fuel, etc). If we consumed at the rate of those living in third world countries, we could sustain 12 billion humans on the planet. If we all consumed at the same rate as the USA (and I assume Australia as well), the we can sustain 3-4 billion. 

This suggests that the problem is not the amount of people, so much as the levels of consumption. We waste a lot of everything in the first world, and consider it 'normal'. This is in my opinion at least as much of a contributor to our troubles as a species as the number of people on the planet. 

So to say that "the problem is getting worse" is really to say that "the lives of people in affluent countries will get worse". 

Having said that, I agree 100% that 7 billion is too damn high. I prefer the idea of 4 billion living well than 12 billion living rough. That's one reason I got a vasectomy (the larger factor being that most of my friends have kids, and it's the least appealing lifestyle ever ).


----------



## asher (Apr 21, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> When people start resorting to this nonsense (and people start swarming in like a pack of hyenas to take sides) it's time to go.
> 
> While you use all these things that added to global warming to try and beat your POV into others, just remember: You are not any better.
> 
> Now, forgive me while I go write my book on how global warming was caused by aliens who live on the moon (you know, the one we didn't go to) and how evolution is only 2015 y.o.. Oh, and how dick cheney flew remote control planes into buildings that had explosives planted.



... these are all long-established things in debate and logic. Pointing out how terrible arguments are terrible is taboo?

@estabon: no .... sherlock!  good post.

like I said before:

"Why should _I_ have to change my lifestyle when I can blame it on other people?"


----------



## ElRay (Apr 21, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> _Typical denier hypocritical shît._


You don't have the facts to support your position, you get called on in, and then flee with the parting ad hominem attack.

There is a HUGE difference, which you're not seeing. The deniers are making baseless claims, cherry-picking data, committing logical fallacies, etc., etc., etc. I.E. behaving no differently than Creationists, Anti-Vaxers, Flat-Earthers, Holocaust Deniers, Moon Landing Deniers, etc. That's a fact. The fact that they're too clueless to see that, doesn't negate the fact that they haven't done anything to prove or advance their point. The fact that they've demonstrated themselves to be too arrogant to even consider that they might be wrong and then choose to remain willfully ignorant has earned them derision.

The supporters have shown you the evidence, pointed out other articles to help you understand, etc., etc. If you think that's equivalent to your childish Neener-neener-neener, La-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you, Well-they-do-it-too, Johnny-made-a-bigger-mess nonsense, you've got some serious problems.

If you want to have an actual debate, and want to be a true skeptic, discuss the evidence. Prove it to be wrong, provide accurate sources providing counter evidence. Y'all have done NONE of that. This is NOT an argument:





> An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.





> Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.



Do not take your lessons from John Cleese (or Graham Chapman)


----------



## ElRay (Apr 21, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> When this proverbial "something" you are talking about involves only one country doing anything, that is "everything". And since they do more damage, they should be held more accountable.



Top Five Contributors of Greenhouse Gases:
China (27%)
U.S.A. (17%)
India (5%)
Russia (5%)
Japan (4%)
Everybody else is 2% or lower. So the U.S.'s contribution to Greenhouse gasses about equal to the combined output of countries #3 through #6 and 1/2 of #7.

First off, your facts are wrong. Second, even if they were right, this is a "Tu quoque" Fallacy.

Please try again.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 21, 2015)

asher said:


> Pretty damn sure that's not at all how the chemical bonding process works to make CO2.



The problem with CO is that it binds to OH free radicals and that slows the degradation of other Greenhouse Gases.

Ray


----------



## ElRay (Apr 21, 2015)

Noxon said:


> Ray, you are on fire, man. Keep going...



The whole "Argument from Ignorance", "Argument from Incredulity", "Strawman Arguments", "Sealioning", "Arrogance due to Ignorance", etc. has really gotten under my skin lately.


----------



## Edika (Apr 21, 2015)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> When this proverbial "something" you are talking about involves only one country doing anything, that is "everything". And since they do more damage, they should be held more accountable.



Whoa there cowboy, you're probably unaware that the EU and other developing countries have passed legislation and are trying to reduce carbon emissions and guess which first world country is still against it. In fact legislation is so strict fro pollutants in the EU that a lot of chemicals for industry and production are prohibited from use, but again guess where they are permitted. So not only is the US not doing something it's actually part of the problem, because I'll let you guess a third time who those emerging economies site as an example when they disregard environmental factors completely.


----------



## FRETPICK (Apr 21, 2015)

Australia exports a vast amount of coal to China.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 22, 2015)

FRETPICK said:


> Australia exports a vast amount of coal to China.



That we do, and in all likelihood we'll continue to do so, because our last three or four consecutive governments legislated heavily in favour of the mining sector in the hopes of a huge boost to the economy and didn't really do anything in the way of a backup plan.

The good news is that they were right on the economy. We got off light during the most recent economic crisis - virtually unscathed, in fact. The bad news is, mining in all non-coal sectors is apparently dying off somewhat, so we're probably going to tear every kilo of coal out of the ground and sell it to whoever wants it (mostly China), and it's highly unlikely our economy is going to see anywhere near the kind of good times it's seen over the last decade or so. 

So ... happy Earth Day?


----------



## FRETPICK (Apr 22, 2015)

Something has to change soon.


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 22, 2015)

ElRay said:


> Top Five Contributors of Greenhouse Gases:
> China (27%)
> U.S.A. (17%)
> India (5%)
> ...



Those numbers are different from the ones celticelk posted earlier in the thread (&bull; Largest emitters of CO2 worldwide 2014 | Statistic)

I think that's why a decent percentage of people are less trusting of scientific reports, because seeing two different reports with different numbers makes both of them seem a little less credible. Added to that, these types of statistics are often thrown out in all kinds of situations where the person using them doesn't provide any other information on those statistics, such as when that study was performed, for example. It's easy to see how someone might get confused when trying to sort through different results on the same subject.


----------



## asher (Apr 22, 2015)

Confused by different studies putting out some different numbers is an entirely different beast from claiming that the science is wrong or that there's "no consensus."


----------



## Gothic Headhunter (Apr 23, 2015)

Very true. I wasn't trying to defend the latter, though.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 23, 2015)

Gothic Headhunter said:


> Those numbers are different from the ones celticelk posted earlier in the thread (&bull; Largest emitters of CO2 worldwide 2014 | Statistic)...



Neither study specified the +/- on the numbers. Also, the NASA data was rounded to whole numbers. Both factors are annoying to folks that have done scientific research. If you assume +/- 2% error, then 27% and 23.43% are equal, 14.69% and 17% are equal, etc.

Unfortunately, a lot of the deniers are clueless about statistics and think everybody measuring the same thing should get exactly the same results. So, they treat "statistically equivalent numbers" as "different measurements" and claim that the measurement is meaningless.

All you have to do is get on and off a scale a few times and you'll see a range of measurements for something that hasn't changed. Then measure yourself multiple times during the day. Then do that for weeks. There will be a lot of "noise", but you'll very clearly see a trend/average in the measurements.

I think this video sums it up nicely:
​now, just make the dog a fuzzy puff of fur and the EXACT measurement you're looking for the dog's navel. Yes, it will be impossible to tell at any moment the EXACT location of what you're trying to measure, but that by no way means you can't see the trend and where the dog is heading.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 26, 2015)

asher said:


> Confused by different studies putting out some different numbers is an entirely different beast from claiming that the science is wrong or that there's "no consensus."



I don't think anyone is saying science is wrong. All I see is a bunch of people who bought into the al gore school of how things are that are being protective of that like a tiger protecting their young.

I seriously doubt anyone using their computer/ipad/whatever to post on this forum is truly environmentally friendly. All these "things" we all use take their toll. I don't think muscle cars are good for the environment.


----------



## flint757 (Apr 26, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying science is wrong. All I see is a bunch of people who bought into the al gore school of how things are that are being protective of that like a tiger protecting their young.



Yeah, environmental scientists all over the world have a shrine to the guy. You must pray to it at least 4 times a day or anger the almighty Gore. 



pushpull7 said:


> I seriously doubt anyone using their computer/ipad/whatever to post on this forum is truly environmentally friendly. All these "things" we all use take their toll. I don't think muscle cars are good for the environment.



Do you base all of your opinions on unprovable assumptions? Does someone being negligent towards the environment somehow make the data less true?

As far as 1:1 comparisons does say a power plant pollute more than an individual? I'd say most definitely. 

Should we just let these companies do as they please because Joe Schmo down the block doesn't recycle? I'd say probably not.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 27, 2015)

DOH!

It's just no use trying. Attack mode on full.

Sorry to to have bothered, carry on.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 27, 2015)

There are a lot of companies, in all fields, sitting on enormous cash reserves at the moment. This is problem because it brings economic growth to a near standstill. So I was thinking, what if the U.S admitted to the world we never landed on the moon and that it was a complete hoax, regardless of whether it is true or not? I think the "financial flood gates" would open and a new space race, funded entirely by the private sector would immediately begin which in turn would jumpstart nearly all sectors of the economy. The sciences would certainly benefit well but so would industries you would never think of, such as music. The first concert would be played on the moon. How much do think Steinway would pay to have their piano to be the first piano on the moon? And so on and so forth. I am completely ignoring physics along with the fact space travel would probably kill most non-astronauts, but with the world the way it is today, the opportunity to be the first person to land on the moon would be a temptation too many people (with the financial means) would give into. 

PS - I do not condone lying, but I still think the above scenario would get cash moving again.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 27, 2015)

And I'm called a wacko 

J/K, I know you are joking around.


----------



## Given To Fly (Apr 27, 2015)

No...not really. The U.S. would have to prove they never landed on the moon which could be tricky, especially if they actually did, but I honestly think there would be a new "space race" completely funded by the private sector and tremendous amounts of money would be spent on anything and everything that could get people to the moon. Coca-Cola, Apple, Google, etc., would all certainly have their logo on the side of a number of spaceships.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 27, 2015)

Going to the moon again will happen. The problem is that right now the expenses don't match. Remember, one of the big motivations back then was to "beat the russians" which no longer is a motive. Now, there has to be a financial benefit. 

Don't worry, probably in your lifetime (though maybe not mine) there will be corporate sponsored moon landings. 

Then again, according to "ancient astronaut theorists" there are already aliens with vast moon bases  Maybe those corps you mention are just waiting to get "rights" first


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 27, 2015)

Sorry......me again 

How many of you have put you money where your mouth is with the "environment" ??

I traded in my f-150 with a v8 for a focus. I don't misuse water (I rinse, turn off the shower and then quickly rinse off) I don't water my lawn (severe drought here) the LOWEST I run my AC is 78 (which is unheard of by the largest majority of people that run AC. ) 

So for all the whining about the environment, how many of you actually do anything? Bitching about all the problems is one thing....anyone actually trying to make a difference?


----------



## Edika (Apr 27, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying science is wrong. All I see is a bunch of people who bought into the al gore school of how things are that are being protective of that like a tiger protecting their young.
> 
> I seriously doubt anyone using their computer/ipad/whatever to post on this forum is truly environmentally friendly. All these "things" we all use take their toll. I don't think muscle cars are good for the environment.



This is the fault in the logic of most people who introduce political bias in scientific conversation. But it's not only the people's fault and into that much I'll agree with you.

The way things work in any country is a for a candidate to peek a theme that will be his campaign and message to get him elected, depending on how popular the notion is at that period of time. Some politicians might be more sincere than others and believe in their campaign and message most of them don't. I am not sure if Gore believes in global warming (yes global warming not climate change) but that was the theme of his campaign and he seemed to pursue it even after his defeat in the presidential elections.

This provided benefits and drawbacks. One of the benefits was that an issue that is quite real got more exposure and it wasn't just scientists trying to get the attention of the population and one of the drawbacks is that it became a political issue when it is actually a survival issue. Not of the earth (the earth doesn't give two ....s about humans and life) and other species but mainly our survival and our current way of life as we know it. The second part of my last sentence is another big discussion but let's not focus on that for the time being. On one hand scientists grasped on to the exposure to try and get their message across but on the other hand it became a debate for people with political agendas and camps where set from either side.

I'll tell you one thing, scientists care about the facts and will support the facts regardless of political beliefs. It's not a left wing thing as I'm sure a big amount of that 90 something percent of scientists supporting global warming are not tree hugging hippies holding hands and singing songs for the well being of mother earth. I'll bet you that a lot of them are conservatives. 
And we come back to the first sentence of this paragraph, that scientific facts help you transcend political bias. Unless there is an immediate benefit and profit to be made by supporting an opposing position which is the case for this issue.

Unfortunately the main title of this thread sets the mood correctly, that there is a war on science. There was always a war on science, especially when it didn't suit the narrative of any political system in place. Or to say it a bit more accurately, some science was ok but a lot wasn't.


----------



## estabon37 (Apr 27, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Sorry......me again
> 
> How many of you have put you money where your mouth is with the "environment" ??
> 
> ...



I don't run my AC for more than 10-20 days a year in a part of the world that regularly breaks 40C (104F) in summer, nor do I run my heater very often in winter. I ride my bike or walk rather than drive when I'm not in a rush, buy second hand when I can, recycle as much as possible, have a compost to reduce landfill, and donate items to charity that I might otherwise throw away (clothes, books I don't want any more, etc). 

All of this probably does very little. The problem is that it's hard to calculate our indirect impact on the environment; for example, do the companies I purchase from have low environmental impact? It's a tricky question to answer. This article points out that though supermarkets in the UK only contribute to 1% of the UK's total electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions, it's really difficult to measure their impact through freight - products shipped by air or sea, and then trucked from depot to shelf. Companies have little incentive to change their systems, because it would likely lead to increased costs, which would lead to increased pricing, which would lead to reduced sales, which would lead to no substantial change to environmental impact, unless every retailer were forced to change at once. 

Having said all that, I've heard that air conditioners are one of the biggest contributers to carbon emissions by individuals, so it's pretty awesome that you use it lightly. They're really only a problem if you're on a coal-powered grid, though older ones use ozone-depleting cooling agents (link from Nat Geo). My partner and I tend to hang out at her parent's place in summer - they have solar panels, so running an air conditioner all day doesn't really harm anything (as long as the filters are clean). I'd install solar myself, but I'm both renting and broke, so...


----------



## celticelk (Apr 27, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> Sorry......me again
> 
> How many of you have put you money where your mouth is with the "environment" ??
> 
> ...



I don't like to play holier-than-thou about my lifestyle, but I don't care for your accusations of hypocrisy either. So:

My wife and I have driven a Prius for the last ten years; it's been our only car for about 18 months. We work at the same university, so we commute together, and we do most of our grocery shopping and other errands on the way home from work. We run the HVAC systems in our house minimally; the house is built into the side of a ridge, so it's a little warmer in winter and cooler in summer than you might otherwise expect. In the winter, we use the propane furnace just to keep a floor on the temperature (55-63 degrees, depending on time of day and occupancy) and heat the lower level living space in the evening with a woodstove; the warm air circulates upward to keep the bedroom comfortable overnight. Some of our wood comes from trees on our property (we live on 12 acres, mostly wetland) and the rest from local farmers' woodlots. Our household appliances were chosen with energy efficiency as a major consideration. We grow much of our own produce, and store surplus for the off-season (canning, freezing, root cellar); our purchased food is selected with local and organic considerations at the forefront (buying local supports our neighbors as well as minimizing transport miles). My wife is a spreadsheet junkie, and tracks our energy usage rigorously: we use about 25% of the US household average in all categories except propane, which is about 35% (our water heater is propane-powered, and it accounts for about a third of our propane usage). 

So, yeah: money --> mouth.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 30, 2015)

That's fine, but it doesn't address most people. Sorry you took it "personally" like I was saying every single person doesn't do anything. (which isn't what I meant)

My point, and it wasn't holier than thou, was that people bitch about the environment w/o actually doing anything to improve the situation. Everyone's turds stink like ..... You get kooks like sheryl crow with using "just one" piece of TP instead of realizing that her tours take more of an effect on the environment even if a human could use "just one" and use the two sided other piece as a napkin  

She isn't going to change. She's not going to use less guitar strings, jet fuel, ciggies (since the butts litter all the streets in the world, I consider that pretty bad for the environment) less waste, less energy. 

Yeah, it's long winded but highways, skyscapers, cars (even a ....ing prius) guitar frets, drinking water, sewage, power plants, airplanes, tv's, ipads, computers, batteries, cell phones.....I'll stop for now  ... These are ....ing destructive. 

And since it seems to go over everyone's head. In the 70's we had less than 3 billion on the planet. In that short period of time, it went up to now well over 7 billion. 

Do you think that any amount of "cutting back" can keep up with that?

Yeah, I've heard a couple of knuckleheads say "well what, you shouldn't do anything?" which is absurd. 

Take care of your own house before preaching. Being pissed off at republicans for environmental issues is idiotic. It's all the people. People are just trying to get by...

One more thing, and it goes back to the nutty idea that if you "oppose" the al gore method, you are not being scientific....is that climate change was happening as early as a the "little ice age" (which I'm sure hardly anyone knows about) Surely humans we're not responsible for that? Try and show a little perspective instead of jumping on people that don't share the same opinion, maybe then it would be possible to figure out what needs to be next?


----------



## Edika (Apr 30, 2015)

Your points of people not doing enough by themselves are valid as well as the hypocrisy of some celebrities as you mentioned. This reminded me of the recent food bank incident with Gwyneth Paltrow.
A few comments on that though as aside from the pollution caused by individuals a bigger share of it comes from industries. Marketing and advertisement push on new products daily which we, the people, consume like lemmings all over the globe. There is an interaction between the two with the industry side mainly having the upper hand. But if a big percentage of consumers did the simplest thing they can do, boycott X company because it's not reducing their Carbon foot print and are against environmental policies then you'll see them changing their tune really quickly. However when a part of the people try to point out these issues about consumerism and a cleaner environmentally, less polluting way of life, they're labelled as communist/anarchist treehuggers that want to destroy the free worlds way of life and impeach on their right and all that illiterate nonsense. Or receive the least intelligent of arguments like "and what do you do in your personal life, are you the saint you're proclaiming to be and judge us mere mortals for our putrid ways of life?". Yes practice what you preach is important but understanding simple logic arguments, regardless of the actions of the person making the arguments, is equally important.
Honestly you're falling into that trap again where you make it into a political thing vs an environmental thing. Personally I couldn't care less if Gore said what he said and if it's the Republicans opposing environmental change. All I see is data supporting global warming and on the other side a bunch of high functioning apes (for apes standards) denying the data for sort sighted benefits. 
ElRay already showed data supporting that our influence has pushed global warming over the more naturally cycled fluctuations over a period of hundreds of thousands of years. If you still want to make it into a political issue then I'm sorry you're a big part of the problem, even if you live personally the cleanest more environmentally friendly life.


----------



## celticelk (Apr 30, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> That's fine, but it doesn't address most people. Sorry you took it "personally" like I was saying every single person doesn't do anything. (which isn't what I meant)



You asked "how many of you put your money where your mouth is?" That's not a question about "most people" - that's a direct challenge to the posters in this thread, and I took it as such.



pushpull7 said:


> And since it seems to go over everyone's head. In the 70's we had less than 3 billion on the planet. In that short period of time, it went up to now well over 7 billion.
> 
> Do you think that any amount of "cutting back" can keep up with that?



Obviously, yes. A 99% reduction in energy use, as an example, would more than make up for the added people on the planet since the '70s. That's not a realistic goal. A better question is "what targets for reduction in energy use are reasonable, and how can these targets contribute to an *overall* energy use profile that's sustainable for the planet in the long term?" Reduction in energy use *has* to be a part of a sustainable long-term plan - it's the only component that doesn't involve hand-waving invocations of not-yet-available power generation and storage technologies or unrealistic assumptions about buildouts of nuclear power and conversion of heavy industries from fossil fuels to electricity.




pushpull7 said:


> One more thing, and it goes back to the nutty idea that if you "oppose" the al gore method, you are not being scientific....is that climate change was happening as early as a the "little ice age" (which I'm sure hardly anyone knows about) Surely humans we're not responsible for that? Try and show a little perspective instead of jumping on people that don't share the same opinion, maybe then it would be possible to figure out what needs to be next?



"Hardly anyone knows about" the Little Ice Age, except the people that have been bringing it up for years as a challenge to the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, and the scientists who have been (more or less) patiently answering that objection. See: What ended the Little Ice Age?. You're getting jumped on because your arguments are played out, and because we're tired of having to point out their played-outness to people who are unable or unwilling to do their own damn research.

/rant


----------



## USMarine75 (Apr 30, 2015)

Interesting book/movie on the subject...

Merchants of Doubt - Home

Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming by Naomi Oreskes | 9781608193943 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble


----------



## ElRay (Apr 30, 2015)

I thought you were leaving?


pushpull7 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying science is wrong. All I see is a bunch of people who bought into the al gore school of how things are that are being protective of that like a tiger protecting their young.


Strawman, Composition, Genetic & Argument from Ignorance Fallacies


pushpull7 said:


> I seriously doubt anyone using their computer/ipad/whatever to post on this forum is truly environmentally friendly. All these "things" we all use take their toll. I don't think muscle cars are good for the environment.


Tu Quoque Fallacy

As stated before, please provide some actual evidence, data, reasoning, etc. to disprove anthropogenic climate change.

EDIT: I found this: http://www.seekfind.net/Head_in_the_Sand__Ostrich_Fallacy.html looking for the "textbook" name for the "head in the sand", "I don't see any ..." fallacy. Too funny, it's a site that tries to teach logic and reasoning to people arguing for mythology as fact.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 30, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> DOH!
> 
> It's just no use trying. Attack mode on full.
> 
> Sorry to to have bothered, carry on.



You can't pop-in, spew your nonsense, and expect it to just be accepted. There's no attack mode being activated, it's just people responding to your posts.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from comment, critique or criticism.


----------



## ElRay (Apr 30, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> That's fine, but it doesn't address most people...


Tu Quoque, yet again.


pushpull7 said:


> ... One more thing, and it goes back to the nutty idea that if you "oppose" the al gore method, you are not being scientific....is that climate change was happening as early as a the "little ice age" (which I'm sure hardly anyone knows about) Surely humans we're not responsible for that? Try and show a little perspective instead of jumping on people that don't share the same opinion, maybe then it would be possible to figure out what needs to be next?



Strawman, Composition, Genetic, Red Herring, etc. fallacies plus a little bit of "let me irrationally sharp-shoot everything you post, but don't you dare point out any misinformation, misconceptions, logical errors, etc. that I'm spewing" hypocrisy.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 30, 2015)

Who the .... are you?


----------



## ElRay (Apr 30, 2015)

celticelk said:


> ... You're getting jumped on because your arguments are played out, and because we're tired of having to point out their played-outness to people who are unable or unwilling to do their own damn research.



Basically pushpull7 & Spaced are sealioning, minus the polite façade.


----------



## pushpull7 (Apr 30, 2015)

You keep telling yourself that but you're not my mom and last time I checked you are not a mod or own this forum.

So, if I want to oppose you, tough .....


----------



## pushpull7 (May 1, 2015)

celticelk said:


> cut and paste
> /rant



^^yes, that's what it was

Except one problem, you didn't say anything or prove a single point.

What part of "I'm not disagreeing that there is global warming/climate change/whatever ....ing phrase is being used" do you not understand? What, do I have to be like your teacher and go back, find them, and then cut and paste them to prove it? I don't think you'd even believe that!


----------



## pushpull7 (May 1, 2015)

And another thing 

I live in central/northern cali. Do you think for one minute I don't notice the ....ing baking hell of hell here? I've lived here most of my life, it's ....ing BAD. Reservoirs are critical, there is no ....ing rain/snow anymore, the Sierras are turning into a desert, and my dumb-ass house isn't going to be worth 10 cents in 3 years at this rate!

Where do you get the idea that I'm saying there is no global warming/climate change? Are you ....ing kidding me? Just because I don't like crow's bull.... about "one"

Get real.


----------



## UnderTheSign (May 1, 2015)

Is this the second coming of GoldDragon and Eric Christian combined?


----------



## estabon37 (May 3, 2015)

UnderTheSign said:


> Is this the second coming of GoldDragon and Eric Christian combined?



It's starting to look that way.



pushpull7 said:


> And another thing
> 
> I live in central/northern cali. Do you think for one minute I don't notice the ....ing baking hell of hell here? I've lived here most of my life, it's ....ing BAD. Reservoirs are critical, there is no ....ing rain/snow anymore, the Sierras are turning into a desert, and my dumb-ass house isn't going to be worth 10 cents in 3 years at this rate!
> 
> ...



One of the points that is repeatedly being made is that local conditions are more or less irrelevant. We're trying to look at the bigger picture here. I grew up and currently live in an area that endured about a decade of drought (technically, the whole country did, but we really felt it in the middle of the Murray-Darling Basin) on the planet's dryest inhabited continent. The drought eventually broke, though things did not simply go back to pre-drought times. Ironically, we've been hit by a series of floods in country's north the years since, including over the last couple of weeks. 

I've heard and read that extreme weather events such as these are byproducts of climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise. I've also heard and read that simply looking at your local conditions says absolutely nothing about the state of global climate change (despite what our mates at various news networks imply by bringing snow into the studio and then sarcastically yelling out "GLOBAL WARMING?!").

Here's the larger problem within this thead (and a couple of others you've been posting in):

Most of your posts contain some challenge, either to the people posting within the thread, or to prominent figures connected to the topic. When others respond to your challenges, you seem to feel you're being attacked in some way, start getting insulting and defensive, as well as dismissing the arguments of others without providing any evidence or reason for your dismissal. So, just for fun, here's the same treatment in return:



pushpull7 said:


> You keep telling yourself that but you're not my mom and last time I checked you are not a mod or own this forum.
> 
> So, if I want to oppose you, tough .....



Childish.



pushpull7 said:


> Except one problem, you didn't say anything or prove a single point.
> 
> do you not understand? What, do I have to be like your teacher and go back, find them, and then cut and paste them to prove it?



Said and proved a stance against your points, and you ignored them.



pushpull7 said:


> Try and show a little perspective instead of jumping on people that don't share the same opinion, maybe then it would be possible to figure out what needs to be next?



Truly ironic.



pushpull7 said:


> And since it seems to go over everyone's head. In the 70's we had less than 3 billion on the planet. In that short period of time, it went up to now well over 7 billion.
> 
> Do you think that any amount of "cutting back" can keep up with that?



Again, according to David Attenborough using actual research and statistics, yes.



pushpull7 said:


> Sorry......me again
> 
> How many of you have put you money where your mouth is with the "environment" ??
> 
> ...



Right here is the best example. You issued a challenge, set the standards for that challenge, and then when a few people responded in kind, disproving your point somewhat in the process, you threw your arms up in the air and started ranting about Cheryl Crow. So, when nobody here fit your predetermined mould, you inserted one example of one person making one stupid claim - without providing any evidence for the existence of that claim - and then you're surprised when people like El Ray point out the flimsiness of your arguments.

This is the second time I've come to this point in a thread you're posting in. If you seriously can't see the mistakes you're making, carefully read the responses of other posters here. Don't dismiss them. Hell, many of us disagree with one another all the time, but we back up our claims with evidence, research, and logic. You are not doing that. You are ignoring what you don't like, and taking every comment that disproves your points as a personal attack. If you are doing this deliberately, then you are a troll, and will be treated and reported as such (which I pointed out in another thread). 

At this stage, it seems you have three options: 1) be a little more intellectually rigorous; 2) be a little more mature in your responses ("You're not my mom". Really?), or; 3) leave.


----------



## ElRay (May 4, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> That's fine, but it doesn't address most people. ...



Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Are you ever going to actually make a point?


----------



## ElRay (May 4, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> ... Except one problem, you didn't say anything or prove a single point. ...



Oh the hypocrisy.


----------



## ElRay (May 4, 2015)

pushpull7 said:


> You keep telling yourself that but you're not my mom


Another short one that's many in one:
Non sequitur fallacy
Ad hominem
Red herring
Affirming the disjunct
Ignoratio elenchi
There's also a kind of reverse-Appeal to Authority here. As if the fact that I'm not you Mom makes my points invalid
and a simple plain, old, assumption from facts not in evidence. I very well could be your Mom.



pushpull7 said:


> and last time I checked you are not a mod or own this forum.


Non sequitur fallacy


pushpull7 said:


> So, if I want to oppose you, tough .....


Is your reading comprehension that bad? I never said anything about censoring you. You're the one that claimed that you were taking your toys any going home like a petulant child. You can "oppose" me all you want, just provide evidence and lay-off the juvenile fallacies.


----------



## Edika (May 5, 2015)

This reminds me of a band I used to be in where I and the other guitarist had music knowledge while the singer had none. We also had more understanding about music production and sound.
When we discussed about music, composition and sound I and the other guitarist we'd understand each others points in seconds while the singer would almost always object and have a different opinion based on his proconceived notions about music and what he'd read in forums without having the background to filter any of these. Whatever a guy he never met would write on the internet was correct and we were wrong even after spending hours upon hours discussing, explaining and try to teach him a few things. He is an intelligent guy but his field of knowledge had nothing to due with natural sciences so his thought process was so different that maybe it was one of the reasons of us not communicating well. He did however thought because he was intelligent that he could comprehend subjects a lot easier and faster than he could.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (May 5, 2015)

Haven't really been following the contributions/discussion of this thread, but I have my own thoughts, and I think I've said something similar before (but I'll say it again):

It appears that science works, but we don't really know why. As far as climate change goes, there are one or two facts that we should bear in mind before we proceed:

The climate changes in a swinging sort of fashion. Ice ages occur naturally. What is highly corroborated is the theory of man-made climate change completely screwing with this natural phenomenon. 

It's not bad when people doubt science - that's what science is does to _itself_. What we need to be looking at is the reasons for which people doubt scientific theories which are highly corroborated (evolution, climate change/man-made global warming/whatever you want to call it, gravity). As Edika said, it's about people's preconceived notions about the world, and about their unwillingness to accept responsibility for their behaviour and role in the world...


----------



## pushpull7 (May 6, 2015)

The thing is, that regardless of what "god" you believe in, there are anomalies that make "fact" a consideration of "what if"

War on Science? Please, Science is the major basic principal of humanity. Though aliens/strange occurrences/etc are common, they cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 6, 2015)

Interesting question (IMO), is;

How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution?

If we evolved naturally here on earth then all our actions good and bad are actually just part of the natural occurring earth biosphere. 
We might not be comfortable with this "evil" form of nature, but like it or not our presence and all our actions are literally part of the natural cycle.

If we are a transplant or a hybrid (intervened-with) species then it could be factually said that at least to some degree (however small or large) we have changed the "natural" process of earth's climatic eb and flow.


----------



## The Reverend (May 6, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Interesting question (IMO), is;
> 
> How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution?
> 
> ...



I get what you're saying. In a big picture way, since we're an extension of the natural world around us, what we do isn't much different than algae in the ocean producing oxygen. Or beavers making a dam. I feel like climate change has something in common with a complete nuclear armageddon; sure, mass extinctions happen periodically, but how often is it the result of a conscious choice?


----------



## Grindspine (May 6, 2015)

^ so, now it is a semantic argument to avoid natural resources preservation?


----------



## flint757 (May 6, 2015)

Why does it being natural or not exactly matter? If we can make our living environment healthier and postpone any impending doom that we might help accelerate where does the downside lie, beyond the change itself, to not doing so? I don't think any intelligent individual is arguing that the Earth is literally going to be destroyed by our actions, although we do certainly hold that capability, but rather that we are aiding in our own extinction if we don't change. If we make this planet less suitable to live on it's going to have negative consequences for us. That's always how I've seen it. Protecting the environment has always been, to some degree, a selfish activity in my book and I've got no problem with that fact.


----------



## celticelk (May 6, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Interesting question (IMO), is;
> 
> How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution?
> 
> ...



Most organisms on the planet exhibit behaviors that, left unchecked, would have a dramatic effect on their local environment, eventually to their detriment (usually by destruction of food sources). Two things generally prevent this. First, organisms on this planet don't exist in a vacuum - they're embedded in ecosystems, which tend to reach an equilibrium that's relatively stable (via predation and other mechanisms). Second, the rate at which organisms innovate ways around these limits (via evolution) is *very* slow, and is happening in all parts of the system at roughly the same speed, so the "arms race" between predator and prey species, for example, tends to stay balanced, absent outside interference (introduction of a new species, very rare climactic or geological events, etc.).

Humans, probably uniquely in the history of the planet, are not subject to these limits. Our rate of technological innovation vastly outpaces evolution, and thanks to technology we're largely free from the checks-and-balances imposed by other species: food limitation is not really a problem for humans (in terms of species survival, anyway), and nothing preys on us very successfully. Humanity, collectively, therefore has to regulate itself, before the results of our actions upset other local and global equilibria (like climate) in ways that are actively detrimental to our survival as a species.


----------



## estabon37 (May 6, 2015)

celticelk said:


> Most organisms on the planet exhibit behaviors that, left unchecked, would have a dramatic effect on their local environment, eventually to their detriment (usually by destruction of food sources). Two things generally prevent this. First, organisms on this planet don't exist in a vacuum - they're embedded in ecosystems, which tend to reach an equilibrium that's relatively stable (via predation and other mechanisms). Second, the rate at which organisms innovate ways around these limits (via evolution) is *very* slow, and is happening in all parts of the system at roughly the same speed, so the "arms race" between predator and prey species, for example, tends to stay balanced, absent outside interference (introduction of a new species, very rare climactic or geological events, etc.).



On this first point, this is why kangaroos are culled in certain regions in Australia. They're a land management nightmare, tend to screw up resources for other species, and once in a while, they try to murder one another in the street (it's okay to laugh; it looks funnier than it should). Even the Greens party in Australia doesn't oppose culling kangaroos, because natural selection and poor climate conditions have in the past seen kangaroos breed until they eat all the resources then straight up starve. 

On a barely related note, I recommend the fillet over the mince. I tried to make kangaroo bolognese, and it was fucking awful. Kangaroo steaks are ... interesting? Tolerable. Nowhere near as nice as every other option, which I guess is why you don't see many kangaroo farms. Speaking of which...



celticelk said:


> Humans, probably uniquely in the history of the planet, are not subject to these limits. Our rate of technological innovation vastly outpaces evolution, and thanks to technology we're largely free from the checks-and-balances imposed by other species: food limitation is not really a problem for humans (in terms of species survival, anyway), and nothing preys on us very successfully. Humanity, collectively, therefore has to regulate itself, before the results of our actions upset other local and global equilibria (like climate) in ways that are actively detrimental to our survival as a species.



Hey, here's a picture from XKCD:







Daniel Dennett used a claim by Paul Maccready in his book on religion _Breaking The Spell_, and he reiterates in this TED talk at 11:28. To paraphrase, in 10,000 years humans have gone from being and controlling less than 0.1% of vertebrate land mammals to being and controlling 98% of vertebrate land mammals (thanks mostly to our control over livestock). If accurate, (snopes doesn't have much, and I'm not sure where else to look) that is an incredible shift over a short amount of time, and for most of that time we did not have the aid of industrial machines and internal combustion engines. 

We know the extent of the influence we can have over the way the planet operates, but we've only recently realised that we have to exercise at least a level of self-control.


----------



## ElRay (May 7, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> ... How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution? ...


Because releasing tons of CO2, through man-made processes, that was sequestered underground via natural process and not a factor of evolution.


TRENCHLORD said:


> ... If we evolved naturally here on earth then all our actions good and bad are actually just part of the natural occurring earth biosphere. ...


No they're not. This is either succumbing to "Giaism" (Appeal to Faith/Divinity) or "we're all deterministic chemical processes and there's no free will". Neither of which is supported by any data. Also, this is a strawman/equivocation fallacy because even though the words "bad for the earth", "destroying the earth", etc. are being used, people really mean "making the climate inhospitable for humans".


----------



## CrushingAnvil (May 9, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Interesting question (IMO), is;
> 
> How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution?
> 
> ...



You might have me wrong. What man is doing to the environment is entirely natural. Trying to talk about what is unnatural is quite hard, really - it's not really solid ground. Anytime I hear someone say that something is unnatural I cringe a bit.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 9, 2015)

CrushingAnvil said:


> You might have me wrong. What man is doing to the environment is entirely natural. Trying to talk about what is unnatural is quite hard, really - it's not really solid ground. Anytime I hear someone say that something is unnatural I cringe a bit.



Agreed.
Yes, all man's dirt is essentially natural in a survival of the fittest sort of way.


----------



## celticelk (May 9, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Agreed.
> Yes, all man's dirt is essentially natural in a survival of the fittest sort of way.



That's a lovely bit of first-year-undergrad pseudo-philosophy, Trench, but I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.


----------



## flint757 (May 9, 2015)

Whether or not we are natural, or invoking survival of the fittest, doesn't change the fact that our behavior could be killing us as a species. Invader species (one could honestly argue that is what we are) go into a new habitat and destroy their, and many other creatures, food supply. They are both behaving naturally and in line with survival of the fittest when doing so, but that doesn't mean it was beneficial for their kind to do so.

Suicide is pretty natural as well. Wouldn't say it's a particularly healthy option to take though. The whole 'nature = good' thing is a bit fallacious. This is more about having clean air to breathe, clean water to drink and a stable climate, all of which offer optimal conditions for us to live in now, while also having the potential bonus of prolonging the existence of our species.


----------



## CrushingAnvil (May 10, 2015)

celticelk said:


> That's a lovely bit of first-year-undergrad pseudo-philosophy, Trench, but I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion.



Go easy on him - I'm not actually sure what he meant by that.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 10, 2015)

Celticelk;
"That's a lovely bit of first-year-undergrad pseudo-philosophy, Trench, but I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion."



hehe


----------



## AxeHappy (May 10, 2015)

Perhaps worth mentioning that, "Survival of the fittest," has been rejected as a term by the science community and the more accurate term is, "Survival of the best fit."

It's not about who is the best organism, but rather what can exploited their situation the best. 

Which should make it obvious when Trench's entire line of reason on this issue is ....ing stupid.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 11, 2015)

AxeHappy said:


> Which should make it obvious when Trench's entire line of reason on this issue is ....ing stupid.




You're not getting it. I haven't even tried to use my points to validate a particular "reasoning". You're just interjecting your own assumptions just as celticelk .

Try taking things at face value once in awhile and quit with the constant assuming.


----------



## estabon37 (May 11, 2015)

Yeah, fair call on 'running with the conversation', being that the whole point of forums is to have a conversation. I admit I tend to be pretty heavy on the referencing, links, and extracurriculuar material.

So, taking the following two statements at face value:



TRENCHLORD said:


> Yes, all man's dirt is essentially natural in a survival of the fittest sort of way.



and



> If we evolved naturally here on earth then all our actions good and bad are actually just part of the natural occurring earth biosphere.
> We might not be comfortable with this "evil" form of nature, but like it or not our presence and all our actions are literally part of the natural cycle.


It seems like you're either ignoring or dismissing even the possibility that positive action should be attempted in the face a huge global problem. As a stance, it's pretty consistent with the conversation we were having in another thread regarding wealth distribution; I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when you offer your stance it seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens; and attempting to control the fate of individuals or even the entire human race is ultimately futile".

This isn't an assumption on my part, I'm just looking back at your recent posts, and I find it difficult to translate your statements any other way. 

So, without reaching out for references, descriptions of logical fallacies, links, and without making any assumptions, I'll ask a question. Why join a conversation, largely contribute through broad statements, tell people they're 'not getting it' when they 'misinterpret' those statements, avoid elaborating on your stance in any detail, and then ask others to interpret your statements 'correctly'? Because at face value, on a purely conversational level, it looks like you don't really know how or why you disagree with most of the people posting here, just that you consider a statement of disagreement to be a valid enough contribution.

This isn't necessarily a criticism, I'm just trying to find a way to understand your stance in the absence of detail.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 11, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> Yeah, fair call on 'running with the conversation', being that the whole point of forums is to have a conversation. I admit I tend to be pretty heavy on the referencing, links, and extracurriculuar material.
> 
> So, taking the following two statements at face value:
> 
> ...




Because I'm NOT disagreeing. And I'm also not discouraging steps to be cleaner. I'm simply striving for accurate labeling.

All this over me saying that to say man's influence is not "natural" is in fact not accurate because man's actions are very natural.

Does it really matter what we call it or how we see it? Perhaps sometimes it does and others not. 
For example, we've all noticed the change from "global warming" to "climate change". Why the change? Because "climate change" is in fact more accurate since not every specific point on the globe is warming at the same time and some specific points might actually be colder this year or any other.



Seriously, some of you should maybe stop adding assertions into everything and then debating against your own assertions. That's Explorer 101 tactics .


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 11, 2015)

estabon37 said:


> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but when you offer your stance it seems to be along the lines of "whatever happens, happens; and attempting to control the fate of individuals or even the entire human race is ultimately futile".
> 
> This isn't an assumption on my part, I'm just looking back at your recent posts, and I find it difficult to translate your statements any other way.




No I think we should continue to strive for improvements, but yes I think much of our efforts are often futile because we treat the symptoms and often do little in regards to the source of the problem.


----------



## estabon37 (May 11, 2015)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Because I'm NOT disagreeing. And I'm also not discouraging steps to be cleaner. I'm simply striving for accurate labeling.
> 
> All this over me saying that to say man's influence is not "natural" is in fact not accurate because man's actions are very natural.
> 
> Does it really matter what we call it or how we see it? Perhaps sometimes it does and others not.



On the first part, cool beans. I think many of the posts here are striving for accuracy, which is why there's a fair bit of nitpicking.

On the second, here's some nitpicking  This is largely a conversation about the environment, so the word 'natural' is pretty heavily attached to ecosystems, resources, geographic events, etc. Within the context of the conversation, 'natural' tends to mean 'of nature', and the specific human influences that are affecting the climate are very much not 'of nature'.

_adjective_
adjective: *natural*


*1*. 
existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.
"carrots contain a natural antiseptic"
*2*. 
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
"sharks have no natural enemies
 I hate doing dictionary quotes, but it really seems now that when you're saying that 'man's actions are natural', what you're saying is 'man's actions are in accordance with man's history of actions'. If so, that's a pretty important distinction under the circumstances of the topic.



TRENCHLORD said:


> For example, we've all noticed the change from "global warming" to "climate change". Why the change? Because "climate change" is in fact more accurate since not every specific point on the globe is warming at the same time and some specific points might actually be colder this year or any other.
> 
> Seriously, some of you should maybe stop adding assertions into everything and then debating against your own assertions. That's Explorer 101 tactics .



On this point, I'm with you again. I'm not deliberately using 'Explorer tactics', I'm trying to figure out the specifics of your stance, because as I outlined above, it only takes a single word to completely change the purpose and direction of a statement. That's why what we call it and how we see it matters.


----------



## vilk (May 12, 2015)

^2 posts since 2012 and this is one of them


----------



## Explorer (May 13, 2015)

Just stopping in for a moment, and saw something which seemed irrelevant, but easily answered. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Interesting question (IMO), is;
> 
> How can man screw up the natural process of "climate shift" if man is in fact a product of natural evolution?
> 
> ...



*You're absolutely right. Anthropogenic global warming is as natural as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. *

Why? Are you attempting to make the case that if something is natural, it's not detrimental to humans or other life forms upon which we depend?

If not, *what is the point of your clarification* regarding the naturalness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (May 14, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Just stopping in for a moment, and saw something which seemed irrelevant, but easily answered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1. That's already been covered. Maybe that's the case you're trying to make?
2. ? My clarification? That's your statement not mine .


----------



## Dog Boy (Jul 9, 2015)

Poisonous mushrooms are all natural...eat them.


----------



## vilk (Jul 9, 2015)

woah man you're a riot you should do open mic night


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 9, 2015)

Man's abuse of Earth is natural in the sense that nothing can be called unnatural in the most basic sense.. What is really responsible is fear running rampant - psychologically speaking, our stress response is working in overtime all the time, and naturally, as a result, our immediate "need" to survive is made a priority over preservation of future generations and evolution itself. In other words, we are chronically short sighted because we're too afraid of losing security. It's self-awareness back-firing. We can call that natural, but it's definitely not the path of least resistance, and we definitely are intelligent enough to conduct our lives in a way that is conducive to preservation of life.


----------

