|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
Look, BJWD, you like to throw the 'religion' accusation around, but I'm not sure you've really thought it through - unless you think that accepting the consensus of the absolute most qualified people on the planet to judge the situation is somehow characteristic of religious behaviour. Instead you need to look at closely at your own beliefs. If you're able to simultaneously hold the positions that a)global warming doesn't exist; b)even if it does exist it isn't our fault; and c)even if it is our fault it's not dangerous, then you clearly have some difficulty thinking through the issue clearly. Ask yourself this honestly: what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that AGW is a real threat to us? If every single major relevant scientific organisation on the planet as well as Shell and BP are not good enough, then what is? Are you waiting for the ghost of Milton Friendman (may his name be praised) to appear to you in a vision?
Seriously, you really should do some self-reflection. You may find you're caught up in a certain faith-based dogma yourself. |
Must be. The "true believers" all believe, and those who don't believe, are the believers. Did I get that right? But my "faith based" dogma, yes. It is true. I believe in human freedom and the power of innovation. I really should get over that.
So, on to my "positions". Firstly, a) it seems that a change of +.5 degrees has happened b) this is not historically abnormal, and not even for the very recent past c) even if the .5 is man made, and it is "our" fault, that doesn't make the consequence of .5 a big deal. The earth has been warmer and cooler. It will continue to change in the future, with or without us. No logical problems there. All the junk about Greenland falling into the sea and such are exaggerations not supported by any evidence but are just presentations of the worst case scenario, be them likely or not.
So, what evidence would it take? How about a historically abnormal, sustained bout of warming? Because, and this is key, that isn't happening now.
Do you know the difference between "plan" and "strategy"? I think this is what you are missing. This is where you and I differ. My "faith-based" logic demands that I look at all the various variables involved. See the Copenhagen consensus.
So, nothing will come of this. Let us assume that we are at fault, and CO2 is the cause. Even then, all this totalitarian hand wringing is silly, as we are only one major scientific breakthroughs away from changing our dominant energy source. Nope, best not to lose our voices screaming about Exxon and slandering all who disagree. Best, to just relax and buy the stocks of firms who are actually going to make changes. Don' be a retard and buy a hummer, but also don't be an retard and convince your government to limit the freedoms of your neighbor. Just relax. Everything will be ok. I promise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| I am currently married, scumbag. |
Lucky her. |
Indeed. We laugh constantly. It's quite beautiful, really. |
With, or at? Never mind. |
Two scumbags for the price of one. You two are low. Scum-sucking low. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
The video I posted in the op, well, GAJ very strongly exaggerated the probelms with it.
You acted as if the one dude who was wrongly cited then negates the whole argument. Of course, it doesn't.
Wikipedia has a surprisingly fair assessment of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
This is all hype. Hype. |
Nice that you can tell the future. FACT: During the Younger Dryas there was temperature change in the range of 7 degrees in one decade. Tell me, how do we deal with the effects of that? And how do you call it "alarmist?" Please define for us how to deal with sea level rises of several meters in a period of even a hundred years, let alone ten.
You act as if the issue is survival of the species. It isn't. It's an issue of what happens to society as whole and possibly hundreds of millions in specific. Wars have started over far, far less.
And youtr point that temps have been hotter. Brilliant. When? Any time in the last 20,000 years? If not, it's irrelevant. We've never had six billion people on the planet with little or no room for migration. The migration of a few million sets up political and humanitarian disasters now. A hundred million? What then? Again, wars have been fought over less. Again, it's not about survival of homo sapiens sapiens.
Enough time wasted on someone who thinks like a person who never graduated from high school. You've got a simplistic and immature view of how the world works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spliff
Joined: 19 Jan 2004
Location: Khon Kaen, Thailand
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that the point EFLnobrainer is missing is...WHO REALLY CARES!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| It is true. I believe in human freedom and the power of innovation. I really should get over that. |
what has human freedom got to do with this issue? Nothing. hyperbole and obsfuscation.
the power of innovation? I'm sure the many societies that have crumbled due to environmental disaster agreed with you. What happened to them? Oh, that's right: that was then, this is now. Katrina never happened.
| Quote: |
| Firstly, a) it seems that a change of +.5 degrees has happened b) this is not historically abnormal, and not even for the very recent past c) even if the .5 is man made, and it is "our" fault, that doesn't make the consequence of .5 a big deal. The earth has been warmer and cooler. It will continue to change in the future, with or without us. No logical problems there. All the junk about Greenland falling into the sea and such are exaggerations not supported by any evidence but are just presentations of the worst case scenario, be them likely or not. |
.5 degrees? Who the hell cares about .5 degrees? this is about 2 degrees, 5 degrees, 7 degrees. And it is FACT that it can change within a decade. Fact.
So, because you say so, it's not an issue? The thermohaline shutdown has never occurred? Bull. there has never been an ice ball period? Bull. There was never a time when temps were far higher and the seas hundreds of feet higher () melted poles/greeenland? Bull. If you believe this crap, then your next date will undoubtedly be with the Tooth Fairy or Peter Rabbit.
FACT: the issue is that we have never had the world developed such as it is with so little ability to migrate effectively and easily to other places. Tell me, where do hundreds of millions go?
Yes, it is possible there are solutions. It is more probable that there are not. No matter what happens, millions will die or be displaced. Millions. Non of them will be you? Well, how grand! Let's not worry about the other 6 billion people on the planet!
| Quote: |
| So, what evidence would it take? How about a historically abnormal, sustained bout of warming? Because, and this is key, that isn't happening now. |
FYI, this is the longest period of sustained warming they've ever recorded. At least as far back as they can check these things with any accuracy. Thanks for playing.
| Quote: |
| Do you know the difference between "plan" and "strategy"? I think this is what you are missing. This is where you and I differ. My "faith-based" logic demands that I look at all the various variables involved. See the Copenhagen consensus. |
You blithely dismiss variables as if they mean nothing. Hypocrite. Liar.
| Quote: |
So, nothing will come of this. Let us assume that we are at fault, and CO2 is the cause. Even then, all this totalitarian hand wringing is silly, as we are only one major scientific breakthroughs away from changing our dominant energy source. Nope, best not to lose our voices screaming about Exxon and slandering all who disagree. Best, to just relax and buy the stocks of firms who are actually going to make changes. Don' be a retard and buy a hummer, but also don't be an retard and convince your government to limit the freedoms of your
neighbor. |
What the hell are you on about? How is GW taking away your freedoms? GWB, yes. GW? Please.
No one knows what will happen, but you claim to. Brilliant. You reject point after point, clinging to Exxon's bullshit and claim you are considering everything. Brilliant. You listen to a film maker whose films have been discredited so much that the BBC told channel 4 to never broadcast him again. When they did, the BBC looks into his latest rubbish pile and calls foul. Yet you beleive it? Virtaually all the info in that broadcast has ALREADY been discredited, not just one scientists voice. And how much more do you need to know than that the maker completely misrepresented that scientist? Are these honest actors? No. By what lights do you support lies then come here and claim the rest of us are robbing you of your rights ad know nothing?
As I am American, I welcome any voice. I also call "bullshit" when I see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spliff wrote: |
| I think that the point EFLnobrainer is missing is...WHO REALLY CARES! |
At least that is an honest response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there wasn't much substantive in that reply. I feel de ja vu setting in on this thread...
To recap. EFL accepts the worst possible scenario and hates everybody except himself. GAJ, well, I dunno. He accepts the science and wants to "take actions", preferably with carbon credits that only rich countries, and rich people in rich countries, will be able to afford. Me, well, I think it is all hype and nonsense. But, I'd still like to see hefty taxes on pollution, but mostly to stick it to the assholes in saudi.
In the end, the only way out of the 'carbon economy' is technological change. EFL, you might do well to remember that.
That about it? Shall we continue, or just leave it for the next big controversy on this topic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| But my "faith based" dogma, yes. It is true. I believe in human freedom and the power of innovation. I really should get over that. |
You fool! It was human freedom and the power of innovation that got us in this mess in the first place! Let's come back to this though.
| BJWD wrote: |
So, on to my "positions". Firstly, a) it seems that a change of +.5 degrees has happened b) this is not historically abnormal, and not even for the very recent past c) even if the .5 is man made, and it is "our" fault, that doesn't make the consequence of .5 a big deal. The earth has been warmer and cooler. It will continue to change in the future, with or without us. No logical problems there. All the junk about Greenland falling into the sea and such are exaggerations not supported by any evidence but are just presentations of the worst case scenario, be them likely or not.
So, what evidence would it take? How about a historically abnormal, sustained bout of warming? Because, and this is key, that isn't happening now. |
Well, I could repost the documents that reflect the consensus of the best people we've got that we are experiencing a historically abnormal, sustained bout of warming, but I doubt you'd find it particularly compelling at this point if you haven't already. Plus, the evidence that we have is not going to get any more convincing in the short run, just as it is extremely unlikely to be overturned in the near future. We're just going to have to wait and see what happens over the next 30+ years. So let's leave this here for the moment and talk for a bit about human freedom and the power of innovation.
| BJWD wrote: |
| GAJ, well, I dunno. He accepts the science and wants to "take actions", preferably with carbon credits that only rich countries, and rich people in rich countries, will be able to afford. |
First of all, I haven't actually talked about what I think should be done. I honestly don't know what the best solution is. As I've already said, I'm very skeptical about the effectiveness of carbon credits, and it's quite possible that I would agree with you about a tax-based solution, if I knew enough about it. This hasn't been the point of this thread though. My concern in this thread is not about how to approach the problem, it's about the rising tide of propaganda denying that a problem exists in the first place. It really does worry me that some very powerful interests are using similar strategies to Creationists and Big Tobacco to sow doubt in the public mind about what science actually says. It also concerns me that certain anti-left academics have decided that the science of global warming is a social construction brought about by imagined "narratives of degradation" or what have you, and are now using the ridiculous relativist arguments of the Frenchified postmodernist left to obfuscate the issues. Oh, the irony.
So what do I think we should do? This may surprise you, but I do think that the power of market capitalism is our best bet provided it's guided in the right directions - as wonderful as human freedom and innovation can be, they're not so good at dealing with unforeseen or ignored long run externalities. Governments and consumers will be able to provide that guidance, as long as they remain fully informed about the nature of the problem. As unreliable as climate science is thought to be, economics is even less so, and we're unlikely to ever reach anything near consensus on exactly what the best course of action is. However, as long as we remain aware of the problem and don't stick our heads in the sand because doing so would be good for short run business interests, we will at least keep moving in the right direction. You're absolutely right that we also shouldn't panic and go off half-cocked with solutions that do more harm than good. We probably also shouldn't bank on some kind of magic bullet technology either - as imminent as it may seem.
So if you were to post a thread about, say, how carbon taxes are better than emission offsets, I'd be very interested to read it, even if it didn't inspire the kind of angry bickering that we come to the CE forum to enjoy. In the context of a thread that is essentially about claiming that global warming is a left-wing conspiracy though, bringing up actual useful topics for discussion seems a bit like trying to discuss adaptationism vs. punctuated equilibrium in Rteacher's evolution megathread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meh, I think it is a swindle. Just the latest in a long line of enviromental/social/technical panics. Best to just let technology advance itself away from oil. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Meh, I think it is a swindle. Just the latest in a long line of enviromental/social/technical panics. Best to just let technology advance itself away from oil. |
Well, I hope you're right. But for the moment I'll take my science from scientists rather than some internet business dude. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm quite sure all will be ok. Go buy your coastal property. This is but a panic. The scientific equivalent to 'irrational exuberance' or a bank-run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
Well, there wasn't much substantive in that reply. I feel de ja vu setting in on this thread...
To recap. EFL accepts the worst possible scenario and hates everybody except himself. GAJ, well, I dunno. He accepts the science and wants to "take actions", preferably with carbon credits that only rich countries, and rich people in rich countries, will be able to afford. Me, well, I think it is all hype and nonsense. But, I'd still like to see hefty taxes on pollution, but mostly to stick it to the assholes in saudi.
In the end, the only way out of the 'carbon economy' is technological change. EFL, you might do well to remember that.
That about it? Shall we continue, or just leave it for the next big controversy on this topic? |
Nothing you atrributed to me above is true, nor can it be assumed by anything I've written. Lying is second nature, or what?
To wrap up for myself:
1. I am certain GW is happening.
2. I am certain the fact that we have more CO2 in the air than at any other time we can reasonably be sure about over the last 600,000 years MEANS something and will have an effect.
3. I am certain that the doubling/trebling/etc. of gases/events/increases in temp/etc. will continue in the near future.
4. I am fairly sure that there will be relatively serious disruptions of human life in the near and mid-terms.
5. I am fairly sure geo-eco-sicio-political disruptions will occur, ranging from mild to extreme, depending on where you live, how much money you have, etc.
6. I am sure that anything is possible, from a sudden technological discovery (which I have never discounted, liar) to a sudden shift in the thermohaline water/heat transfer and ecological/social disaster. I have never stated ANY conclusion about which scenario is GOING to play out.
7. I do believe Peak Oil is relatively near. It's simple math. 80 - 130 years is a short time to change a civilization of 6.5 billion.
8. I do believe if we burn another 1,2,3 or 4 trillion barrels of oil, life as we now know it will be a memory.
9. I do believe it is possible we can switch over to other fuel sources.
10. I do not believe it is likely because it is NOT in the interests of the energy companies, auto companies or those in real or de facto power.
Etc.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes, efl, lies, yes. Atta boy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| I'm quite sure all will be ok. Go buy your coastal property. |
Thanks for the advice, but having seen your attitude towards information you don't like, I'm not sure you're the kind of person I'd trust to be telling me what to do with my money.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| Yes, efl, lies, yes. Atta boy. |
They were your words, son. You want to revise them, I'll no longer call you a liar. You paint something other than it is, you are lying. That too much for you to process? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
