Korean Job Discussion Forums

[thepeel]

Lawrence Solomon had an eyeopening 10 part piece in the National Post in Canada.

A sample:

[Julius]

[thepeel]

I see that you took the time to read the articles before using the argument that because the United Nations (a political body) pulls the line there is some sort of legitimacy to the line itself?

[Julius]

[thepeel]

Is it the United Nations vs me?

You see, you are behaving like a religious lunatic. There is a 10 part series that references dozens of respected climate scientists and other scientists but you ignore that and try to discredit me. This is religious behavior. ignore evidence and attack the messenger as being blasphemous. Follow that with an 'argument of authority' and call it a day.

It is like when religious fools use the bible (or koran) to justify the truth of the bible or koran.

Read the articles. You might learn something.

[Julius]

[igotthisguitar]

White House "Slams" Carpooling, New Road Fees Better
Mon Feb 12, 2:02 PM

By Tom Doggett

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Carpooling won't do much to reduce U.S. highway congestion in urban areas, and a better solution would be to build new highways and charge drivers fees to use them, the White House said on Monday.

"It is increasingly appropriate to charge drivers for "some" roadway use in the same way the private market charges for other goods and services," the White House said in its annual report on the U.S. economy

CONT'D...
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/usreport_bush_economy_report_transportation_dc

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/chinaenergyenvironment;_ylt=Aq2LKYvC40kRZoqKKFRyBc9hr7sF

[thepeel]

This again is a religious criticism.

The blasphemers must be directed by the devil. That is your position. All religious people have in their toolkit is circular logic (the bible is true because the bible says it is true/the theory of global warming is true because the theory of global warming says it is true) and ah homonyms (those who don't believe in the bible are under the control of evil/those who don't believe in global warming are funded by bush).

Read the articles. They make for some interesting reads. You might learn something.

[Julius]

[seoulunitarian]

[thepeel]

Your criticism of me was religious in its nature (circular logic combined with an ad homynom). I said nothing about the arctic.

Now, the existence of a melting arctic does not necessarily validate the global warming thesis. There can be other causes, or, it can be natural or it can be a lie.

The existence of sin does not legitimize the story of the Bible in the same way that the melting of the arctic does not legitimize the global warming thesis.

[thepeel]

[Rteacher]

Well, if you go along with the UN researchers' latest report, changing one's diet to vegetarian would have more impact on greenhouse gas emissions than changing one's car to a hybrid (like Toyota Prius) would...

...According to the UN report, it gets even worse when we include the vast quantities of land needed to give us our steak and pork chops. Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. As a result, farmed animals are probably the biggest cause of slashing and burning the world's forests. Today, 70% of former Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder. These forests serve as "sinks," absorbing carbon dioxide from the air, and burning these forests releases all the stored carbon dioxide, quantities that exceed by far the fossil fuel emission of animal agriculture.

As if that wasn't bad enough, the real kicker comes when looking at gases besides carbon dioxide--gases like methane and nitrous oxide, enormously effective greenhouse gases with 23 and 296 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, respectively. If carbon dioxide is responsible for about one-half of human-related greenhouse gas warming since the industrial revolution, methane and nitrous oxide are responsible for another one-third. These super-strong gases come primarily from farmed animals' digestive processes, and from their manure. In fact, while animal agriculture accounts for 9% of our carbon dioxide emissions, it emits 37% of our methane, and a whopping 65% of our nitrous oxide.

It's a little hard to take in when thinking of a small chick hatching from her fragile egg. How can an animal, so seemingly insignificant against the vastness of the earth, give off so much greenhouse gas as to change the global climate? The answer is in their sheer numbers. The United States alone slaughters more than 10 billion land animals every year, all to sustain a meat-ravenous culture that can barely conceive of a time not long ago when "a chicken in every pot" was considered a luxury. Land animals raised for food make up a staggering 20% of the entire land animal biomass of the earth. We are eating our planet to death.

What we're seeing is just the beginning, too. Meat consumption has increased five-fold in the past fifty years, and is expected to double again in the next fifty...

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/news/02-07/news1020.htm

[thepeel]

And the evidence that the sun and increased volcanic activity are the dominant sources of any climate change? What about the warming period during European medieval times?

The United Nations is a political body and those appointed to the panel were done so by the same process that all appointments are done in the United Nations. The UN climate paper is a political document.

This is starting to resemble academia. Those who dissent are made quiet in an ever harder push leftward. I think we have a classic market "run" forming. Y2K all over again.

Humans just can't resist a narrative that gives them meaning.

[Rteacher]

Rush Limbaugh has taken the same line for many years (also citing dissenting scientists...) on his radio show, but I thought he was clearly defeated when pitted against Al Gore in a TV debate on the issue...