Home | Community | Message Board |
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Shop: All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck Kratom Capsules for Sale Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Bulk Substrate |
| |||||||
AnonymousRabbit Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
Yeah, Phred, move it to the science forum. That's where this thread belongs and you know it.
You tell me to stop arguing science and threaten to delete my next post that has charts, graphs, and peer reviewed studies in it... yet you continue to ask SCIENTIFIC questions and debate the science. I don't think anyone is fooled as to who the moral and intellectual victor is in this debate, judging from your ratings vs. mine on this issue and judging from the academic standards you have vs. mine, but this thread really need to go out of this forum and into science and technology, given that from DAY 1, this thread was about science. -------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/02/08 11:48 PM)
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: You again demonstrate your inability to grasp the principles being discussed. I long ago stopped arguing the science in this thread. Providing a list of scientists who disagree with the AGW hypothesis is not "debating the science". Noting that in order to accept AGW theory, steps 1 through 5 of the posted logical steps must all be accepted is not "debating the science". Pointing out that 3,4, and 5 of the chain are disputed in the scientific community is not "debating the science". Noting that the quantification of just how much of the increased CO2 of late can be assigned to human activities is disputed by the scientific community not "debating the science". Pointing out that there is considerable debate in the scientific community as to just how much of the recent temperature increase can be attributed to increasing CO2 is not "debating the science". Please note that I was not "asking scientific questions" in my previous post. I was merely correctly pointing out that it has not yet been determined how much of the currently increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is attributable to human activity, nor how much of the recent temperature increase is attributable to that rise in CO2. I will plead guilty to framing my statements in the form of rhetorical questions, however. I can see how someone giving the post a glancing skim rather than a thorough read might interpret my words as an actual request for information. My bad for the ambiguity. Quote: If it pleases you that other AGW believers have seen fit to rate you positively, I'm happy for you. Their ratings of course say nothing whatsoever about the validity of the AGW hypothesis, and even less about political policy, but hey... by all means bask in the glow. Quote: Actually, no it wasn't. I suggest you re-read the opening post in the thread. Read the very first sentence of the article luvdemshrooms was quoting. The author is not "arguing the science", he is pointing out the folly of swallowing Al Gore's hysterically overblown pseudoscience -- that one degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature over the last century is some kind of planetary emergency. He makes his points not by arguing science, but listing observations of snowfall and temperature from numerous places around the world. Moving to the second post, we have Seuss's comments on another planetary "emergency" of recent times -- the Ozone Hole, and the political ramifications from the legislation enacted to combat it. Third post -- no scientific comment. Fourth post -- no scientific comment. Now, it is true that from Silversoul's post (the fifth) to the end of the page, we have a mix of science posts and policy posts. But at the top of page two we have trendal's pivotal post (already noted by me several times in this thread) which cuts directly to the chase, followed by my response to his question. You will note none of my answers "argue the science" -- they implicitly accept that the Earth is warming. From there we have a mix of posts. Some address the science, but most address the policy or the philosophy, with a few others addressing other tangential aspects. It's not until around eight pages into the thread that zappaisgod and Entheogenic_Peace start linking to scientific papers for a few consecutive posts, then finally, ten pages in, we start looking at temperature graphs and arguing their slopes and what should be the start point and end point for those slopes. And yes... that is where I flunked as a moderator and not only failed to steer the thread back to political aspects, but actively participated myself for an extended period in the scientific argument. Then you joined the fray on page eleven and argued exclusively science from then on in. Finally, near the bottom of page eighteen, I temporarily regain my sanity (and yes... I once again fully admit my guilt for allowing the lengthy diversion of the thread, and worse -- for contributing to it. I freely admit I am not without sin in this case) and inform everyone that unless we get back to the policy aspects of the discussion, I'll lock the thread. Then -- fool that I am -- I let myself get sucked into responding to your response arguing the science, and the derailment began anew. Sigh. Every time I would catch myself and steer things back to the policy side of things, you would post something controversial that I simply couldn't bring myself to let go unanswered, so despite my threat to lock the thread, the pointless and ultimately unwinnable debate over fractions of degrees and tenths of a per cent went on long past the point of any reason, with my full complicity and active participation. That doesn't, however, make it right. A moderator acting objectively and suppressing his own personal impulses would have locked the thread back when I first warned I would. The fact that I left it open doesn't mean it should have been left open, nor does it mean it should have been transferred to another forum, it just means that I screwed the pooch as a moderator, for no reason more worthy than to indulge my own penchant for debate. So no.... the thread was demonstrably not exclusively about science "from day one". It was and still is a mix of scientific commentary and policy commentary. It shouldn't have worked out that way, but it did work out that way. To move the entire thread at this late date to Science and Technology would be doing a disservice to the posters who behaved themselves by posting political commentary. There is nothing stopping anyone from starting a thread on the AGW hypothesis in the Science and Technology forum, then referencing this thread (or specific posts in this thread) as support for their arguments in the new S&T thread. Phred
| |||||||
phi1618 old hand Registered: 02/14/04 Posts: 4,102 Last seen: 13 years, 10 months |
| ||||||
Quote: I don't quite agree with this principle - a politician could justifiably implement a policy that bears a certain cost in order to avoid a probable or possible bad event. One clear example would be shoring up the levies in New Orleans - this should have been done, but wasn't. It bore a certain cost but only a probable or possible benefit. Quote: I think supernovasky's covered actually points 1,2,3, and not just points 1 and 2 pretty well. I think that these really are the relevant questions, though I've heavily edited question 5 in my quote above mainly because I don't think we need to limit ourselves to current technologies when computing the cost. Providing market incentives and/or research grants for alternative energy technologies (including nuclear) will make the cost a moving goalpost. Also, answers to question 4 will almost necessarily be speculative - it's hard to say that climatic changes will have a catastrophic effect, but possible to examine possible effects and make educated guesses as to how likely they are, what the costs might be, and how the costs might be controlled.
| |||||||
AnonymousRabbit Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
You're wrong, Phred, this thread has been VERY much about science.
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ The very first post in this thread makes a reference to several temperature records, and then asks a question: "Do these facts support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming" THAT is a scientific question that requires a scientific response, therefore, the first post focused on the science, or a collection of observed facts that can only be explained by looking at it scientifically. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ The fifth post in the thread utilizes a peer reviewed journal to make his case. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ The sixth post uses a scientific argument, but doesn't source his argument. I guess making scientific arguments without sources is wrong, but making scientific arguments filled with facts, data, observations, and journal evidence is delete-worthy. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ Still on the first page, there is even a scientific argument going on here, where one poster accuses another poster of cherry picking data. This debate HAS been about science from day one. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ On the second page, a debate between theory vs. Fact, definitely a scientific debate. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ HELL, look at this Phred, its your OWN post on the second page! Quote: Not only are you using (and vastly simplifying) science, but you are stating something that has been scientifically disproven in several responses to your posts. But beyond the factual errors, it would take a stretch to call this post, which appears on the second page, about politics rather than science. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ Still on the second page, the first chart (a COMPLETELY bogus and heavily discredited one) appears, continuing a SCIENTIFIC debate from day one) http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ Still on page two, this thread is all about whether or not bacteria cause global warming. So is this STILL about politics, Phred, or are you being intellectually dishonest by saying it was not about science from day one? http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ ANOTHER journal report is posted, by Diploid, referenced in the news article asking what the scientific cause of increased GHGs are http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ This post, still on the second page, argues back about bacteria and green house gases http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ On the third page, a poster posts facts and data contradicting the OP's facts and data, continuing what was, from day 1, a SCIENTIFIC debate. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ In this post, Luvdemshrooms posts an article with many scientific inaccuracies, that is NOT focused on politics, but is focused on what the scientific data on specific global warming issues is. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ In this post, still not even past the 4th page, luvdemshrooms post a list of scientists disagreeing with a conclusion.. That's just the first 4 pages. I can keep listing them one by one, but I will just run through the next 6 to show that the debate over the science continues to be waged. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ luvdemshrooms posts an article that focuses on scientific data. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ Zorbman posts back with scientific data that contradicts luvdemshrooms data. http://www.shroomery.org/forums/ EP posts a VERY science heavy post. This keeps going and going. The point is, you are wrong that this thread has been about politics from the beginning. It has VERY much been about science. Even you came into make a scientific point early in. -------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/03/08 10:32 AM)
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Sigh.
You really want me to lock this thread, don't you? I'm not going to spend half an hour listing opposing posts. Did every single post in the thread confine itself to political aspects? No, of course not. But neither did every single post in this thread involve arguments over atmospheric science. You have an astonishing capacity to plow on undaunted by what people say to you in response. To repeat myself for about the tenth time -- -- the fact that I am guilty of allowing myself to get sucked into the derailment does not make the derailment right. Yes, it is true that my very first post in the thread had to do with the logarithmic nature of IR absorption by gaseous CO2. I was wrong to have made that post. Yes, I have admitted over and over and OVER again that I should have ignored all the "consensus" claims made here and immediately nudged the discussion back to the political aspects of the AGW hypothesis every single time someone started talking about IR transparency or radiative forcing or whatever. I was wrong to have not chided those posters each and every time I returned to the thread and seen more of these kinds of posts. I eventually did start doing that, albeit intermittently. Yes, it was later in the thread than it should have been, and yes, I allowed myself to get sucked back into the minutiae, but eventually I did gather up all my self-discipline and stopped rebutting, even though at times it required all my self control to let something egregiously wrong lie there unchallenged. Do a lot of my posts contain nothing but "the science" as opposed to "the policy"? Yes indeed. But that doesn't change the fact that many others of mine contain nothing but the policy. -- Since for quite some time now in the interest of getting this debate back on track I have been stipulating that 100% of the warming of the last hundred years can be laid squarely at the feet of humans, you have no need to keep spamming the thread with your charts and graphs and bibliographies and citations. For the purposes of this thread, you've won. What more do you want? If you have comments you want to make about the policy, go ahead. But if you want to keep beating a dead horse despite my repeated requests that you stop, some kind of moderator action will be taken. Locking the thread as a response is unfair to those who wish to continue the discussion while following the rules. Moving the thread to S&T is unfair to those regulars of the Political Discussion forum who participated but never go to S&T. So what does that leave? Deletion of the offending posts is all I can think of. Look, trendal's question from the top of page two is still the key question to the whole policy debate about Global Warming. Every single one of the dozens (hell, almost certainly hundreds by now) of global warming threads in this forum boils down to pretty much exactly what trendal asks: regardless of the cause of the recent temperature increase, what -- if anything -- should governments do about it? Any input you may have on the matter will of course be welcomed. Phred
| |||||||
AnonymousRabbit Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
Quote: That would, I assume, include your posts as well, and the original post, and all of those posts I listed in between that show that the debate has been about science all along? but no matter. Quote: ALRIGHT Phred. Thanks. That's all I wanted, acknowledgeable that the science behind my position is strong and given your stipulation, this stipulation (which is, as I've shown over 30 pages, much stronger than a mere stipulation) is what our public policy needs to be built around. I am not AGAINST you, Phred, and in fact, I was surprised that for most of this debate, you kept your powers of moderation separate from the debate itself. I just found it extraordinarily disingenuous for you to suddenly threaten to use your moderator powers in a debate that has gone on for 30 pages, that was until recently, VERY civil, and very well-sourced, if a little off topic from the beginning. Now lets talk about the things we can do to reduce our CO2 emissions. To get things back on Track, what do you think about wind power, Phred, in overcoming the largest fossil-fuel user in the world, power production? Wind power is one of the best possibilities for changing our power grid. Quote: Archer, Cristina L.; Mark Z. Jacobson. Evaluation of global wind power. http://www.stanford.edu/group/ef Quote: http://www.vestas.com/en/about-v There are many more sources on how good wind power is for replacing fossil fuels. This would not be a "massive, crippling solution." Instead, this would give us clean energy for many, many years. Wind turbines are currently seeing the largest increase, percentage wise of power grid, in the United States. With enough funding on making even better turbines, and an overhaul of the power grid over the next 15-20 years, we can completely eliminate fossil fuels from our power production, especially if we use nuclear plants to aid is in this transition (I am NOT against nuclear power, fission or fusion, although I do understand the sensitivities that some environmentalists have to this part of the debate). -------------------- . Edited by AnonymousRabbit (05/03/08 11:21 AM)
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: There was no "suddenly" about it. The first time I stated I would take action if we didn't start focusing on the politics was a little more than halfway through the thread. I have made repeated requests since then. You ignored them. Finally, out of sheer exasperation, I agreed to forfeit, if that's what it would take to get you to behave. And even after that, you still refused to behave. I am delighted you have decided at last to address the politics. Quote: Why? Why is it necessary to reduce our CO2 emissions? What is the rationale for doing so? Note that if I am not saying you shouldn't go out and buy a wind turbine if you want to. I think it's probably one of the stupidest possible decisions you could make, given my personal experience with them and the well-documented experiences of others, but hey... knock yourself out. Nor am I saying private electrical generating companies shouldn't buy wind turbines. Again, I think it's a silly decision, but hey... their funeral, not mine. What I am saying is there should be no tax money extracted from people and handed (in the form of grants and/or subsidies and/or preferential tax treatment) to people either researching wind turbines or manufacturing wind turbines or buying wind turbines. Phred
| |||||||
AnonymousRabbit Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
The reason is scientific, and I've adressed it before: Increased CO2 causes a variety of effects that are very detrimental to the planet and humanities health, including reduction of total food output, bleaching of coral reefs that protect from coastal erosion and storm surge (big issues in my state of louisiana), the destruction of ecosystems and our national wildlife preserves along with the creatures that live within them, a increase in the average power of hurricanes by 40%, the greatly expanded range of viability for deadly tropical diseases (which are killing millions of people in countries in tropical regions), the sinking of coastal zones and population zones that are barely above sea level (The town that I was born in will be gone in 50 years due to this reason alone), the glaring possibility of runaway global warming from positive feedback loops (such as acidification of the oceans resulting in less algae blooms, resulting in a lower CO2 sinking capacity), I mean, I can go on and on, but that would put me back into the realm of science should I have to cite the many peer reviewed journals that have evidence for the above claims.
Then there is the other side to this debate: The Economic side. Wind power is renewable and does not rely on constant pumping of new resources from the ground. It would liberate us completely from oil for our power supply, it would be CHEAPER than oil based stations (as I showed in the journal above, it would pay for itself in 9 months and produce power from there on out practically for free, save for maintenance costs, which are less than maintenance costs for plants that use fossil fuels). It would drive down the cost of oil and be a great investment overall. That, AND it seems to be what power companies ARE transitioning to: Wind power is the fastest growing power resource in the US. Evidence for all of these claims can be seen: "Impact of Wind Generation in Ireland on the Operation of Conventional Plant and the Economic Implications". ESB National Grid (February 2004). http://www.sp.com.cn/sjdl/sjdltj http://www.sp.com.cn/sjdl/sjdltj http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/inte Installed U.S. Wind Power Capacity Surged 45% in 2007. American Wind Energy Association (January 17, 2008). -------------------- .
| |||||||
Phred Fred's son Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 9 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: First of all, none of these so called negative results has been shown to be attributable to increased concentrations of CO2. All of those things you mention are at best speculative and at worst nonsense. Further, you ignore the fact that life is a never-ending series of tradeoffs. Even if all those predictions were to eventually come to pass (and it is a cast iron certainty that most if not all never will), the benefits to humanity provided by the technology that increased the CO2 far outweigh the detriments of these speculative scenarios. Quote: It has been demonstrated over and over again that economically, the free market provides more benefits with less drawbacks than markets hampered by government interference. If wind power is as wonderful as you claim it to be, humanity will embrace it without coercion from government. Phred
| |||||||
AnonymousRabbit Comrade Registered: 01/10/08 Posts: 8,993 Last seen: 1 year, 6 months |
| ||||||
No, they are NOT speculative and they are NOT nonsense. They are VERY evidenced, and as I said, they are so evidenced by science that I'd get deleted for posting the evidence behind them. You can CLAIM something is speculative at best, nonsense at worse, but you have NO evidence for that claim. I've got PLENTY of evidence for mine.
Furthermore, this "trade-off" business, two problems with it. 1) The benefits that CO2 producing technology provides us with can be matched or exceeded with non-CO2 technology, WITHOUT the severe negative consequences. 2) If the trade offs mean that we in rich nations are more productive while the majority of the human population is less productive and results in the deaths of hundreds of millions of people due to famine, a great increase in the swath of tropical-disease viable land, increase in strength of hurricanes, and the raping and pillaging of barrier islands, then it is NOT a morally acceptable trad eoff, in my opinion. -------------------- .
| |||||||
geokills ∙∙∙∙☼ º¿° ☼∙∙∙∙ Registered: 05/08/01 Posts: 23,544 Loc: city of angels Last seen: 1 hour, 44 minutes |
| ||||||
This thread has been closed.
Reason: Unfortunately, this thread has developed into an abrasion of conflicting bias. As I don't believe that one side (i.e. politics OR science) should be given absolute authority, and as it seems that the thread is now devolving into such a debate between the two, I am going to close this topic. There has been talk about perhaps moving the thread into the Science & Technology forum, since it would appear the discussion took a turn towards that bias, however I would just as soon advise those interested, to create a new thread in the given forum of their choice. They can of course link to and reference discussion from this thread if desired.
| |||||||
|
Shop: All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck Kratom Capsules for Sale Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Bulk Substrate |
|
Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
Good article on global warming. ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
luvdemshrooms | 4,997 | 86 | 06/10/03 04:56 AM by Innvertigo | ||
A look at global warming. ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all ) |
luvdemshrooms | 13,994 | 119 | 02/27/04 01:07 AM by EchoVortex | ||
Global Warming, Facts Challenge Hysteria ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
Evolving | 5,182 | 75 | 05/04/03 08:07 PM by luvdemshrooms | ||
Global warming nothing but pretend communist conspiracy ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all ) |
question_for_joo | 10,915 | 112 | 08/31/04 07:48 PM by Gijith | ||
Global Warming? ( 1 2 all ) |
luvdemshrooms | 2,409 | 37 | 07/18/03 06:49 PM by Innvertigo | ||
More fantasies about global warming | carbonhoots | 997 | 17 | 11/01/03 02:44 PM by d33p | ||
Blair must tackle global warming | Xlea321 | 463 | 1 | 05/28/04 10:30 AM by phi1618 | ||
"The Threat of Global Terrorism" - Tony Blair ( 1 2 all ) |
Phred | 2,887 | 20 | 03/14/04 12:45 PM by silversoul7 |
Extra information | ||
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa 39,564 topic views. 4 members, 5 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||