PDA

View Full Version : My Evening With an EnvironMENTALIST Dick-Head...



Truculent Sheep
9th October 07, 05:36 PM
...Oh my goodness.

For reasons too dense to go into here, I've just had to listen to some cock of an environmentalist wax lyrical on their misanthropic, alarmist creed...

Now, I'm not actually against enviromentalism per se. I think we should not harm the environment any more than we have to. But nonetheless, I argue life is better when society develops and people are given a choice in how they live. The environmentalist I've had to endure is, however, a different beast altogether.

For starters, the subject is - like most of the breed - from affluent circumstances. They went to a famed public school, then Oxbridge, all the while being heir to an aristocratic title. Did I mention they've received an honour from the Queen? Or been chosen as an 'independent' scientific advisor? And with that background comes an instinctive need to talk down to people, to order them about.

So of course, he travels everywhere on bike and can't understand why the peons still use their cars. It's false consciousness, you see. We need to be INFORMED, SAVED from our empty, destructive consumerist lives. We won't listen, so we're wrong...

Actually, I knew the enviromentalist was a cock when he said, with a straight face, 'Al Gore isn't a scientist, but he knows the science!' I almost screamed 'MANBEARPIG'! there and then, but one of my colleagues was sitting next to me and the lights were on in the lecture theatre.

But it carried on. There was no debate here - he didn't argue his case, so much as declare he was right from the start and then proceed to discuss how he was going to make everyone change their lives because he's right and we're not.

So what's his prognosis? Well, we need to stop flying and stop eating meat. Seriously. Your burger is killing polar bears. But most of all, we need to be given a nasty shock, to shake us out of our sinful ways. Don't you see? We're only 15 years away from the tipping point! After that, we're all doomed? Why aren't you listening? Never mind that even if air traffic was doubled, it still wouldn't get anywhere near to other sources of pollution and their effect on the atmosphere.

The alarmist tone was unmistakable. I was reminded of those seminars where some swivel eyed loon tells the local militia to build nuclear shelters for when the UN takes over. But this man was a mainstream figure, with mainstream credentials. And the audience - who would look down on 'ignorant American Hillbilly Hicks' were lapping it up with vigour.

And when he predicted utter doom and despair for his children and ours, he really meant it. There was no other option other than death or environmentalism. He seemed genuinely angry that people didn't agree, didn't care. HOW DARE THEY? His voice seemed choked with a clear hatred at points, as if he was trying to intimidate any dissenting voices in the audience. He had right on his side - you had to agree! The worst kind of bully, of course. The kind that thought he was justified in pushing people around.

Of course, there were several jumbo sized, fuck off mastodons in the room, and by buggery, he was avoiding them to the best of his ability. Like how the hair shirt and austere lifestyle he wants for everyone in the West is going to be imposed. Must we be lied to, spun to and then ordered to? And what of the third world? Are they to be left in poverty for their own good? Our friend had all sorts of quirky alternative ideas for our culture but skirted around the idea that under his system, authoritarianism would, by definition, be the rule.

And what if China and India tell the West to fuck off and carry on as before? There's no way to MAKE them stop producing lots of Co2; indeed, such polluting processes may be a necessary step in modernising societies that later become environmentally friendly in turn. And if India and China do that, a carbon neutral, carbon-rationed, low-meat UK isn't going to have much of an impact either way. Instead, we would lose both our ability to compete and the standards of living that - let's face it - we've worked so hard for. There is a reason why Britain celebrated when rationing ended in 1953, after all.

Nor did our friend consider alternative viewpoints. Any attempts to remove excess carbon were dismissed with a sneer - of course they won't work, he said with the same certainty that we'll all be up to our necks in water by 2040. Nor did he consider the possibility that global warming might bring advantages as well as disadvantages.

For example, warmer temperatures might make areas like Siberia habitable, or provide access to travel routes such as the North West Passage. Deaths from cold could plummet, warmer temperatures could reduce the moist conditions in which (ironically enough) tropical diseases flourish. Food production could be boosted in the right circumstances... Human civilization has always flourished during warm periods...

Of course, this is speculative, but is it any more speculative than anything dickhead was preaching? Of course not. But a large swathe of the environmentalist movement is based on such simplistic good/bad dualism. It is a simplistic argument propped up with lots of bluster.

This view is fatalistic - comically so. Apparently, not only will more nuclear power stations INEVITABLY lead to a terrorist attack, but we will only see sense after a great disaster of some sort or another that's just around the corner. Our man would have made for a great millenialist in another life.

And as said, the core of his argument is authoritarianism. His ideal system would be on a 'war footing', with all the rationing and clamp downs that would entail. Quite how melting ice caps and more rain would compare to nightly raids by the Luftwaffe or the siege of Stalingrad wasn't explained. But then the tone seemed to be about using fear to control people, in much the same way as was condemned in the superlative Power Of Nightmares. Fear equals control, after all.

So it was a rich irony that the dick kept making jokes about George W Bush, whose own tenure has been typified by the same OTT rhetoric. Of course, the audience ate it all up, as he was preaching to the converted. He threw in a right-on joke about student funding too, just to keep the lefties and academics happy. The supposedly intelligent crowd was hearing what it wanted to hear, and was being tickled in exactly the same way that reactionary housewives get tickled by The Daily Mail when it's ranting on about Asylum Seekers. Same rabble rousing, different flavour. The mob rules.

None of the questions from the audience were particularly probing either. Indeed, they were fawning, sycophantic. No hard queries like - for example - how he could square the degree of social control he seemed to be calling for with the widespread and furious civil disobedience he was also advocating. Or does dissidence only count if it's in your favour?

Instead the feel was that of a party rally, where everyone had come to hear what they already 'knew' and agreed with. The hosts did in fact have close links with the enviromentalist care of an anti-road protest they took part in a few decades ago. It was all desperately clubby and incestuous.

On the other hand, he did make some good points. There is a compelling argument for cars to be made ever more efficient so we are not so dependent on oil imports. Research into alternative energy sources is a good idea. And wave generators really could solve all of Britain's power needs. He also made a valid point about there being many kinds of capitalism - and not all of them are inherently bad.

But it was hard not to feel one was in the grip of a new puritanism, where desire had to be sublimated, democracy was too weak to make the right decisions and the public were thick bastards who needed to be told off. The argument may have had certainty and vision, but it lacked realism, pragmatism and - most importantly of all - humanity.

Sun Wukong
9th October 07, 05:40 PM
you lost me at 'stop eating meat'. never!!! it's my divine right to feast on the carcasses of lesser creatures.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 05:41 PM
For starters, the subject is - like most of the breed - from affluent circumstances. They went to a famed public school, then Oxbridge, all the while being heir to an aristocratic title. Did I mention they've received an honour from the Queen? Or been chosen as an 'independent' scientific advisor? And with that background comes an instinctive need to talk down to people, to order them about.
You're damn right. Why do you think I'm going for physics and not accounting or some shit that would actually pay me money?


Way tl;dr pile of text
You clearly have the hots for him.

Dagon Akujin
9th October 07, 06:09 PM
http://www.sfphblog.com/serendipity/uploads/manbearpig.jpg

Truculent Sheep
9th October 07, 07:28 PM
You're damn right. Why do you think I'm going for physics and not accounting or some shit that would actually pay me money?

The idiot got a law degree - he knows fuck all about science. In fact, you'd probably eat him for breakfast, intellectually. Not literally, though. It would look odd.


You clearly have the hots for him.

No, I just spent an hour wanting to rush on stage and smash his head in with a chair for being such a pig's left bollock. Alas, assault laws being as they are, I had to settle for a lengthy prose rant instead.

Cullion
9th October 07, 07:46 PM
My new years resolution is to help Poop Loops understand how he's a poor-man's version of this nob, who's been persuaded into it with simple propaganda rather than the reward of a government sinecure.

The cure won't be pretty, but once it's done, you're going to love me for it.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 08:04 PM
The idiot got a law degree - he knows fuck all about science. In fact, you'd probably eat him for breakfast, intellectually. Not literally, though. It would look odd.

Well, I am only 5'10"...



My new years resolution is to help Poop Loops understand how he's a poor-man's version of this nob, who's been persuaded into it with simple propaganda rather than the reward of a government sinecure.

The cure won't be pretty, but once it's done, you're going to love me for it.

You honestly have no right to ridicule Riddick.


Evar.

No, srlsly. Claiming scientists are being propagandists is just ludicrous. Scientists from all over the world, with different levels of pay, different governments, and different environments, are saying the same thing.

You call it propaganda.

Big business say "No! It are not true! Please believe us! We have to put food on our family!" and you jump their bones. Like, right in front of the kids, too.

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:24 PM
Evar.

No, srlsly. Claiming scientists are being propagandists is just ludicrous. Scientists from all over the world, with different levels of pay, different governments, and different environments, are saying the same thing.

You call it propaganda.

Big business say "No! It are not true! Please believe us! We have to put food on our family!" and you jump their bones. Like, right in front of the kids, too.

You've called it propoganda when I cite scientists who disagree, based on who funded them.

Let me put this in the words of an immortal:

I'm going to fuck you until you love me

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 08:31 PM
You've called it propoganda when I cite scientists who disagree, based on who funded them.

Yes, because who funds them?

Whereas funding for people who actually know what they are talking about tends to come from governments. A lot of them. Including Japan, China, Russia, etc. People who would also lose if global warming were true. Yet they still support it. Maybe because it's real?

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:33 PM
Yes, because who funds them?

Whereas funding for people who actually know what they are talking about tends to come from governments. A lot of them. Including Japan, China, Russia, etc. People who would also lose if global warming were true. Yet they still support it. Maybe because it's real?

You have an intellectual blindspot. You think people in the public sector are magically immune from the basic economic laws of self-interest.

Your definition of 'know what they are talking about' is circular. You argue from authority rather than reason. You say on one hand 'because x comittee said so' and on the other 'because y committee who quoted x said so'. But you never address my scientific questions. Because you don't have answers, you're just clinging to the idea that capitalism is wrong.

You are wrong. Demonstrably so.

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:37 PM
You can prove me wrong by sharing some measurable anthropogenic predictions with us for the next five years.

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:38 PM
I dare you

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:39 PM
I double dare you

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:41 PM
Go on, give me a model that does as little as predict average temparture over a whole year for the southern UK. Or does better still and tells me what weather to expect.

I bet you can't.

You're running on faith.

And you never even realised it.

Because you're a young, easy to brainwash MTV boob who gets passionate about whatever is interspersed between his favourite music in the mass media.

Fool.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 08:43 PM
You have an intellectual blindspot. You think people in the public sector are magically immune from the basic economic laws of self-interest.

Your definition of 'know what they are talking about' is circular. You argue from authority rather than reason. You say on one hand 'because x comittee said so' and on the other 'because y committee who quoted x said so'. But you never address my scientific questions. Because you don't have answers, you're just clinging to the idea that capitalism is wrong.

You are wrong. Demonstrably so.

Because I don't spend hours researching global warming. I'm not a climatologist. I know enough about my own field to know that if someone isn't putting in as much work as I am, they know dick.

You honestly think that by looking at a few charts and graphs you magically know what you are talking about?

A scientist might be corrupt. But science cannot. By construction. And I trust the system.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, prove the Creationists wrong by providing a prediction about the human race evolving over the next 50 years. Can't? Then it must not be true, right?

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:47 PM
Because I don't spend hours researching global warming. I'm not a climatologist. I know enough about my own field to know that if someone isn't putting in as much work as I am, they know dick.

You honestly think that by looking at a few charts and graphs you magically know what you are talking about?

A scientist might be corrupt. But science cannot. By construction. And I trust the system.

I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, prove the Creationists wrong by providing a prediction about the human race evolving over the next 50 years. Can't? Then it must not be true, right?

1)Argument by authority = fail

2)If you know you don't know much, then shut up until you've read more, whelp

3) Creationists aren't trying to institute an enormous re-engineering of multiple-countries economies

you=fail

more reading need, pup

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 09:02 PM
1)Argument by authority = fail

2)If you know you don't know much, then shut up until you've read more, whelp

3) Creationists aren't trying to institute an enormous re-engineering of multiple-countries economies

you=fail

more reading need, pup

Hold on, I'll wikipedia some charts and graphs. Then I'll be on your level. Just give me a second.

Sun Wukong
9th October 07, 09:31 PM
3) Creationists aren't trying to institute an enormous re-engineering of multiple-countries economies


Dude, they've been doing just that for a ridiculously long time. Religous groups have been using religion as the ultimate wedge issue since Hammurabi.




more reading need, pup

Could you sound more like a douche with that last line there? For cereals?

Olorin
9th October 07, 09:40 PM
Globe warming sure is a HOT topic on Sociocide...


http://www.rolldabeats.com/forum/style_emoticons/rdbv1/rimshot.gif

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 09:46 PM
Way to pull a DAYoung.

Wounded Ronin
9th October 07, 10:37 PM
I did a paper on global warming several years ago for an astronomy class. At that time I found that a lot of the evidence for global warming was shaky, such as water temperature logs on ships which were travelling across the ocean in the 1800s.

Nowadays everyone is on the global warming bandwagon. Recently newsweek published an article that flat out said that people against global warming alarmism were benighted and/or in the pocket of corporations.

However, unless new evidence has come out between the time I wrote the paper (which would have been maybe 4 or 5 years ago) I don't think it's a sure thing. I feel like it would make sense to be cautious about greenhouse emissions in case the theory does pan out but it is far from a certain thing, based on my research for that paper.

I feel very frustrated because of how the general public is incredibly stupid. There are a lot of issues I feel the public has not mobilized itself on which it should such as (in the US) the PATRIOT act or the CIA torturing people. Then when the public finally does go and mobilize itself on something like global warming they aren't mobilizing in an intelligent way with a good grasp of the issues. Their understanding is as superficial as ever. They've just bought into alarmism and that's the whole reason they care.

It actually makes me sick. Understand the issue or don't touch it at all. That's the way I feel it.

Riddeck
9th October 07, 11:07 PM
I feel very frustrated because of how the general public is incredibly stupid. There are a lot of issues I feel the public has not mobilized itself on which it should such as (in the US) the PATRIOT act or the CIA torturing people. Then when the public finally does go and mobilize itself on something like global warming they aren't mobilizing in an intelligent way with a good grasp of the issues. Their understanding is as superficial as ever. They've just bought into alarmism and that's the whole reason they care.


You mean people should care that our Government is passing legislature that labels every citizen a potential terrorist, then pass others that give them the right to torture 'terrorists' for information? Could they ever use it on you?

I wanted toss another quick something in here, but there are in fact scientists (Even Darwin) who believe the Theory of Evolution applies to all species on earth except Homo Sapiens. The change in humans took place in an evolutionary instant.

These are also the same scientists who believe the Ice Age to be completely false, and that there is not in fact, a 2 million year gap in human history.

Remove the gap, read the history, understand today.

More to come I guess.

And if that was indeed a pot shot at me, earlier in this thread Cullion, well then, I guess I am touched.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 11:09 PM
Hey, you haven't PMed me the info about the ice age yet.

Riddeck
10th October 07, 04:16 AM
Hey, you haven't PMed me the info about the ice age yet.


You are right. Check your PMs tomarrow.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 04:25 AM
Way to pull a DAYoung.

I'm really warming to this thread now.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 04:31 AM
Cullion, quick question for you.

If we're going to have new technologies, does it make sense to promote those that are more energy efficient, less polluting, and so on? And if so, can the same be said for new laws?

In simple terms, should be err on the side of caution, or is this a waste of time, money and energy?

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:05 AM
Cullion, quick question for you.

If we're going to have new technologies, does it make sense to promote those that are more energy efficient, less polluting, and so on? And if so, can the same be said for new laws?

In simple terms, should be err on the side of caution, or is this a waste of time, money and energy?

It depends what you mean by 'promote'. The agenda I believe is behind the anthropogenic warming movement is that they wish to impose worldwide carbon taxes. I do not believe the case for anthropogenic warming is strong enough to justify this burden.

Energy efficient technology is already self-promoting because it is cheaper to run.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:09 AM
Hold on, I'll wikipedia some charts and graphs. Then I'll be on your level. Just give me a second.

This is the cool part. When you go off to try and do it, you can't find anything to support this hypothesis which hasn't already been discussed.

Keep looking for those predictions which we can all observe for ourselves.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:11 AM
I mean, Jesus fucking Christ, prove the Creationists wrong by providing a prediction about the human race evolving over the next 50 years. Can't? Then it must not be true, right?

Evolution doesn't predict observable changes over such timescales. Anthropogenic warming does.

fail

DAYoung
10th October 07, 05:13 AM
It depends what you mean by 'promote'. The agenda I believe is behind the anthropogenic warming movement is that they wish to impose worldwide carbon taxes. I do not believe the case for anthropogenic warming is strong enough to justify this cost.

What would persuade you?


Energy efficient technology is already self-promoting because it is cheaper to run.

Yes, because we're all rational consumers, and automatically buy what's cheap and efficient. And even better, all efficient things are also cheap.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:24 AM
What would persuade you?

A model which:-

1) when run back in time matched for temperature and atmospheric composition for the last million or so years.

2) When it's predictions were observed over the next 5 years they were correct (longer would be better but if the anthropogenic hypothesis were true we'd need to act ASAP).

3) Could explain why we'd seen higher rates of temperature increase, and higher average temperatures in the last 10,000 years without human industrial activity, and could explain why, despite such occurrences, we could be sure that this time it was our fault.

4) Gives localised, testable predictions (not just on global average temperature) so we can see what actual action is needed around the world (e.g. should we build flood defences or an irrigation/water storage system in Spain/Israel/Holland?)

No anthropogenic model I know of does a single one of those things.



Yes, because we're all rational consumers, and automatically buy what's cheap and efficient. And even better, all efficient things are also cheap.

Sarcastic point taken. In which case what would be the point of carbon taxes?

jubei33
10th October 07, 07:11 AM
is there a model that exists that does satisfy those quantities? or at least better than an anthropogenic model?

S

Cullion
10th October 07, 07:40 AM
is there a model that exists that does satisfy those quantities? or at least better than an anthropogenic model?

S

None.

Lu Tze
10th October 07, 09:09 AM
There is evidence that human activity affects climate, the 7 day dust cycle for example.

Frankly you have to be a fucking loon to believe otherwise, all life affects the environment, that's pretty much what the environment is. We are a part of nature and our activities form part of the environmental system, we aren't somehow magically seperate from the whole process.

Truculent Sheep
10th October 07, 09:21 AM
Yes, because we're all rational consumers, and automatically buy what's cheap and efficient. And even better, all efficient things are also cheap.

Unless you live in Britain, where you have to put up with any old crap and any green taxes are just a good way of screwing even more money out of you. We ain't called Treasure Island for nothing!

Cullion
10th October 07, 09:24 AM
There is evidence that human activity affects climate, the 7 day dust cycle for example.

Frankly you have to be a fucking loon to believe otherwise, all life affects the environment, that's pretty much what the environment is. We are a part of nature and our activities form part of the environmental system, we aren't somehow magically seperate from the whole process.

This isn't a scientific model you're describing, it's a very generalised truism. If somebody suggests specific action like 'we must raise carbon taxes to make you use less fossil fuels because burning fossil fuels is going to have x effect on our climate', then I want some precision. I want the claims of X to be measurable and well founded.

Lu Tze
10th October 07, 09:39 AM
What's a generalized truism, the 7 day dust cycle? That's an observable phenomenon, it statistically rains more on weekends in industrialised and urbanised areas.

Cullion
10th October 07, 10:17 AM
What's a generalized truism, the 7 day dust cycle? That's an observable phenomenon, it statistically rains more on weekends in industrialised and urbanised areas.

No, this part:-


all life affects the environment, that's pretty much what the environment is. We are a part of nature and our activities form part of the environmental system, we aren't somehow magically seperate from the whole process.

The dust cycle isn't vague and unscientific, it's just that it's not related to anthropogenic warming.

Dagon Akujin
10th October 07, 12:03 PM
eP_N7jc_kQ0

For reals?

Cullion
10th October 07, 12:28 PM
For reals?

Yah, for reals

Kein Haar
10th October 07, 12:52 PM
Get going on that newsletter.

Cullion
10th October 07, 12:56 PM
I'm right you know.

Kein Haar
10th October 07, 12:56 PM
Is it just me or is buzzword "global warming" slowly morphing into buzzword "climate change", as things aren't turning out as bad or as warm or as predictable as "they" thought?

Cullion
10th October 07, 12:56 PM
Is it just me or is buzzword "global warming" slowly morphing into buzzword "climate change, as things aren't turning out as bad as warm or as fast or predictable as "they" thought?

Every prediction attempted from the 80s onwards has been substantially out.
The models are wrong.

Cullion
10th October 07, 01:07 PM
'Climate change', looking at the geological record, is constant.

The trick being attempted here is in essence the same as that practiced by the priesthoods of ancient Egypt, China and Rome.

By careful study, we observe a long-term pattern in the weather/stellar phenomena/migratory patterns/economic fluctuations and trends. Proles only see these things in snapshot, and are surprised by them. We then explain to them exactly what's causing the emergency, except that our explanation is keyed to justify something else we'd like to do. Like getting them to agree to pay a carbon tax to the UN. They'll have forgotten all about why a certain programme exists by the time the trend shifts, but we'll still understand what really happened (at least better than the proles do) and be ready to exploit the next one, because our more genuine understanding allows us to predict it, and to a degree cause or manipulate it.

So the UN can become a world government and the whole planet can be transformed into one giant Bohemian grove. You're laughing now, but you'll be screaming for Christ's mercy when they wheel in Undead Henry Kissinger to have his way with you on that Owl Altar.

Am I doing good, Riddeck?

Dagon Akujin
10th October 07, 01:20 PM
Is it just me or is buzzword "global warming" slowly morphing into buzzword "climate change", as things aren't turning out as bad or as warm or as predictable as "they" thought?

This was a concious decision made by Rove and the Bushes. It is along the same thing as changing the "estate tax" to the "death tax". They have loads of focus groups and pay millions of dollars in order to change names like this so that they sound more beneficial to their own argument.

It is neither "accident" nor "morphing".

Dagon Akujin
10th October 07, 01:26 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz


Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea to discredit the idea of global warming science (which he prefers to call "Climate Change," because it's a less "hysterical" term) to keep the issue from influencing voters in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Luntz has since said that he is not responsible for what the administration has done since that time. Though he now accepts the scientific consensus that there is man-made global warming, he maintains that the science was in fact incomplete, and his recommendation sound, at the time he made it.

jfgWiOzPF9E

More YouTube on Luntz. (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22frank+luntz%22)

Cullion
10th October 07, 01:26 PM
No. The phrase 'climate change' is being used in the UK too, even by totally anti-Bush environmental groups. Yes, political groups do like to play wordgames because they understand the Gramscian methods of how linguistics shapes thought. However, the Bush administration are not the initiators here.

Dagon Akujin
10th October 07, 01:34 PM
No. The phrase 'climate change' is being used in the UK too, even by totally anti-Bush environmental groups. Yes, political groups do like to play wordgames because they understand the Gramscian methods of how linguistics shapes thought. However, the Bush administration are not the initiators here.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Are you seriously saying that Blair wasn't Bush's lap-dog?




Dang. History: Revisioned.

Cullion
10th October 07, 02:12 PM
Blair doesn't have mind control powers over far-left environmentalists who opposed the war. They started using the phrase 'climate change' years ago. As does the IPCC. In it's name.

Kein Haar
10th October 07, 02:13 PM
The phrase 'climate change' is being used in the UK too, even by totally anti-Bush environmental groups.

^Yes.

"Ok, maybe it's not "warming", per se. Well, it is but it isn't. It's just that the warming is causing the cooling....but also some warming when...well it just depends.

You know what....just stop. Last summer was very warm, and it's all just very obivous, and you're just very stupid."

Cullion
10th October 07, 02:15 PM
This phrase has been generally adopted by the anthropogenic warming supporters.

Cullion
10th October 07, 02:18 PM
The phrase 'climate change' is being used in the UK too, even by totally anti-Bush environmental groups.

^Yes.

"Ok, maybe it's not "warming", per se. Well, it is but it isn't. It's just that the warming is causing the cooling....but also some warming when...well it just depends.

You know what....just stop. Last summer was very warm, and it's all just very obivous, and you're just very stupid."

That's what I'm talkin' about.

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 04:55 PM
It's climate change because the Earth will only get warmer on average. Some places will get colder, so climate change is a better term.

It's the equivalent of saying "we evolved from monkeys!" when in actuallity we had the same ancestor, but branched off. Cute summary, but not the whole story.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:06 PM
It's climate change because the Earth will only get warmer on average. For a while. We don't know how long for, how much by, what's really causing it or what effect it will have. I'm pretty sure things will change though.

Fixed.

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 05:18 PM
1) We're seeing the effects already.

2) How long? It won't be for a few months.

3) How much? It doesn't take much. As you can see already.

4) Of course things will change. How long it will take is another matter.

5) Morons like you are the reason New Orleans is a shit hole.

Wounded Ronin
10th October 07, 05:19 PM
So in fact no new evidence game out for global warming over the last 5 or 6 years? Then what the hell. Why is everyone getting behind it?

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:22 PM
1) We're seeing the effects already.

Do you remember how much colder the 80s were than the 70s? I do. This is the problem with using such statistically small timeslices to make these calls on.



2) How long? It won't be for a few months.

What?


3) How much? It doesn't take much. As you can see already.

So tell me, scientist, how much? how much in 2010? some science please.


4) Of course things will change. How long it will take is another matter.

Your dancing around the questions is worthy of a social scientist. Yes, I'm going there.


5) Morons like you are the reason New Orleans is a shit hole.

Morons like you were the reason Eastern Europe was a shit hole.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:23 PM
So in fact no new evidence game out for global warming over the last 5 or 6 years? Then what the hell. Why is everyone getting behind it?

Propaganda and the bulk of support coming from people too young to remember the climate trends 'all around us and obvious' from other decades.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 05:24 PM
Your dancing around the questions is worthy of a social scientist. Yes, I'm going there.

Bugh?

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:26 PM
He deserved it.

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 05:30 PM
Do you remember how much colder the 80s were than the 70s? I do. This is the problem with using such statistically small timeslices to make these calls on.

LOL?

Do you have any idea what an average even is?



What?

Chicken butt.



So tell me, scientist, how much? how much in 2010? some science please.

I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. Stop pretending to be one. It just makes you look like a Creation Scientist saying that The Bible is 100% scientifically accurate.


Your dancing around the questions is worthy of a social scientist. Yes, I'm going there.

It's not my job to know the answers. I leave that to people who know what the hell they are doing. i.e. not you


Morons like you were the reason Eastern Europe was a shit hole.

We sent the first satelite to orbit and the first man to space.

Wounded Ronin
10th October 07, 05:33 PM
Propaganda and the bulk of support coming from people too young to remember the climate trends 'all around us and obvious' from other decades.

For what it's worth I've been checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

It seems like there is in fact still the controversy but the anti global warming people are essentially being bullied by their colleagues. Perhaps anti-US sentiment is basically fueling global warming finger wagging.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:34 PM
LOL?

Do you have any idea what an average even is?

Yes I do. The average is lower than it has been in the last 10,000 years and is increasing at a lower rate than it has done. Averages are dependent on the sample you take them over. You're taking an average over a relatively tiny slice of time and ascribing unwarranted significance to it.



I'm not a climatologist, and neither are you. Stop pretending to be one. It just makes you look like a Creation Scientist saying that The Bible is 100% scientifically accurate.

It's not my job to know the answers. I leave that to people who know what the hell they are doing. i.e. not you


You're not going to persuade me with more argument from authority. You're like the Shotokan guy talking about ancient battlefields whilst refusing to just glove up and test stuff for yourself.






We sent the first satelite to orbit and the first man to space.

Yeah.. and then...

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 05:46 PM
Yes I do. The average is lower than it has been in the last 10,000 years and is increasing at a lower rate than it has done. Averages are dependent on the sample you take them over. You're taking an average over a relatively tiny slice of time and ascribing unwarranted significance to it.

Except nobody is taking an average over time. You take the average of the globe at a given time and compare it to the average of the globe of another time.

You take a bunch of these times and that's how you get a trend.



You're not going to persuade me with more argument from authority. You're like the Shotokan guy talking about ancient battlefields whilst refusing to just glove up and test stuff for yourself.

I don't need to persuade shit. You have no fucking clue how data is being gathered.

Jesus fuck, I have no idea about climatology, but at least I know what needs to be done. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Note: "I made a mistake" won't cut it. You've been going on and on about this for ages now and when you get called on a simple question, you shit yourself.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:51 PM
Except nobody is taking an average over time. You take the average of the globe at a given time and compare it to the average of the globe of another time.

You take a bunch of these times and that's how you get a trend.

But it's a tiny trend amongst other much larger trends. You're focussed on a very small timescale that happens to coincide with your own lifespan and the advent of human fossil fuel use.

Cullion
10th October 07, 05:58 PM
I don't need to persuade shit. You have no fucking clue how data is being gathered.

Jesus fuck, I have no idea about climatology, but at least I know what needs to be done. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Note: "I made a mistake" won't cut it. You've been going on and on about this for ages now and when you get called on a simple question, you shit yourself.

What simple question? and how can you know 'what needs to be done' regarding a subject you think you know 'nothing about'?

Come on dude, admit it, you're a little bit drunk right now, aren't you?

It's ok, I've done plenty of drunk posts.

Wounded Ronin
10th October 07, 06:00 PM
Jesus fuck, I have no idea about climatology, but at least I know what needs to be done.


Self-owned.

Before I came to this thread I thought that maybe the consensus about global warming was due to some new evidence and has more merit than when I last checked. But now I see that it's just about political ideology assraping science.

Cullion
10th October 07, 06:05 PM
Yah.

Poop-loops, think how you'd feel about somebody saying this:-


I may know nothing about particle physics but at least I know how big that synchrotron needs to be and what colour the zap will be when I turn it on

Riddeck
10th October 07, 06:33 PM
'Climate change', looking at the geological record, is constant.

The trick being attempted here is in essence the same as that practiced by the priesthoods of ancient Egypt, China and Rome.

By careful study, we observe a long-term pattern in the weather/stellar phenomena/migratory patterns/economic fluctuations and trends. Proles only see these things in snapshot, and are surprised by them. We then explain to them exactly what's causing the emergency, except that our explanation is keyed to justify something else we'd like to do. Like getting them to agree to pay a carbon tax to the UN. They'll have forgotten all about why a certain programme exists by the time the trend shifts, but we'll still understand what really happened (at least better than the proles do) and be ready to exploit the next one, because our more genuine understanding allows us to predict it, and to a degree cause or manipulate it.

Am I doing good, Riddeck?

Good call on the 'Proles' drop. Have not heard it in awhile. But that is essentially it. The manipulation of the 'system' has been going on for generations but we only see it in snapshots i.e. a certain period of time. I actually was talking to a Vietnam Vet a few weeks ago, and brought up false flag terrorism and told him about the Gulf of Tonkin being declassified as a False Flag, and he told me I was nuts, and that things were the same way back in his day, and things are not going to change.

He was unaware the big picture, like most people are.


So the UN can become a world government and the whole planet can be transformed into one giant Bohemian grove. You're laughing now, but you'll be screaming for Christ's mercy when they wheel in Undead Henry Kissinger to have his way with you on that Owl Altar.

No, but some believe that there may be another 'ice age' in the sense of climate shift throughout the world. People would want to migrate to the equator, as it would be warmer there (short of another pole shift). There would be just too many people to fit into less land, plus the food supply would be cut short. This may be motives for the 80% population removal...less humans, and the ones that are left are slaves.

Then would come the Owl Altar. (why is there an Owl on the 1 dollar bill?)

Cullion
10th October 07, 06:51 PM
For what it's worth I've been checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

It seems like there is in fact still the controversy but the anti global warming people are essentially being bullied by their colleagues. Perhaps anti-US sentiment is basically fueling global warming finger wagging.

It's not anti-US sentiment so much as anti-capitalistic sentiment.

bob
10th October 07, 07:48 PM
Cullion, if you really want to argue the science of global warming why don't you go on to a scientific board and argue with them? Otherwise it's just a bunch of unqualified people arguing their own personal, unqualified opinions. Let us know how it goes.

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 09:06 PM
Self-owned.

Before I came to this thread I thought that maybe the consensus about global warming was due to some new evidence and has more merit than when I last checked. But now I see that it's just about political ideology assraping science.


Yah.

Poop-loops, think how you'd feel about somebody saying this:-

You have to be fucking kidding.

I have no idea about climatology = I can't interpret the data.

BUT I'M NOT SO FUCKING STUPID THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO TAKE THE DATA IN THE FIRST PLACE.If you don't even know how to take data, then kindly shut the fuck up about any sort of scientific talk.

Which is what I meant. The shithead (aka Cullion) doesn't know what an average is, or what he's even averaging, and he's going to lecture me on science? That's like someone lecturing him how to suck dick.

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 09:10 PM
What simple question? and how can you know 'what needs to be done' regarding a subject you think you know 'nothing about'?

Come on dude, admit it, you're a little bit drunk right now, aren't you?

It's ok, I've done plenty of drunk posts.

This is my point. Like a Creationist, you have no clue what I am talking about, therefore you are correct.

I asked if you knew what an average was. You gave some BS answer about averaging over time?

Which is clearly wrong. You average the temperature over area, then make a trend throughout time. That was the question: "what is an average" and you shit yourself. You gave a blatantly wrong answer.

WarPhalange
10th October 07, 09:18 PM
But it's a tiny trend amongst other much larger trends. You're focussed on a very small timescale that happens to coincide with your own lifespan and the advent of human fossil fuel use.

That's why I'm saying I can't judge the data (but at least I know what data to look at).

However, there are these things called "fluctuations". You and your ilk think this is just a natural fluctuation (or if not a fluctuation, it's at least natural).

The thing you have to look for, though, is how fast things change. If temps change really fast, coinciding with something humans did, then there is a possibility that we caused it. That's what they are looking at. The rate of change compared to what humans are doing. It takes a lot of statistical analysis. Which you can't possibly understand, if you have no idea what an average even is.

You have experience with electronics, right? I think I remember you being a comp scientist. If not, then whatever. But do you know the concept of electrical "noise"? That's similar to this. You have to weed out the noise vs. what is really happening. You nor I are in any position to do that, because despite what you may think, you actually know dick about the climate and how it works. Sorry, a few graphs aren't enough info to know these things.

I'm tired of arguing for now.

Olorin
11th October 07, 12:28 AM
Cullion, if you really want to argue the science of global warming why don't you go on to a scientific board and argue with them?

Well this is a discussion board...


Otherwise it's just a bunch of unqualified people arguing their own personal, unqualified opinions. Let us know how it goes.

We do have several people who are qualified to talk about subjects from a professional standpoint but that does not mean we can not disagree with them.


5) Morons like you are the reason New Orleans is a shit hole.

It was totally a shit hole before the flood.

.

Cullion
11th October 07, 02:42 AM
This is my point. Like a Creationist, you have no clue what I am talking about, therefore you are correct.

I asked if you knew what an average was. You gave some BS answer about averaging over time?

Which is clearly wrong. You average the temperature over area, then make a trend throughout time. That was the question: "what is an average" and you shit yourself. You gave a blatantly wrong answer.

Poop-loops you're spouting fucking strawman nonsense now. I know they are refering to global average temperatures. I'm talking about time because the flaw in the argument is that the trend observed is occuring over an insignificant timescale.

Cullion
11th October 07, 02:47 AM
That's why I'm saying I can't judge the data (but at least I know what data to look at).

However, there are these things called "fluctuations". You and your ilk think this is just a natural fluctuation (or if not a fluctuation, it's at least natural).

The thing you have to look for, though, is how fast things change. If temps change really fast, coinciding with something humans did, then there is a possibility that we caused it. That's what they are looking at. The rate of change compared to what humans are doing. It takes a lot of statistical analysis. Which you can't possibly understand, if you have no idea what an average even is.

Poop-loops, I've studied mathematics to a higher degree than is taught in your physics courses. I was doing the work required in your calculus courses in my mid-teens. Of course I know what an average is. Put your strawman down and stop shaking it.

The rate of change of global average temperature is no higher than has occurred before the industrial revolution.


You nor I are in any position to do that, because despite what you may think, you actually know dick about the climate and how it works. Sorry, a few graphs aren't enough info to know these things.

I'm tired of arguing for now.

Your argument now amounts to a very noisy 'I don't know so how can you possibly know', interspersed with appeals to authority. This is because you don't have answers to any of the points raised. You're basically conceding the argument in the noisiest most ungracious way you possibly can.

DAYoung
11th October 07, 03:16 AM
Well this is a discussion board...



We do have several people who are qualified to talk about subjects from a professional standpoint but that does not mean we can not disagree with them.



It was totally a shit hole before the flood.

.

It doesn't matter if you're wrong or right.

Your avatar wins everything.

Olorin
11th October 07, 03:29 AM
It doesn't matter if you're wrong or right.

But...but...I am always right.


Your avatar wins everything.

I just made it tonight, aint it sweet!

.

bob
11th October 07, 03:45 AM
Well this is a discussion board...



We do have several people who are qualified to talk about subjects from a professional standpoint but that does not mean we can not disagree with them.





.

For once, I wasn't being flippant actually. There are a number of sites with very active discussion boards where you can get answers to highly technical questions from experts. The posters on these boards are a healthy mix of sceptics, 'believers' and undecided. To be perfectly frank, the level of debate is far above anything you'll find on Sociocide.

They don't have insult or rottie threads though.

DAYoung
11th October 07, 03:58 AM
But...but...I am always right wing.

And proud of it.


I just made it tonight, aint it sweet!

Briliant.

I'm a Dr. Who fan from way back, and I'm so happy they've brought it back properly.

I think Sociocide should take up a collection, and buy me the first three series on DVD.

Yiktin Voxbane
11th October 07, 06:10 AM
Olorin wins , thats a fucking beaut !

Kein Haar
11th October 07, 09:15 AM
If the experts know their shit to a degree which will only make the lay person furrow his brow, stare blankly, and breathe through is mouth, then....I suppose that has to mean that nobody has any basis to disagree OR agree, since the technical aspect is beyond our full understanding.

But, by and large, I only see the "you-don't-understand-science" card being played towards the skeptic.

In Cullions case, I'm not getting the impression that he's claiming to know the nitty-gritty data, but he is saying he's capable of understanding the stated conclusions being drawn by the people who've gathered and interpreted the data.

Now, if lay people aren't capable of understanding the conclusions and their degree of cohesiveness and accuracy, then I suppose our politicians are stale-mated in their ability to agree or disagree as well.

Cullion
11th October 07, 09:58 AM
I'm skeptical because of unanswered questions.

I posted a 'what would it take to convince me' list in response to a question by DAYoung. Should the questions on this list get answered, I would accept the anthropogenic hypothesis. I have looked for the answers to these questions for some time. So far, In most places I've looked I encounter the following:-

1) Irrational annoyance from convinced believers in the anthropogenic hypothesis. No answers other than appeals to authority and personal comparisons to kooks like flat-earthers (i.e. what poop-loops is doing).

2) Polite admission of not knowing all the answers but a personal view that 'the balance of probabiities' support anthropogenic warming.

3) Polite insistence that the answers to those questions are on their way, but more study is needed and that in the meantime we ought to play it cautiously.

View 3) is the one I have most sympathy with. However, the cost and imposition of some of the proposed ways of 'playing it cautious' sound very expensive. Expensive enough that it would be cheaper to throw money at studying the problem to get those answers sooner rather than later than to jump straight to re-engineering our entire systems of transportation, production and energy distribution.

Cullion
11th October 07, 10:02 AM
Now, if lay people aren't capable of understanding the conclusions and their degree of cohesiveness and accuracy, then I suppose our politicians are stale-mated in their ability to agree or disagree as well.

In other words, 'only people who agrees with us can possibly be smart enough to understand us'. Emperor's new clothes.

king of seals
11th October 07, 10:18 AM
The rate of change of global average temperature is no higher than has occurred before the industrial revolution.

*scratches head* So the industry has absolutely no effect on a global scale? O RLY?


However, the cost and imposition of some of the proposed ways of 'playing it cautious' sound very expensive. Expensive enough that it would be cheaper to throw money at studying the problem to get those answers sooner rather than later than to jump straight to re-engineering our entire systems of transportation, production and energy distribution.

How about doing that (only?) to gain economic independence from those non exactly nice persons who have access to oil?

It sounds kind of reasonable already, without taking any form of enviromental effect into consideration.

Cullion
11th October 07, 10:22 AM
*scratches head* So the industry has absolutely no effect on a global scale? O RLY?

The question is what effect, and how much and where. It would be foolhardy and unscientific for a scientist to insist that a large scale economic burden be imposed on the global economy without having answers to those questions.



How about doing that (only?) to gain economic independence from those non exactly nice persons who have access to oil?

It sounds kind of reasonable already, without taking any form of enviromental effect into consideration.

Gaining energy independence from politically volatile oil-producing regions would be great, but it doesn't require carbon taxes or any sort of international legislation to achieve.

king of seals
11th October 07, 10:30 AM
Even if there is no global scale effect, pollution does have strong local effects you can check for yourself.

Urban centers tend to be "unbreathable", at least in Italy. Got smog?

http://www.corriere.it/Hermes%20Foto/2006/01/21/0ITG69SM.jpg

Anti-pollution taxes do make sense for when it comes to reingineer things to pollute less (one needs the money...) and pollution has visible effects.

Cullion
11th October 07, 10:48 AM
Yes. Smog and anthropogenic warming are different issues. The debate about anthropogenic climate change is not a catch all for all types of pollution.

Truculent Sheep
11th October 07, 10:49 AM
Sigh...

teMlv3ripSM

TM
11th October 07, 11:12 AM
Congratulations! I have never read so many ridiculous, pathetic straw man arguements in my entire life. So apparently the fucking Warren commision is now posting here in mass. Remember kids, If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck , it is not a duck unless a duly appointed ornathologist with a crown and a sceptor tells you it's a duck.
Ever fucking occur to anyone that the assmunches polluting this planet might be putting the extremely annoying asshats that pose as environmentalist up to their bullshit because most of us will find them so tiresome that we will ignore not only them , but the message as well?

king of seals
11th October 07, 11:37 AM
Ever fucking occur to anyone that the assmunches polluting this planet might be putting the extremely annoying asshats that pose as environmentalist up to their bullshit because most of us will find them so tiresome that we will ignore not only them , but the message as well?

No, those kinds of enviromentalist movements seem to work a lot like cults.

The asshat is not a defect, it's a feature.

TM
11th October 07, 01:07 PM
Bello!

WarPhalange
11th October 07, 04:30 PM
Your argument now amounts to a very noisy 'I don't know so how can you possibly know', interspersed with appeals to authority. This is because you don't have answers to any of the points raised. You're basically conceding the argument in the noisiest most ungracious way you possibly can.

You're damn right. Why? Because the only reason you keep talking about this is so you can get your dick sucked by the people who agree with you.

You don't want an argument. You damn well know that nobody here is a climatologist, not even an amateur one. Get you the fuck to a climatology board and go wild there.

Any action that prevents global warming also has benefits on its own, so even if it weren't true, those actions would benefit society as a whole.

Things like alternate energy sources, for cheaper energy and less dependence on others, reducing factory polution, because smog is shit no matter how you look at it, etc.

Cullion
11th October 07, 04:46 PM
You're damn right. Why? Because the only reason you keep talking about this is so you can get your dick sucked by the people who agree with you.

That's just bitterness talking.



Any action that prevents global warming also has benefits on its own, so even if it weren't true, those actions would benefit society as a whole.

Carbon taxes and emission quotas won't necessarily.

WarPhalange
11th October 07, 04:50 PM
Taxes not helping is the fault of a shitty system, not the tax itself. Just like because a Lexus on an old, broken up road doesn't do well, doesn't mean a Lexus is shit.

Emission quotas will, for the reason that smog = bad. I mean, the least we can do is make sure that the air we breathe is normal and not smelly.

And if companies don't meet it, the gov't gets money. It kind of needs it...

Cullion
11th October 07, 05:14 PM
Taxes not helping is the fault of a shitty system, not the tax itself.

Just like because a Lexus on an old, broken up road doesn't do well, doesn't mean a Lexus is shit.


Well, I have a fundamentally different view of economics and governance than you. I believe that systems where the 'customers' can't refuse payment tend to be inherently less efficient than systems where those in receipt of the money know they can be replaced with a competitor. I've seen enough examples supporting this economic theory that I'm very wary of claims that high public spending is a great thing as long as you just have the right/smart figureheads at the top.



Emission quotas will, for the reason that smog = bad. I mean, the least we can do is make sure that the air we breathe is normal and not smelly.

I actually do have environmental concerns where human health effects are concerned. But where wide-spread action is proposed I want really specific and precise science behind it. An example of an environmental move by government I supported was when they stopped building new nuclear reactors after seeing statistically significant clusters of cancer around them in the UK (I'm still optimistic about fusion). Another one I support locally is the drive to get highly processed junkfood off of school menus.

The reason I have a bee in my bonnet about this is because I don't think the case is well enough proven for the economic burden proposed and because I'm suspicious that the real aim is to raise tax revenue for its own sake.



And if companies don't meet it, the gov't gets money. It kind of needs it...

I don't trust them to spend it wisely. I'd rather my government figured out a way to spend less money than collect more at present.

Kein Haar
11th October 07, 05:16 PM
Taxes not helping is the fault of a shitty system, not the tax itself.

Wow.