RE: old global warming discussion

[Jacobus Loki]

http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26 ... pot-light/

Talking about climate change on JUPITER.

Them Jovians driving too many SUVs? Not likely.......

Hmmm, climate change on Jupiter and Earth... Common thread - Evil Americans... nooooo

Maybe... The Sun?

Just couldn't resist.

[hypatias mom]

And it's getting warmer on Mars as well. Those darned humans are at it again...

[Jacobus Loki]

Let's see.....more than on PLANET warming.......only one thing in common...........

[hypatias mom]

Forgetting to factor in variations in the ouitput of the sun is like ignoring the pink elephant dancing in a tutu in the middle of the livingroom floor.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

[edited out a lot of cursing and calling you idiots, because that's contrary to the spirit of Shireroth]

Jupiter is much further from the Sun than Earth is. Jupiter gets almost no heat from the Sun. Its heat comes almost entirely from its core, which produces heat because of pressure. Jupiter's temperature is currently increasing by 10 or 20 degrees. It's impossible that this extra heat comes from the Sun. So little solar heat reaches Jupiter than any increase in solar output that warmed Jupiter 10 to 20 degrees would char-broil the Earth like a steak in a barbeque. Instead, Earth has only warmed 1 degree Celsius or so.

What's warming Jupiter is a 70 year cycle scientists have known about for a while. The clouds follow certain convection patterns, and every so often they churn up a lot of extra heat from the core.

What I'm saying is not just my opinion, it's what every legitimate scientist believes, and if you know physics you can do the calculations yourself to prove that a +20 degree warming of Jupiter would destroy the Earth.

By voting or persuading people about political issues, especially this one, you're taking upon yourself decisions that could potentially kill millions of people or cost trillions of dollars. I worry, because I guess I feel like when you post things like this, you are actively pursuing that kind of power, but refusing to take the two minutes of your time that would be necessary to do a Google search to get the information to use it wisely.

[edited out further things that were even meaner. This is the problem with political discussions. I can't keep my temper in them. Or maybe that's the problem with me]

The general claim that the sun is causing global warming is at least a little more respectable than this [edited] about Jupiter, but even so it has its own Bad Astronomy column

[Jacobus Loki]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp? ... 0305b.html

Leaving the "reality" of the thing aside for a minute, President Klaus makes a good point in that many politcians will attempt to use the issue as a pretext to force a system on us very similar to Soviet communism, complete with command economy. didn't work then, won't work now.

The comment about closing the multi-temple comes close to the comments of those who want to strip the scientific accreditation of anyone who questions the current "Orthodoxy".

Scott, you are too good of a guy to argue with over religion. I will find another venue in which to fuss about this.

[Scott of Hyperborea]

The truth or falsehood of a scientific theory has nothing to do with what good or evil uses people might make of that theory.

If global warming is real, it won't be any less real even if acknowledging its reality would help the Communists, or the Nazis, or the Antichrist, or anyone else.

You seem to be espousing a postmodernist version of truth, in which there's real "truth" except "that which supports my political beliefs". Since your political beliefs are capitalist, and some Czech guy said global warming might lead to more support for communism, you decide global warming can't exist.

That's the exact opposite of logic. In logic, you don't assume that facts must conform to your personal prejudices. You try and make your personal prejudices conform to the facts.

But you're also making another mistake as well. You're assuming that, if man-made global warming existed, communism would be the best way to deal with it. That is, you seem to think communism is an effective way to deal with problems. And the only way you can avoid being a communist is by denying the problems exist. That, to me, seems like incredibly convoluted reasoning. It also seems like you fully accept communist ideas but refuse to be a communist only out of stubbornness.

I'm probably at least as anti-communist as you are. I've been to Communist countries and seen the sort of stuff they do there. I just finished talking to a guide about whether I would be robbed by Maoists when I get to Lukla tomorrow. I'm not "soft on communism". In fact, I think it is a true fact that communism is the wrong way to deal with any major problem, whether that problem is unequal distribution of wealth, or whether it is global warming.

If global warming is man-made, and I'm about 85% sure that it is, then the best way to deal with it will be through capitalism. Creating an open international market for carbon credits is a very capitalist way to deal with the problem, and I suspect it's the one that will be most effective. It's also the way almost everyone seriously worrying about the problem right now is suggesting.

[This isn't an argument about religion. I never recommended closing the Multi-Temple, though I did make a post that was up for about a half-hour before being edited out saying I didn't think I personally was capable of responsibly dealing with this kind of thread. Read real newspapers instead of the Cybercast News Service (with their "Exposing and Combatting The Leftist News Media" poster) and maybe you'll learn something.]

[Kaiser Hasan I]

Please Scott, every goodthinkful patriot knows that global warming is just liberal witchcraft.

[Jacobus Loki]

Nevermind.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

Christ on a bike, this argument seemed to get violent rather quicker than the rest of them.

[hypatias mom]

That may be partially because we citizens of the People's Republic of California are having those totalitarian changes rammed down our throats as we speak. It is a matter of loss of personal freedom to the global warming cult.

[Kaiser Hasan I]

"Global Warming" or as Dick Chaney calls it: "Spring". God damn that guy is world class.

[Erik Mortis]

What totalitarian changes? I live here too. I see not these totalitarian changes? I see some necessary changes being slowly implemented. Higher emission standards... etc. Most of which effect auto makers and heavy industry. And some initiatives to decrease power wasting. A rather wise and financially sound idea. (waste less, pay less; makes sense to me) Once again, nothing even remotely totalitarian. You seem to be using the word "totalitarian" more like a rhetorical cudgel then as a proper argument.

And Scott and I are both from the Republic of California (PRC, another rhetorical argument), so we see the same things you see.

And once again, "global warming cult" another rhetorical cudgel...

I cannot think of a single "freedom" I have lost to environmental protection. I can list off several freedoms I've lost to Christian morality, or American Nationalism. Or even to corporations, this vaunted Capitalism we all love. (I don't like communism either I'll point out)

On any given matter, I lose more personal freedom to the "Christian morality cult" then I do to this "global warming cult". The whole point of the movement that you refer to is to realize we have an impact on this planet, and that that impact is having consequences, consequences that we now have to deal with. For centuries we've more or less ignored what we do to the world around us, now it is starting to come back to haunt us.

I admit that there are those that are a bit fanatical about it, as with any issue. But to be fair, if they weren't, would we even notice? What most people are at odds with is the idea that their actions now have consequences, Americans don't like to face the results of their actions. And especially my and Scott's generation is going to have to live with the actions of our parents and their parents..etc.

It honestly makes me sad that something so important to our future, to my future, has been attacked simply because it's not politically convenient to recognize. Because the OTHER side is advocating it. The Left supports environmental issues, so we must oppose them as anathema! It also makes me sad that so many base their opinions and beliefs not on scientific fact in these matters, but on political/religious ideology, power, what's convenient and on the opinions of others who are just as ill informed as they are. I see it everyday, and so I feel Scott's frustration on the matter.

And the attacks on the scientific community for not supporting those that oppose the global climate change model could be equaled to denouncing those that supported relativity, evolution or a round earth, and did not support those that opposed those idea. Models change. Models fit the facts as best they can. If a model doesn't work, or a better one comes along, then the new one is used. If someone is to stubborn to accept the new model, then that's there issue, not the issue of those that have moved on. Though to be fair I believe we will ALWAYS need those dissenters to keep science progressing, even if they investigate old theories.

Further, this should be in the Shrine of Controversy, not the Multi-temple. It's not a religious matter, so someone with the authority should move it.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

I don't understand this strange obsession people have with personal liberty. Assuming you think "If this matter was that important I'd do the changes myself personally in my own time with my own money" and not "Bleargh I'm me and therefore more important", consider the vast majority of people are of average intelligence or less and so do not have the mental capacity to realise the importance of the chances they are not willing to implement themselves. For the greater good!

By the way, if I find a link to this video I'll post it. Ever since I saw it I've believed we must prepare against global warming. Essentially- if we don't do anything and it's real we're f***ed so we have to do something. It doesn't present any evidence for or against it, just says it's too great a risk to take - and I agree with that!

[Erik Mortis]

Actually.. that's a somewhat decent argument. There is a definite possibility that we are messing with the global climate, but there is a chance we are not. Polluting less is never a bad thing. So what are we really losing in the long run by cleaning up our act? Do we like Smog? Do we like polluted water? So why are we complaining?

If we are right about global climate change, then if we do nothing we are fucked. If we are wrong we get a cleaner world anyways. It's win-win. Some of the only arguments I hear are about the economy. The Economy will survive. Even if there are short term effects things will balance out, they always do, it's how it works. The long term effects to the economy would probably be far worse. (Poor Holland being AT/BELOW sea level.)

Let us take the increase in ocean temp, and the melting of the ice caps. We are NOT going to get Waterworld. (fun movie but wrong). We will however get an increase in sea level. I heard something once along the lines of 30ft. Which is enough to put Holland, New Orleans and many other coastal places underwater. My parents would get to be closer to the Beach! Even if it's just a few feet it'll cause a huge problem all over the world, and fuck up economies.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

Exactly. Exactly exactly exactly! I mean I fully understand if people think it's absolute crap. But if there's even a minute chance it's real - look what we're risking giving up. I like the Netherlands.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Ultimately the problem is overpopulation and the overconsumption of resources. I think you all know my recommended solution...

[b3n|<3r|\|]

I'm gonna go ahead and be optimistic and assume you've moved towards the sane end of the spectrum and are talking Mars colonisation.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Yeah I do favour investment in off-world colonisation, but I was referring to a more interim measure... and while I will grant you that it is certainly immoral I would hardly say that it is insane.

[b3n|<3r|\|]

Fine, I retract that comment. Perfectly sane; wholly evil.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Thank you.

[Erik Mortis]

The problem is with the constant increase in population, we could never ship off enough people to help with over population, we'll just end up overpopulating places like Mars. But it is a good idea to start colonizing for other reasons...

[Jacobus Loki]

OK, no malice.....

1-

So what are we really losing in the long run by cleaning up our act?

Nothing, if we can clean up our act without destroying the economy that must fund cleaning up our act. I'd take my chances on what comes rather than let the gov't create a program that becomes merely yet another works program for well-meaning but ineffective bureaucrats. Unless, of course, there is no human created global warming, then all of these good works could bring on an Ice Age.

2- Ardy, I feel your pain. Several eons ago while trapped in the bowels of public education, I lost a speech contest. A state level one. The topic was overpopulation, and my suggested solution was genocide (tongue in cheek, of course). .And I drew a nun for a judge. Ach.

Of course the real solution to overpopulation is prosperity.

And at the moment, sadly, the easiest way to fuel prosperity is oil, coal and gas. (At least until the nuke plants come on line, and then there is zero-point energy .)

If people get the good life, they don't need a lot of children to work the farm. (See India, Mexico, etc.)

I think there is a serious generational difference as well. The young believe in grand solutions, and yearn for grand struggles. Those of us a little bit further along the road become cynical.

Such is life. But I still say that in 10ish years global warming will be as dead an issue as bird flu. Those that "battle" it know can say what a grand job they did, and the rest of us will shrug our shoulders, and hopefully continue to meet payrolls.

I ramble too much.......

[Erik Mortis]

Like I said.. even if... IFFFFFFFFFFF... the economy even noticed us cleaning up our acts, the consequences of us not doing so are far greater. In the long run things will balance. They always do..

Further, being dependent on these fossil fuels is putting all our eggs in one basket so to speak, a single point of failure. If the oil didn't flow.. everything would stop. So cleaner energy also makes sense from that standpoint.

And saying that cleaning up the earth could cause a ice age is ridiculous, just outright. I honestly don't even know how to respond to that. So I'll let Scott, cause he's proly got some documents ready to be linked to blow that out of the water like a leaf under coastal bombardment of little kids with rocks.. (ahh... memories)

Basically, you're giving us the "Not our problem" answer, because it'll be me and my children who have to clean up the mess our parents and their parents...etc, have left behind.

And if you are to cynical to stop making the same mistakes.. then to quote a band from my parents generation. "If you wanna retire, get out of the way."(Steppenwolf). I never really felt that way toward the older generations till now, but honestly the older generations have had their chance, it's our turn to fuck up now. Then when we have kids.... there turn.. and maybe.. just maybe.. we and they can fuck up less then the generation before them...

To be honest, it doesn't take THAT much to clean up our acts. Turn off lights, drive less, use less water, recycle, use green products..etc.

And this universal prosperity you talk about.. sounds a lot like COMMUNISM to me.. *dramatic music*.. and you are not taking into account religion. Catholics alone tell their folk to breed like crazy once they are married. No condoms for you.. nope. Every sperm is sacred and your sexuality is evil and must be repressed, despite several millions of years of evolution that has made you a sexual creature. (don't even get me even more started)

But what is wrong with trying to save the world? Someone has to do it. and one person CAN make a difference. Sadly, most of the time for the worse. All it takes is one man/woman to get the people to follow them. And they can move the world.

And even if you don't think YOU can be that person, you can change at least one persons life. Your own. You can take responsibility for your life and actions, and try to make a difference.
Age and Cynicism is no excuse. I'm 23 and cynical as hell, but I still try. I turn lights off, I recycle...and other things within my day to day life to TRY to make at least a little difference.

I'm sick of the defeatist attitude everyone keeps taking. The short sighted view. With no grasp of the future. In the scheme of time and space, we have but a short blip. a miniscule area. The world is vast, and the universe greater. And time will keep moving. To just think of our own lives, and this short moment we hold in time is dim at best. Criminal at worst. One of our defining features as Homo Sapient is our ability to think to the future, so why do we so easily confine or abandon that ability? Why are we so willing to blissfully cast aside one of the greatest gifts evolution has given us?

No.. this is why I claim that most people are not Human, just animals. Social Animals, who can't use the fullness of their mind, or truly utilize their abilities, to be able to go beyond instinct and become human. Unable to be aware enough to be truly Human. It takes a special leap to learn to control and harness instinct, to develop awareness and an understanding of what we are capable of. I'll stop here, because I know this last bit is controversial for people at best, and blasphemy at worst. But if asked, I'll expound on it.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

Of course the real solution to overpopulation is prosperity.

But of course prosperity for everyone would result in the greater consumption of resources, as evidenced by developments in China and India where the Middle Classes that have recently emerged have developed the same tastes and cravings as their Western equivalents, leading to increased competition for finite resources. I would say rather that the solution is likely not to lie so much in universal prosperity but in an enforced poverty. Lets call it "Capitalism for me, Communism for you & the gallows if you disagree". With a mechanism of coercion and control in place to prevent the further expansion of the global economy society can tread water while the technocratic and scientific elities work out either a technological solution to unfavourable climate change or else an escape strategy to enable humanity to escape from the confines of the Earth, which is a necessary investment considering that even if we don't wipe ourselves out in the next two hundred years the Sun will swallow up the Earth a few billion years hence.


I rather consider the Earth to be rather like a seed, which provides the raw materials necessary for life - but like a seed if Humanity fails germinate and to set down roots in the galaxy then it is all for naught.

[Ari Rahikkala]

We should end agricultural subsidies worldwide and use the money to build nuclear plants.

(Jake was right about the young having grand plans. Unfortunately the environmentalists will never allow something useful like this to happen.)

[Jacobus Loki]

I'm not a defeatist.
It's not defeat if there is no war.

The Ice Age comment was tongue-in-cheek.

Well, Maybe not completely?
If efforts are made to cool something that is not hot to begin with, then if it cools, can it get too cold, and start a cycle THAT CAN ONLY END IN DISASTER?

Rabid Polar bears hunting tourists and penguins in the streets of Rio de Janero! Ice sheets blocking the navigation of major rivers, causing inland flooding and devastation! Massive dropping of sea levels, causing thriving ports to be driven inland. Major changes in precipitation!

Alligators and crocodiles, endangered by dropping temperatures crowding the few remaining warm places on earth. Dust rising from continental shelves drying after eons of innundation, throwing dust into the air, shading the earth and further dropping temperatures. Huge population dislocations as people move south to escape the ice.

Al Boar, My Inconvient Income

Silly. Probably. Just as silly as the other scenario.

To quote one of my favorite philosphers, "The carbon units are a natural function of the Creators' planet".

This too, shall pass.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

There is no creator - or if there is he doesn't give a toss and we will, if we survive long enough, overthrow him.

[Kaiser Hasan I]

If there is a god, I don't matter to him, and he doesn't matter to me. If he does exist, I am likely a figment of his imagination. If he doesn't then he is just a figment of mine. In the end it doesn't matter either way, because he still does not pay my rent. God is the equivalent of a loud mouthed asshole who offers plenty of reasons why you're doing something wrong, but lacks a better plan.

[Aurangzeb Khan]

God is the equivalent of a loud mouthed asshole who offers plenty of reasons why you're doing something wrong, but lacks a better plan.

If you're going to talk about me like that at least do it behind my back.