That's the most shameless job of editing out the parts you don't like that I've ever seen. For one story, you take the first paragraph, because that's the one that stresses uncertainty, and ignore the summary which tells the wrong (for you) story. For the next one, you pick out the few words of the summary that make your side seem most plausible, and ignore the rest of the summary and of course the story itself. You obviously didn't read any of them. Then you claim you've "shredded" my position. I'm not sure who you think you're convincing.

For everyone else who might be interested, here's Scientific American:

http://www.sciam.com

I encourage you to search "climate" and judge for yourself. The phrase "climate AND carbon dioxide" is also revealing since it focuses more narrowly on the effects of greenhouse gases. Play around.

Search: climate
First result, full unedited summary:

"There is no unambiguous way to measure weather or climate over the entire globe, and computer climate models are limited by incomplete understanding about the behavior of the atmosphere. When the combined effects of both increasing aerosols and greenhouse gases are taking into account, the most sophisticated climate models suggest that the Earth will warm by about 2.0 degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. Nevertheless, these sophisticated climate models suggest that as the climate warms ..."

Obvious implication of first result summary: aerosols and greenhouse gases are considered important in these sophisticated models. Maxti doesn't quote the summary, just the first introductory paragraph. But reading two more paragraphs into the article reveals: "Global Warming refers to the increase in the globally averaged atmospheric temperature (at the Earth's surface) that scientists think will occur because of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gases act to trap outgoing infrared radiation, which the earth emits to space, and then to re-radiate this heat back to the Earth's surface. Recently it has become apparent that one must also account for the effects of atmospheric aerosols, such as sulfates, which are released to the atmosphere in highly industrial areas (for example, the eastern U.S., western Europe, Southeast Asia). Aerosols are tiny liquid or solid particles in the air that scatter incoming solar radiation back to space and hence cool the planet. When the combined effects of both increasing aerosols and greenhouse gases are taking into account, the most sophisticated climate models suggest that the Earth will warm by about 2.0 degrees Centigrade by the year 2100. In addition, these same models suggest a 50 centimeter (20 inch) rise in sea level by 2100." Reading more of the article reinforces this, and I encourage people to do so.

Second result: Maxtipherous's summary
The unknowns in global warming research . .

Second result, full summary:
The unknowns in global warming research don't have to be showstoppers Inspired by SETI@home, researchers are calling for volunteers to help simulate the climate.

It's mindboggling that you're willing to summarize this as simply "the unknowns in climate research..." when the second half of the sentence completely changes the meaning!

If you actually take the trouble to read the article (do!), it discusses a "meta-analysis" of a whole bunch of climate models, all of which predict warming due to greenhouse gases. It's taken as a given that greenhouse gases and warming correlate.

Third result: Dissent in the Maelstorm
Summary: "Maverick meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen keeps right on arguing that human-induced global warming isn't a problem."

This is a feature on a man who thinks global climate change is bunk. Of course, the only reason this deserves a feature is because it's unusual. He's a "maverick," he's dissenting from the status quo--ie most scientists disagree with him and think that humans are causing global warming. The article, if one reads it

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00095B0D-C331-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2

makes it clear that this is a minority opinion.

Article 4 is only peripherally related to this discussion, so I'll skip it.

Article 5, Title: Hot Words
It's about a study disputing the human role in global warming. When one reads the article, it's clear that the study results are rejected by most scientists. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF&catID=4

In particular, it's rejected by "mainstream" scientists, such as in the first paragraph: "But mainstream climatologists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), are perturbed that the report has received so much attention; they say the study's conclusions are scientifically dubious and colored by politics." Much of the article is about weaknesses in the research.

Vincible, Maxtipherous! The only way to settle this is to duke it out! Just as soon as I figure out exactly what that means (I saw it in a movie) . . . I'll get back to you both.

Hehe . . . a little joke there aimed to break the tension and reduce blood pressure.

Mmm . . . 37 degrees today :notsure: . . . the protiens in my brain are beguining to denature.

Oh, and the EPA estimate. Your excerpt seems to support my position.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html for anyone else interested



let's continue for the next two paragraphs, which you didn't excerpt:



So it seems that the "official" estimate is that warming caused mainly by human-created greenhouse gases will probably be greater than any warming seen for the past 10,000 years. Which seems to bear out "byproducts of human industry (CO2, methane, CFCs, etc) being a major, probably primary, driver of global climate change in the short term," the statemnt you call "crap." No?

Fair call - that's always possible, so it should be included as an option. I don't think that result's likely from simply reducing pollution, but it is quite possible in cases like that sulfur-addition you mentioned.

I should have made my position a bit clearer. Our goal is to keep human-habitable conditions on this planet for as long as possible, right? There's two seperate things to do - and I think they should be kept seperate:

- Negate the effects of pollution on the environment

- Counteract the effect of any extreme natural-occuring changes (like a new ice-age or massive natural global warming)


The pollution problem shouldn't be handled by additives. Adding a soup of chemicals (one to counteract every bad effect, assuming that was possible) will just cause havoc. In biology, we've seen that introducing one pest to deal with another pest can cause a lot of trouble later on.

Yes, it's theoretically possible that a new power technology could harm the environment more than oil and coal do. But this is where playing the odds comes in - a tech developed with lots of environmental awareness is less likely to cause damage than techniques developed before environmentalism had been heard of.


The second problem - dealing with natural climate changes - is much tricker. It's basically terraforming. If we ever do this, we have to be damn sure we're doing the right thing. Would that mean increasing greenhouse gases if we're headed for an ice age? Possibly, but not by simply burning oil and coal again. No matter how much those companies sell the idea, I find it very unlikely that their waste just happens to be the exact stuff - in the exact proportions, too - that we need to maintain our desired climate.

I haven't talk about the specific points mentioned here yet - mainly cause I'm still catching up on my reading, I admit it. It's a good read, though - and thanks to everyone for the links.

I would ask our Veterans to visit the Galactic Council before posting on this thread further.

Thanks!

One more thing that I should have added. When scientists talk about "incomplete understanding" or "large uncertainties" when dealing with climate, in general they don't mean "we don't know for sure if it's happening or not.". They often mean something like "we're not sure if greenhouse gases will cause the temperature to go up by two degrees (a large amount) or by six degrees (a huge amount)." A scientist talking about "uncertainty" or an "incomplete understanding" might nonetheless believe that it's very likely that humans are causing climate change. You have to read the context in which such phrases are embedded.

Democracy is about two things: majority rule, and protections for minorities. This thread shows up the biggest flaw in representative rule: nothing will get done if a majority does not emerge.

There are folks on both sides of this topic that hold firm views. We get internet quotes (often useless, since anything can be posted to the net, without regard to validity). We get accusations and counter-accusations of logical fallacy. We get distractions, diversions, debate gimmicks, name calling, and attacks on credibility.

What gets lost all too quickly is the integrity of debate necessary to win over the undecided folks in the middle. That is what will have to happen before action takes place. Unfortunately, human beings are competitive, egocentric sentients, and the fight-or-flight mechanism kicks in. Opponents become enemies, and debate is reduced to conflict, maneuver, and even propaganda. Winning becomes about concocting the most successful attack, rather than forwarding the most reasonable position.

There is value to debate, but there are also costs. I have not read this thread since my previous post, because as much as I might like to lose myself in the arguments, I see a greater need to resist the temptation and give this only as much time as it truly merits. There is little point in talking at those whose minds are closed. The purpose of a debate is to influence those undecideds whose minds have not been made up, who will consider new information, alternate points of view, and fairly examine the arguments. I don't expect we have many of those tuning in here, so I should limit my investment.

I weighed in on this subject because only one side of the issue was being represented, and dirty tricks were in play. Dishonest debate tactics. Bully politics. I could highlight examples and criticize them, from this thread. All sides are prone to these temptations, though, so I'm not going to point fingers. You know who you are, or... you are not worth debating in the first place. Clean it up if you want to hold serious discussions.



Not at all. When discussing a political issue, expect the sides to line up and square off. Certainly what to do about pollution, and what the state of pollution happens to be, are political issues.



Which proves part of my point: that many folks on your side of the aisle are so thoroughly convinced you've got the right of everything, that there doesn't need to be any debate. There can't be a valid view outside your known understandings. If someone disagrees, they must have misunderstood or misinterpreted. The possibility of error on your part is not considered.




"Like it or not"? Spare me the condescension. That will not aid your argument.

From the American Heritage dictionary:

ENVIRONMENTALIST, n. 1) A person who seeks to protect the natural environment, as from air and water pollution, wasteful use of resources, and excessive human encroachments.

That the left wing has coopted this term for their exclusive use is a political maneuver. Do not expect everyone to bow down to that altar. I will not.

President William Jefferson Clinton was a master spin artist. Spending on entitlement programs was termed "investment", and that's only the tip of a massive iceberg I could expose. Negative political connotation attached to something? Relabel it as something else. Seeking an edge in forwarding your own view? Attach the most flowery language possible, or seek to conceal the true nature of your position by erecting camouflage. This dissolution of the language is perpuated by hardcore spin artists on both sides. The conservatives at first fought the trend, but after getting beaten bloody with it, gave up and joined in. So now we have "partial birth abortion" to make a particular procedure sound as gruesome as possible. Yes, everybody spins now. If the waters can be muddied enough, the hope is that the "poor dumb fools" in the undecided category can be manipulated in lieu of being persuaded.

I reject this concept as harmful. I do what I can not to participate. Spinners on all sides have become the enemy, as debate gets clogged with garbage words.




All of it, vincible.

Your definition of environmentalism is spun. That is how some political interests wish to portray things, but it is not the truth.

There are fringe elements on both sides whose views and interests are so corrupted, they cannot be trusted. Radicals and reactionaries, those who advocate for violence. Fortunately, democracy insulates against these sorts of groups gaining control.

Lets go back to the dictionary definition. Water and air pollution, wasteful use of resources, and excessive human encroachment. There are no responsible people who advocate FOR air and water pollution. These arise as effects of other issues.

You use a computer and the internet, thus electricity. That is made possible only by pollution-causing processes: power plants. ALL forms of power generation cause pollution. Burning coal pollutes the air and crates ashes. Nuclear fission creates radioactive waste. Hydroelectric mucks up the rivers, impacting water flows, water levels, wildlife, and more. Solar clogs the land with solar panels. A lot of sunlight must be collected to power small amounts of electric appliances. Yes, we can spare some land to solar farms, but not endlessly. Geothermic plants dig into the earth. Wind farms clog the land with ugly mills, and too much of that could impact global wind patterns, with unforeseen consequences. How much is too much? Well, that question applies to all forms of power generation. If you will use pollution-generating electricity to play GalCiv, is that a fair use? Or is that an excessive encroachment? Most would not begrudge you, and certainly nobody here could without revealing hypocrisy, since we have all gathered here to play and talk about this video game.

Thus the debate over what constitutes "wasteful" use of resources and "excessive" human encroachment is a relative debate. At stake, weighing the various costs and benefits. Should we be free to use power in its various forms? Fuels to power machines... Do you use a gasoline lawnmower? Or do you use a hand-powered mower? Do you drive a vehicle? Ride in one? Do you use power at work or school? Who gets to regulate your power usage? How should that be done? And why should you sacrifice if it won't have any meaningful impact other than to downgrade your quality of life? Won't someone else who is greedy simply snatch up your "share" and waste it anyway?



This is poppycock because of false implication. Your definition of environmentalism may be in common use in your political circles, but it does your position a disservice. Your first line is informed by the second, where you take a swipe at the Republican Party in a way I find intellectually dishonest. It was a cheap shot in a thread that started out as a slaphappy left-wing banter fest. And you don't even begin to see how your remarks create controversy? Look again.




Nobody is "acting against the planet", Cotal. The planet is not (in any way we understand) a living organism. Your remark is flawed because you have not correctly portrayed the competing interests.

At stake are short and long term interests of OUR species, and to a lesser extent, other life forms with whom we share the earth. Good arguments can be made that tie our long term fate to the health and relative stability of various ecosystems, however, so I will stipulate understanding of your intent. However, your portrayal is also undermining your position. Talking about "acting against the planet" is preaching to the choir. You will not persuade anybody who does not already agree with you. The "planet" is not near and dear to some people. Yet most people are concerned about their children and descendants. And is it not their interests to which you are truly referring? Is the "planet" not an obscure way to describe the home of our people and try to unite us in addressing our common interests? The phrase "catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" comes to mind.

The first task to reaching understanding is to agree on definitions and terms. Without that, there can be no meaningful debate. The second task is to approach your opponents and the undecideds alike with the same respect you show to those already in your camp. I found both of these elements lacking in this thread, and they are still lacking. If we cannot do better than this, there will be little point to continuing.


- Sirian

Ginata, I like the article nice reasearch , I agree with you that global warming is in part due to man's interference but we are just coming out of an ice age and one of the biggest debates in the scientific community is which is the bigger factor? The answer is that no one knows (:( (:( . If we are the big factor then by the time we know it will almost certainly be too late, we need to act now just in case. We don't want to end up like Venus.



No-ones too sure about this, something funny happens in the carbon record if you go too far back and we're not entirely sure why, but we do know that carbon dioxide levels have only started to go up in big amounts recently - since about 1850 - when the British started the industrial revolution which involved burning lots of coal. Just a thought; I wonder if the people who started the industrial revolution would have if they knew what they were letting the world in for?

oops... Just realised I posted this thread after reading Ginata's post#24, forgot to click on a few pages to look at the current thread, sorry! LOL
[Message Edited]

quote by Cotal . . . um Ginata oh you know whatshername . . . ?



Define your terms, well this is what I ment I suppose . . .

Stupidity (def) - a poor ability to understand or profit from experience.

I ment what I said, believe me I know what stupidity is . . . I've been a fashion victim for over half my life, theres no excuse for it LOL .

I really don't know why anyone would be compelled to take issue with the above statement, I guess I could try and explain furture but Sirian your last post was . . . um strange. It's like you understand how borish people can be then go and top them all by belittling me and using my old Alias as if to impress.

As for your actual point, could you please clarify (make it simpler still), I don't understand what your getting at? What are you saying exactly . . . how rude I am in addressing others, how clumsy I am with the way I put things . . . what's any of this got to do with the topic?

As for you (Sirian) percieving me to personify the planet as a living thing . . . it wasn't never my intention to paint that picture, but call it serindipity because infact come to think of it I do see it as a living entity . . . yes ohhh . . . I just had a realisation of something just now! Or mabye it's just a stroke . . . excuse me I'd better stand up and see.

Edit - I am aware of the double negative . . .

[Message Edited]

*shrug* when I clarified my position to you, it was implicitly an invitation to you to clarify yours to me. I'm sorry for the confusion, I should have made that clearer. Anyway, it seems that you, in fact, do not disagree with what I meant (support for causes X, Y, Z varies by geography), but with the way I said it.

Interesting what you assume about me here. As Quack noted, you're assuming way too much about my motives.

Many of my positions fall outside traditional "environmentalist" ones. (What word would you use in it's place, here, btw? You can't use "left-wing" since a lot of the left opposes these... labor unions in particular. Maybe "green" but the same objections apply...) I didn't support the Kyoto treaty as written (in spite of all the pro-global warming science I discussed), for instance, and I don't really get upset about possible oil drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, or offshore drilling. I'm in favor of building nuclear power plants. I think the Endangered Species Act goes too far in some ways. Many "environmentalists" would have a fit over these.

"My side of the isle..." I'm not on a side of the aisle. Most people aren't.



Not just my political circles... it's used that way everywhere. Haven't you ever heard someone blaming "environmentalists" for job losses? When you heard about California's energy crisis, didn't you see or hear people complaining that it was because the state spent too much time listening to "environmentalists"? Ever heard Limbaugh refer to the "environmentalist wackos"?

Heck, even YOU do it. "A lot of environmentalist views ARE ridiculed. Some of those deserve ridicule..." from your first post in this thread. That's exactly the same usage you're decrying.

I can understand your irritation on this one, Sirian. It mirrors the irritation of people who saw the word "gay" coopted by homosexuals a few decades ago, or "pro-choice" by people supporting wider access to abortion, or a variety of others. And yes, maybe it would be better if there was an alternate word for it. As someone who supports nuclear power and a gas tax, I don't like the fact that the "environmentalism" is associated with the side I oppose for one issue and the side I support for the other. It causes confusion, it blurs lines between issues that should be kept separate. (As do any grouping words--the same complaint could be made about "conservative" and "liberal," or "feminist," or whatever--essentially unrelated causes are fallaciously grouped together.) But whether I like it or not, that's the way things are. The word fills a need, so it's used. And once a word is used in a certain way by enough people, getting upset about that usage is, in my opinion, silly.

If I had to summarize our differences here (feel absolutely free to correct me), I guess you think the word "environmentalist" hasn't reached that "saturation" level where you just have to accept its usage (like "gay" has) and I do think it's reached that level. I think the word fulfills a need, and therefore use it, whereas you think that the benefit of using such a word is outweighed by the cost that comes from the inevitable distortion of meaning from its use. Would you agree or disagree that these are the issues in dispute?
[Message Edited]

By the way, did anyone ever get around to reading those articles from Scientific American that Maxti and I were disputing?

You don't have to say whether you agree with me or Maxti, I just want to know if they're being read or not. This tells me whether or not I'm wasting my effort in writing such posts.

Even if you're totally uninterested in this debate, I'd encourage anyone who likes science to read Scientific American, which really is a very good magazine. The "ask the experts" page in particular is very accessible to non-scientists.
[Message Edited]

Vincible: I have been reading it. Specially the one about the "Maverick meteorologist" (:SURPRISED:). The legend under the photo summarized well his atitude towards the problem:

"What he would do to global warming research if he held the federal purse strings: cut funding. "You would no longer have vested interests in the problem remaining" if funds were scarcer. "

To me the scarier part is "in the problem remaining". So there is a problem, we just ignore it

That's a really a pure scientific attitude !!! There is really something to be said about solving a problem by erasing the question. Ignorance is bliss


"To Lindzen [Maverick], apparently, the earth will take care of itself. "
That's some leap of faith.

By the way, you and Ginata are definetly not wasting your time.

One last quote from the article:
"Lindzen agrees with the IPCC and most other climate scientists that the world has warmed about 0.5 degree Celsius over the past 100 years or so. He agrees that human activities have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 30 percent. He parts company with the others when it comes to whether these facts are related. It's not that humans have no effect at all on climate. "They do," he admits, though with as much impact on the environment as when "a butterfly shuts its wings."
LOL
I just can't believe he believes that.

~SDC~

it isn't belief -- it's science. You can choose to believe what you want, and use any soft science and propoganda and anecdotal evidence to demonstrate your position, but that doesn't make it scientifically proven or scientifically "accepted" as some insist. If you accept the underlying core concepts of the scienctific method, a premise must be proven to be accepted, otherwise it is nothing more than a working hypothesis.

The premise is "humans are having a significant impact on the rate of change in climate warming." The proof is nonexistent. I am not saying there is no evidence. There is quite a bit of evidence, but nothing approaching proof. Convincing to someone untrained in the field perhaps, fodder for the doomsdayers and absolutely delicious for anti-capitalists and anti-establishment types, but not proven.

~~~~~~~
My point is this and only this: it is the most self-righteous irresponsibility to base public policy on a working hypothesis.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So Nastavnik, why do you believe it has been proven? (I assume you are not a trained historical climatologist.) Upon what basis did you come to the conclusions you have? Have you thoroughly examined the antecedents to your belief system in this area? Or perhaps are you simply relying on the weight of the opinions of people you already tend to agree with?

I believe it was Hitler who first said that if you repeat a lie often enough it will become the truth. If all you are doing is echoing, are you sure you are not echoing a lie? Isn't it your responsibility to be sure?

This discussion is neatly divided in two halfs -- the half that picked a belief and searches for proofs to support that belief, and the half that searches through proofs, seeking belief.

Maxtipherous
I won't comment on your bringing Hitler to this discussion. He and his "friends" said many other things none of which are relevant here (or anywhere else), your implicit comparison is insulting. Usually that happens just prior to people starting shooting at each other, and well, I'm unarmed.
I'll go take a big breath and lunch. If am calm enough I'll try and write something, not nearly as insulting as your post.

Nastavnik . . . thanks. Well put . . .

Anyway to carry on with the original and rather more benign theme of PQs. I had a 61 PQ in my last game . . . I find it hard to imagine what a planet more beutiful than Earth at it's best would be like?

Technicolour clouds? Rivers of Gingerale? Insects that tickel you all over for no other reason than to make you giggle? Gravity that doesn't kill you if you fall off a giant sparrow on your way to grownups playgroup? Breathable water, eatiable soil, chocolate tree sap, new flavors, new scents, an even more bizzar and wonderous diversity of life . . . LOL . . .

Global Consciousness and empathy . . . mmm chocolate.

[Message Edited]

Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggggggghhhhhh

I just wrote the longest post in my life, and IE had a CTD. All lost, my beautiful prose, solid arguments (but no hard proof, sorry). All lost

And no time to start over.

So I'll just summarize myself, just for you maxti.

I don't know what you would accept as proof. Apparently, you consider everything that has been said here and studies quoted to be propaganda. And where in my post have you seen the word proven? And where have you seen conclusions of any sort?

And anyway, there is very little hard proof of anything in sciences. We only have suppositions and models. We have a relativity theory that works but cannot be compatible with quantic physics (which works too -- that must make some people very puzzled!). And yet we use it to send probes to mars! And, sometimes we actually manage!

You seem to agree that there is a green house effect. So you accept the global warming. And the human factor (if I understood your position). And even the evidence about it. But since there is no proof, you say that those of us who say there is a problem to be dealt with are just doomsdayers. I can't understand that kind of attitude. If you are right, good, we do nothing and everything we'll be fine anyway. But what if you're wrong? What if it is us & the numerous studies that are made about that that are right? How can we petend that the millions of tons of CO2 have no efefct in the atmosphere? Air is barely breathable in LA, Mexico City, Sao Paulo.
What bad can come from reducing the levels of CO2 projections?

And no I have no proof that we will all die. But I know we will. Why? because I've seen noone who has never died before.
So what do we see: levels of pollution have exploded during this century (actually last one). Does that have an impact on global temperature? Probably. Does warming pose a problem? I guess so, since last august 15000 people died in France alone because temperatures were just a few degress higher than historical records. And what about the oceans level: ice is melting in antartic, in Alaska. We see it, so we know it. Even the ice in the Kilimandjaro is melting and axpected to be completelly gone. It was there since we knew it! So things are definetly changing.

By the way, there is another study about global warming danger, published in todays issue of "Nature". Maybe they're wrong, but isn't that sensible to say it is possible, therefore we should try and limit pollution levels? Isn't that the responsible thing to do.



And it is criminal to ignore a danger under the pretense that you do not have hard proof of it. Wouldn't you say it is sick to feed meat to cows? Thatcher government allowaed this and changed the sterilisation temperatures (they lowered it). What was the rsult? Mad cow disease spread everywhere, including into humans. There was a risk, it was just ignored: there was no hard proof. Now people are dying in order to prove the point of those who warned about the risks (they knew it was dangerous since they stopped selling potentially infectious parts of the cow in england, but kept exporting it!). Same here in france, where AIDS contaminated blood kept being distributed for years after people said there was a huge risk. Now we have proofs: tens of thousands hemophilics patients were contaminated.
Shouldn't we just be carefull, and try to avoid having to face the problem later, when it will impose itself on us?
USA is responsible for 25% of the world CO2 emissions. Don't you tghink that's a bit too much. After all there are not that many americans (even though, from time to time, we all are americans). Of course you have the right to say it is my choice to have a super polluting diesel SUV. Alright. And you can say that that alone isn't responsible for our problems. true. But tell, me, what will happen wen 1,2 billion chinese will want to have an SUV too, an live by the same american standards (I mean in quality of life). How the planet is going to cope with that? I don't think it will.
It has been said often that the planet qill heal itself. Of course it will! After the dinosaurs disappeared, for whatever reason it was, Earth healed. Proof? We are here. But the main point is the dinosaurs are not: they did not survived the healing process. So if at some point we bring ourselves to extinction, well, in a few millenia, hearth may have healed itself. Too bad any of us (or human race) will be here to see it.

And finally I don't understand why you make such violent attacks in here. We can disagree, fine. I think I'm right and you're wrong. Even better.

But can't you just accept that? Why accuse me of spreading propaganda, in a nazi fashion? Why can't we just agree on limiting pollution (if we call it pollution, it is because it is no good, so can we agree on that?).

Ginata, you're a breeze of fresh air in a quite polluted world



Post scriptum to my previous post: I didn't mean to sound impatient or anything, but the CTD took my patience away, since even bill Gates is cospiring against ou r position in global warming and trying to reduce us to silence (I mean put an end to the vicious propaganda we spread --- j/k).
[Message Edited]

One last thing Maxti



Since you don't believe them either (except the few ones, like the Maverick of the article, that aggres with you) i don't see what difference it would make.

I am actually a developement economist, preparing a PhD in that area. I'm brazilian, married. And I have a brain. And since that's not enough, I even been accused of trying to use it from time to time. But never by my right wing teachers. Ain't that strange?
[Message Edited]

Hmmm... I'm not much of a enviromentalist but I find Vincible's and Ginata's claims scientifically compelling.

As a software architect with a graduate CS degree I have two primarily responsibilities:
1. Model real world entities into mathematical / systematic contracts that can be translated into software.
2. Identify patterns, probablities, and risks in extremely complicated computer systems.

My field is more engineering, than science - but even so I think Maxtipherous would find it hard science. When dealing with a system like a hard datacenter or Internet transactions, I cannot in good conscience prove a certain transaction will succeed. My best case is usually demonstrating that a transaction will only fail in a small percentage of the time (even a failure per 100,000 transactions causes huge complications in the types of systems I work on).

I build my models on a series of patterns based on observation and experience, many of which are done on much less data than Vincible and Ginata have presented and on systems than are many, many orders of magnitude less complex.

My point is that past science 101 - nearly all science would seem 'soft science.' Everytime you drive over a bridge know that the engineer who built it knows an approximate threshold were the bridge would collaspe - he's just used his training and experience to ensure that the bridge isn't likely to collaspe in the given environment where he had it built. Yet I know this and I don't think, this bridge is capable of collapse every time I drive over one.

So I would be skeptical of any scientific claim, that says this is the way things work... it's not science. Given the balance of evidence, it would be very hard to build a model to disprove the fact that humans haven't impacted the climate.

I think people may debate where humans should attempt to mitigate this. The Earth is a system that has not been habitable for humans for most of it's existence. While the Earth is not alive, it entire ecology is clearly more complex than an single living being and it's not unreasonable to claim that if we disrupt the ecosystem enough we could eterminate the species.

Personally, I'm optimistic that we will find cleaner fuels and more environmentally sound manufacturing processes and the any human imbalance can be corrected.

What does intrigue me is the possibility of colonizing and terraforming another planet like Mars. It probably is dangerous to have any our eggs in on basket as many, many species that dominated the earth for far longer than humans are gone and it might be our hubris that makes us think we'll do better. But I would bet on a virus decimating the species before I'd take a bet on an environmental disaster.

As for Earth, I think it's a PQ 15. There are millions upon millions of star systems in the galaxy and will most of them can be ruled out as even having a chance of maintaining life, statistically it seems reasonable that a relative handful could offer that possibility and that's whats shown on the galactic map. Also, the Precursors were active in terraforming worlds in the past, so a purple planet could be the result of a precursor visit.

Great discussion,
Cypher

Amazing. Not one piece of data in this post to actually refute what she said. Just a rhetorical warning of "soft science vs Hard science, the latter being anything that agrees with what he thinks, the former of course being anything that disagrees. Of course, anyone that routinely calls anyone that disagrees with him fanatics, must be taken with more than one grain of salt.



The understatement of the century.

Vinceable, I'm not sure that I agree with your position on global warming, but I can vouch that what he quoted wasn't the full gist of what the quotes came from were saying. Very misleading. Sheesh. Then he unilaterally declares victory.

Part of the function of debate is so that both sides can learn. Some, however, have that win at all costs mentality. Winning becomes more important than being right. Sad to see really when someone knows so much about something that he places himself at the mercy of willful ignorance. I'm afraid you will never convince him Vince. He knows it all already.

The challenge revolved around concensus:

I extracted the summary or first paragraph of sciam exactly.

"'discernible' human influence on climate"
"unlikely to be entirely natural in origin."
"new and stronger evidence"
"always controversial"
"no unambiguous way"
"incomplete understanding"

is not concensus, in exactly the same way a working hypothesis is not fact and significant human involvement in climate change is not a given.

Rent a movie called Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The first room they go in with the chocolate river. That's what a 61 planet is like. HEHE.

SNAP! We got that for Christmas (or rather my son did) . . .

A subconscious is an amazing thing LOL . . .

Well, according to the GalCiv manual, Earth-like would be considered a 16, for what that's worth. The manual also defines Mars as being a 13, which seems like a very steep gradient. In just 3 PQ levels we go from a quite wonderful planet to something inhospitable. I can't even imagine what a 61 would be like. LOL Rivers flowing with chocolate, mountains capped with ice cream, etc. Of course, I'm probably confusing "paradise" from an Imaginos perspective with a biological paradise.

As for the whole global warming thread going on here, I'm not even going to touch it. I have my own opinion of the whole matter, which I'm not going to share at this time. I will, however, point out that my father and I were less than impressed with Scientific American's response to Mr. Lomborg's book. It's been quite a while since I've read the article, so no, I can't point out specifics, but it hardly seemed like a dispassionate and scientifically-based article at the time. I'm not using that as a metric of the validity of either side of that particular issue. I'm merely pointing out that I would have expected better of a publication of its stature. I glanced over a few posts mentioning SciAm, and that just sparked my memory a little bit.