"Global Warming" or "Interesting Debate On Munk"

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

*sigh*

Alright, coming back into the convo.

As Sif said, NOBODY is putting a ridiculously short timeframe on this. Just one that represents the event horizon.

The difference between the two sides is that one is funded by the governments of the world to see what's really going on and uses thousands of reputable and respected men and women as sources for their information, while the other is funded by large corporations who feel that dealing with the problem is going to hurt their profits and have paid people to argue everything from warming itself being a lie to carbon dioxide being good for plant growth (actually, it's not, as it's already passing the point where they're able to compensate for it all, and the oceans aren't absorbing as much as we'd hoped, either) to the data being false.

Now, just at face level, who's more likely to be the ones with the selfish agendas? I'll put money on it being the corporations.



Edit: Hell, if you look at it, what's the HARM of reducing our carbon emissions? Cleaner air? Other than money, I dare you to find a good reason NOT to try to help the environment.

[Ibian]

Other than money? As in "who needs money" or "rich people are evil and should be hoist by their own petards"?

Also, your side has plenty of motivation for lying about the whole thing. I'll spell it out if you want, but otherwise i am rapidly losing interest.

[Seil]

Originally Posted by Mr. Genocide

wait wait wait...

didn't the story say those people were shot to death? with bullets?

What the fuck does this have to do with global climate change?

(Also, I think calling it global warming is probably a misnomer, or at least a less effective method of conveying the danger. Human Induced Climate Shift or something like that would probably be more effective.)

I'll admit that I haven't read or watched the linked articles or videos because I'm in a hurry, but that example you provided in writing just seems horribly out of context. I'll come back later and watch the video and whatnots.

It was a story told that put forth problems caused by climate change other than what's commonly told/viewed. I thought it interesting.

Okay, from what I remember from science class, scientific progresss goes boink. Wait, no - a scientist has a hypothesis, so he devises an experiment to test it. He writes down his predictions, then performs the experiment, writing down the process and the materials used. Then he submits it for review. In order for his experiment to prove/disprove something, it must be a repeatable experiment - meaning that other scientists should be able to do the exact same thing the previous scientist did and get the same results. Then it gets published in science text books blah blah blah.

I think, Blues, if you could list any of the five or six hundred experiments that prove that mankind is affecting climate on a global scale that will result negatively for everything and everyone, it would help your case.

Ibian, if you were a little more accepting than "All of this is dumb because I don't buy into the evidence that supports the argument opposite mine, and I doubt the credibility of those providing the evidence." What proof would cause you to concede? Every scientist walking over to your house and saying "We're negatively impacting our environment with disastrous consequences and we need to do something about it?"

[Sifright]

Your side Ibian really? Are you truly going to try and polarize this? I take it your firmly on the camp of the denialists then or to put it another way on the side of this can't possibly be true because it hurts my bottom line and thus i reject your reality and substitute it with my own right?

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Bob the Mercenary

But that's exactly what the other side believes about your side. Everyone has something to gain from this, which makes it so hard for me to decide whether to believe the entire thing or not. I've read every press release, every graph, every blog about this subject and I still don't think I possess enough knowledge of it to make a decision either way.

You have one side saying it's a bunch of crap, the other saying the world's going to end in anywhere from fifty days to twenty years. It gets on my nerves. On the surface you'll understand if it sounds very alarmist to me.

As it was said in the last few threads we had about this - I advise looking into the Godhand party - most of the time the people who say that there isn't any sort of global warming are (sarcastic fingerquotes) "Researchers" who have been paid by the oil companies to spread misinformation and lies about the issue, IE Exxon think-tanks.

Just about every scientist involved with this research has their head screwed on properly and has said "There is a problem building that's started around the industrial revolution and it isn't going away, and it's getting worse and we need to have done something about it during WWII."

If we stop consuming fossil fuels and try to repair some of the damage we've done companies like Exxon and the oil industry as a whole loses money. Meanwhile there is absolutely no reason for these scientists to be biased, since none of them gain a profit for agreeing with the hundred million studies before it. Every single one of them is looking for the benefit of the human species; the oil company is looking to get another jewel encrusted on their lapels.

I understand skepticism but the alternative you're suggesting is, as Kurosen said before, "to faff about uselessly and hope everything works okay." That is a fucking terrible plan.

EDIT: Also...

Everyone has something to gain from this,

How, exactly? Enlighten me what people gain for looking at Save the Earth pamphlets and putting Plant a Tree specials at the end of Sesame Street again?

EDIT EDIT: A pre-emptive reply

Bob Gore sure got a lot of money for his film An Inconvenient Truth!

That was almost five fucking years ago and it's the only big name that comes up time and time again. Preventing the world from getting assraped into oblivion by carbon fuel emissions is not 'big business', no matter how hard you try and paint Gore like a blood-sucking oil CEO.

[Ibian]

Originally Posted by Seil

Ibian, if you were a little more accepting than "All of this is dumb because I don't buy into the evidence that supports the argument opposite mine, and I doubt the credibility of those providing the evidence." What proof would cause you to concede? Every scientist walking over to your house and saying "We're negatively impacting our environment with disastrous consequences and we need to do something about it?"

If you would care to read my posts, i have already more or less stated my position. An ice age, which is what could happen provided the global warming people are right, would be much worse than the current worst realistic projections as things stand. It's not a matter of "is this happening?" for me, because the question is irrelevant. We do not want to reverse what effects we have had, if any.

[Mirai Gen]

Originally Posted by Ibian

An ice age, which is what could happen provided the global warming people are right, would be much worse than the current worst realistic projections as things stand.

...we might un-warm the earth into an Ice Age?

CO2 is doing good for the environment is your honest position on this?!

Are you fucking serious.

[Ibian]

I'm saying, an ice age would be worse and that is a very real risk provided the global warming people are right. And yes i am very serious about that.

[Mirai Gen]

We can't stop consuming fossil fuels because we might accidentally overshoot and freeze the earth.

There are parts of the area where people are going through what seems like an endless drought with no sustainable food, but accidentally triggering an ice age through overshooting is the real concern.

Truly you have taught me wonders this day, Ibian. Wonders.

[Ibian]

The hypothesis goes that we have warmed up the planet. Some people want to cool it back down. Cool it down too much - this could simply be to the levels it had before we did anything of consequence - and anyone who has studied the planets history knows what could happen.

The implications are what they are. It's not my theory, i'm just working with what i'm given.