The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Yeah, sorry about getting you confused with "GlobalWarmin", whatever-your-name is the COD admin that sent me such a nice PM. To ask me if "I am high" in a private message is not exactly conduct becoming of an Admin. It was an honest mistake based on your similar Avatar's.

As a person I reserve the right to question anyone’s state of mind when they post blatantly fallacious information. That aside, I can tell from the misguided views in your response it is clear that the only part of my post you attempted to read was the name...and did so incorrectly--which is why I felt my question was warranted. Also if you want to question my conduct as an admin I suggest you save that material for a PM.


In case anyone else "misread" my views I'll lay them out for you like this.

1) We know that we damage the environment (locally if nothing else) and are depleting many of our natural resources. (Although we still have tons of coal)
2) So we need to embrace technologies that do no harm our environment as much, and require less non-renewable resources.

So basically, we should be doing many of the things we'd do if GW were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you feel like we shouldn't try to do this...that's another argument all in itself. However, even in GW is completely made up; I think it was worth it even if it simply converted a few people to a greener state of mind. Even if GW isn't happening, or if we aren’t causing it, we should still be acting as if we were...although for different reasons.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

edit: I shouldn't call you all morons, because your problem is bigger than just not being very smart.

The gift that keeps giving! Look, you obviously have no idea how smart or not any of us are. Saying something like this hurts (eliminates?) your ability to continue to express your ideas here and it hurts your reputation, making you less likely to convince anyone here that your position is correct.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

1) We know that we damage the environment (locally if nothing else) and are depleting many of our natural resources. (Although we still have tons of coal)

No we don't know that. We know that we affect the environment. When a bear craps in the woods, does he "damage" the environment or does he leave a little present for someone to find later?

I am NOT suggesting that a burning tire pile in the middle of a bird sanctuary is a peachy, I am simply differentiating between what we "know" and what we conclude from what we know. Saying that we impact or change the environment is a testable scientific hypothesis. Saying that we harm the environment is a value judgment based on what we "know". But they aren't the same. We can each "know" the same things and reach different conclusions without either of us being a hippy or a neo-con. Amazing, I know, and if you tell anyone I said that I'll kill you.

2) So we need to embrace technologies that do no harm our environment as much, and require less non-renewable resources.

Well no. See point #1, and besides, for many the question isn't so much "should we buy cleaner, more efficient products?" so much as it's a question of should we "should we put a bunch of childish know-it-alls who so far have called us a bunch of neo-con morons in charge of our multi-national economies so they can dump money into their latest pet cause, or should we chillax and let the markets handle this problem?"

Happily "clean" and "efficient" are becoming more synonymous as technologies improve. These technologies have been driven by investors who see a market to be made, not by hippies wishing it to be so. The markets are coming online and the consumers are responding. The Prius just became the biggest selling car in the US.

[Guardianx11x]

Leejo, honestly. Are you seriously claiming that dumping mercury and toxic materials in rivers and poisoning the land doesn't "damage" the enviornment? Yes we change the enviornment in many ways that DON'T damage it. But you atleast have to admit we change the enviornment in many was that do, reguardless if you are a neo-con or a frizbee tossing hipster.

The problem with letting the free market handle it is obvious. These types of changes are driven by policy. There is little financial incentive to make these changes. Are these people who try to make these changes childish "know-it-all", absolutly not. Saying things like that ruin your argument. I consider them forward thinkers who are addressing problems before they escalate.

And as for your last argument...investors see a market, cause enviornmentalists (hippies?) are creating one. The markets are not coming online, especially on the industrial level. And the Prius is a technological joke, hybrid technology is barely better than straight gas engines when they are built right. You're better off buying a diesel car.

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

In case anyone else "misread" my views I'll lay them out for you like this.

1) We know that we damage the environment (locally if nothing else) and are depleting many of our natural resources. (Although we still have tons of coal)
2) So we need to embrace technologies that do no harm our environment as much, and require less non-renewable resources.

So basically, we should be doing many of the things we'd do if GW were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you feel like we shouldn't try to do this...that's another argument all in itself. However, even if GW is completely made up; I think it was worth it even if it simply converted a few people to a greener state of mind. Even if GW isn't happening, or if we aren’t causing it, we should still be acting as if we were...although for different reasons.

This line of reasoning is the best logic for NOT buying into the global warming scare that we have. The policies supported by the AGW crowd (Anthropogenic Global Warming, as opposed to plain old natural warming) have been around for decades before AGW was an issue, back when scientists were still warning us about the next Ice Age. But before AGW alarmism, the public couldn't be convinced to actually adopt any of those policies, because they were ineffective and highly unpopular. AGW gives the same lobbyists that have been around for years and years an excuse to actually force through their expansion of government controls on our private lives, like that ban on the Incandescent Lightbulb that recently passed with barely a murmur. Is banning the Incandescent Lightbulb going to do anything to combat global warming? No, not a whit. But they passed it anyway, because the public becomes too scared to stand up for our liberties as soon as someone invokes the catchphrase "its good for the environment!" Any any amount of lies and distortions on the AGW issue are acceptable casualties as long as it furthers the preexisting cause of Environmentalism!

There were some people inquiring as to who it was who was behind the "conspiracy" to promote AGW, to play counterpoint to the "evil oil companies" funding opposed research. Well, look no further, we've found them.

[leejo]

Yes, I am saying that dumping toxic waste into a river is not harming the environment, it is changing the environment. The processes that create such waste add a lot of value elsewhere and fuel change for which people are prepared to pay.

Are you thinking of the environment ex-homo? As in the world as if humans weren't in it? If so, then yes, things are very different and I can see how a turtle or a bird would call it "harmful". But I think you have to look at the sorts of changes we make to the planet with the same dispassionate eye as the changes any other species makes as it tries to scrounge up enough food and energy to stay fed and warm, move around and reproduce. Some bears crap in the woods, some people make paper next to a river.

If you look at your toxic waste without judging that it's "bad for the environment" but instead as an expensive mess, it's still pretty easy to argue successfully that we shouldn't dump it into a river. So I'm not prepared to say that dumping toxic waste into a river "harms the environment", but you will never hear me say that dumping toxic waste into a river is a good idea. Does that make sense?

*edit - if someone dumps toxic waste into a river in order to poison that river, then I'll agree that they harmed the environment, because their actions did nothing to improve the environment elsewhere. This would be analogous to a bear hurling bear crap into the river in order to poison the fish.

[Guardianx11x]

Good point Kerostasis. There is another side to this too. Because GW is so polarized, and basically impossible to prove either way. People who have never bought into enviornmentalism now have a reason to ignore the problem. "If there is no global warming, I don't need to live a 'greener' life." GW has done nothing but damage the issue in my opinion. While it is clear that we are hurting the enviornment, even ourselves (see air quality some some major US cities). All the facts say that we have got to adopt better methods of doing things because we are making the area's where we live less inhabitable. The problem will not fix itself, and market wont have the incentive till the problem reaches critical levels (again, even more so on the industrial level). Even neo-cons want to kill our dependence on oil...guess how we do that? For one reason or another we should all be pushing toward leading lives that have less of a negative impact on the enviornment. This isn't about losing your rights, it is about being smart and planning. Why are you attached to the incadecent light bulb? It is inefficient, there are light bulbs that cost the same, work longer, provide the same amount of light, and all for less energy.

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by leejo

Yes, I am saying that dumping toxic waste into a river is not harming the environment, it is changing the environment. The processes that create such waste add a lot of value elsewhere and fuel change for which people are prepared to pay.

Are you thinking of the environment ex-homo? As in the world as if humans weren't in it? If so, then yes, things are very different and I can see how a turtle or a bird would call it "harmful". But I think you have to look at the sorts of changes we make to the planet with the same dispassionate eye as the changes any other species makes as it tries to scrounge up enough food and energy to stay fed and warm, move around and reproduce. Some bears crap in the woods, some people make paper next to a river.

If you look at your toxic waste without judging that it's "bad for the environment" but instead as an expensive mess, it's still pretty easy to argue successfully that we shouldn't dump it into a river. So I'm not prepared to say that dumping toxic waste into a river "harms the environment", but you will never hear me say that dumping toxic waste into a river is a good idea. Does that make sense?

*edit - if someone dumps toxic waste into a river in order to poison that river, then I'll agree that they harmed the environment, because their actions did nothing to improve the environment elsewhere. This would be analogous to a bear hurling bear crap into the river in order to poison the fish.

I undertand what you are trying to say, but your logic is flawed. Perhaps I didnt explain this because I thought it was clear what "harms the environment" means. I intend it to mean that it makes the environment less livable, for human, animals, and plants alike. Nobody is saying that we shouldn't continue to do things that create value elsewhere. All I'm saying is that we can do that without damaging the environment as much as we are. Same benifit, less harm. Does that make sense?

[leejo]

I think your logic is flawed because you say a process harms the environment but you don't give the process's output any credit for the positive (to humans at least) changes to the environment it creates. I doubt seriously that there is any commercial process that is net harmful to the environment (using current measurements), since any process that did more harm than good would be difficult to sell.

This is why I'm careful to say change. If I just say change, I lose the political implications, but I gain precision.

[Guardianx11x]

Originally Posted by leejo

I think your logic is flawed because you say a process harms the environment but you don't give the process's output any credit for the positive (to humans at least) changes to the environment it creates. I doubt seriously that there is any commercial process that is net harmful to the environment (using current measurements), since any process that did more harm than good would be difficult to sell.

This is why I'm careful to say change. If I just say change, I lose the political implications, but I gain precision.

Leejo, its fine if you argue that the benifits to humans outweigh the harm done to the environment. That is highly subjective. I'm asking you to realize the process's output is irrelevent because it remains the same reguardless. Hence, the same benifit to people (who I will not call the environment). My point is that the same benifits can be aquired with less harm done to the enviornment than is being done. Same products, less waste.

What do you mean by current measurments?

Why I said you logic is flawed is because you are saying that we shouldnt improve something because it isnt doing ENOUGH harm yet you fail to adress the compounding issues involved in this strategy. I'm simply saying we should improve something cause it is cause harm, period, because we have the means to do so. Also, because ultimatly the net benifit is much higher.


**Also I encourage you to stop making claims like "I doubt seriously that there is any commercial process that is net harmful to the environment". Which are based on things impossible to quantify and are entirely speculation.

[leejo]

ok, you've put several words in my mouth several times now. Be careful about that, because it's clouding your interpretation of what I'm saying.

I have not said that we shouldn't improve something because it isn't doing enough harm, for example.

Some terms. A process has an output - the desired result of the process. A process also has waste - the undesirable result of a process.

You seem to want to consider the process's impact on the environment based only on its waste. This is as logical and fair as judging the impact only on its output. In any case, I don't accept that approach.

You also seem to want to consider the environment with humans in it when you want to show how harmful certain processes' waste may be. You even say this:

I intend ("harm to the environment") to mean that it makes the environment less livable, for human, animals, and plants alike.

But you want to consider the environment without humans when you talk about how helpful a process's output may be. You even say it:

...the same benifit to people (who I will not call the environment)

If you want to talk about the environment without humans in it, we can do that. If you want to talk about the environment with people in it, we can do that too. But we need to talk about the same environment all the time. The environment I talk about all the time has people in it.

What I meant by "current measurements" is that I can imagine someone making a new connection between cause and effect, or discovering a new tool to measure some thing that changes our evaluation of harm and benefit, BUT as measured by today's science and today's tools, few if any net-harmful (to the actual environment, not the hypothetical one) commercial processes exist.

[USN_Squid]

Originally Posted by bkelly

Just to reiterate GlobalWarmin's point because I think you missed it. According to your Wikipedia article, the editorial in defense of the AEI was written by the AEI. Not exactly a neutral assessment.

I don't think this point has any more life in it, but I've read the wiki and the editorial at least 5 times now and for the life of me I don't see anything that says "The AEI wrote the WSJ editorial".

As for the rest of it, it doesn't matter. The AEI is an advocacy group and behaves no differently from other advocacy groups. You may not like what they do, but the Sierra Club uses the same kinds of tools in their bag and I assume you're okay with that.

[Guardianx11x]

Wow leejo.

I am really running out of ways to phrase this so you can understand.

Some terms. A process has an output - the desired result of the process. A process also has waste - the undesirable result of a process.

You seem to want to consider the process's impact on the environment based only on its waste. This is as logical and fair as judging the impact only on its output. In any case, I don't accept that approach.

Say you have two processes. The outputs are exactly the same. One of them generates much less waste. What do you think we should judge them by? I honestly thought that was made fairly clear, that if the outputs are identical, and we are comparing them...we should focus on what is different (the waste products). I am not comparing apples with oranges.

You also seem to want to consider the environment with humans in it when you want to show how harmful certain processes' waste may be. You even say this:
Quote:
I intend ("harm to the environment") to mean that it makes the environment less livable, for human, animals, and plants alike.

But you want to consider the environment without humans when you talk about how helpful a process's output may be. You even say it:
Quote:
...the same benifit to people (who I will not call the environment)

If you want to talk about the environment without humans in it, we can do that. If you want to talk about the environment with people in it, we can do that too. But we need to talk about the same environment all the time. The environment I talk about all the time has people in it.

Ummm I live in a house but I am not part of the house...do you understand? I'm simply considering the impact of the environment on us as well as our impact on it. I didn't realize this was cause for confusion.

What I meant by "current measurements" is that I can imagine someone making a new connection between cause and effect, or discovering a new tool to measure some thing that changes our evaluation of harm and benefit, BUT as measured by today's science and today's tools, few if any net-harmful (to the actual environment, not the hypothetical one) commercial processes exist.

This is just plain false. I'm assuming you are disreguarding the intangeble benifit to humans and talkind solely about the effect the process has on its surroundings. In that case, you are entirely wrong. Please read up on how you get leather, power, plastic, batteries.....

**You really love debating semantics don't you? I'd really like you to show me how these commercial processes have a net zero or net positive effect on the environment.

While you didnt explicity say anything about not making improvments, I assumed you were against it based on your reasoning. I'll be more careful.

[Rakkasan21]

Originally Posted by ThePromQueen

Why are we arguing anyway? None of this is going to matter when the zombie virus hits...

Will it affect the polar bears too? if so i will be saddened

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by Guardianx11x

This is just plain false. I'm assuming you are disreguarding the intangeble benifit to humans and talkind solely about the effect the process has on its surroundings. In that case, you are entirely wrong. Please read up on how you get leather, power, plastic, batteries.....

Far be it from me to get between you and Leejo while you're arguing...but thats a really bizarre assumption to make, considering the direction of Leejo's semantics debate. Why not assume he is directly considering the "net benefit" of the process to include the, well, the benefits of the process for humans as well as the waste by-products?