Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
    Wait... some people still deny that tobacco is harmful? Seriously? I thought Thank You For Smoking was a satire by now.
    You know better than listen to nonexistent jerks.

    Source: The Ever Easy if Highly Imperfect Wiki


    Second-hand smoke[edit]

    According to David Biello and John Pavlus in Scientific American, Singer is best known for his denial of the health risks of passive smoking.[51] He was involved in 1994 as writer and reviewer of a report on the issue by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, where he was a senior fellow.[52] The report criticized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for their 1993 study about the cancer risks of passive smoking, calling it "junk science". Singer told CBC's The Fifth Estate in 2006 that he stood by the position that the EPA had "cooked the data" to show that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. CBC said that tobacco money had paid for Singer's research and for his promotion of it, and that it was organized by APCO. Singer told CBC it made no difference where the money came from. "They don't carry a note on a dollar bill saying 'This comes from the tobacco industry,'" he said. "In any case I was not aware of it, and I didn't ask APCO where they get their money. That's not my business."[11] In December 2010 he wrote in American Thinker that he is nonsmoker who finds second-hand smoke an unpleasant irritant that cannot be healthy; he also wrote that his father, a heavy smoker, died of emphysema when relatively young. According to Singer, he serves on the advisory board of an anti-smoking organization, and has never been paid by Philip Morris or the tobacco lobby.[53]

    © Copyright Original Source



    Source


    Yeah, 'denialist' - never mind he (assuming Wiki is right) actually called it 'unhealthy' and only refuted a 1993 study. Seriously, this is pathetic even by the non-existent jerk's standards.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
      Possibly misunderstanding the goal? I don't know that it's reversible. We can keep from exacerbating it, though. I think that would answer both questions presented.
      ...
      *emphasis mine

      Actually, barring war, no, we can't. China is not going to meekly drop back into Third World status (okay, more into) and neither are any of the other developing nations. You can waste a lot of effort and carbon getting pretty signatures on paper that isn't worth the pulp used to make it but you're not going to get sufficient compliance. Politically and diplomatically, this is a non-starter and always has been.
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

      My Personal Blog

      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

      Quill Sword

      Comment


      • #18
        Um, does anyone know offhand if there has EVER been full compliance with Kyoto? Last I looked (which has been a while) none of the signatories were actually in compliance.
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #19
          Interesting how different this looks depending on which source we decide strokes our preconceptions and political leaning. For those of a different orientation, there's this:

          http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/30/world/...tml?hpt=hp_bn2

          The idea that carbon emissions are changing the Earth's climate is politically controversial, but generally accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists. And as emissions continue to rise, driving up CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the impacts will be more severe, more likely and possibly irreversible, Monday's report states.

          The summary of the full document -- which is more than 1,000 pages -- will be the premiere guide for lawmakers. It breaks down the expected impacts by continent and by categories such as marine life, agriculture and flood risks. And by diving into the specifics of the report, policymakers will be able to see what risks their specific locations face, as well as what adaptation and mitigation techniques could prove fruitful.
          I particularly enjoyed the careful distinction between the political controversy and the scientific non-controversy.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
            Wait... some people still deny that tobacco is harmful? Seriously? I thought Thank You For Smoking was a satire by now.
            When the Phillip Morris et al. money dried up, tobacco denialists had to find a new host, and they shifted over to Exxon et al. It's why climate denialists are so often branded tobacco scientists. Of the swapped-over tobacco denialists, the most famous are Singer and Seitz.


            Comment


            • #21
              I guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
              Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                I guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
                Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.
                Have you read Rainbow Six, by chance?
                I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Source: Lookie, It's Wiki!

                  In December 2010, in an article for American Thinker, Fred Singer states that Merchants of Doubt attacks several well-known senior physicists, including the late Fred Seitz, a former president of the United States National Academy of Sciences. Singer says that Oreskes and Conway claim to be academic historians, yet they have operated in a "completely unprofessional way", by ignoring factual information, not bothering to consult primary sources, and not interviewing any of the scientists in question.[9] Singer goes on to say, "No matter what the environmental issue—ozone depletion, acid rain, pesticides, etc.—any and all scientific opposition based on objective facts is blamed on an imagined involvement with tobacco companies. None of this is true, of course."[9] He says that he serves on the board of an anti-smoking organization, finds secondhand smoke irritating and unpleasant, and has not been paid by the tobacco lobby or joined any of their front organizations.[9]

                  © Copyright Original Source



                  Yeah, More Drano down the well.
                  "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                  "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                  My Personal Blog

                  My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                  Quill Sword

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Even if technically classified as well poisoning, I find it a useful heuristic to note if people have histories promoting information that is easily falsifiable.
                    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                      I guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
                      One word. Noah.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                        I guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
                        Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.

                        Banning DDT killed multiple millions of people within a few short years (and counting). If I were a conspiracy theorist - and I'm not - I'd wonder how much of an 'unintended consequence' that really was.

                        I don't really think Rachel Carson wanted millions of people dead from malaria - I just think it's the natural conclusion to valuing the environment over people. It should be both/and (with people first) and not either/or.
                        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                        My Personal Blog

                        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                        Quill Sword

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                          Even if technically classified as well poisoning, I find it a useful heuristic to note if people have histories promoting information that is easily falsifiable.
                          Really? Second hand smoke took more than a decade to 'prove' - and still doesn't enjoy the certitude of actual smoking (you know, where data actually backs up the claim). Health science is the most mercurial type of science (eggs good; eggs bad; eggs good again). The guy attacked a 1993 study - this makes him a 'easily falsifiable denier' how, exactly? He called it junk science - I can't find where he ever denied the possibility at all but I did find where he seems to concede the possibility (that would be a reasonable conclusion from calling second hand smoke 'unhealthy', don't you agree?). He thought the 1993 study was flawed - so what? Dawkins regularly makes totally idiotic theological claims - but that doesn't make him any less credible when he discusses the thing he actually knows, biology (Actually, he's surprisingly good - if you give him a fair listening and try to forget some of the theological nonsense). Singer's specialties are in physics and climatology - so even if he were totally wrong about the 1993 study, why should that discredit him in his actual field?

                          This is why well poisoning is so stupid - it gets us no closer to the truth and in fact, is usually a means of diverting from any unpleasantly contrarian facts.
                          "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                          "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                          My Personal Blog

                          My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                          Quill Sword

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                            *emphasis mine

                            Actually, barring war, no, we can't. China is not going to meekly drop back into Third World status (okay, more into) and neither are any of the other developing nations. You can waste a lot of effort and carbon getting pretty signatures on paper that isn't worth the pulp used to make it but you're not going to get sufficient compliance. Politically and diplomatically, this is a non-starter and always has been.
                            Amazing what can be claimed by changing definitions of 'we'. I'm pretty sure the U.S. can be included in 'we', even if China and India are not. Therefore, 'we' can help prevent exacerbating the issue, even if the full impact is not something 'we' have control over. 'We', as the human population, can still take steps to prevent exacerbation even if every member does not.

                            Achieving 'sufficient' compliance is separate from some compliance. The latter can be achieved even if the first is not.
                            I'm not here anymore.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                              I guess if you wanted to kill the whole population of people, you could stop human impact on nature. Which coincidentally appears to be the goal of quite a number of the extremists. (Euthanasia, Suicide legality, abortion on demand etc.) Realistically being a "good steward" of the things we are supposed to take care of, doesn't mean we have to advocate population reduction in order to "save the world" I guess you could say that's why I be a really hard cynic of climate change pushers. Because they also push the idea of wanting to kill people too. obviously I'm not a fan.
                              Also I have to point out that computers aren't exactly 100 percent here, but that is what is generating all the data for 10-100 years from now. Yeah I'm skeptical. Now if someone were to come up and say: "Humans have an impact on climate, we don't know to what extent, but we think the best way to fix it is to look for more efficient energy, reduce mass farming and encourage/teach self sustaining ability like growing gardens etc." Then you'd have my attention. But until that comes around I probably won't be listening.
                              There's a ton of things you've gotten grossly wrong here.

                              For instance, 'stopping human impact on nature' might be the ultimate goal of some, but it's unrealistic (especially since humans are part of nature). It's quite a separate thing from minimizing our (negative) impacts. Euthanasia, legal suicide (who cares if it's illegal anyway?) and abortions are completely separate issues from human impact. The numbers involved are trivial at best, and the arguments have nothing to do with stopping human impact on nature. To link this to climate change pushers seems to focus on the (plausibly existent but unknown to me) extremists. That's always a poor tactic, and it continues to be so here.

                              Computers being 100 percent accurate is also wrong. The issue is not with computers, nor has it ever been. Even if granted that there are pervasive calculation errors in every simulation due to computer failings, you still still fall well within standard deviations. Perhaps what you mean to decry are problems with the models, but those issues are both known and accounted for (and seldom if ever as damning as implied).

                              Finally, there are lots of people stating that we have an impact on climate and that there are plausible ways of fixing it, including those you mentioned. It sounds like you ignore (or are unaware of) that majority, instead focusing on a extreme minority.
                              I'm not here anymore.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                                Even if technically classified as well poisoning, I find it a useful heuristic to note if people have histories promoting information that is easily falsifiable.
                                Especially in cases where the people using the heuristic have little or no actual knowledge of the disciplines involved to judge technical reports for themselves.



                                Which is pretty much everyone about pretty much every topic.
                                I'm not here anymore.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:03 PM
                                5 responses
                                40 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:34 PM
                                18 responses
                                130 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 10:21 AM
                                2 responses
                                42 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Ronson, 09-17-2021, 08:16 PM
                                10 responses
                                81 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, 09-17-2021, 05:33 PM
                                25 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X