The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Apathy towards the issue of Global Warming.
Dublo7
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
As we all know, this whole Global Warming thing is a hot issue in politics and through out society. Everyone's seen that Gore guy's movie and now feel they are aware of the problem of Global Warming. However, there are some that just don't really care about the issue; I'm now one of these people.
Global Warming used to be a concern of mine. Granted I wasn't obsessed with it like some people seem to be, but I did keep my eyes and ears on articles or further information that came out about it.
Like I just said, everywhere I go now, I hear people talking about Global Warming and how what we're doing on this planet is going to eventually being the end of us and this planet. I have pests at Uni telling me that I'm killing the Earth when I run on my treadmill at home. Whenever I watch a movie, play a video game, turn on my heater, I'm killing Mother Nature.
When a guy told me about that treadmill thing, I stopped paying attention and walked away -- I was sort of busy anyway, it was during a lab -- and I hear him say, "Oh, see, he doesn't want to hear this". This irritated me to my wit's end. I replied with, "It's not that I don't want to hear it, it's just I don't give a shit. What are you doing to fix the problem?".
"Nothing, I'm just saying."
This is the kind of crap that makes me not want to listen anymore. Everywhere I go, I hear people preaching their crap and not doing anything about it themselves. I see people on TV who team up with celebrities to get their houses fixed with Solar Panels, then a long drawn out interview on how these people sleep better at night.
This whole thing has an almost "religious faith" type effect. Make yourself believe you're helping and you can feel better about yourself. Do they really care about it, or are they just being self-righteous sheep?
People say we will be the death of this planet, which in my opinion, is total and utter garbage. Do these people know how long this planet has been around? We humans have been on this planet for approximately 150,000 years.
In the billions of years this world has existed, it has gone through much harsher times than we have currently set upon it. Ice ages, huge scale volcanoes, meteorites eradicating land surfaces, earthquakes, freak waves, etc etc. We will not be around forever and neither will the impact we leave on this planet.
So do I have a problem? Am I just a cynical, pessimistic bastard?
What is your personal stance on Global Warming? Are you doing anything to help the situation? Do you genuinely care about what's going on?
Global Warming used to be a concern of mine. Granted I wasn't obsessed with it like some people seem to be, but I did keep my eyes and ears on articles or further information that came out about it.
Like I just said, everywhere I go now, I hear people talking about Global Warming and how what we're doing on this planet is going to eventually being the end of us and this planet. I have pests at Uni telling me that I'm killing the Earth when I run on my treadmill at home. Whenever I watch a movie, play a video game, turn on my heater, I'm killing Mother Nature.
When a guy told me about that treadmill thing, I stopped paying attention and walked away -- I was sort of busy anyway, it was during a lab -- and I hear him say, "Oh, see, he doesn't want to hear this". This irritated me to my wit's end. I replied with, "It's not that I don't want to hear it, it's just I don't give a shit. What are you doing to fix the problem?".
"Nothing, I'm just saying."
This is the kind of crap that makes me not want to listen anymore. Everywhere I go, I hear people preaching their crap and not doing anything about it themselves. I see people on TV who team up with celebrities to get their houses fixed with Solar Panels, then a long drawn out interview on how these people sleep better at night.
This whole thing has an almost "religious faith" type effect. Make yourself believe you're helping and you can feel better about yourself. Do they really care about it, or are they just being self-righteous sheep?
People say we will be the death of this planet, which in my opinion, is total and utter garbage. Do these people know how long this planet has been around? We humans have been on this planet for approximately 150,000 years.
In the billions of years this world has existed, it has gone through much harsher times than we have currently set upon it. Ice ages, huge scale volcanoes, meteorites eradicating land surfaces, earthquakes, freak waves, etc etc. We will not be around forever and neither will the impact we leave on this planet.
So do I have a problem? Am I just a cynical, pessimistic bastard?
What is your personal stance on Global Warming? Are you doing anything to help the situation? Do you genuinely care about what's going on?
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Dublo7 on
0
Posts
There's too much political interference, which makes it impossible to seperate the facts from the propaganda. So until I hear hard unbiased evidence I have decided to just not care at all.
Yes, because there is no unbiased evidence on global warming at all. Global scientific and political consensus? All biased. Lets just not care at all!!
Of course, this is a problem with all big issues of the day.
That said, alot of the pollution and chemicals we produce are just all around bad, not just for the environment but also for people. I don't think people should be making their lives uncomfortable to save the world, because it wont work, but I do think industries should be working on eliminating pollution where they can and the consumer should be demanding it.
Things like electric or hydrogen powered cars, wind/water electricity plants, biodegradable packaging.. all that kind of thing.. are all things we should be encouraging.. if not for the environment, then because sooner or later we are going to run out of things like oil.
Well global warming may not end the planet, but there saying itll kill us, or at least change our civilization dramatically. Think BF2142 with less points paddling. Though really I dont see us just going "oh shit snow" ala Day after tomorrow, we'll adapt, and our technology will continue to insulate us, then we can build spaceships and have sex with alien vixens.
Human involvement is vastly exaggerated, as is the scale and rate of change - average temperature has risen by less that 0.2C since 1900, and has FALLEN by 0.4C since the early 1400s.
Wow... who is this masked poster that knows more then practically the entire scientific community? Not just the U.S., mind you, I mean the GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY...
Seriously, that's like when the doctor tells you that you have cancer, just saying "that's a nice theory doc, but I think I'll wait till there's some evidence."
We'll just switch to turf.
I'm sure they'll come out with a way to make it environmentally friendly by then.
How are those two things different?
And, honestly, if you're not willing to do the right thing until everyone around you does it first, then yes, you are a cynical asshole. It doesn't matter what they do, or say. You're being an idiot just for the sake of pulling your stupid macho counter-culture shtick.
LOOKIT HOW STRONG I AM GLOBAL WARMING CAN'T HURT ME!! PFAH!!
Even worse it looks like big oil is going to be set to make a shitload of money off it. We may have to fight world war three over it. Russia sure is making a show of waving it's cock about. It's worrying, because I'm pretty sure that we have more than enough fossil fuels to kill ourself.
If we don't stop, some large percentage of all the carbon sequestered in fossil fuels on the planet will end up in the atmosphere, I don't believe it can be removed from the carbon cycle rapidly enough to account for the rate which it is added. If this has not already affected the environment, it will. The sooner we move to stop this process the better.
I don't know I find it worrying. I'd like to see a lot more nuclear, ideally IFRs though that's just because I have a hard-on for newer better stuff, even if they will explode if air or water leaks in. Like to see cars powered by that, I don't really care about how(hydrogen, batteries, super capacitors, even ethanol I guess if it is done a sustainable manor).
the earth will be ok, much like a house is ok after the bank forecloses. It's big and old, and will be here after the sun burns out(I think). Humans will probably survive global warming too, unless the earth somehow turns into venus. Not bloody likely. Human society would probably take a pretty big hit though, so I'd like that not to happen.
I just think there's a lot more to the political side of the argument that people realise. And that there is a tendancy to exaggerate claims and see connections where there are none.
Anyway, that's getting away from the apathy arguement, which I think partly comes down to having the whole issue rammed in your face constantly, so in the end people just stop caring.
The world provides good evidence.
You dismiss evidence without any counter-evidence of your own.
Seriously, you have absolutely no reason for ignoring the multitude of reports from the scientific community other than your gut instinct that such reports are politicized. There are two major problems with this:
1) Your gut reaction is not a more reliable source than scientific study. If you can provide good evidence that these reports are false, or that their methods are unsound, then that's good reason to dismiss them. But you have not provided said evidence.
2)Why do you think your gut reaction is what it is? Because this shit is scary! It's easier to dismiss it than deal with it.
Please, think long and hard about your thoughts on this subject. Are they grounded in reality? Or are you just running from (HERE IT COMES) an inconvenient truth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter What is the IPA? Can you say "extremely biased"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_V._Chilingar So slightly nutters.
So... he believes that global warming is at least partially caused by humans. I don't see how that makes him against it.
David Legates I got tired of looking up names at this point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
'Environmentalists' are the worst thing that's ever happened to the environmental and ecologically sustainable movement.
As for me, what I'm doing is writing my Congresswoman (who's big on renewables funding and such in the energy subcommittee because Argonne and Fermi are in her district), Senators, and reading up on LEED so I can get accreditted rather quickly after getting a job someplace that'll pay for it. The building sector and by relation the built environment accounts for roughly 48% of all carbon dioxide emissions our country makes. Twice as much as all our transportation emits. So any advancements towards energy efficient and ecologically regenerative designs (which are becoming more and more widespread) is going to impact things far better than pushing for hybrid cars.
Yes, it is something to worry about. And if you're doubtful despite all the scientific evidence, all I can say is this is the ultimate application of Pascal's wager.
Actual evidence of bad science, so assuming the wiki article is true & the cited sources exist, that name goes down as unreliable.
Same as above, though might I point out that David Bellamy is a children's TV presenter 'scientist', not an actual researcher. He's fluff.
Whoooah. First, being a member of a think-tank =! invalid scientific opinion. Plenty of people work for think-tanks, and most think-tanks have a political slant (including people who argue for global warming being man-made). Instead of just saying 'extremely biased', how about you prove that his professional opinion is influenced by his job (which would be bias) instead of simply that he has the job which suits his professional opinion. People who argue a certain point of view get funded by those who agree with them - it happens on both sides of the argument, and calling it bias is lazy and incorrect.
Once again, prove his professional opinion is influence by his job, rather than the other way round. Also, your implication seems to be that he would be against arguing that oil causes global warming to save his own skin...except, you do realise that an acceptance that global warming is man-made will give petroleum scientists far more work in designing more efficient processes? So...what is your point against him again?
Slightly nutters, but of course, correct in all those examples. There were 'global cooling' scare stories in the 70's - in fact, many of the scientists & institutes who study global warming are the same people & places who were refused funding when they made the case for global cooling. Also, I fail to see how your rather weak attempt at character assasination constitutes evidence against his scientific opinion.
It doesn't make him 'against it'. It means he thinks that man is part responsible for global warming, and most of it is natural. Do you agree?
So...so an opposing political group smears someone, and what is this meant to prove exactly?
Your point seems to be that some people disagree that global warming is a natural phenomonen. I doubt that's a surprise to anyone here. TheFish posted scientists explaining why the scientific popular opinion is wrong on global warming; you posted two pieces which refuted that science, then a series of pretty vapid tries at discrediting them. So congratulations, we understand that people disagree, but aside from demonstrating the tendency for global warming supporters to resort to character assasination of anyone who disagrees with them, you haven't exactly advanced the argument here.
PS I also don't see where he listed them as 'skeptics'. He said that scientific opinion is more divided than some people give credit for, and I think he demonstrated that quite well.
It does mean that the person is probably biased. There is a reason that a lot of libertarians don't believe humans cause climate change.
No. I am saying that he doesn't disagree that humans are causing climate change. He just disagrees on how much of the current climate change it is causing.
It wasn't really a smear. The NCPA receives funding from Exxon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/position-statements-hide-debate.html
Comparing the warming trend of a thousand years, with inferred temperature data, to one of one hundred years using verifiable data is kinda specious.
The thing is is that there are a lot more scientists who believe global warming is caused by humans so that even if that is true for many of them, it won't be true for all of them.
Precisely.
It's amazing how that effect can turn as obviously rational an argument as: "there is a minority of scientists who disagree" into "No, everyone agrees with us and anyone who doesn't is mad!".
By the way, that realclimate article seems to conclude that the 'global cooling' scare was media & political hysteria based on faulty extrapolation of what was inconclusive scientific data. Absolutely no possible relation to current affairs whatsoever...
What? If that applies to pro- scientists, it also applies to the anti- scientists. What's your point? Some scientists on both sides are just running with the herd? Big news, so what? Here's a shocker: since there more pro-scientists than anti-, there will be more scientists jumping on the global warming is man-made bandwagon than any other wagon!
How is that deduction of any use whatsoever?
The evidence for global warming is now published in peer reviewed journals, not in Newsweek.
Can't build nuclear power plants, they generate waste. Can't build hydroelectric plants, they screw up river ecosystems. Can't use thermal depolymerization, that generates oil which is evil. And on and on and on. Nothing is ever, ever good enough.
If the Dutch could cope with their entire nation being under-fucking-water two hundred years ago I'm pretty sure we can adapt in the time we have.
That's completely retarded. I'm referring to your comment about agnostics and what you described is not even remotely related to agnosticism. Agnosticism isn't "I think both extremes are sorta right."
The number of anti- scientists is extremely small. That makes a huge difference. I was also not arguing about all of the anti- scientists, I am arguing about this specific person. I am saying that this specific person is likely to be biased.
I don't want to "adapt" to my house being flooded, the guy in New Orleans doesn't want to adapt to having a metres high dyke in his backyard. The tax payer in Oklahoma doesn't want to adapt to having to pay more taxes to adapt to a problem that we maybe can prevent.
I know that, but it seems a lot of agnostics don't. Its another topic that suffers overwhelmingly from people with a bizarre idea of when a compromise is appropiate. I'm talking highschool agnostics if that makes you feel any better - the ones who object to the atheists claiming they know there is no god.
Better safe than sorry.
Even if you're a skeptic about man-made warming, there are multitudes of extremely good reasons to conserve, reduce, and recycle. It's good for the economy, good for human health, and much nicer than having a bunch of shitty landfills all over the place. We're gonna be out of oil in less than a few centuries, and out of coal not long after.
If you're an average joe who doesn't pull much weight in the political on industrial world, all you need to do is turn the lights off when you're not using em, buy shit that uses less energy, and recycle. It's not too tricky.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods