As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
"Global Warming Is a Hoax!" and other stupid opinions
citizen059
hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered User regular
hello my name is citizenI'm from the InternetRegistered User regular
Wonder_Hippie wrote: »citizen059 wrote: »I don't have to justify owning a car, because I have the freedom to own a car, I choose to do so, and I see nothing wrong with driving it.
My address gets a 62, but it's largely crap because the places it lists really aren't viable for their category. So even if I were the type to feel all guilty about driving, I'd still need to.
Umm.
You're actually familiar with the concept of a carbon footprint, aren't you?
Oh, see, I forgot to mention that point. That there's the part where I sorta don't fit in around here.
I don't believe in man-made global warming, global cooling, or climate change...whichever one it is we're worried about this time.
citizen059 on
0
Posts
Ahh. Well have fun being completely incorrect, then. Even Skeptic Magazine has started printing articles about human-influenced global warming. Several studies trying to debunk the idea come to the conclusion that natural forces can only account for around 35% of the warming trend, sun included.
So yeah, I know a lot of people like you. I know a lot of people that are wrong.
In any case, we're going to just fucking run out of fuel soon. Some bio fuels actually have a larger carbon footprint. So our options are slowing down emissions to neutrality levels of a miracle cure alternative. It doesn't matter if you don't believe in it or not, it's still happening.
I appreciate the effort, but we're not going to get anywhere trying to convince each other of our views.
My point was that I don't feel guilty about driving, and I don't think anyone should be made to feel guilty.
Until and unless there is an affordable alternative that works just as well, the energy sources we have now are what we have to use.
I'd love to see more efficiency though. I think anyone who actually pays for their own gas would agree.
For example, my dream car:
1.3L diesel-powered engine
155 mph top speed
113 mpg average
...and I even like the color.
*drool*
Thus the point of contention; scientists on both sides of the debate presenting their findings, each saying the other side is wrong, and non-scientists claiming that the other side's scientists have been "bought off" by either environmentalists or industrialists, depending on who you want to believe.
I'm sorry that I'm not on your side, it's nothing personal.
Yeah, the only difference is that the scientists on one side of the debate include all of the major meteorology, geology, and climatology institutions of the entire western world.
citizen059, I invite you to start a global warming thread. Please do. Obviously you're privy to some evidence that trumps that of the entire community of scientists who have spent their lives studying this phenomenon.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why?
I can just as easily go to another forum where everyone agrees with me, we can all pat each other on the back and call it a day. That would be much more fun for me and less work for you.
My point of contention with this particular thread was that it seemed to imply that owning a car was something to be ashamed of, if not just outright wrong, and that you should have to justify owning one.
I took exception to that, thus the reason for my first post.
Again, I appreciate the eagerness people have to prove me wrong, but that's not why I'm here.
I wanted to disagree with the notion that people should justify vehicle ownership. The rest of it was an unintended result.
That's fine. Frankly, I don't understand the desire to let one's opinions go unchallenged, but if that's what you would prefer then feel free.
However, if you make a factually incorrect statement, you should expect to be called out on it.
And your disagreement was based on a factually incorrect premise for which you refuse to offer any additional support. Therefore your disagreement is unsound.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What factually incorrect premise would that be?
Again, I have the freedom to own and operate a car. I have chosen to do so.
I don't feel guilty about it, and I don't think other people should have to justify their own decisions about owning a vehicle.
If the tone of the thread had instead been one of finding a way to save money by driving less, or using public transportation, I doubt we'd even be having this discussion.
I was asked a question about carbon footprints in response to my own post, and I answered knowing that I would both be challenged (because my viewpoint is contrary to the established majority here) and also belittled (because there are a few people here who can't help themselves).
The part about posting on a forum where everyone agrees with me was intended as a joke, because at the moment I'm obviously doing the exact opposite.
As for not engaging in a true debate, I simply don't have the energy for that sort of thing anymore. Sorry.
A few years back, sure. But after being engaged in forum thread after forum thread (not here, mind you, elsewhere) where people simply threw links, articles, and insults at each other for days...accomplishing nothing and convincing nobody...I simply got tired of it.
That, primarily, is the reason you won't find a ton of D&D forum posts from me. I like reading some of the discussions, but for the most part I just don't have the will to debate people on the internet anymore.
It's nothing personal toward anyone here, I just posted because I disagreed with the basic tone of the thread, and it got out of hand. I could've prevented it by just not answering the carbon footprint question, but a momentary lapse in judgement got the better of me. Sometimes I just forget when I should stop posting.
My apologies for creating offtopic discussion in the thread, and to ElJeffe for creating extra work in having to cull said discussion from it.
This viewpoint from which you base your premise is factually incorrect. Anthropomorphic climate change does exist.
Speak for yourself.
Is this really the persecution of the week topic, or are things being overly simplified?
Man made jet pack.
Wrong. The correct answer is you just miss the ground.
Please demonstrate. :P
My old friend, Arthur, was a pro at it.
All you have to do is fall and forget about hitting the ground. Flight occurs.
Critical Failures - Havenhold Campaign • August St. Cloud (Human Ranger)
yes, and the precise length of your "flight" time is dependent on the height you started at.
I got the ref, Drez.
DSC: Third or fourth Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy book.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Did you miss my response?
As always, the Guide provides: http://hhgproject.org/entries/flying.html
I mean, it's not that owning a car in and of itself makes you a bad person, but for your sake and the sake of others you should at least be looking into ways to curb the amount of fuel you use as much as possible without absolutely disrupting your life while the infrastructure catches up to the needs of the population.
I mean hell, I drive a sports car and live in a city with incredible amounts of sprawl and terrible public transport and weather that will freaking kill you. But man when I can walk I walk, and I drive the speed limit unless safety requires otherwise, and I try to combine and limit car trips.
Liking to go 80mph once in awhile when there's no other cars or intersecting lanes for some miles doesn't mean you can't shape your ass up and help keep the environment from getting worse.
Wasn't this part of another thread at some point or was I fucking hallucinating a reply about Penn and Teller?
Do you watch Glenn Beck, by any chance? Do you fantasize about his many chins descending over your balls?
It was split off due to stupidity.
i also dont feel guilty about getting a free ride to work paid for by all of you.
and im not going to buy a hybrid car any time soon, they are a waste of money and a motorcycle will get better fuel efficiency than most of them.
the whole carbon footprint thing is bs too.
I think the more important question is not "Is global warming happening?" It's "What can we do about it?" What I want to know is, can anything actually be done to prevent/reverse it without pushing humanity backwards 200 years? The thing I'm worried about is we seem to be going after ideas that look good on paper, but may have little to no positive effect.
Let's say everybody takes Obama's advice and keeps their tires inflated to the recommended pressure. Is that going to save enough fuel to justify all the energy we just used to power all those air compressors?
I guess what I'm saying is while I'm not convinced we can actually do anything about global warming, that shouldn't stop us from trying to conserve energy, use cleaner energy, and minimize our impact on the environment. But don't let's do something stupid just because someone thinks it's good for the environment.
Also, it's The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (or one of the sequels, I forget which)
Fucking evangelicals.
You should have trusted the people to do what's right with minimal intervention.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't want to keep the environment from getting worse.
I'm a rebel like that.