The Anti-Civilization Thread

[JustBob]

Since our friend ZM is obviously in denial, I offer this thread as Exhibit A, and will let others determine who seems to have at least some grasp on the issues being discussed and presents arguments and counter-arguments, and who totally refuses to engage in debate and is having a monologue with himself. Note that I`ve thouroughly addressed the "grievances" argument and offered counter-arguments (which were ignored...) as to why it doesn`t hold up to closer examination.

https://merb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=19310

Oh, and see page 6, post# 108 for some prime examples...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

I offer this thread as Exhibit A

Your Honor, with all due respect, I must plead guilty to one count of ignoring Mr. JustBob's arguments and to another count of rolling my eyes. You must understand, Your Honor, that my refusal to engage was motivated by exasperation: the underlying xenophobia of Mr. JustBob's argumentation was glaring beyond any possibility of a dialogue. Furthermore, his complete dismissal of historical events contributed in no small way to my complete annoyance... whatever ... Now can we just quit antagonizing and get with the program?

 

[Agrippa]

Case Dismissed!

 

[korbel]

Closed

Hello Ziggy,

The trouble with Justbob is no amount of evidence is going to add up to proof of global warming. If the ocean surf was suddenly at the top of his chimney he would still be claiming it's...nothing really. One would think that with a multitude of events displaying a clear current trend toward serious climatic change that no one could be so firmly in denial of it something happening. At the very least anyone should be a bit troubled and concerned about heavy melting of the polar ice caps even if they don't see it as something as dramatic as firm evidence of a dangerous disruption in climate cycles. To have a conclusion so far opposite of what the mounting facts say doesn't make sense with all that has happened such as ancient glaciers receding at levels that should have taken hundreds or thousands of years.

I have had a lot of respect for 95% of JBs posts...except for his general implied characterization of Islam as a violent religion that breeds and is controlled by terrorists. I am not saying global warming is an undeniable fact, but I would say I it's looks like a grave real possibilty if not a fact already. Not that it is a particularly telling event, but I was just reading yesterday that the city of Boston saved millions is unused snow plow money this year...enough to put the city well into the black. On the other side, to deny it is happening in any measure one would have to be totally uniformed of innumerable serious signs and troubling events. It is just not possible for an aware person to legitimately deny there are serious climatic changes going on whether they may be temporary or a shift in long term trends. Anyone who is saying all is well or there is nothing to be worried about has got more than one screw loose, and he/she is risking their credability in my view. Either that or there is some Republican hard-headed Bush-like myopia or incapacity going on inside.

Toodles,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

The trouble with Justbob is no amount of evidence is going to add up to proof of global warming. If the ocean surf was suddenly at the top of his chimney he would still be claiming it's...nothing really. One would think that with a multitude of events displaying a clear current trend toward serious climatic change that no one could be so firmly in denial of it something happening. At the very least anyone should be a bit troubled and concerned about heavy melting of the polar ice caps even if they don't see it as something as dramatic as firm evidence of a dangerous disruption in climate cycles. To have a conclusion so far opposite of what the mounting facts say doesn't make sense with all that has happened such as ancient glaciers receding at levels that should have taken hundreds or thousands of years.

Huh? Please point out exactly where I said that I don't believe in global warming and that global warming does not exist. What I'm arguing against is the alarmist point of view that most of it is caused by human action. This is far from a given when you look at the opposing skeptic viewpoint. And if you examine the skeptic viewpoint, it has absolutely nothing to do with denying the fact that global warming is a reality.

I have had a lot of respect for 95% of JBs posts...

Well thank you.

...except for his general implied characterization of Islam as a violent religion that breeds and is controlled by terrorists.

Huh again? Please point out where I made or even implied such a characterisation. I know enough about this issue that I don't have to reduce it to such silly generalisations...

I am not saying global warming is an undeniable fact, but I would say I it's looks like a grave real possibilty if not a fact already.

Toodles,

Korbel

It is indeed an undeniable fact. But, once again, thet's not the point in contention here.

I'm a bit puzzled by what you just wrote. Drugs? Under an SP's spell? Lack of coffee? I can only suggest that you try reading my posts more carefully in the future.

 

[korbel]

Huh? Please point out exactly where I said that I don't believe in global warming and that global warming does not exist. What I'm arguing against is the alarmist point of view that most of it is caused by human action. This is far from a given when you look at the opposing skeptic viewpoint. And if you examine the skeptic viewpoint, it has absolutely nothing to do with denying the fact that global warming is a reality.

It is indeed an undeniable fact. But, once again, thet's not the point in contention here.

Hello Justbob,

I simply don't understand where you want to us to believe about your meaning. In your previous post here you now say about global warming that, "It is indeed an undeniable fact". But, you take such an opposite tact in your arguments or at least the firm tone of it that you seem to deny it. You call research into it and warnings about it some sort of a "religion" and you cite what you imply is abundant very creditable scientific evidence against its existence. The sum of what you say seems to deny what is going on. Is it that you have some need to play devil's advocate despite your own views? I have read many of your posts on this thread, though not all. But your general stance has been denial. If you do indeed admit that the climatic problems are "undeniable" then why present all the counter arguments. You are usually very clear about your positions. But your last post to me contradicts the tone and details of your previous posts. If you do believe its all real, then why all the counterpoints with Ziggy and others. Some people go against others just to piss them off. I would be shocked if you were one of those.

And "several scientists" will also claim that there is little to no proof of a direct correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. And you can find hundreds of scientific reports that contradict the claims of the "Climate Panel" report. I'l repeat this again, there is no absolute truth when it comes to global warming research. There are far too many parameters and unknowns for that. The problem here is that global warming is now treated like a religion, and that the skeptics point of you is rarely heard.

You wanted me to point out: "exactly where I said that I don't believe in global warming and that global warming does not exist." Well the excerpt above from your post number 40 on this thread sure seems to point to the fact that you deny the existence of global warming. Now that you confirm it your statements on this thread seem contradictory. At least the two quotes in red do clash severely. So what is your point of view??? I know you were talking about "absolute truth", but the purpose of your assertion indicates a total disbelief. If you did intend to mollify your statement with a qualifier, it does not work. Considering your general stance your attempted qualifier comes off more like...absolutely no truth.

Perplexed,

Korbel

 

[JustBob]

And "several scientists" will also claim that there is little to no proof of a direct correlation between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. And you can find hundreds of scientific reports that contradict the claims of the "Climate Panel" report. I'l repeat this again, there is no absolute truth when it comes to global warming research. There are far too many parameters and unknowns for that. The problem here is that global warming is now treated like a religion, and that the skeptics point of you is rarely heard.

Korbel,

Let me clarify (sorry, I don't know how to do the "red text" thing so I used bold).

The second and third sentence (in bold), are obviously related to the first, i.e.
that the point in contention in global warming research is the level of impact of human action (CO2 emissions and the like), NOT the existence of global warming itself. I thought that this was/is a well known fact. As for the second bolded part, and considering the rest of the sentence, I was clearly referring to what is known as the "alarmist" point of view being treated like a religion. Pehaps that could have been better worded. Neither alarmists (obviously), nor skeptics would ever argue that global warming doesn't exist.

Many thanks for the insult about drugs my friend. I will refrain from a return.

This was obviously meant to be taken in jest as friendly banter, hence the smiley at the end. If that offended you in a any way, I apologize. Had that cup of coffee yet?

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Global Warming - Again, I hereby submit the Stern Report for everyone's review which opening statement goes as follows: "The IPCC has confirmed that there is now very high confidence that human activity is warming the climate and that human influences are likely to have been at least five times greater than those due to solar variation (...)" Here's the link: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/indep...conomics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm

Now I would invite the self-appointed experts on the science of climate change to acknowledge this report and issue their comments.

 

[korbel]

Ok

Hello Justbob,

I understand your views more now. But your efforts to cite contrary views against the evidence and effect of human actions on global warming seemed to be some sort of inexplicable denial. As for what you say is the "alarmist" point of view, I think the cascade of episodes in climate variations and what mankind is doing to perpetuate greater harmful change ( burning forests, polluting oceans and the atmosphere, excessive exploitation of resources, etc ) is plenty of justifcation for alarm when we are doing so little to slow or reverse problems that are becoming more and more persistent.

Your references to "absolute truth"...or proof...may be a criteria that in inplausible and condemns humanity to stagnation in theory. If we relied on that for everything how much would remain undone in history and functional living. Imagine how much would have changed if the warnings of Paul Revere and others that the "Redcoats were coming" required absolute proof. There would be no United States...yes, wishful to some...but disastrous for world history despite the abuses. There would have been many other alterations in history and human existance. Only God knows absolute truth. We poor humans will need to rely on evidence and our best perceptions.

Unfortunately for some attempts of humor, possible references to illicit drugs are not humorous to me...smilie or no smilie. It's too...ugly. But I will withdraw that comment and try not to react so harshly. Coffee? To paraphrase a famous line in a movie...I don't need no stinking coffee. But I do find the coffee habit funny the way people are so obsessed with it. A cousin of mine died fairly young recently and they put a Dunkin Donuts coffee cup in the coffin with him...because of his coffee habit I guess. He did not..."wake".

Happy Latte',

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Mathematical Models and Chaos Theory

Below is a valuable link for those posters who fall in love with predictions of doom or other "sky is falling" pronouncements for the foreseeable future.

http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html

I am not going to get into the mathematics of any specific models or Chaos Theory itself but I will caution the reader to be very careful about the following phenomena that is a major problem when it comes to verifying models that make predictions about events in the future.

Assuming you read and understood the link, the following aspect is very problematic when it comes to assessing models. Given the same raw data the scientist may get and more often than not, does get different results simply by changing the round-off point.If the round-off point is say seven decimal points the results (prediction) will be different than those obtained if the round-off would be three decimal points.

Depending on the scientists ethical standards, political leanings,who is paying for the research,etc it is very easy to run the raw data thru the model using different round-off points or truncating at different points and then choosing the result that best fits a point of view.

Since the casual reader is often far removed from the actual study they would not be in a position to verify the integrity of the research.

 

[JustBob]

Hello Justbob,

I understand your views more now. But your efforts to cite contrary views against the evidence and effect of human actions on global warming seemed to be some sort of inexplicable denial.

Note that also wrote the following:

1. Having been thouroughly exposed to both viewpoints, I don't tend to believe one side (alarmist vs skeptic) over the other. There are just too many sciences involved, too many unknowns, and too much conflicting scientific research.

2. I agreed that, regardless, it's better to err on the side of caution.

3. I noted that, despite what I believe to be numerous flaws, exaggerations, and hasty conclusions based on "bad science", that it often takes nothing less than "alarmism" to get people to react.


My main concern here is that, contrary to what the media keep peddling, there are indeed two points of view pertaining to the impact of human activity on global warming and that only one is being presented. There's nothing wrong, and I would hope that any rational individual would want to hear both sides of a story before making up his mind on an issue, with making people aware of that fact.

And I find it rather odd that proposing an existing alternate viewpoint for consideration would fall under "denial". This only reaffirms my belief that adherence to the popular "alarmist" view on global warming is, for most people, not based on careful examination of both sides of the issue, but on blind faith. Hence my apt comparison to religion.

P.S. I drink tea.

 

[korbel]

Alarmism and skepticism.

Hello Justbob,

I try not to subcribe to either alarmism or skepticism. When I hear or read something of a serious nature I want to know the source. In any issue there are always pitfalls to avoid when considering the situation such as personal bias, political expediency, a simple misrepresentation of the facts, or incomplete evidence to make an assessment on, etc. I try to be wary about such things. Certainly the global warming issue is full of these pitfalls. However, just looking at the way humans live and noting the innumerable instances of very serious environmental damage on the local level, and the potency of such damage over at least 150 years of industrial development, I simply can't see how we have not done severe damage globally. Fossil fuels, detergents, pesticides, massive deforestations, endless extinctions, etc. In the last 30 years the population has doubled and so has the pressure on the planet. How can there be any creditable argument that we have not altered natural clamatic cycles. That's why I have to say those who assert the evidence doesn't add up are in denial.

I understand how you want to be cautious about making extreme conclusions about a system so complex we can't possibly predict results precisely one way or another. It's generally very rational and reasonable to avoid extreme conclusions and take an even-handed look at the positions as you wish to. Yet, when you caution against alarmism, I warn to be wary of the self-interested corporate generated research guided by profit oriented goals...and wishfulness. Yes, I do know there are those who genuinely and without bias or alterior motive don't believe there is a global climatic problem. But, there is just too much to show mankind has done great damage to natural world climates and ecological cycles. We may well not have a sudden catastrophe or one that evolves over the next ten, twenty, or thirty years. But time is a funny thing. The time comes eventually. Whether we are here or not I have no doubt catastrophic human enhanced changes will come if we do not start to live differently...NOW...if it is not too late to lessen the damage at this point already. Our massive ever growing populations simply cannot live the way we do and not have a grave effect on the planet.

Believer,

Korbel

PS

OJ in the morning then...Cabernet Sauvignon makes the day...worthwhile.

 

[eastender]

Data and Solutions

Hello Justbob,
I understand how you want to be cautious about making extreme conclusions about a system so complex we can't possibly predict results precisely one way or another. It's generally very rational and reasonable to avoid extreme conclusions and take an even-handed look at the positions as you wish to. Yet, when you caution against alarmism, I warn to be wary of the self-interested corporate generated research guided by profit oriented goals...and wishfulness. Yes, I do know there are those who genuinely and without bias or alterior motive don't believe there is a global climatic problem. But, there is just too much to show mankind has done great damage to natural world climates and ecological cycles. We may well not have a sudden catastrophe or one that evolves over the next ten, twenty, or thirty years. But time is a funny thing. The time comes eventually. Whether we are here or not I have no doubt catastrophic human enhanced changes will come if we do not start to live differently...NOW...if it is not too late to lessen the damage at this point already. Our massive ever growing populations simply cannot live the way we do and not have a grave effect on the planet.

Believer,

Korbel

PS

OJ in the morning then...Cabernet Sauvignon makes the day...worthwhile.

Korbel,

You are quite correct about the impact of the last 150 years due to industrialization,especially the last 30 years but your point has to be balanced
against the ability that mankind has shown in the same time frame to find solutions and answers to problems.

An interesting fact - the hottest temperature recorded:

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/michaelLevin.shtml

If the link does not work do a google "hottest temperature" - should be one of the first articles.

Note the date 1913 - long before the issue of Global Warming.Given that the technology to measure temperature has grown exponentially with our ability to store and examine data it is rather interesting to note that in 94 years the record has not been surpassed.

Conversely since we do not have reliable data about temperature going back to the Ice Age we are discussing change in weather patterns over a relatively short period of time.

 

[korbel]

Ok

Hello Eastender,

And I am sure there were even hotter temperatures than the one you cite in 1913 deep in history well before we were recording them. Aren't such facts mind-blowing. But marvelous abberations often have little to do with persistent patterns. A year ago Boston topped 100 inches of snow. Yet, over the last 17 years since 1990 there have been warmer winters than most of the past century. This year there was practically no snow worth mentioning for almost the entire winter. What is troubling is people tend to take comfort in such abberations to say...oh it's happened before...it's the same now. They allow these "marvelous odd facts" to work like an anesthetic to calm their fears and dismiss the alarms. Humans will believe what they want much of the time to allay their fears in the face of severe warnings.

But I saw one story not long ago where islanders somewhere in Polynesia were being moved because their low-lying homes were being submerged by the rising ocean levels over the last several years. Imagine that. It wasn't a sudden damn burst, a hurricane, or a sunami which would recede back into the ocean in a fairly short time. It was the ocean itself covering these small islands over a number of years. That is far more consistent than 43 days of record hot weather smack in the middle of summer in a place that has been known as the hottest on Earth for at least a century.

Think about it,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Patterns and Aberrations

The seas and other waters have covered or uncovered small parcels of land for generations before the industrial revolution.The only significant point is that the people in question had the sense to move whereas others in areas - coastal Florida,the San Andreas area etc,where mother nature presents high risks stick around and go thru the build/re-build cycle.

Your anecdotal evidence of the Boston area is interesting.Cape Cod is not far from Boston.Before modern technology made forecasting easier people living in the Sherbrooke/Eastern Townships area of Quebec had figured out the following:

If a winter storm is coming up the US East Coast and the eye/center of the storm is:

1.) out at sea the storm will not touch the Sherbrooke/Eastern Townships
and may brush eastern Quebec or the Maritimes.

2.) over Cape Cod and it may brush Sherbrooke/Eastern Townships but will hit
eastern Quebec and the Maritimes.

3.) inland at Cape Cod and the Sherbrooke/Eastern Townships area will have
a major snowfall.

So a minor shift in the path of a storm will change your results.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

the point in contention in global warming research is the level of impact of human action (CO2 emissions and the like), NOT the existence of global warming itself.

The impact of human action is greater than you like to admit: the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change speaks with high confidence of human action warming the planet.

Unless one is an expert in the field of climate change (I'm confident that no one participating to this thread is), no one here is competent to decide who, between the "alarmists" (notice the pejorative labelling) and the "skeptics" (notice the neutral labelling) are scientifically correct: not me, not JustBob or Korbel or eastender, no one.

The only reason to accredit the alarmist's position over the other would be motivated by a need for readiness. What's preferable? Taking a course of action with the possibility of having wasted time and efforts? Or staying put with the risk of regrets? Say the alarmists were right but, because we were collectively too wishy-washy to execute the necessary course of action, we might just die with regrets. If they were wrong but we went on anyways with the corrective plans, we might regret having wasted time but at least there would be a sense of having met our responsibilities as occupants of this planet.

 

[Kepler]

What's preferable? Taking a course of action with the possibility of having wasted time and efforts? Or staying put with the risk of regrets?

It's not that simple. "Taking action" requires time, effort, and resources to be devoted to the task.

Our time, effort, and resources are not unlimited. If we use them against global warming, we are not using them to improve democracy, get better health care, reduce hunger, increase peace, or even lower other types of pollutants.

We may save and improve more lives by focusing on problems other than global warming. We don't know what the net cost of global warming will be, if anything. We do know the cost of hunger, poor health care, etc.

 

[eastender]

Faulty Reasoning

The only reason to accredit the alarmist's position over the other would be motivated by a need for readiness. What's preferable? Taking a course of action with the possibility of having wasted time and efforts? Or staying put with the risk of regrets? Say the alarmists were right but, because we were collectively too wishy-washy to execute the necessary course of action, we might just die with regrets. If they were wrong but we went on anyways with the corrective plans, we might regret having wasted time but at least there would be a sense of having met our responsibilities as occupants of this planet.

ZM

Your point is incomplete since you disregard the possibility of doing more harm than good.An analogy would be moving someone who may have a spinal cord injury instead of waiting for qualified help.That the person meant well would not be acceptable under such circumstances if the injured party becomes paralyzed as a result of being moved improperly.

People do not start-out apethetic or cynical but become so after seeing their honest efforts misdirected or abused due to misrepresentations,self-interest and other less noble qualities.Before getting involved people should take the time to perform due diligence.Unfortunately not all well-intentioned people have the required skill set in a world that is becoming more complex by the day.

 

[Agrippa]

[...] you disregard the possibility of doing more harm than good. [...]

How can one be doing any harm by cutting down on pollution (of all sorts) being emitted?

Once again, is it not self-evident that it's a good idea to cut down on the crap we're putting out there?

 

[Kepler]

Once again, is it not self-evident that it's a good idea to cut down on the crap we're putting out there?

Not when "cutting down on the crap" requires massive investment, which may save lives, while investing our limited resources in (eg) health care, will save lives.