Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/4/07 10:10 PM, TheMason wrote: Gore? You call a REAL scientist a propagandist and then talk up a politician? Wow...just wow.

You could take it one step further and ridicule his taking the word of someone who flunked out of three different colleges and a divinity school over the word of someone who graduated Summa Cum Laude from Harvard.

it is a known fact earth is coming out of an ice-age. It is also proven Cracatoa (sorry, dont know how to spell) did more damage on earth temperature than all the cars ever run.

Global warming is an issue, but I don't think it is as much of an issue as we make of it.

No, without emotion, there is no basis upon which to create our arguments. Without any emotion, what's to stop us from killing every single person on the planet? We perceive an action to be either good or bad through our emotions. Therefore, our decisions must be predicated upon a strong emotional sense and must be constructed so as to have a net positive effect on mankind.

Oh I'm sorry, I was busy getting your soapbox to preach on while you were talking, my bad......
Jeez, we went from the definition of "objective" arguments to the extinction of the human race?

You let your emotions carry you away from the topic and overexaggerate a little bit on that one......

Seriously, perhaps the reason people object to solving global warming is because of this holier than thou attitude we keep getting. Maybe if y'all weren't trying to make me feel like an asshole every second I'm not driving a solar-mobile I would actually stop and listen......

Here's a hint, since I know my previous post will attract flies:

Appeal to something I am directly connected with. Hit me where it hurts....the wallet!

Tell me I need to drive ethanol mobiles because oil reserves are drying up, and the price of gas is gonna skyrocket sometime within the next century.

Tell the government that creating an ethanol market and industry will vastly increase our economy, strip us of our shackles to the Mid East, especially considering the recent comments by the Saudis on Iraq.....

Tell Michigan that pioneering ethanol (even though it's been done before) will make Detroit the Motor Capital once again, and re-vigorate our dying economy.

Appeal to 20, 50, 100, 500 years down the road hasn't worked. So provide other incentives for cleaning up our act. Everyone responds to money, so argue that from now on and stop telling me I'm being a naughty boy and polluting the world and we're all gonna die, etc etc....

At 1/4/07 10:37 PM, yodd wrote: it is a known fact earth is coming out of an ice-age. It is also proven Cracatoa (sorry, dont know how to spell) did more damage on earth temperature than all the cars ever run.

Krakatoa (or Krakatau) did indeed have a tremendous effect on global climate. Which brings me to a point I would like to make...

... what about the theory that this is just the natural turn of events for our planet? I'm not saying this is what is happening... I'm just putting it out there as a theory. There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of contribution from us humans.

Our atmosphere was created by the very things we are saying are "harming" our planet. We're currently on our third atmosphere, after the previous one was through our 'hot' period, this one came about after a cooling of the planet. So, who's to say that this third atmosphere isn't our going into a fourth atmosphere and therefore into another 'hot' period?

I'm not dimissing the fact that our industry etc is contributing but maybe we're just speeding up a process that's already on the cards for our planet?

If the eruption of Krakatoa caused such a violent and world wide shift in climate what's going to happen when Yellow Stone Park goes up, or indeed even Anak Krakatau?

At 1/5/07 12:40 AM, Imperator wrote: Appeal to something I am directly connected with. Hit me where it hurts....the wallet!

Unfortunately, because we're dragging our heels as far as alternative energy sources go, running cleaner will, at least in the short term, cost more. :(

I mean, seriously... why the #$%& don't we have solar energy widely available? WTF is up with that?

Tell me I need to drive ethanol mobiles because oil reserves are drying up, and the price of gas is gonna skyrocket sometime within the next century.

Been there, done that... hasn't seemed to work yet. And when it does, everyone spews crap about how Corn Ethanol is the wave of the future, when it takes more fossil fuels to produce than it saves through its use. SUgar Ethanol is nearly 5 times more efficient (and actually does save us in fossil fuels)... but then again, our farmers grow corn, not cane... funny how that works out.

Tell the government that creating an ethanol market and industry will vastly increase our economy, strip us of our shackles to the Mid East, especially considering the recent comments by the Saudis on Iraq.....

We have been... and yet see previous issues with corn ethanol. Lobbyists are even stripping this good idea of its merit.

Tell Michigan that pioneering ethanol (even though it's been done before) will make Detroit the Motor Capital once again, and re-vigorate our dying economy.

Would be nice, wouldn't it? If it weren't for Google right now I wouldn't be able to afford to finish college. And, unfortunately, their 1200 jobs isn't enough... we need something else to get us out of this funk.

Appeal to 20, 50, 100, 500 years down the road hasn't worked. So provide other incentives for cleaning up our act. Everyone responds to money, so argue that from now on and stop telling me I'm being a naughty boy and polluting the world and we're all gonna die, etc etc....

Unfortunately, with the current state of things, all the cost happens now in the short term, and the benefits are all (barely noticible) long-term. Which is one of the main reasons (I believe) that so many people argue so vehemently against the very concept of global warming. It's the same reason most idiots don't invest... why pay now to get major benefits in 30-40 years when you can get minor benefits now cheaper?

Re: Alternative fuels...

... I can run my Landie on Chip oil/fat. More friendlier than Diesel/Petrol... and you can't argue a price tag of FREE.

I think lines are getting blurred with the whole Global Climate Change issue. Are people penalising motorists for driving gas guzzlers for spewing out CO2 etc or because there isn't enough fuel to go around any more(huge exaggeration I know)?

Part of the global issues are fossil fuels too. The burning of them churns out CO2 - but we are now looking at running out of fossil fuels in the future.

This might be a good thing, because then we won't have any fossil fuels left to burn and destroy our atmosphere - but on the other hand I am sure we could find something wrong with running on chip oil.

Until such a time though, I shall continue to drive about in my 2.5 TDi Defender. No amount of taxes (stupid or otherwise) will stop me. :)

I don't understand why you guys seem to think that carbon dioxide doesn't cause any warming. It's a greenhouse gas, it lets light in and prevents heat from getting out.

And everyone bashes Al Gore with these conspiracy claims that his documentary is a work of fiction devised to further his agenda and scare people shitless. What exactly is Al Gore's agenda these days? I always thought it was preventing climate change. It's not like his documentary was a box office hit, he probably lost more money on it then he made.

You all just seem so oblivious with this high on your horse attitude that protecting the environment is just a bunch of lies and fiction to scare people. Oh no, the evil environmentalists want to take away our cars and make us live in caves!! It's not like any of these people are actually concerned with helping out the human race. They just want to further their own agendas of scaring people into donating money to the sierra club. You know that donation collecting is big business these days, it's right up there with Exxon Mobiles' profit margin.

But hey, I guess most of you are political sociopaths that don't really give a shit about anyone that doesn't kiss your ass around the clock and share your opinions. So by all means, continue to preach that climate change is not the fault of humans and that we should just stand by idly and watch the fireworks.

At 1/5/07 06:08 PM, AdamRice wrote: You all just seem so oblivious with this high on your horse attitude that protecting the environment is just a bunch of lies and fiction to scare people. Oh no, the evil environmentalists want to take away our cars and make us live in caves!! It's not like any of these people are actually concerned with helping out the human race. They just want to further their own agendas of scaring people into donating money to the sierra club. You know that donation collecting is big business these days, it's right up there with Exxon Mobiles' profit margin.

Adam,

There are several things that go into my posts about the environment. One thing that is absent however is a lack of concern. I am a conservationist, I grew up in rural America living close to the land and as part of nature. It wasn't a pastime or hobby, it was a way of life. Currently I live at a resort area lake and I like it since I am just a short walk from the woods. However, I hate living in an urban setting because I feel disconnected. And I do believe that nature needs to be treated with respect.

However, I do not believe the environmentalists. They are the 'soft' science of the natural sciences. Their hypothesis are not testable or reproducable in any kindof accurate or precise fashion; nor can their theories be meaningfully quantified. These are the same problems that Political Scientists struggle with in our field. Furthermore, their dire conclusions and predictions over the past thirty to forty years have been proven to be incorrect time and again. When I was your age the Earth was going to be virtually uninhabitable in ten years. That was 13/14 years ago. In terms of things such as rising sea levels have been wrong by a factor of 300%. Also there was much talk of the hole in the ozone layer back in 1988. I sat in class wondering how did we know that it wasn't a natural phenomenon? I mean we only put the first satellites in space in the 1950s, and those lacked any kindof measuring equipment. That did not come about until the 1970s or so; when we discovered the hole! Plus it was over an extreme part of the Earth; Antarctica/South Pole! Where there are no humans!

So you see my friend it is not just bashing Gore; it is using rational, independent thought to apply the scientific method to the environmentalist's claims and coming to the conclusion that they use shoddy science and have a track record of failure.

As for scare tactics fear is a good way to keep the base in line. The Republicans use their particular hot buttons and Democrats use their own set of fear mongering issues; on of which is environmentalism.

Finally, we all know the reason it is an early spring and cherry blossoms are blooming in Washington DC is that Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat, a woman and the most powerful Italian since Julius Ceaser) is now Speaker of the US House of Representatives. Life is already proving to be wonderful with the Dems in power...

At 1/4/07 10:10 PM, TheMason wrote: a) If a scientist does not agree with the consensus on the environment; he is a propagandist.

No, if a scientist not only ignores all indicators to the contrary but also distorts facts to such an extent that they become unrecognizable in a crusade to present a flawed view of a particular phenomenon to the American public, then he is a propagandist. Global warming is not a theory -- it's a fact. That humans are contributing to global warming via greenhouse gas emissions is not a theory -- it's a fact. There have been many criticisms of the book by real scientists which have refuted his thesis. If you have a subscription to Nature magazine, you can view this one.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v433/n70 23/full/433198a.html

Otherwise, have a look at these three.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ crichton-thriller-state-of-fear.html
http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Again, Michael Crichton is an author with a thinly-veiled political agenda -- he is not a scientist. He presents no new facts on global warming than those already peer-reviewed numerous times by scientists. The only thing he does different than others is to draw erroneous conclusions and spin the facts to create a propaganda novel.

Aww fuck! First there has been not one flake of snow in Detroit, MI but now we are going to get hit by El Nino!

Ok look,
Christmas Eve
Christmas Day

Great, It got darker... And after that all we got was rain. The world is ending.

At 1/6/07 11:00 AM, Begoner wrote:

Again, Michael Crichton is an author with a thinly-veiled political agenda -- he is not a scientist. He presents no new facts on global warming than those already peer-reviewed numerous times by scientists.

And yet you'll take Gore's word over any other.

Sorry, but you've screwed yourself over already.

At 1/6/07 11:30 AM, Reconstruct wrote: And yet you'll take Gore's word over any other.

Actually, all I said was that Gore was knowledgeable about global warming; I never stated that I would take his word over any other. However, I do take the word of the entire fucking scientific community over a fiction author.

Global warming is real i admit, but its also a natural cycle of the Earth isn't it? I'm not much for long paragraphs.

At 1/6/07 06:35 AM, TheMason wrote
Also there was much talk of the hole in the ozone layer back in 1988. I sat in class wondering how did we know that it wasn't a natural phenomenon? I mean we only put the first satellites in space in the 1950s, and those lacked any kindof measuring equipment. That did not come about until the 1970s or so; when we discovered the hole! Plus it was over an extreme part of the Earth; Antarctica/South Pole! Where there are no humans!

The ozone hole was a "real" problem caused by the irresponsible use of chlorofluorocarbons in air conditioners, refrigerators, other cooling applications, and in aerosol spray cans. A ban of wide spread CFC use(montreal protocol) is the reason why the ozone hole has been steadily repairing itself since. So we basically fixed this problem.
But you are completely wrong to suggest that it was some natural phenomenon. It is absurd to suggest that the hole was there before widespread use of CFC's.

And we didn't discover the hole in the 1970's. The Antarctic ozone hole was discovered in 1985 by British scientists Joesph Farman, Brian Gardiner, and Jonathan Shanklin of the British Antarctic Survey.

At 1/6/07 11:40 AM, Begoner wrote:

Actually, all I said was that Gore was knowledgeable about global warming; I never stated that I would take his word over any other. However, I do take the word of the entire fucking scientific community over a fiction author.

Heh, I'm going to go with the other "half" of the scientific community that says it's a natural cycle, which so far, has been. And I would much rather take their word than the word of those who've been saying "it's over" for the past 40 years.

At 1/6/07 05:18 PM, Reconstruct wrote: Heh, I'm going to go with the other "half" of the scientific community that says it's a natural cycle

As I previously stated, of the scientific articles published regarding global warming in 2004 (that's almost 1000 articles) not a single one posited that it was a natural cycle. So, obviously, by "half," you really mean "less than 0.1%." That's good to know.

At 1/6/07 05:18 PM, Reconstruct wrote: Heh, I'm going to go with the other "half" of the scientific community that says it's a natural cycle, which so far, has been. And I would much rather take their word than the word of those who've been saying "it's over" for the past 40 years.

Yes, it's a natural cycle; and yes, we're making it worse.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibi tgcc/images/historical03.gif

There is no "other half" of the scientific community which denies that humans are contributing to global warming. Actual geologists that think that are in the absolute minority. The main people who do that are just regular sceptics which don't work in fields relevant to geology.

Why is it that whenever a "doomsday prediction" fails to come true, people believe that the problem was only imaginary?

Let's look at Y2K... nothing happened. I guess it was all just hot air. Ozone issues... CFC reductions... guess that wasn't an issue either. Terrorist plots that don't happen... guess that was bad intel.

I obviously couldn't be because we saw the problem, came up with a solution, and it worked, could it?

People all point to these doomsday predictions that haven't come to pass as though they indicate that everything about the prediction, person behind it, and scientific community around it is functionally retarded, complete propaganda, or blatantly false. I mean, isn't it possible that the techniques used to detemine these things have evolved, and become more accurate and sophisticated over the years. Environmental science and climatology didn't even exist for the most part 50 years ago. To call the entirety of the discipline fundamentally flawed because some of the earliest predictions were off is stupid.

It's like calling Physics flawed because Newton's Laws and physiucs have been replaced by better models.

The science is evolving, which is why the predictions and models are evolving. As we gain more and more information, the models will continue to be refined. Regardless the scientific consensus remains that polluting the earth is bad, mm-kay, and not polluting will help the earth survive longer, and be more comfortable for everyone involved.

I ask again why everyone has such a hard time accepting this?

Aww fuck! First there has been not one flake of snow in Detroit, MI but now we are going to get hit by El Nino!

That's one helluvah nice suburb you live in there, whereabouts is that?

And has anyone else noticed the surge of Michiganders hitting the forums lately? Seriously, I've been talking to quite a few of us recently. Or maybe I just never noticed before?

At 1/6/07 05:10 PM, AdamRice wrote: But you are completely wrong to suggest that it was some natural phenomenon. It is absurd to suggest that the hole was there before widespread use of CFC's.

I am simply asking a rational question that thus far no environmentalist has been able to answer. We did not know about the hole in the ozone existed until we had the means to detect it. Thus no data exists before 1985; there is no data that says a hole did not exist (or did) in 1785 or 1585 or 1385, etc. I cannot say irrefutably that the hole has always existed and is a natural phenomenon; conversely I haven't heard anyone make an argument that the hole is definitavely the result of man and the industrial revolution.

Furthermore, this is why I do not consider environmentalism to be a hard science: that the original 1985 theory stating that the hole is a man-made phenomenon is THE only explanation and cannot be anything other than man-made. If someone suggests an alternate theory and examines possible weaknesses in the theory, they are labeled as absurd. This is not science; it is more like devotion to a religious dogma.

At 1/6/07 07:08 PM, Imperator wrote:

Aww fuck! First there has been not one flake of snow in Detroit, MI but now we are going to get hit by El Nino!

That's one helluvah nice suburb you live in there, whereabouts is that?

And has anyone else noticed the surge of Michiganders hitting the forums lately? Seriously, I've been talking to quite a few of us recently. Or maybe I just never noticed before?

Yeah I noticed, it's unusual since you don't see to many Michigan types anywhere on newgrounds to begin with.

At 1/6/07 11:00 AM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/4/07 10:10 PM, TheMason wrote: a) If a scientist does not agree with the consensus on the environment; he is a propagandist.

No, if a scientist not only ignores all indicators to the contrary but also distorts facts to such an extent that they become unrecognizable in a crusade to present a flawed view of a particular phenomenon to the American public, then he is a propagandist. Global warming is not a theory -- it's a fact. That humans are contributing to global warming via greenhouse gas emissions is not a theory -- it's a fact. There have been many criticisms of the book by real scientists which have refuted his thesis.

Have you read the book? Or are you like those Christian fundamentalists in the South who raised hell because their college wanted them to read the Qur'an? Are you so dogmatic that you refuse to examine contradictory views/research?

Did you know that environmental science is the only natural science that seeks universal explanations and laws? Every other science knows there are no such things as 'facts' that can be fully understood by humans. Hell, Newton's laws on gravity are no longer considered laws, except as an appeal to tradition.

Again, Michael Crichton is an author with a thinly-veiled political agenda -- he is not a scientist. He presents no new facts on global warming than those already peer-reviewed numerous times by scientists. The only thing he does different than others is to draw erroneous conclusions and spin the facts to create a propaganda novel.

Actually he is a scientist; a MD from Harvard and post-doctoral fellow at the Salk center for biological sciences and visiting writer at MIT. The only way you can impeach his credentials is to observe that he is a biologist and not a climatologist. However you CANNOT say that he is not a scientist! To do so only betrays your blind devotion to a dogma and is indicative of how trapped your thought processes are by said dogma! You refuse to evaluate alternative explanations; that is not science that is ideology.

Furthermore, there is a difference between peer review and reproducability. Environmentalist experiences cannot be reporduced anywhere in the world by any scientist of equal skill and experience. Furthermore, climatology involves too many variables for theories to be tested with any degree of accuracy. The only thing that can be tested is their conclusions and predictions; which has an impressive history of being grossly incorrect. I mean would you go to a doctor whose diagnosis tends to be off by upwards of 300%?

Also these theories cannot fully be observed. Chemistry and physics can be examined in a matter or hours and days (in some rare cases months or years). Climate change is the opposite: it is a process that takes many lifetimes to complete. The problem with this is that the data is only reliable in the West for the past hundred or so years; less in the developing world. Therefore any pre-twentith century data is exceptionally corrupted.

And where in the scientific method does it allow for consensus? Only a few hundred years ago there were people who believed the Earth was flat! There was a consensus! Guess what; it was wrong.

And are you really so naive as to think that the 'peers' that reveiw these conclusions are not motivated by a sense of self-preservation? They have a critical stake in the success of environmentalism as a funding, political and economic reasons for their continued importance and reason for existance. Furthermore, if you were a climatologist studying global warming would you really accept information that would show your 'science' is grossly unreliable? These 'real' scientists are just as much slaves to the dollar as anyone else.

All Crichton says is that environmentalism as a science is fundamentally flawed; and that is why his research CHANGED HIS MIND. HE WAS AN ENVIRONMENTALIST! Why would he add anything new? Since environmentalism maybe fundamentaly flawed, whould he want to add to a false base of data? I mean you do nothing to truly defeat his thesis; you misrepresent facts such as Crichton's scientific credentials and then expect us to believe your theory that Crichton is the propagandist!

Al Gore his heating the atmosphere with all his hot air to promote his movie.

Come on mason, the ozone problem was big enough to attract world wide attention and cause the enactment of the kyoto protocol which called for a ban of all CFC's by the year 2000. The ozone hole has been repairing itself(getting smaller since O3 concentration is increasing) since CFC use decreased.

We even went over this in my chemistry class last year. The interactions of chlorofluoro carbons, halons, and carbon tetrachloride on O3(ozone) molecules breaks them down into O2 and free oxygen radicals. The biggest problem with CFC's is that they have a tendency to linger in the atmosphere for long periods of time. That combined with the upwards cyclone wind effect over antarctica drives them high up into the stratosphere (location of the ozone layer) where they are able to do maximum damage.

If you really want I can outline the chemical reaction sequences of how a CFC destroys and ozone molecule.

Darn it, I accidentally wrote down "kyoto protocol", please excuse me, what I meant to say was that the ozone hole attracted enough worldwide attention to cause the enactment of the montreal protocol.

At 1/6/07 08:01 PM, AdamRice wrote: We even went over this in my chemistry class last year.

What!? Did you seriously just use a high school class as a source to one up Mason? Mason is one of the most educated people on the BBS. Don't ever throw in a high school class for anything other than experiences ever again.

At 1/6/07 06:29 PM, Ravariel wrote: Why is it that whenever a "doomsday prediction" fails to come true, people believe that the problem was only imaginary?

I don't believe that it was 'only imaginary'; what I think is that the conclusion and consensus of modern 'real scientists' is fundamentally flawed and the basis of their science must be reconsidered due to their total lack of success...

Let's look at Y2K... nothing happened. I guess it was all just hot air. Ozone issues... CFC reductions... guess that wasn't an issue either. Terrorist plots that don't happen... guess that was bad intel.

Correlation does NOT prove causation; it only implies it. The Y2K virus and terrorism involve infinately less variables than climatology and rising sea levels. Therefore it is quite easy to identify the cause and effect processes at play.

This is not propaganda; it is the scientific method. Yes I am a political scientist and not a natural scientist. But I have taken the hard sciences (I started by collegiate career as an engineering student) to include geology. Furthermore, behavioral sciences such as poly sci do rely upon the scientific method to design and test phenomenon that we observe. However, more often than not we have to deal with phenomenon that involve a multitude of variables that (like environmentalist sciences) cannot be fully controlled for.

I obviously couldn't be because we saw the problem, came up with a solution, and it worked, could it?

People all point to these doomsday predictions that haven't come to pass as though they indicate that everything about the prediction, person behind it, and scientific community around it is functionally retarded, complete propaganda, or blatantly false. I mean, isn't it possible that the techniques used to detemine these things have evolved, and become more accurate and sophisticated over the years. Environmental science and climatology didn't even exist for the most part 50 years ago. To call the entirety of the discipline fundamentally flawed because some of the earliest predictions were off is stupid.

I do not say that environmental sciences are completely useless. But how long of a history of failure do you need to realize that the discipline is fundamentally flawed? This is not science nor rational. The scientific method dictates that the fundamental tenets the science is built upon must be re-evaluated and figured out where things went wrong, since the current refinements are built upon these grossly erroneous predictions and models...

It's like calling Physics flawed because Newton's Laws and physiucs have been replaced by better models.

No its not. Newton's laws on gravity and motion could be tested and is not negated. Things still accelerate towards the Earth at a fixed speed when dropped. The new models you discuss give a refined description of the phenomenon Newton observed; not prove them wrong. Furthermore, Newtonian physics did not make claims that have proven grossly erroneous!

The science is evolving, which is why the predictions and models are evolving. As we gain more and more information, the models will continue to be refined. Regardless the scientific consensus remains that polluting the earth is bad, mm-kay, and not polluting will help the earth survive longer, and be more comfortable for everyone involved.

That is not just 'scientific consensus', but common sense! This is where the discussion degenerates. Do you really think that just because I reject enviromentalism I want to see pollution rise? Do you really think I want to live in filth? The answer is a resounding 'No".

I ask again why everyone has such a hard time accepting this?

That environmentalism is not fundamentally flawed? That's easy; because it defies the scientific method and suffers from a dismal record of failure at being right.

Or that we need to keep the planet clean as possible? Again I refer you to my roots to see just how fundamentally flawed it is for urban environmentalists to believe they have a monopoly on caring for the planet...

At 1/6/07 08:01 PM, AdamRice wrote: If you really want I can outline the chemical reaction sequences of how a CFC destroys and ozone molecule.

No I took the same chemistry class. I also know greenhouse gasses are released by cattle when they fart!

Did you know that the largest extinction this planet has ever known is the introduction of oxygen in the atmosphere by plants? 9X% of all the Earth's species went extinct. My point is this:

LIFE CHANGES THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE BY ITS VERY EXISTANCE IS IN A STATE OF CONSTANT FLUX!

Plant life did not appear and in the space of 400 years pump enough O2 into the atmosphere to kill off almost all life on Earth! It took eons, why can't nature still be doing this? Why is that are paradigm that allows for our existance is somehow not suceptable to the natural constant of change?

This is the problem with environmental reasoning; it is so wedded to the idea that global warming and climate change is solely the fault of mankind! You do not look at (or even consider) alternative explanations! If someone frees their mind from the shackles of dogmatic thought on this issue they are treated as uncaring and uneducated buffoons!