Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Global Warming & Statistics

<< < (2/4) > >>

Renegade:
What I find most frustrating in the "debate", though, is the lack of ... debate.
-CWuestefeld (February 02, 2013, 07:49 PM)
--- End quote ---

Debate isn't profitable. "Shut up and pay your carbon taxes" on the other hand is quite lucrative. :D

unfortunately it's another of those {"I'm for" \ "I'm against" \ "You're a plonker"} kind of 'debates' which, even just at the level of whether it's happening, is no debate at all.
-tomos (February 03, 2013, 09:26 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yep. And if you have any questions, you're a heretic. Because you're questioning a religious dogma.

I think the thing we have to most careful of is abuse and corruption - on any side e.g. it seems clear the idea of global warming is being abused for profit.
-tomos (February 03, 2013, 09:26 AM)
--- End quote ---

Follow the money. On both sides.

Dunno about other people, but when someone starts jumping up and down screaming about how I need to do this and I must do that, and somehow that ends up filling buddy's pockets? I start to get a bit skeptical. (Goes for all sides of the "issue/debate/non-debate/dogma/whatever".)

40hz:
To me, it seems to boil down (opinion-wise) that:

Those in charge of places that benefit economically from technologies that have high thermal profiles have a vested interest in diffusing the debate and generating contrarian arguments against the increasingly obvious fact we cannot continue to go down the present road we're on without suffering dire consequences.


At least it's nice to see they pulled their heads out of the usual place they keep it.

Those who live in societies that stand to be negatively impacted by changing the way they currently live (and do things) are generally opposed to dealing with the issue. And, when pushed, will lock onto any arguments "proving" there is "really nothing to worry about."

On the other hand, those who are polar bears mostly think it sucks to be drowning now that their ice flows are slowly starting to change into the consistency of giant Slurpees.

But polar bears don't pay taxes, vote, or blog - so they may be safely disregarded. Because what the heck? Any creature that's not interested in NASCAR - and is too stupid to know how to bribe politicians - deserves to go extinct, right?
 :P

tomos:
unfortunately it's another of those {"I'm for" \ "I'm against" \ "You're a plonker"} kind of 'debates' which, even just at the level of whether it's happening, is no debate at all.
-tomos (February 03, 2013, 09:26 AM)
--- End quote ---

Yep. And if you have any questions, you're a heretic. Because you're questioning a religious dogma.-Renegade (February 03, 2013, 09:42 AM)
--- End quote ---

well I think the tone on both sides leaves a lot to be desired !
I believe that if the science is good enough, it should be presented *neutrally* and pretty much let speak for itself. That way, people will actually listen. Well at least some of them will, and they'll tell others.
The tone of most skeptics' delivery is guaranteed to alienate the majority (who naturally enough presume that what they're generally being told re global warming is correct).

CWuestefeld:
the increasingly obvious fact we cannot continue to go down the present road we're on without suffering dire consequences.
...
those who are polar bears mostly think it sucks
-40hz (February 03, 2013, 09:47 AM)
--- End quote ---

With all due respect, 40hz, your comment is exactly the kind of lack of debate I'm talking about. You seem to have jumped directly from a scientific observation about climate, to a determination that high-carbon-footprint industries must be reined in, without engaging in any kind of cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. Granted, you might be turn out to be right, but you don't get any points toward winning the debate if you don't show your work: explain *why*, including the cost-benefit.

The tone of most skeptics' delivery is guaranteed to alienate the majority
-tomos (February 03, 2013, 01:03 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's true. But on the other hand, Al Gore has admitted that he's willing to exaggerate the arguments if that's what it takes to make his point. When (at least) one side of the debate (maybe both) is willing to engage in intellectual dishonesty in order to achieve their own ends, the chances of reaching the best outcome is rather poor.

mouser:
To the basement we go!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page