Global Warming Cont...

[daybreaker2]

i don't have time to reply point by point. either your original argument was against consideration for future generations, or you we nit-picking semantics. your argument has been, and remains to be, silly on its face. it does not require a rebuttal. i am finished.

Thats just how rand and guiss are. They present the most ridiculous arguments, that make no sense, and refuse to answer any questions, until you give up and they claim victory.

WE all know that their "How dare you claim we need to stop global warming for future generations... what about the generations that WOULD have existed if there WAS global warming" argument is so completely stupid as to border on actual mental retardation (and seriously, have you guys been tested for that, rand and guiss? Because I'm really worried. It could explain a lot).

[randerizer]

Thats just how rand and guiss are. They present the most ridiculous arguments, that make no sense, and refuse to answer any questions, until you give up and they claim victory.

WE all know that their "How dare you claim we need to stop global warming for future generations... what about the generations that WOULD have existed if there WAS global warming" argument is so completely stupid as to border on actual mental retardation (and seriously, have you guys been tested for that, rand and guiss? Because I'm really worried. It could explain a lot).

I still stand by the argument. There is no operable value we can place on future generations.

[Bigdog13]

I still stand by the argument. There is no operable value we can place on future generations.

Well it's easy to make that statement when you don't value any life but your own or those that can help your life.

[Guisslapp]

Thats just how rand and guiss are. They present the most ridiculous arguments, that make no sense, and refuse to answer any questions, until you give up and they claim victory.

WE all know that their "How dare you claim we need to stop global warming for future generations... what about the generations that WOULD have existed if there WAS global warming" argument is so completely stupid as to border on actual mental retardation (and seriously, have you guys been tested for that, rand and guiss? Because I'm really worried. It could explain a lot).

Sometimes things that are over your head actually seem stupid. Maybe it is you who lacks the mental ability to understand the paradox. Your argument that

(1) there will be a future generation of some sort, and
(2) it would be better to make that future better for whatever future generation that is

lacks any true moral calculus. It is just an assertion, and it makes sense to you because it appeals to you at an emotional level. Explain how an indeterminate group can have moral value to a moral decision maker. Furthermore, if there is a positive right, explain what creates the positive right.

[saltydawg]

Sometimes things that are over your head actually seem stupid. Maybe it is you who lacks the mental ability to understand the paradox. Your argument that

(1) there will be a future generation of some sort, and
(2) it would be better to make that future better for whatever future generation that is

lacks any true moral calculus. It is just an assertion, and it makes sense to you because it appeals to you at an emotional level. Explain how an indeterminate group can have moral value to a moral decision maker. Furthermore, if there is a positive right, explain what creates the positive right.

If you are a senior citizen and have several grandchildren and grand-grandchildren, it is not a moral abstraction about the kind of world they will live in in 50 or 70 years from now. Most people make emotional decisions. Even Ayn Rand recognized that happiness is when our values are fulfilled.

What the world will be like in 500 years is difficult to imagine so, yes, let the people that are alive then (if any) worry about their situation, but for the youngsters alive today, we do have a moral responsibility to leave the planet a better place than we found it.

[saltydawg]

At least SOME States are not asleep at the switch.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...beco.html#more

[saltydawg]

For something that isn't happening, global warming is sure having an impact on the world's economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...eaecono110.xml

[randerizer]

For something that isn't happening, global warming is sure having an impact on the world's economy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...eaecono110.xml

In a way, this might be a little like us spending huge sums of money going after those WMDs that we knew were present in Iraq.

In all seriousness, there is little doubt that global warming hysteria (a word I'll use, but you might disagree with it) is creating markets that might otherwise not exist. That means there is money to be made by doing things that are or appear to be (in some cases, but not all, appearances really are deceiving) green. If people want to sacrifice certain inefficiencies to be (or to be perceived) as green, environmentally-conscious, etc., then by all means they should. And if enough people choose to do that, there will certainly be a change in market dynamics.

^ Until someone can demonstrate a reason for me to believe that humans are driving the warming trends that currently appear to be present, I will continue to believe that you are wasting your time and needlessly sacrificing your quality of life. But, as long as your solution stays grassroots, I've got no gripe with it.

[saltydawg]

Some good news. Global warming could mean fewer hurricanes hitting the US.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html

[arkansasbob]

Some good news. Global warming could mean fewer hurricanes hitting the US.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...urricanes.html

are you saying that all that certain and well-established science might not have been quite as certain as you thought?

09-11-2007, 07:22 AM - What the AGW crowd was saying back then (and are still saying) is that there will more more of the CAT 5 storms since the surface water temperatures are increasing. This has been shown by science to be true.

08-01-2007, 10:34 AM - OH no, Soonerdawg will be dumping a load when he reads this.....



Global Warming Causing More Atlantic Hurricanes (Update2)
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.

July 30 (Bloomberg) -- Global warming is causing more frequent hurricanes in the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, according to a study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The increased frequency of tropical cyclones ``is largely a response'' to a 1 degree Celsius rise in sea water temperatures since 1905 that was caused by greenhouse gases, the study found. Since 1995, the North Atlantic has experienced an average of 15 tropical storms a year, of which eight became strong enough to be called hurricanes. That compares with 10 tropical storms and five hurricanes per year from 1930 to 1994, the report says.

``There is an 80 percent chance that the majority of the current increases have been impacted by global warming,'' said Greg Holland, director of the research center in Boulder, Colorado, and co-author of the study. ``The bad news is that we've gone up in numbers overall, and in the proportion of major hurricanes as well.''


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...M&refer=canada

05-24-2007, 08:29 AM - Hurricanes are driven by water temperatures. AGW doesn't mean a change in the number of hurricanes, just that there will be more of the most intense ones.

Note: the reasercher in the above mentioned article made his conclusions based on indirect geologic evidence. Conclusions about the effect of AGW on hurricane intensity are based on current observations of sub-surface water temperatures.
05-26-2007, 12:33 PM - What i'm saying is that the intensity of hurricanes is directly related to near surface water temperatures. That has been proven by modern science. The "little ice age" you refer to occurred in Europe.......what the sea temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were during those years is not established to the best of my knowledge.

As far as El Nino and African Monsoon are concerned, it seems they are related to the frequency of hurricanes.

[Guisslapp]

Doh!

[dawg80]

Full disclosure: again, I have to state my position on the GW issue, and that is, my beef is there is still no true scientific evidence that can categorically prove that man is contributing to GW to an extent that it makes any difference. Okay, I am NOT saying that man's activities do or don't, just that there is no real science that supports it.

Recently, 60 Minutes did a story on GW, and their reporter even stood on the ice cap, showing melting and said, look, man is causing the ice to melt. Hmmmm, where was even a mention that geologists have shown that the ice cap is affected by a magma dome that has risen closer to the surface? A "fair" report should have included mention of that fact. But, instead, CBS, locked onto the GW bandwagon purposely ignored that fact and painted a picture that the ice is melting stictly due to man's activities.

Ah, fortunately, the magma dome was mentioned on a FOX report. Glad I was able to find "fair" somewhere.

[dawg80]

BTW, I support the notion that the US needs to ween itself off of oil, as much as possible. I understand that won't be practicle on a wide-ranging basis, i.e. vehicles work best on gasoline, period. But there are other opportunities to reduce the use of fossil fuels. And wherever it is possible, we should be actively pursuing it. This should include the use of nuclear energy. If you are concerned about putting CO2 into the atmosphere, well then, hello! Yes, the issue of disposal of spent rods, etc. must be solved, but it is worth pursuing. And wherever it is feasible, wind, solar, and hydroelectric energy needs to be used.

The US needs to become energy independent for political and economic reasons. And, as a sidebar, if that also helps the environment, well then great!

[saltydawg]

are you saying that all that certain and well-established science might not have been quite as certain as you thought?

No, not at all. Good to see you accepting AGW as a valid concept.:icon_wink:

[arkansasbob]

No, not at all. Good to see you accepting AGW as a valid concept.:icon_wink:

i'm having a hard time under standing. you stated that global warming would cause more hurricanes, and more intense hurricanes. you also stated, "this has been shown by science to be true," and, "this has been proven by science."

now you are saying that may not bee the case, but you're still convinced of the certainty of the science that led you to your original conclusion? please explain how you reconcile.