Anthropogenic Global Warming

Topic: Anthropogenic Global Warming (Read 199326 times)

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #350 – 2015-08-21, 10:33:08

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-21, 09:29:25

You seem, ersi, to have kept yourself out of it! I'm not much involved: I'm just "regular people" — you're -by your own credence- a paragon! Be that, where you live; where others do, leave them alone — until you've shown the power of your -whatever it is!- to make things better!

You know the definition of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the failure to live up to one's own principles. You keep repeating that it's evil to take your personal pleasures away from you, while at the same time you show no concern for other people's lives. (Your views on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind.) This is hypocrisy.

I do not have this principle. I have different principles to live up to. Being as dim-visioned as you are, you have not yet identified my principles properly, but even so it should be clear to you that I have no obligations to your principles.

Of course, you will not learn anything from this. I'm saying this simply to show that you are not fooling anybody but yourself here. Stay fooled as you wish.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #351 – 2015-08-21, 13:32:18

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-21, 03:20:14

You'd task much of the world (and its future generations) with "correcting" such by poverty and privation?
Because you feel guilty?

Where's the "poverty" and "privation" at desiring a sustainable development?
Sustainability it's your best investment. Learn that.

I would feel guilty only if I insisted in keeping the destructive model you're defending.
I don't think that the course the western world has taken since (and including) the industrial revolution to be the best one at many aspects.

People at the richer nations are getting an increasing awareness of these problems and organizing themselves into pressure and activist groups so we can say that at least we tried to change.
Because you'll have to explain that to your grand children, why you did nothing.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #352 – 2015-08-21, 16:43:04

Quote from: Belfrager on 2015-08-21, 13:32:18

Because you'll have to explain that to your grand children, why you did nothing.

Nah. When his grandchildren approach him with this question, he will just play dumb and sip his whisky. It seems to have worked throughout his life thus far.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #353 – 2015-08-21, 20:41:59

It is hard to read this topic without losing faith in humanity.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #354 – 2015-08-22, 03:45:37

@Belfrager: The industrial "revolution" and free-market capitalism have done more to support and improve the lives of more people than any other system or ism; and only a fool would fail to recognize that increasing prosperity is the only sure way to afford the clean-up of pollution and the development of non-polluting alternative energy sources.
Unless, of course, you're willing to condemn millions, perhaps billions to a life that is ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"… (If you sincerely believe that only their "salvation" matters, preach! But don't "preach" Earthly Salvation via one of the oldest catechisms — Utopianism. You're either too smart to have fallen for such yourself or not smart enough to convince anyone else.)

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-21, 02:33:08

You keep repeating that it's evil to take your personal pleasures away from you, while at the same time you show no concern for other people's lives.

Please read what I posted directly above…
How is the welfare of the world's poor merely one of my "personal pleasures"? How do you yourself explain your own "spiritual" cupidity, ersi? Bah! Go flog yourself.

Quote from: ensbb3 on 2015-08-21, 12:41:59

It is hard to read this topic without losing faith in humanity.

When you consider the number of prominent "scientists" who think the earth's "carrying capacity" of humans is two billion or less and who are willing to consider various means of "achieving" this "sustainable" number, I tend to agree with you.
But when you consider the actual science they've published to support this view, and how relatively few these scientists are — it doesn't look quite so bad.
There seem to always have been apocalyptic cults… And Man has survived.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #355 – 2015-08-22, 04:05:28

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-22, 03:45:37

Please read what I posted directly above…
How is the welfare of the world's poor merely one of my "personal pleasures"?

But it is. Because you are preaching from your own comfortable situation, when even your immediate neighbours don't share the same comforts (wealth and income inequality), so the claim that industrial revolution and free-market capitalism have done more to support and improve the lives of people than anything else is highly contentious, to say the least. And somehow you manage to mention non-polluting alternative energy sources now when thus far you denied that pollution even exists, so evidently this is a secondary or tertiary thing that you bring up as it suits your propaganda, while prosperity is primary. Further, you assume that anywhere else than under industrially revolutionary free-market capitalism, people's lives are solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Do you hear what you're saying? Hardly.

If prosperity matters, there are far more prosperous countries than the United States. But the main point is ecological sustainability. The United States colonises the rest of the world in order to sustain itself. This is not sustainable. There's nothing free-market about economic and military colonisation.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #356 – 2015-08-22, 06:32:22

I confess, I did expect you, ersi, to recognize the reference to David Hume… Sorry. I had no idea that your ignorance was so extensive.

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-21, 20:05:28

thus far you denied that pollution even exists

I've maintained that CO₂ is no more a "pollutant" than Oxygen or Nitrogen or any other component of earth's atmosphere. Likewise, radioisotopes shall likely prove useful (…but I admit that nuclear weapons for use on this planet are a poor use).
Your moral sense warps how you see things. But I'm sure it's very systematic!

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-21, 20:05:28

But the main point is ecological sustainability.

Then you're stuck between a rock (the nature of science and technology) and a hard place (human nature)! Not to mention the fairly established fact that the earth has never possessed what you call "ecological sustainability"…
But -by all means- save the world, by eating your vegetables!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #357 – 2015-08-22, 09:44:24

Economy and other discussion about human nature belongs better in the economy thread. I think I can rationally expect you to score even lower there than you have here.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #358 – 2015-08-22, 14:18:53

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-22, 03:45:37

@Belfrager: The industrial "revolution" and free-market capitalism [...]

I'm not discussing it per se but it's implications and consequences towards ecological systems. I keep defending a sustainable development and you keep not saying a word about it. Well, your silence about it says it all...

Besides, you're not even defending "free-market capitalism" but "amoral free-market capitalism" that puts a few industries profits above anyone's else right to a life with dignity and to pass to the next generations a better, not a worst world.

And I don't buy that you're defending the "American Way of Life". I'm certain many other Americans completely disagrees with
you.
This is not about defending countries or theories but about defending our common house as my ignorant Pope said...

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #359 – 2015-08-22, 16:50:27

Funny how Oakdale sees no connection between industrial pollution and ecology, while there's a straightforward causal link from industrial revolution to prosperity, non-polluting alternative energy sources, generosity, wisdom, and whatnot. Go figure.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #360 – 2015-08-22, 22:04:51

Tying two threads together here: Belfrager is thinking of getting into farming.

Funny thing about farming-- you either produce a lot of CO2, or you need a lot of CO2. It all depends on whether you raise animals or plants.

Animals produce CO2, as well as methane and maybe a couple of other greenhouse gasses. Plants use CO2 the same way animals use oxygen. Plants need CO2 to be able to breathe. So--- if you have a field devoted to growing corn, you NEED a lot of CO2 to make your plants thrive.

Just so's you know--- one man's pollutant is a plant's medicine.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #361 – 2015-08-22, 23:47:15

You know that saying, "Follow the money"? Well, it seems that if you do that, the trail leads to some fascinating places--- and not necessarily the ones you'd expect.

Have a look at this trail.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/22/climate-crisis-inc/

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #362 – 2015-08-23, 05:01:32

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-22, 08:50:27

Go figure.

Pray-tell: What advances in technology or living standard (of anyone except themselves!) have any of the Prophets of Doom™ produced?

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-22, 01:44:24

Economy and other discussion about human nature belongs better in the economy thread. I think I can rationally expect you to score even lower there than you have here.

When the water-boy thinks he should be quarterback or coach, most people laugh at him. When he laughs back, they just realize how goofy he is…

(Of course, you probably think football is a bunch of guys just running up and down a lawn…)
The "economy thread" never went anywhere — and that's where you'd prefer to stay! Sobeit. But what makes you competent to advise others that they should do the same?
More cogently: What secures your moral authority to implore (or to ask government to impel) them to?

I don't think you have what should be called a morality: You have tics and twitches, grievances and grudges, and a woefully grandiose (…nice term, no?

) estimation of your intellect!

Eat your vegetables! Save the world… (I'm afraid you'll become an agent of the Tiffids! But -still!- I think men will win.

)
——————————————————————————————
@mjm: I seldom read WattsUp… But -for those interested in "politics" and environmentalism, my own state is considering this!

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #363 – 2015-08-23, 06:29:14

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-23, 05:01:32

Pray-tell: What advances in technology or living standard (of anyone except themselves!) have any of the Prophets of Doom™ produced?

What living standard has any prophet of anything produced? Prophet means messenger. It's not a messenger's job to produce anything.

As soon as I mention someone who produced anything, such as the wind-up radio or ice energy storage system, you say they are not prophets, but inventors. And you'd be right, because it's the inventors who do stuff, not prophets. They are different functions. So, your question is malformed.

But we have already had a thread about someone who lives according to the extreme ecological ideals https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=452.0

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #364 – 2015-08-23, 07:23:37

That thread was still-born, ersi, and you know it!

The "wind-up" radio…?

How about the 50-mpg carburetor that runs on water for fuel?

(All the major American auto manufacturers bought it, and buried it… Surely, you know that!?) ersi, your intellect is what's malformed.

If you can't understand anyone else's language (…and I mean anyone's — a single other human being!) why do you keep posting? (Are you going to get a certificate for your English facility? I'd applaud it! You've done well; extremely well. But your comprehension will, I hope, not be a factor: You are like a 7-year old who can make almost all of the sounds but understands so little of the world that he knows next to nothing of what goes on there!) Take your rude and ignorant self back to school.
Your parents failed you. Would you likewise be a failure…?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #365 – 2015-08-23, 09:02:14

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-23, 07:23:37

If you can't understand anyone else's language...

Such as your queer use of the word "prophet" in your previous post? It's enough for me to understand that you don't understand the language you call your own.

Btw, the competition between solar energy and wind-up technology is tight http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #366 – 2015-08-23, 12:02:31

This is what matters.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #367 – 2015-08-23, 14:19:38

@Belfrager

Since "profitable" or "prosperous" is missing in your bubble chart, Oakdale will only giggle at it.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #368 – 2015-08-23, 15:11:28

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-23, 14:19:38

@Belfrager

Since "profitable" or "prosperous" is missing in your bubble chart, Oakdale will only giggle at it.

He will not. The chart automatically reduces his margin for manoeuvre...
Let's see what his arguments are... that he only sees the pink circle in his monitor?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #369 – 2015-08-23, 15:16:26

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-08-22, 22:04:51

Funny thing about farming-- you either produce a lot of CO2, or you need a lot of CO2. It all depends on whether you raise animals or plants.

That's correct for extensive, large scale industrial agricultural production.
Therefore the need for small, local and based at permaculture's principles kind of farms. That's the only way of keeping the cycle balanced.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #370 – 2015-08-24, 02:19:25

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-23, 01:02:14

Btw, the competition between solar energy and wind-up technology is tight http://www.scidev.net/global/icts/feature/solar-vs-windup-in-radio-power-contest.html

I haven't read the article you linked to yet. But I have a question:

Which, solar or wind-up powers the broadcaster?

(I'd bet, nuclear, coal or hydroelectric… You'd miss the point.)
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
@ersi and Belfrager: Don't give me Venn diagrams… Give me a readable proof of the Four Color Theorem!
Seriously, guys: You'd be happy with most of humanity (…actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence? You both only offer "solutions" that require our planet's population to be considerably less than it is now… Who do you "nominate" for extinction?
Or are you just silly pseudo-intellectuals who've chosen their fad to follow, regardless?

Have you guys figured out what to do about the heat-death of the Universe yet?

BTW, Belfrager: The diagram is the skeleton of an argument. You have to "flesh it out" for it to mean much of anything…

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #371 – 2015-08-24, 04:45:57

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-24, 02:19:25

...most of humanity (…actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence?

I told you so, Belfrager.

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #372 – 2015-08-24, 10:53:16

Quote from: ersi on 2015-08-24, 04:45:57

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-24, 02:19:25

...most of humanity (…actual living people!) condemned to poverty and pestilence?

I told you so, Belfrager.

Indeed...

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #373 – 2015-08-26, 06:14:47

If I understand ersi and Belfrager correctly (…correct me, if I'm wrong), only those willing to be subsistence farmers deserve to live… Else, they're a drain -if not a pox!- on dear old long suffering mother Earth.

I have no problem with either gentlemen becoming drop-outs. (Intellectually, they've already succeeded.) Nor do I mind their preaching their catechism. What I do take exception to is their insistence that the world's governments coerce others to do likewise — which will, given certain realities, cause great harm.
Probably, not to ersi or Belfrager; and not likely to me, either. But they both claim some sort of moral stance for their views, which will -on the kindest realistic interpretation- result in catastrophe — while the menace they "battle" might, on scant evidence, eventually do so…
Typical Europeans, I'd say.
(They did, after all, give us Communism, Fascism and Nazi-ism… And Socialism! [Such a meek and mild way to crush individuals…])

To ersi I'd ask: What -other than "feel-good" projects- has the "science" of ecology accomplished?
To Belfrager I'd ask: What keeps you from being what you were meant to be…?

Re: Anthropogenic Global Warming

Reply #374 – 2015-08-26, 06:57:02

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-26, 06:14:47

If I understand ersi and Belfrager correctly (…correct me, if I'm wrong), only those willing to be subsistence farmers deserve to live… Else, they're a drain -if not a pox!- on dear old long suffering mother Earth.

If I understand Oakdale correctly (...correct me, if I'm wrong), only the prosperous deserve to live. Other people may live if they accept the crumbs from the dumps and wastebins of the prosperous. Such dumps and wastebins only contain good nutritious and natural stuff - it's coming from the prosperous after all, so don't even dare to think otherwise!

On the other hand, if the not-so-well-off get in their heads to become subsistence farmers, they are a crazy environmentalist cult like Scientology, or drop-outs from society, Commie Fascists, obviously not humble enough to deserve to live. If they somehow manage to make a living, their lives are to be brutish and short.

Edit:

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2015-08-26, 06:14:47

To ersi I'd ask: What -other than "feel-good" projects- has the "science" of ecology accomplished?

What is a non-feel-good project that any science has accomplished? You never define your terms, so answer is impossible.