Scientists: 'No question' that man-made warming exists'

[Decker]

So, the scientists claiming global warming is anthropogenic and is a serious threat are legit because "everything that is done by man is done with some modicum of self-interest."

Interesting, because I keep hearing in the news about the oil companies being so selfish, and thus we can't trust anything they publish about global warming.

I guess it's ok for someone to be selfish if you agree with them.

As for Clinton, it's pretty naive to think that she "answers to the people" moreso than a private company. Since this is true, we should nationalize the oil industry that way it can "answer to the people" better. Maybe Chavez was on to something

By the way, that clip of Clinton was her saying she wants to take Exxon Mobile's profits. Sounds to me like she doesn't even want to answer to the Constitution.

You miss the point in an obfuscative blitz of enormous proportions.

Are you aware there are degrees of Selfish activity?

Do you acknowledge the fundamental tension between the ego/self and the superego/society?

The strong urges of self-interest are tempered to meet the demands of society. Unless of course you get your kicks taking the life savings of women and children--like Bush's boy Ken Lay.

Clinton is a senator who is accountable to her constituency. I would hardly equate the accountability of oil corps to its investors as being on the same level.

 

[Decker]

....all it is his guess.

Yes, it is an educated guess. It's a hypothesis that follows from empirical data incorporated in countless environmental models by eminent scientists.

You say that you come to your conclusions through common sense analysis. What is science but a practice in informed common sense: Common sense at a higher level. A scientist knows more info and knows how to analyze it better than the average guy--namely you.

 

[DOMS]

Clinton is a senator who is accountable to her constituency. I would hardly equate the accountability of oil corps to its investors as being on the same level.

Every politician that makes it to that level is more beholden to special interests than they are to the average citizen. The system is setup to ensure that.

 

[DOMS]

Yes, it is an educated guess. It's a hypothesis that follows from empirical data incorporated in countless environmental models by eminent scientists.

You say that you come to your conclusions through common sense analysis. What is science but a practice in informed common sense: Common sense at a higher level. A scientist knows more info and knows how to analyze it better than the average guy--namely you.

The difference is that BoneCrusher is saying that some "is" based on his opinions and I'm saying that something "isn't proven" by my opinion. Said another way, he's trying to reach a conclusion and I'm saying that there isn't enough information (facts) to reach a conclusion.

There is a very big difference.

 

[Decker]

Every politician that makes it to that level is more beholden to special interests than they are to the average citizen. The system is setup to ensure that.

I agree. But the system wasn't set up that way in our constitution. Removing the personhood status of corporations is the first step. The second step is the national funding of federal elections. There's probably a third step but I have to get back to work.

Also, there is still no comparison between the special interest laden politician and big oil. It still comes down to some form of accountability in elections for politicians. It could be better though.

 

[DOMS]

I agree. But the system wasn't set up that way in our constitution. Removing the personhood status of corporations is the first step. The second step is the national funding of federal elections. There's probably a third step but I have to get back to work.

I agree 100% with the above.

Also, there is still no comparison between the special interest laden politician and big oil. It still comes down to some form of accountability in elections for politicians. It could be better though.

This I disagree with. How about the affect of the Japanese special interest group back in the late 80's and early 90's? That fucked us up pretty good.

While oil is a more powerful special interest group, there are way more smaller groups that I believe have a much larger effect. In the sense that 100 "ones" is more than a single "10".

 

[Decker]

The difference is that BoneCrusher is saying that some "is" based on his opinions and I'm saying that something "isn't proven" by my opinion. Said another way, he's trying to reach a conclusion and I'm saying that there isn't enough information (facts) to reach a conclusion.

There is a very big difference.

I'm not addressing the epistemological relevance of Bonecrusher's or your arguments; that's why I erased it.

Your whole game is that the empirical evidence out there does not show that man has any qualitative effect on the GHG process. That conclusion from you comes from your common sense analysis.

I support the informed conclusions of the climatologists. That's all.

If we wait for the predictive facet of science to kick in (realized in fact), it may be a bit too late. Does smoking contribute to higher occurrences of lung cancer? No way according to big tobacco. Later science was able to confirm what was always suspected. Why wait until we lung cancer until we do something? Before you start, I know that all analogies break down.

 

[DOMS]

Your whole game is that the empirical evidence out there does not show that man has any qualitative effect on the GHG process. That conclusion from you comes from your common sense analysis.

I support the informed conclusions of the climatologists. That's all.

It's those same climatologists that came up with Gore's chart! You know, the one he, and other global warming pundits, base most of his stance on? It's their own chart that shows the relationship between CO2 and the mean temperature isn't what they say it is.

If we wait for the predictive facet of science to kick in, it may be a bit too late. Does smoking contribute to higher occurrences of lung cancer? No way according to big tobacco. Later science was able to confirm what was always suspected. Why wait until we lung cancer until we do something? Before you start, I know that all analogies break down.

You're trying to tie in the fallacy of global warming with a different (put proven) topic. But I'll entertain it anyway.

Yes, you do wait. You wait until it can be proven so that people don't jump to conclusions and waste money (and resources). You do it intelligently, not emotionally. When you do that, you get crap like the Kyoto Protocol.

 

[Arnold]

DOMS and Decker, why don't you two just have your little political arguments via PM's?

 

[Decker]

DOMS and Decker, why don't you two just have your little political arguments via PM's?

It's your forum Robert. You'll do as you like. However, outside of one or two posts tangential to the topic at hand, I fail to see why we should not continue.

 

[Decker]

....You do it intelligently, not emotionally. When you do that, you get crap like the Kyoto Protocol.

I still think the common sense of the climatologists is an informed common sense and superior to your position. I do not see emotion getting in the way of their conclusions other than a common impulse for self-preservation.

 

[BigDyl]

I still think the common sense of the climatologists is an informed common sense and superior to your position. I do not see emotion getting in the way of their conclusions other than a common impulse for self-preservation.

 

[maniclion]

It's your forum Robert. You'll do as you like. However, outside of one or two posts tangential to the topic at hand, I fail to see why we should not continue.

Because when you post to the boards it takes up more server time which produces heat which gets dispersed into the ambient atmosphere, but thats not all, think about everyone who has to refresh the thread and see what was posted and how much heat each of there computers is producing and then you'll see why Rob is so concerned.

 

[DOMS]

I still think the common sense of the climatologists is an informed common sense and superior to your position. I do not see emotion getting in the way of their conclusions other than a common impulse for self-preservation.

You don't think that emotion plays a big role in global warming? You think it was a calculated use of intelligence that produced the Kyoto Protocol?

In any case, none of that changes the fact that you still haven't produced any real proof that man has influenced the world's temperature. All you've done is say "The scientists told me so!" and produce some very valid facts...that still don't prove your point.

 

[DOMS]

It's your forum Robert. You'll do as you like. However, outside of one or two posts tangential to the topic at hand, I fail to see why we should not continue.

I think it's his way of saying that we need more pics of hot, but not nude, chicks.

Think of it as "homo warming". If you don't have enough hot chicks in a thread, it turns gay.