Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Our economy isn't just dependent on fossil fuels, it's dependent on OIL -- much more versatile than coal, packing a bigger punch, easier to transport, easier to use, less polluting, and just all-around generally better. So when declining production hits soaring demand and the price shoots through the roof, the howls will start and the switch will happen.

I was implying that the switch from oil would be to conventional coal. Coal for power generation to free up natural gas for conversion to gasoline. Peak coal won't not arrive for quite some time during which CO2 levels could get nice and high.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was implying that the switch from oil would be to conventional coal. Coal for power generation to free up natural gas for conversion to gasoline. Peak coal won't not arrive for quite some time during which CO2 levels could get nice and high.

Mike, I might have missed this. If I did, just refer me to the proper post.

What about CO2 sequestering in the ground? Is it a promising viable solution should we move toward e-vehicles and their greater dependency on stationary coal-fired e-power generation?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Freedom of speech and thought? That's the only one that I can see being threatened on this thread.

Get over yourself. Nobody's threatening your freedom of speech and thought on this thread or anywhere else here. They're just calling bullshit on your juvenile antics.

I don't know what "argument" you're talking about either. All I said is that I don't care whether or not global warming is a true theory or not.

Clearly. And that's why I don't take you seriously anymore. You won't spend the time to understand what people are discussing about this subject. It seems to be more important for you to call attention to yourself by making jokes and cute comments about people acting like "Hitler" who are somehow trying to stifle your way of life.

We all know you're going to live your life anyway you damn please.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I was implying that the switch from oil would be to conventional coal.

I understand, but we'd be facing much in the way of lifestyle constriction if we did that. I think the pressure to develop more advanced sources of energy along with improved efficiency will be high once the effects of the peak are felt.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Geez, why don't you get over YOURSELF. And why is it a problem for you if I decide to live my life the way that I want to?

I only posted on this thread in the first place to ask Marc a serious question. I also said I did think that weather goes in cycles, just like everything else. Then all of a sudden I was accused of trying to dupe the laypeople, and told that I needed to get in line with reality or else. The remarks about Hitler were not a joke at all, and I wasn't the only one to be thinking along those lines.

If you don't take me seriously, then why the hell do I bother you so much? Think about that one, if you dare.

Tell me how you've seen threats to freedom of speech or thought on this thread. I'm not talking about disagreements; I'm not talking about arguments or discussions of differences about what's causing global warming; I'm talking about threats.

Who's being threatened, and how?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Tell me how you've seen threats to freedom of speech or thought on this thread. I'm not talking about disagreements; I'm not talking about arguments or discussions of differences about what's causing global warming; I'm talking about threats.

Who's being threatened, and how?

Good question. Hopefully we will see an answer.

From my perspective, I'm trying to defend the scientific peer reviewed consensus. I'm asking those attacking the consensus for a theory that vaguely matches the data.

On the political front, I object to the administration censoring scientists working in the government. I would advocate that my representatives should take due action appropriate to the scientific consensus within constraints of all legal due process. I am not advocating use of force or suppression of those who disagree with me. (A theory that matches the data would be nice, if someone wishes to be taken seriously when addressing any scientific question, but that is science, not politics.)

For this, I have been compared to Hitler and the Inquisition. There is a potential problem in representative democracy when a government following the will of the majority spends money or forces action in ways some minority does not approve. Most any controversial issue is going to raise the specter of 'the tyranny of the majority.' This criticism is ancient, and valid. This is in part why the rights of the individual should trump the will of the majority.

I just don't see how global warming is in any way a special case, why scientific investigation and democratic due process -- two of the pillars of Western Civilization -- should be under attack with respect to global warming any more or any less than they should be assailed with respect to any other controversial issue.

Then again, this is not the only thread which gets hijacked into argument by comparison to tyranny. Hitler references, McCartnyesque accusations of 'communist,' and similar arguments by witch hunt are common. Do we need to discuss 'tyranny of the majority' in abstract, in and of itself, without tying it to a specific issue?

Bob:

I don't see how any kind of effective response to global warming is going to involve the use of torture, mass murder, or concentration camps.

I would like the Rani (and Mr. Saari, for that matter) to explain why they believed they needed to make such comparisons.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I don't see how any kind of effective response to global warming is going to involve the use of torture, mass murder, or concentration camps.

Mostly true. A mild nitpick.

I can forsee, as the biosphere changes, a need for refugee camps. Hopefully you are right as to the rest. I can concieve of worst case scenarios where ecology, economics, politics, ethnic differences and security get entangled in ugly ways. Arguably, the Darfur situation is a prototype for what might come later on a larger scale. Ecological collapse lead to poverty, too many people, too few resources, leading to ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and refugee camps.

Still, for the immediate future, I know of no one in the Green community who is actively advocating the methods you listed above as a real solution. Warlord government might be viewed as a related problem that can result from environmental collapse. The UN Security Council is spending time this week reviewing the security issues apt to result from global warming. It is well that they are. Meanwhile, warlord government is not in general seen as a solution advocated by the Green community.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I would like the Rani (and Mr. Saari, for that matter) to explain why they believed they needed to make such comparisons.

I would also like to see this.

I went back and read Bob's entire post to get the context of where that isolated quote came from. Based upon that reading, and upon my knowledge of Bob's philosophy in general, I would interpret "getting rid of the denialists" as "voting them out of positions of power."

It might be painful to those folks to be out of their cushy government jobs, but it's far from being thrown in a re-education camp.

Bob can, of course, clarify himself further.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Mostly true. A mild nitpick.

I can forsee, as the biosphere changes, a need for refugee camps.

As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, which was a humanitarian mission. I agree.

Hopefully you are right as to the rest. I can concieve of worst case scenarios where ecology, economics, politics, ethnic differences and security get entangled in ugly ways. Arguably, the Darfur situation is a prototype for what might come later on a larger scale. Ecological collapse lead to poverty, too many people, too few resources, leading to ethnic cleansing, mass murder, and refugee camps.

But that is not the response you and I want to see. We want something more proactive and more humane. This is why the Hitler/Inquisition accusations are so infuriating. They show a knee-jerk fear that any collective response to a crisis must result in those kinds of abuses.

Still, for the immediate future, I know of no one in the Green community who is actively advocating the methods you listed above as a real solution.

I've heard rumors of these types of Greens, but have yet to see any real evidence that they exist. I'm talking about the ones who supposedly believe that humanity is a cancer upon the earth and it would be no great loss if we all died out.

Where are they?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54:
Now, if we could just get rid of the denialists who just refuse to see...

How about this as an explanation? Or maybe Bob needs to clarify what he meant by "get rid of."

George W Bush and his politically appointed censors attempting to prevent scientific information from reaching the public should be removed from government service through the electoral process. Future administrations should avoid political censorship of science on this and other issues.

I shall try to avoid wordings which can be twisted and misinterpreted into threats of violence or violation of law, but if this is an example of how simple words can be blown out of context, I despair.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Bob:

I don't see how any kind of effective response to global warming is going to involve the use of torture, mass murder, or concentration camps.

I would like the Rani (and Mr. Saari, for that matter) to explain why they believed they needed to make such comparisons.

A response to a problem that seems visible to the great many endowed with right-reason need not be effective.

Was the response to the generally agreed upon problem of WMD in Iraki hands an effective one even though it has involved torture, murder approaching mass, and camps less pleasurable than Club Med?

What was the treatment of the denialists and the sceptics and agnostics who didn't go along with the cant of majority opinion here in Our Commercial Republic and over there in Eurasia? The fevers that drew us into such a Mesopotamian folly are now present in the global warming debate.

I have proposed actions to be taken by individuals and collectively upon matters environemntal. But, as I already have assented to a religion - a catholic form of credal Xianity, I will not be joining the believers of this new faith (they have hypocrites as do we Xians and ministers preaching sustainment while living in splendor, a clerisy that acts as clergy while we Xians have a clergy that acts as a clerisy). It is a matter of theology where we differ. I cannot assent to his, nor he to mine.


Thus as Mr. Butler wishes to be rid of those who will not accept his faith, I urge him to bozo my posts and put them beyond use with the Ignore List as I have added him to the two worthies on mine. This should greatly increase civility here (well, perhaps not greatly nor even moderately but only slightly) and cooler heads might bring on a cooler world in which a variety of religions might well thrive.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

A response to a problem that seems visible to the great many endowed with right-reason need not be effective.

That's true enough, but I think some small responses on the part of those "great many" can collectively make a difference.

Was the response to the generally agreed upon problem of WMD in Iraki hands an effective one even though it has involved torture, murder approaching mass, and camps less pleasurable than Club Med?

Perhaps it was due to reading various and sundry posts from some of our non-mainstream T4Ters of that pre-CARRHAE period, but I questioned even then whether the presence of WMD was generally agreed upon. I questioned whether pre-emptive violence would have been the right course of action even if WMD were found. I went against the judgement of my own husband in making this call. He has since acknowledged that he was mistaken.

In short, the answer is "no."

What was the treatment of the denialists and the sceptics and agnostics who didn't go along with the cant of majority opinion here in Our Commercial Republic and over there in Eurasia?

We were accused of being "un-patriotic." That was about the worst event I experienced, and I could live with it, because I knew it was false.

The fevers that drew us into such a Mesopotamian folly are now present in the global warming debate.

There is urgency on the part of some of the GW agitators. I'll grant you that. But I see action being encouraged on an individual basis more than as government mandates, at least so far. The Green movement, for the most part, is more bottom-up than top-down, as I see it; I don't see much evidence for these so-called "eco-nazis." But I could be wrong.

I have proposed actions to be taken by individuals and collectively upon matters environemntal. But, as I already have assented to a religion - a catholic form of credal Xianity, I will not be joining the believers of this new faith (they have hypocrites as do we Xians and ministers preaching sustainment while living in splendor, a clerisy that acts as clergy while we Xians have a clergy that acts as a clerisy). It is a matter of theology where we differ. I cannot assent to his, nor he to mine.

Your characterization is unfortunate.

Thus as Mr. Butler wishes to be rid of those who will not accept his faith, I urge him to bozo my posts and put them beyond use with the Ignore List as I have added him to the two worthies on mine. This should greatly increase civility here (well, perhaps not greatly nor even moderately but only slightly) and cooler heads might bring on a cooler world in which a variety of religions might well thrive.

Again, unfortunate.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I've heard rumors of these types of Greens, but have yet to see any real evidence that they exist. I'm talking about the ones who supposedly believe that humanity is a cancer upon the earth and it would be no great loss if we all died out.

Where are they?

While there may be a few fringe nuts of every stripe, for the most part the legendary 'humans are cancer' greens are figments of denialist imaginations. They are strawmen created as an excuse for ad hominem attacks. From a denialist point of view, it is easier to take words out of context, or to attack positions which no one on a site is advocating, than to defend, um, dare I say it, "denialist science." (Closely related to 'creationist science'?)

That is the theory behind Goodwin's Law. There is a convention in parts of the internet that when one compares one's opponent to Hitler or the Nazis, one is assumed to have lost and conceded whatever disagreement is in progress. If one cannot respond to the other side's logic and fact, sore losers (or people unwilling or unable to conceive of the notion that their values might be flawed) resort to strawman and ad hominem. Rather than admit they cannot continue debate, they resort to insult, distortion, out and out lies, and fallacy. Some will do anything to change the subject away from the fact that they can't defend their position. Invoking Hitler is just the easiest way to go about it, so traditional it is cliché. Invoking communists, the Inquisition or human cancer greens are just variations on the theme. Any unacceptable far out world view might serve the same purpose as a formal Goodwin invocation of Hitler or the Nazis.

I wish I could say there are no progressives that don't use the same techniques. I too just get sick of it at times, and occasionally get angry enough to start calling people on it.

Having relied on -- nay, DEPENDED on "public transportation" for five years of my life I can say that it's not quite the idyllic thing that its proponents say it is.

Does it run on time? Most of the time, except when you have to be at home on time the most.

Does it run on time when you are standing around in bitter cold and/or damp weather? Not very likely.

IS public transportation clean? Not very.

Do people act very nicely on public transportation. Hell no.

Is driving better? It's better in the sense that you can come and go at the time you want rather than planning your day around a schedule.

For a free market model of how public transportation can work, I am told we ought to look to Japan.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Based upon that reading, and upon my knowledge of Bob's philosophy in general, I would interpret "getting rid of the denialists" as "voting them out of positions of power."

Sure, honey, with the entire "Earth in the Balance," liberal enviromentalists are just gonna sit around and wait for the election returns to come in? Ok, but what if America's elected officals decide to "pull out" of the next round of Kyoto prophecy? What if, as Al Gore now suggests, America doesn't "get it" just before his ten year prediction* comes true?

* I'm talkin' about Gore's "new" ten year prediction, not the dire one he made in 1992.

Originally Posted by Ricercar71

Having relied on -- nay, DEPENDED on "public transportation" for five years of my life I can say that it's not quite the idyllic thing that its proponents say it is.

Having commuted by car for more than twenty consecutive years, I can tell you that isn't the greatest thing in the world either.

Does it run on time? Most of the time, except when you have to be at home on time the most.

Do I get home on time? Define "on time." I'm happy if it's within 75 minutes. Most times it's close to 85 or 90.

Does it run on time when you are standing around in bitter cold and/or damp weather? Not very likely.

Likewise, add another 15-20 minutes to my trip during inclement weather.

IS public transportation clean? Not very.

Is my car clean? Well, it passes the emissions test every other year.

Do people act very nicely on public transportation. Hell no.

Do my fellow driving commuters act nicely? Nah, they tailgate, cut people off, drive in the breakdown lane.

Is driving better? It's better in the sense that you can come and go at the time you want rather than planning your day around a schedule.

The solution: try to live within walking or biking distance of your job.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Like I said, you might want to think about how you're coming across to others, if you're seriously interested in changing people's minds.

You misinterpreted what he wrote. You might want to acknowledge that in some fashion.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Having commuted by car for more than twenty consecutive years, I can tell you that isn't the greatest thing in the world either.



The solution: try to live within walking or biking distance of your job.

Ha ha!! I now live within a 10 minute walk.

I guess I have learned from my mistakes.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Mr. Saari writes...
I have proposed actions to be taken by individuals and collectively upon matters environmental. But, as I already have assented to a religion - a catholic form of credal Xianity, I will not be joining the believers of this new faith (they have hypocrites as do we Xians and ministers preaching sustainment while living in splendor, a clerisy that acts as clergy while we Xians have a clergy that acts as a clerisy). It is a matter of theology where we differ. I cannot assent to his, nor he to mine.

Your characterization is unfortunate.

More than unfortunate.

American culture is complex. There are multiple mechanisms to arrive a fact, at Truth. I generally use a car crash example to illustrate. One might ask several questions in the aftermath.

What was the driver's blood alcohol level? Answering this one requires blood samples, lab equipment and procedures. It is a scientific question. One gets an answer to within known tolerances.

Was the driver guilty of vehicular homicide? This one involves legislatures who passed the laws, judges, juries of peers, rules of evidence and an entirely different set of procedures. It is a legal question. One can get a definitive answer. It might not always be unarguably true, but the defendant is going to be declared guilty or not guilty.

Did the victim go to heaven? This question might involve faith, good works, passion, and ritual. This is a religious question. There are in general no definitive answers to religious questions. In American culture, each individual has a right to adhere to any system of his choice for answering religious questions, or to invent one's own.

While people might not always be aware of it, anyone growing up in the culture ought to be able to distinguish between these three systems of Truth. If there is a question, one should know whether to go to a scientist, lawyer or priest for an answer.

Mr. Saari declares global warming advocacy to be a religion. He might conceivably be sincere in this. He has unusual values, which I don't claim to completely understand. However, declaring global warming to be a religion would be changing the usual rule one applies to resolve issues in American culture. Understanding the cause and effect of how greenhouse gasses effect climate is a scientific question. Deciding if and how the government might respond is a political and legal question. While the problem has moral implications that will involve religious values for many, faith ought not to be a factor in determining fact.

I am an agnostic. I respect many parts of many religious as they contain much Wisdom of the Ages™. My motivation with respect to global warming is not religious. To say that I am acting out of faith or religion is to me an insult. It might not be to Mr. Saari. For all I know, he might consider his acts of passion and faith to be his best acts. But for me, questions that can be answered by observation and experiment ought to be answered by observation and experiment. Declaring global warming to be a 'religion' is thus in my opinion a "Big Lie." Mr. Saari and others asserting the 'global warming is a religion' meme are thus Big Liars. They are insulting the deeply held values of a great many people who have given a great deal of effort to the problem. To disparage the integrity and dedication of a scientist can be as discourteous as questioning the sincerity and passion of a believer.

And, simply, faith, prayer and religious ritual are not the appropriate tools for understanding global warming. People with a sincere interest in understanding the situation ought to be pursuing the tools, methods and values of science, not faith. To invoke a First Amendment Freedom of Religion attitude that all opinions on scientific issues are equal, regardless on whether a theory fits the data, is just not in my opinion reasonable. It is just a sleazy way to hold a position on a scientific question without having to defend it.

Thus, the entire concept of shifting the issue from the standards and values of science and politics to those of religion seem highly questionable.

It isn't just global warming. The same disputes have taken place here over evolutionary theory. This leads me to believe that there is a general lack of understanding of how science works.

Science knows that its theories are imperfect, and that they need to be vigorously and repeatedly tested, and revised or even thrown out when they don't work with the evidence anymore.

Right now the consensus seems to be that human activity is contributing to a rise in global temperatures. This is not the end of the story. Of course more research will continue to be done in this area, and revisions will be made as more evidence comes in.

In the meantime, the general public should be informed of what is going on, and what may be coming in the future, and what steps they can take now to reduce their energy consumption. Here's a repost of some action items.

To me, these seem based on common sense, not faith. But faith tells me that doing well by my fellows (even those with whom I disagree) and preserving the planet we live on are good, moral acts.

Faith is my "why," science is my "how."

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Faith is my "why," science is my "how."

Certainly, chuckle, this is standard "liberal" mantra. Sorry to have to rain on your kum-by-yah parade, sweetie, but science is what is, politics is "how," regardless of what they might be to you.

Originally Posted by zilch

science is what is, politics is "how," regardless of what they might be to you.

Philosophy is what is.

Science is what happens.

Engineering is how.

Politics, all too often, is how not.

My thoughts on the linguistic confusion above:

The words "get rid of" might have been an unfortunate choice, but it's hard for me to see how Bob could have predicted they would come across the way they did. The words are rather vague, and could mean anything from "change the minds of" to "remove from positions of power" to "banish" to "permanently incarcerate" to "kill."

Knowing this, what is there about Bob that would make someone jump immediately to the conclusion that he meant one or both of the last two meanings? Has he said or done anything in the past to suggest any such desire?

I can't recall him doing so, but I've been away for a while, so maybe he's changed. On the other hand, sometimes we harbor fears that make us instantly (and without reason) adopt the worst possible interpretation of an ambiguous statement. That's also something to consider.