Originally Posted by Mikebert

I point out a plan to build a large number of conventional coal plants in Texas right now. This is the wave of the future under a business as usual paradigm.

Umm . . . sorry to have to ask this, but who the hell are you? I'm guessing Mike Alexander, but that could be way off.

Anyway . . .

The point is that we're not going to be able to have business-as-usual, and as you pointed out the natural gas peak isn't very far ahead of the oil peak. If we start converting gas for use in cars, of course that will telescope the gas peak considerably by increasing demand.

Any scenario I've seen for converting our energy economy relies on a mix of improved efficiency, and the production of lots more electricity to replace direct burning of oil products in one way or another. For example, if we end up using fuel-cell engines for transportation, we'll need to produce quite a lot of electricity for use in generating hydrogen. So we're not just talking about replacing current gas electric plants with coal plants, we're talking about building a lot of new electric plants. It seems very unlikely to me that making those coal-burners, as opposed to something else (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) will fly.

Of course, where the difference lies between a peak-oil response and a global-warming response is that under the latter we also need to replace existing coal plants with something greenhouse-neutral.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Even were I a proponent of making people do things at gunpoint, I would still hesitate to take hasty action on a basis so scientifically-weak as the one currently under anthropogenic GW.

Excuse me, Justin, but what I'm saying here is that you are a radical opponent of "making people do things at gunpoint" -- by which you mean any coercive government action, not just the literal meaning of those words -- and this is coloring your assessment of the case for anthropogenic GW as "scientifically weak." Those whose profession it is to study the climate overwhelmingly disagree with you, and claim that the case is quite strong.

But my feeling is that there's no point in arguing with you on a scientific basis as long as your scientific opinion is being directed from below by this visceral opposition to "making people do things at gunpoint." Instead, we need to address the primary drivers: the political belief that drives your scientific belief.

So I think it makes more sense, in discussing this with you, to see if we can come up with non-coercive, market-based approaches to dealing with GW, or at least ones no more coercive than the energy regime we currently have. If we can do that, perhaps in light of those approaches you can go back and reevaluate the science, and see if your opinion changes any.

Originally Posted by zilch

Gee, I don't think Stalin himself would've put it any differently.

Sure he would, Marc. If I were Stalin, you'd be dead.

Aren't you glad your silly hyperbole isn't real? Aren't you glad we don't REALLY have any Hitlers/Stalins on this board?

Honestly, everyone needs to take a deep breath here.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Excuse me, Justin, but what I'm saying here is that you are a radical opponent of "making people do things at gunpoint" -- by which you mean any coercive government action, not just the literal meaning of those words -- and this is coloring your assessment of the case for anthropogenic GW as "scientifically weak." Those whose profession it is to study the climate overwhelmingly disagree with you, and claim that the case is quite strong.

But my feeling is that there's no point in arguing with you on a scientific basis as long as your scientific opinion is being directed from below by this visceral opposition to "making people do things at gunpoint." Instead, we need to address the primary drivers: the political belief that drives your scientific belief.

So I think it makes more sense, in discussing this with you, to see if we can come up with non-coercive, market-based approaches to dealing with GW, or at least ones no more coercive than the energy regime we currently have. If we can do that, perhaps in light of those approaches you can go back and reevaluate the science, and see if your opinion changes any.

I tried that, and have since given-up. My pitch to both Justin and Arkham involved the market potential of the developements needed to reduce CO2 in particular and energy usage in general. I presented it as a govenmnet subsidized business opportunity, similar to the railroads in the 19th century.

No takers.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I tried that, and have since given-up. My pitch to both Justin and Arkham involved the market potential of the developements needed to reduce CO2 in particular and energy usage in general. I presented it as a govenmnet subsidized business opportunity, similar to the railroads in the 19th century.

No takers.

Probably because they would also have opposed the railroad subsidies, and the current subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Rather than moving those over to green energy, Justin et al would prefer eliminating them altogether.

Maybe, though, if we point out that those subsidies DO exist, and other government regulation and other action in the energy arena, we can at least make the case that dealing with GW won't require making things WORSE from a Libertarian perspective. Expecting to have LESS government in a 4T is surely unrealistic.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Umm . . . sorry to have to ask this, but who the hell are you? I'm guessing Mike Alexander, but that could be way off.

Anyway . . .

The point is that we're not going to be able to have business-as-usual, and as you pointed out the natural gas peak isn't very far ahead of the oil peak. If we start converting gas for use in cars, of course that will telescope the gas peak considerably by increasing demand.

Any scenario I've seen for converting our energy economy relies on a mix of improved efficiency, and the production of lots more electricity to replace direct burning of oil products in one way or another. For example, if we end up using fuel-cell engines for transportation, we'll need to produce quite a lot of electricity for use in generating hydrogen. So we're not just talking about replacing current gas electric plants with coal plants, we're talking about building a lot of new electric plants. It seems very unlikely to me that making those coal-burners, as opposed to something else (solar, wind, tidal, nuclear, whatever) will fly.

Of course, where the difference lies between a peak-oil response and a global-warming response is that under the latter we also need to replace existing coal plants with something greenhouse-neutral.

Oh yeah, I forgot, this is Mike Alexander. I was renamed by the software after one of the downtimes. Welcome back!

Actually for fuel cells, it makes more sense to make hydrogen from coal rather than using electricity. That's how they used to do it in municipal gasworks a hundred years ago. If you care about GW, you would sequester the CO2.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Now I would say the models have been tested. Back in the 1980's I was a skeptic. I figured if we were right then temperatures would not continue to rise and the whole issue would turn out to be a tempest in a teapot. On the other hand if temperatures continue to rise I would have to re-evaluate.

Well I have and I'm not a skeptic any longer.

So twenty years of 'at least they got the direction right' (since the magnitudes predicted by those long-ago models proved to be woefully off) is enough to make you a believer? That's a surprisingly short time-frame and a surprising low bar of accuracy for something as fresh as global-climate modeling. And still, no compelling scientific reason to scream 'anthropogenic' and run around waving our hands like a bunch of morons.

(On the other hand, it is certainly far superior to the idiots who point to a single week of cold temperatures as proof that the models are wrong)

Sure it is when you present it as A and not A.

That's not a list of options. It is -- what did I call it again? -- a false dichotomy. In case you're unfamiliar with the term, it refers to a logical fallacy, wherein a set of many fundamentally-varied options is collapsed down to the single category "not option A", as if option A were the only path of action and all the other options amounted to inaction. Obscured by the false dichotomy is the fact that 'not A' does not represent a course of action, but all possible courses of action other than A.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Excuse me, Justin, but what I'm saying here is that you are a radical opponent of "making people do things at gunpoint" -- by which you mean any coercive government action, not just the literal meaning of those words -- and this is coloring your assessment of the case for anthropogenic GW as "scientifically weak." Those whose profession it is to study the climate overwhelmingly disagree with you, and claim that the case is quite strong.

While I appreciate your psychoanalyzing-by-wire, I have to respectfully disagree. And then, to point out that science is not a matter of how many people believe a thing, or how impressive their titles are; after all, there are a lot of really neat-sounding titles on pretty much all sides.
Mainly I argue for science in the GW debate for the same reason that I advocate a rational approach towards morality and spirituality -- that is, faith is a great personal thing, but should really never be used in cases where rational analysis is appropriate. And science is one of those places. I'd argue just as much against Creationists if I had the slightest hope that they could be reached (and did for a while, until I realized that they were beyond hope). I just hate to see anti-reason spread. It makes me annoying sometimes.

So I think it makes more sense, in discussing this with you, to see if we can come up with non-coercive, market-based approaches to dealing with GW, or at least ones no more coercive than the energy regime we currently have. If we can do that, perhaps in light of those approaches you can go back and reevaluate the science, and see if your opinion changes any.

Honestly, I am continuously -- at least to the extent that new information is presented -- re-evaluating. I hope everyone is. That's the only appropriate approach to take in any situation.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

So twenty years of 'at least they got the direction right' (since the magnitudes predicted by those long-ago models proved to be woefully off) is enough to make you a believer?

That's not what I said. I said it would make me re-evaluate. I have done so and changed my mind.

Obscured by the false dichotomy is the fact that 'not A' does not represent a course of action, but all possible courses of action other than A.

I didn't say "not A" was a single course of action. Not A contains a whole host of actions, which I divided into two broad categories. I expressed my preference one of them.

Option A was a single option: "business as usual" which is fairly understood to be what we are doing now. There's nothing false about it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I tried that, and have since given-up. My pitch to both Justin and Arkham involved the market potential of the developments needed to reduce CO2 in particular and energy usage in general. I presented it as a government subsidized business opportunity, similar to the railroads in the 19th century.

No takers.

Probably because they would also have opposed the railroad subsidies, and the current subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. Rather than moving those over to green energy, Justin et al would prefer eliminating them altogether.

Maybe, though, if we point out that those subsidies DO exist, and other government regulation and other action in the energy arena, we can at least make the case that dealing with GW won't require making things WORSE from a Libertarian perspective. Expecting to have LESS government in a 4T is surely unrealistic.

Actually, I think Justin sees the entire issue as optional. I expect a discussion of school uniforms would proceed along similar lines, with Justin taking the position that no one can show that having everyone dressed alike has any net value to society. He would also argue that it definitely impinges on the rights of individuals to dress as they please. By definition, then, zero minus something is always a negative number.

He values personal freedom, and will not trade a whit of it for anything less than a known greater value.

I should also note that I tried the probability argument, where the net probable gains and losses from doing nothing could be compared to the net probable gains and losses from doing something, but the argument collapses into semantics. The true probabilities can't be known, and a method of choosing acceptable values can't be achieved without cooperation.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Zerzan comes to mind. (As an example of a 'humans are a cancer' environmentalist.) He goes so far as to assert that abstract, symbolic thought is the root of human evil, and that we would have been better off never evolving language.

As with my opinion of Marx, I would agree with some of the problems Zerzan identifies while disagreeing strongly with his 'solutions.' I have seen studies -- more scientific, less political -- that echo some of Zerzan's points. Mankind evolved for the hunter gatherer life style. Hunting and fishing are thus more enjoyable to many than office work, flipping hamburgers or many other modern jobs. Assuming sufficient and bountiful land, one spends less hours doing more pleasant things as a member of a hunter gatherer society than in many typical Industrial Age societies. If I were designing a utopian society, I might attempt to recreate a hunter gatherer environment which somehow kept modern health care and had safeguards to reduce the tyranny of hereditary chiefs. (This is easily stated as an abstract goal.)

But I have a real problem with getting there from here. I certainly don't advocate violence to create my hypothetical utopia, which might easily turn out to be impossible to sustain. Earth's current population is so high, I doubt very much we could maintain anything resembling a hunter gatherer life style without a population collapse of some sort. I would vastly prefer to avoid the population collapse if at all possible. I also anticipate that many people likely wouldn't like the hunter gatherer life style. Any attempt to form a hunter gatherer political party seeking to change civilization through democratic due process, or even through violence, would be futile and counter productive. In short, I had not heard of Zerzan, and personally know of no one who follows similar values.

In this, I feel fairly safe in saying Zerzan is way out on a radical fringe, rather than being a representative of typical green values. (Are there any vaguely green tinted posters reading this who consider themselves anarchists in anything like a Zerzan stripe?) I can honor you for responding to the question, but do you seriously consider Zerzan as representative of the modern green movement? I will gently assert that if you criticize Zerzan most of your criticisms would be essentially irrelevant to much of what the green tainted people posting here advocate. Zerzan is essentially a strawman. Can you agree, none of us are Zerzan?

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I assume you vote. If you do, that makes you a threat, because you can -- at least in theory -- impose your will on me via the political process. Democracy makes you a petty tyrant and gives terrible weight to your every action and belief. Democracies are both uncivil and unstable for this very reason. (Historically, every single democracy, no matter how you define the term, has ended in civil war and/or dictatorship.) When the 49% wake up to the fact that they can be expropriated at any moment by the 51%, and that the balance can change without warning, politics becomes a matter of survival, and every facet of life becomes politicized.

This is a variation of the 'Tyranny of the Majority' argument, famously made in Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America," but seen often enough elsewhere. One response would be Winston Churchill's. "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

(Google found another Churchill quote perhaps relevant to the global warming discussion. “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” Alas, here at the 3T / 4T cusp, we are still in the trying everything else phase.)

I'll note that not all Democracies have yet ended. Some have been destroyed by external invasion. Some have transformed themselves by peaceful or semi peaceful means, the Articles of the Confederation being replaced by the Constitution, and the British Empire becoming the British Commonwealth. I would contest the notion of democracy being an experiment doomed to failure. It is very important to have a means short of violence to remove an abusive ruling elite from power. Democracy is the most effective way of doing this. Human rights are essential to maintaining a healthy multi power democracy, as well as being greatly desirable for their own sake. I favor human rights and democracy.

I also favor science. Questions that can be answered through the ritual of observation, theory, experiment, publish, verify, repeat ought to be so answered. Still, there are many questions that are not suited for solution in that manner.

From the American Civil War through the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have been going through a period of history where democracy has been tested militarily, economically, politically and otherwise against various forms of autocratic rule. These include monarchy, theocracy, fascism and communism. Democracy has been winning most such competitions. I would not advocate throwing away the tool, though I have often enough advocated a constitutional convention to improve the tool. The period of testing isn't clearly over, and might never be over. As Q said to Picard, 'The test never ends."

Conservatives wag the American flag a lot. Some of them are so sure of the superiority of democracy they are willing to advocate its spread by force. Somehow, this doesn't apply when conservatives don't have enough votes to win on an issue??? I see science and democracy as pillars of Western Civilization. Both are flawed, but neither are broken. I would not abandon them.

I would like to hear other skeptics or denialists comment on the 'tyranny of the majority.' I am getting the impression that anti-environmentalist values might be more important to some people than democratic values? I am used to people contesting my notion that the secular, urban, progressive democratic faction tends to triumph in 4T crisis, but on no other issue have I seen others so explicit in rejecting democracy. Somehow, resisting environmental responsibility is more important than preserving the Constitution? What makes global warming such a special issue?

That, and after rejecting Zerzan as an anarchist on the environmentalist side, would most say that overthrowing democracy for the sake of defeating environmentalists would be an extreme anarchist response in the other direction? Would most skeptics reject such a position?

***

I can admit to having been angry this last week, and can second proposals for a more civil debate. If people don't trigger Godwin's Law, I will feel no urge to invoke it. If people don't claim ecological scientists are acting out of religious values, I shall feel no particular need to distinguish between scientific and religious values. If people can criticize the position of specific environmentalists, such as Zarzan, this would be preferred to blanket assertions that all environmentalists have Zarzan like, Hitler like or Inquisition like attributes. I'll back off from debate by demonization if others do. (Denialists want to overthrow democracy! Demons! Demons! So did Hitler! Demons! Demons!)

I am less willing to back of from the assertion that greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of the .6 degrees shift in temperature during the 20th Century. This is the peer reviewed consensus, measured in reality, with appropriate components of the theory verified in the laboratory.

When last we left our heroes, it was agreed that cosmic rays can effect cloud formation and thus climate. It was agreed that cosmic rays cycle on a 130,000,000 year (plus or minus 25,000,000) cycle. No one has produced measurements that indicated a significant shift in cosmic ray intensity during the 20th Century, or suggested a mechanism that could produce significant changes in cosmic rays over such short time frames without being detected. To my reading of this thread, the best challenge to the established peer reviewed scientific consensus made on this thread is this 'invisible star' hypotheses, a significant source of cosmic rays from outside the solar system which can effect weather without being detected.

I reject the invisible star hypothesis as currently presented. I am awaiting evidence for invisible stars, or even a type of interstellar object that crudely matches the required ability to modify climate while still being stealthy. I'd cheerfully hear other proposals which better explain the evidence provided by the current peer reviewed greenhouse scientific consensus. I am not at all satisfied with a notion of rejecting science and democracy on an assumption without evidence that something like invisible stars might possibly exist.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, I think Justin sees the entire issue as optional. I expect a discussion of school uniforms would proceed along similar lines, with Justin taking the position that no one can show that having everyone dressed alike has any net value to society.

Har! My kid is going to a school where uniforms are required. Of course, people who disagree with the requirement to go uniformed are free to choose another school. It impinges on our ability to dress our son however we feel, but the trade-off of going to a good math/science school (in a country where education is taken seriously) is more than worth it.

Man all the straw you guys are throwing up! I should seriously think about buying that horse!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

science is not a matter of how many people believe a thing, or how impressive their titles are; after all, there are a lot of really neat-sounding titles on pretty much all sides.

Humor me, Justin.

Just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that the evidence is sufficient to convince you that anthropogenic global warming is real. Now, let's talk solutions. Take a look at the needed action (reduction in, or ideally elimination of, net human-caused greenhouse gas emissions) and see if you can find ways to produce that outcome that don't violate personal liberty. Remember that the government already interferes in the energy economy, so AT WORST we want solutions that don't have it interfering any more than it does, although of course it would have to interfere in different ways. We absolutely want to avoid situations where the state is rationing energy or otherwise telling individuals how to live their lives.

Remember, too, that this is all just a thought experiment, not actual proposals. You're not conceding anything, just doing an exercise.

I'll have some suggestions of my own, and comments, and of course anyone else can dive in. And we'll come back to the science afterwards. If nothing else, surely you can agree that the exercise will be interesting.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Har! My kid is going to a school where uniforms are required. Of course, people who disagree with the requirement to go uniformed are free to choose another school. It impinges on our ability to dress our son however we feel, but the trade-off of going to a good math/science school (in a country where education is taken seriously) is more than worth it.

So, you found some net worth in uniforms. Good. I think you made my larger point for me, though. You accept what you value, and reject what you don't.

Originally Posted by Justin

Man all the straw you guys are throwing up! I should seriously think about buying that horse!

Clever, but there is no other viable explanation we can offer. You refuse to accept the concensus of the world's foremost climitologists, because it's not validated. Validation either requires a adouble-blind study, which can't exist without a parallel earth, or 'adequate time' to verify prediction models, which may mean certifying the validation while getting a tan on the beach in Juneau Alaska or scuba diving in midtown Manhattan.

No one can overcome ojections like these, because they are unbounded, as Mike pointed-out earlier.

But there are two issues that can't be ignored: all decisions have risk and not deciding is still a form of decision. There are always potential downsides to ones choices, even deciding to decide later. If you say, 'I can't know for sure, therefore I do nothing', you must be willing to accept the possibilty that failure to act allowed a preventable negative to happen. If you are part of the reason the action was blocked, then you have some responsiblity.

Moralists have an easier time of this. They just divide the world of error into sins of ommission and sins of commission. Didn't you say you were raised Catholic?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Mainly I argue for science in the GW debate for the same reason that I advocate a rational approach towards morality and spirituality -- that is, faith is a great personal thing, but should really never be used in cases where rational analysis is appropriate. And science is one of those places. I'd argue just as much against Creationists if I had the slightest hope that they could be reached (and did for a while, until I realized that they were beyond hope). I just hate to see anti-reason spread. It makes me annoying sometimes.

Honestly, I am continuously -- at least to the extent that new information is presented -- re-evaluating. I hope everyone is. That's the only appropriate approach to take in any situation.

I feel much the same way about creationists. I am coming to a similar opinion about GW denialists. Both reject reason and scientific evidence to the point that attempting reason is impossible. One runs up against imaginary 'invisible stars' being used to trump massive volumes of research, experiment and calculation.

I can see where a lot of the creationists are coming from. My own values put science over democracy over religion. I believe in democracy, but not from Jeffersonian first principles, but because in looking at history I find democracies work better than the alternatives. Because I don't have a core world view centered on democratic first principles, I perhaps might be more ready than most to perceive flaws in existing systems than some, and welcome needed changes.

A creationist would put religious values first and science somewhere later. Deep down in their core, the Bible has to be the source of all Truth. While creationists might well understand and apply technology and science so long as nothing conflicts with their understanding of the Bible, when there is a conflict, they must compulsively find flaws in the science. When religious values strongly trump scientific values, many become inherently incapable of perceiving and objectively evaluating certain scientific evidence.

I am getting an impression that some of the denialists value politics over science. In particular, libertarian values of freedom and personal choice might be more important than science. If such political values are held strongly enough, the same effect occurs as with the creationists. Rather than reject deeply held political values, whole fields of science become fuzzy and amorphous. The ability to observe and understand some aspects of physical reality are lost in order to preserve political ideas of how things ought to be. Scientific facts which conflict with political principles are judged under entirely different standards than facts which do not conflict with the politics.

A lot of Marxists had this problem. An economist, business manager or military leader would attempt to do something right, but get over ridden by a political commissar dedicated to upholding pure Marxist theory. See China's Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution for worst case examples. Millions and millions starved. A Malthusian collapse due to greenhouse inaction could surpass Mao's efforts. Political theory over riding pragmatic scientific, economic, technological or military concerns can be very very dangerous. Those with deep enough certainty in their political values might not be able to appreciate how dangerous.

Anyway, I too hope everyone is willing to learn and re-evaluate.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... When last we left our heroes, it was agreed that cosmic rays can effect cloud formation and thus climate. It was agreed that cosmic rays cycle on a 130,000,000 year (plus or minus 25,000,000) cycle. No one has produced measurements that indicated a significant shift in cosmic ray intensity during the 20th Century, or suggested a mechanism that could produce significant changes in cosmic rays over such short time frames without being detected. To my reading of this thread, the best challenge to the established peer reviewed scientific consensus made on this thread is this 'invisible star' hypotheses, a significant source of cosmic rays from outside the solar system which can effect weather without being detected.

I reject the invisible star hypothesis as currently presented. I am awaiting evidence for invisible stars, or even a type of interstellar object that crudely matches the required ability to modify climate while still being stealthy. I'd cheerfully hear other proposals which better explain the evidence provided by the current peer reviewed greenhouse scientific consensus. I am not at all satisfied with a notion of rejecting science and democracy on an assumption without evidence that something like invisible stars might possibly exist.

Whether this theory has any relevence is beside the point. There are only three or four questions that need to be answered:

1. Is global warming a problem if it is real? If this is yes, then go to #2. If it is no, then why is it no?
2. Does CO2 in the atmosphere produce the greenhouse effect with a high degree of certainty? If yes, then proceed to question #3.
3. Is CO2 an atmospheric variable we, as humans, can control?
4. Optional: What other parameters can we humans control that will produce similar results, and are they viable options?

NOTE: there is no need to verify that CO2 is the primary culprit, merely a controllable parameter that wiill produce at least a somewhat effective result. Other options are not constrained.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

[*]Is global warming a problem if it is real? If this is yes, then go to #2.

Global warming is a problem if CO2 is the principal driver of future change. Of all climate effectors only man-made ones like CO2 are unbounded. If CO2 is not the principal driver then climate will be determined largely by bounded natural factors for which the historical record gives a good accounting of their effects. Based on historical climate, once-in-a millenium or even once in 10 millenium warming events were not sufficient to melt the polar ice caps. That is, there is no reason to believe that current warming, if due to natural (bounded) factors will be catastrophic. That is, if the current warming is natural it should start cooling soon.

There is good reason to believe that as long as future climate is determined largely be bounded effectors, there isn't going to be a problem requiring human intervention (i.e. the current rising trend in temperature will reverse itself soon). This was my view until quite recently.

[*]Does CO2 in the atmosphere produce the greenhouse effect with a high degree of certainty? If yes, then proceed to question #3.

The direct effect of CO2 is rather small, a bit over 1 C for a doubling of CO2 level. If other factors are larger, then its effect could be swamped out.

[*]Is CO2 an atmospheric variable we, as humans, can control?

In principle, and with difficulty, yes.

[*]What other parameters can we humans control that will produce similar results, and are they viable options?

Particulates could be released into the atmosphere to produce a cooling effect. The oceans could be fertilized with iron to increase CO2 uptake.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, you found some net worth in uniforms. Good. I think you made my larger point for me, though. You accept what you value, and reject what you don't.

I interpreted Justin's choice differently. He doesn't necessarily find any value in uniforms. He liked the entire package that school offered, which included uniforms. He could have (and implies he did) choose the school despite the uniforms based on its other attributes that offset the uniforms.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Maybe you should take your own frickin advice. I wasn't even the one who made the original comment. It was Arkham.

At post #149 of this thread, in response to Marx & Lennon, you wrote:

Egad. Who voted you dictator? I'm sure that Hitler thought that eradication of the genetically defective was also obviously necessary.

I thought that comment was over the top, but I decided to let it slide at that time. Then you invoked Hitler again while you were talking to Bob. Then you complained that "free speech" was being threatened, when there was no evidence that such an attack was underway, just your overreaction to one sentence in Bob's post that you took out of context.

Then you decided to attack me for no apparent reason, when I wasn't even talking to you.

I'll make my reason more apparent. I am sick and tired of the insinuations that anyone who supports government action against global warning is a closet fascist.

You can argue that, because it's government and thus inefficient by definition, that this might not be the most effective response. That's fine. I might even agree with you to a certain extent.

But I thought that throwing in Hitler was out of line.

I've already addressed Arkham above.

As for Bob, I suggest you read this post from earlier in the thread once more and think about what he's saying:

Environmentalists want to freeze human civilization. Progressives are inquisitors ready to burn people. Those who wish discussion to be free but civil are fascists. Those who quote environmental science are preaching a dogmatic religion.

This is ad-homineum and strawman. Rather than talk about the real progressive positions, too many are creating bad nightmare parodies of what progressive are pushing, and launch hate campaigns against the bad parodies of their own creation. This is of course most noticable with Zilch, but it seems he is becomming less unique in his style.

What interests me is that many of the insults and bad stereotypes allege that today's progressives are similar to the conservatives of prior crises. When the authoritarian stay-the-same status quo crowd seeks to find a deeply hurtful comparison, they invoke memories of past authoritarian stay-the-same status quo movements. With all of human history available, you'd think today's conservatives could find a few of history's progressives who might have been the bad guys? Surely, there were some? Instead, they seek to insult by calling us one of them???

I don't get it.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Whether this theory has any relevance is beside the point. There are only three or four questions that need to be answered:

1. Is global warming a problem if it is real? If this is yes, then go to #2. If it is no, then why is it no?
2. Does CO2 in the atmosphere produce the greenhouse effect with a high degree of certainty? If yes, then proceed to question #3.
3. Is CO2 an atmospheric variable we, as humans, can control?
4. Optional: What other parameters can we humans control that will produce similar results, and are they viable options?

NOTE: there is no need to verify that CO2 is the primary culprit, merely a controllable parameter that will produce at least a somewhat effective result. Other options are not constrained.

I don't argue with your logic, and am generally with you. I'm just trying to deal with the straight denialist position that CO2 is neither the problem or the cure. We have a 0.6 degree per century signature. If they wish to deny the consensus, I'd just like to hear an alternative explanation for the observed data.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Particulates could be released into the atmosphere to produce a cooling effect. The oceans could be fertilized with iron to increase CO2 uptake.

I've heard a few other approaches, even more exotic. If one builds a lattice of space umbrellas, very thin films designed to block light, and orbits lots of them around the Earth creatively, one might create another form of solar dimming. I saw another proposal for solar powered floating carbon scrubbers floating about the oceans.

But these seem far fetched and extreme. I'm sure there are other approaches even more far fetched and extreme.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So, you found some net worth in uniforms. Good. I think you made my larger point for me, though. You accept what you value, and reject what you don't.

I interpreted Justin's choice differently. He doesn't necessarily find any value in uniforms. He liked the entire package that school offered, which included uniforms. He could have (and implies he did) choose the school despite the uniforms based on its other attributes that offset the uniforms.

No, I think we're on the same page here. I don't believe Justin would approve uniforms, in and of themselves. He approves because they are an inseparable part of a larger whole that he does accept as valuable. I think he would accept some global warming "fixes" on the same basis.

Now the challenge is to find a basis that works.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Sorry, Wally.

Like your summary, BTW.

Nothing personal. This is just one of those Greek tragedies where you can see the end coming after the first five minutes. Rani is just being a **** again. She's on tilt.

The good news is, in twenty years, we'll be able to print off thier posts, track them down with a TV news crew, and force them to eat crow. I think we'll be down to that by then, since there will be nothing we can do to fix things except muddle through.

Originally Posted by Pink Splice

OK, everybody can stop arguing. (Had to try)

Average global temps are going up, for whatever reason.

There will be consequences.

People will have to change thier fucking ways, whether they like it or not- and they will not change until they are fucking forced to. We call it a 4T.

Everyone will bitch like hell.

Mostly agree, except I would amend it to

"they will not change even if they are fucking forced to."



There is a sense (as evidenced by the discussion on this thread over the last few days) from both sides of this New Culture War divide that the other side will reach for the sort of, err, final solutions that were in vogue during the last 4T.

The speed with which various vocal parties on both sides jump to that conclusion makes it hard for me to believe that they are not at least contemplating such an approach themselves...

Originally Posted by Finch

There is a sense (as evidenced by the discussion on this thread over the last few days) from both sides of this New Culture War divide that the other side will reach for the sort of, err, final solutions that were in vogue during the last 4T.

No, there isn't. It's only one side of the debate -- and not mine -- that seems to suspect that about the other, at least here on this forum. Wrongly, of course.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I'll make my reason more apparent. I am sick and tired of the insinuations that anyone who supports government action against global warning is a closet fascist.

Yep. My motivation as well. We've been letting Zilch get away with Godwin nonsense forever, on all issues. It seems to have become part of the site's culture. At least on this thread many are answering some of the serious questions put to them. This conversation is not pure Godwin. I'll applaud everyone who is asking and answering real questions.

I'm going to try to mellow out for a bit. It's not good for me to stay too mad too long. Anyway, if you get a bit winded, if we're under WWE 'rules,' I'm in your corner hanging onto the tag rope.