Guest deepValue Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? We should only discuss that in a thread about Religion. I am glad my mom didn't have an abortion 49 years ago...... Undoubtedly you think that, but is she glad? (It's the woman's choice after all, not the baby's). Also, while you think that you are happy that she did not have an abortion, I guarantee you that if she had you would not care either way today. Nor would you care either way today if someone had murdered you yesterday. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? We should only discuss that in a thread about Religion. I am glad my mom didn't have an abortion 49 years ago...... Undoubtedly you think that, but is she glad? (It's the woman's choice after all, not the baby's). Also, while you think that you are happy that she did not have an abortion, I guarantee you that if she had you would not care either way today. Nor would you care either way today if someone had murdered you yesterday. :) Shheesh, you guys are deep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yadayada Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 it all does not matter people. We will exist as humans for millions and maybe billions of years if we are lucky and then we die off in some intergalactic war. Mean while our universe is infinite and billions of light years away there is also a fairfax and berkshire message board, and literally the only difference between their planet and ours is that the background of their message board is a slightly darker color blue. And Buffet is a ginger. Odds are there are literally infinite living beings out there. So who gives a shit if you kill of some fetus that you can barely call human. We got no problem with throwing drone strikes on schools if it also kills some terrorist. And killing off animals to have some nice ribs or a steak. You could argue they are at least on the same level as a fetus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Hey Guys, another issue we should discuss is abortion. What does everyone think? We should only discuss that in a thread about Religion. I am glad my mom didn't have an abortion 49 years ago...... Undoubtedly you think that, but is she glad? (It's the woman's choice after all, not the baby's). Also, while you think that you are happy that she did not have an abortion, I guarantee you that if she had you would not care either way today. Nor would you care either way today if someone had murdered you yesterday. :) Absolutely true. We don't punish murder because it matters to the person who was murdered, we punish it because of the victims loved ones who are still living and do care. They are the ones who deserve restitution*, the murder victim himself doesn't care either way any more and can't be compensated. *Of course in our current system we don't require the murderer to pay restitution of any kind to the people left behind, (nor do we require thieves to pay restitution or any other criminal for that matter) so there is not even an attempt at justice, just retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayfinkle Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I tried to post this the other day, but I'm not sure it hit (database errors, my error, who knows!) In any case, Michael Crichton (sci fi writer) was also a graduate of Harvard Undergrad. & Harvard Medical school...so he was practiced in the scientific method. I've always found this essay pretty interesting for that reason. http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_global%20warming.pdf Separately, he's got a pretty interesting autobiography..."Travels." The book chronicles his life as an author and traveler. The first half is one of my favorite books as it reflects a very successful yet pretty torn/introspective person. The second half of the book is WIERD--so fair warning. http://www.amazon.com/Travels-Vintage-Michael-Crichton-ebook/dp/B007UH4H6Y/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 In any case, Michael Crichton (sci fi writer) was also a graduate of Harvard Undergrad. & Harvard Medical school...so he was practiced in the scientific method. I've always found this essay pretty interesting for that reason. http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_global%20warming.pdf Another way to say that he had no qualifications or experience in climate science whatsoever. The only reason anybody ever listened to him on this is because he became famous writing fiction -- it's the shoe button complex that Munger warned about. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/ I'm sorry, I know I said I'd stay out of it, but rolling out Michael Crichton was more than I could handle. I don't know what it is about climate science that makes everybody think they can improvise themselves an expert. People wouldn't do that with marine biology or aerospatial engineering or particle physics. Yet any schmuck who thinks about the weather thinks they can know more than experts who have spent decades studying the data. It's like citing Ron Hubbard as a neuroscience authority against someone who refers MITECS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PullTheTrigger Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'm not taking sides, but wanted to post another viewpoint from an "expert." http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Richard Lindzen's scientific stance on climate change and anthropogenic global warming is that the earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling. According to Dr. Lindzen, the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are problematic and limited because they are based on computer models which Lindzen says are "generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable." Furthermore, he feels that the issue of global warming is completely political, and that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rayfinkle Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 In any case, Michael Crichton (sci fi writer) was also a graduate of Harvard Undergrad. & Harvard Medical school...so he was practiced in the scientific method. I've always found this essay pretty interesting for that reason. http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_global%20warming.pdf Another way to say that he had no qualifications or experience in climate science whatsoever. The only reason anybody ever listened to him on this is because he became famous writing fiction -- it's the shoe button complex that Munger warned about. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/ I'm sorry, I know I said I'd stay out of it, but rolling out Michael Crichton was more than I could handle. I don't know what it is about climate science that makes everybody think they can improvise themselves an expert. People wouldn't do that with marine biology or aerospatial engineering or particle physics. Yet any schmuck who thinks about the weather thinks they can know more than experts who have spent decades studying the data. It's like citing Ron Hubbard as a neuroscience authority against someone who refers MITECS... HAHA. I should have been more precise. I wasn't posting that as support of my own view, just as an interesting perspective. It's pretty hyperbolic to compare a fiction writer expressing an opinion to a guy who creates a for profit religion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'm not taking sides, but wanted to post another viewpoint from an "expert." http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Richard Lindzen's scientific stance on climate change and anthropogenic global warming is that the earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling. According to Dr. Lindzen, the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are problematic and limited because they are based on computer models which Lindzen says are "generally recognized as experimental tools whose relation to the real world is questionable." Furthermore, he feels that the issue of global warming is completely political, and that policy makers and the media not only manipulate science but also force scientists to produce work that supports a particular agenda. Ah, this is the guy I had been looking for. I'd actually be interested in your takedown of Lindzen, Liberty, if you don't mind making one more post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin T Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 "Trust those who seek the truth but doubt those who say they have found it.” ― André Gide Too many on both sides of this debate think they have found the truth. Both those who would have us implement economy crushing environmental restrictions based on climatologists who can't accurately tell us what the weather will be next week and those who assume that there are absolutely no environmental consequences to pumping several kajillion pounds of CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere. If we could kick everyone who has ever held any political office and anyone who works as a journalist out of the debate I'm sure we could get this thing figured out within a couple of hundred years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Guys guys guys. Y'all are missing the point. The point isn't whether the earth's warming is man-made or not. That is irrelevant! The point is that the only way to allow human beings to survive and flourish in the context of a changing climate is by leaving them free from coercion to exercise the mind. To discover, create, and implement technology freely and voluntarily. Remember that whole individual rights thing? Ya know... America?? Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are so passe these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 HAHA. I should have been more precise. I wasn't posting that as support of my own view, just as an interesting perspective. It's pretty hyperbolic to compare a fiction writer expressing an opinion to a guy who creates a for profit religion... Sorry, that wasn't clear in your post. But Hubbard's views on psychiatry are about as supported as Crichton's views on climate. Someone who knew just enough about a topic to be dangerous... Ah, this is the guy I had been looking for. I'd actually be interested in your takedown of Lindzen, Liberty, if you don't mind making one more post. Sure: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_arg.htm He's apparently one of the guys paid by big oil too: "Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."" (you can follow reference links for each thing, and they then link to more references if you want to dig deeper) That guy certainly has more credentials than most, but that's not what matters, what matters is the validity of his arguments. I don't see much that is convincing, and apparently the experts don't either. Nobody disagrees that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, or that models aren't perfect. That's weak. What matters is what's different about this cycle (much faster without obvious natural causes like supervolcanoe eruption or whatever, with a fast rising of carbon PPM in the atmosphere because we put lots of gigatonnes of it there since the industrial revolution), etc. It just boggles my mind that anyone would think that we could put billions and billions of tons of a gas that is known to trap infrared heat in the atmosphere, and that nothing would happen. It's like if a company's earnings rise year after year after year... Maybe the daily fluctuations and random factors would cause a lot of noise, but all else being equal the long-term overall trend would be up and up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyska Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I tried to post this the other day, but I'm not sure it hit (database errors, my error, who knows!) In any case, Michael Crichton (sci fi writer) was also a graduate of Harvard Undergrad. & Harvard Medical school...so he was practiced in the scientific method. I've always found this essay pretty interesting for that reason. http://www.pe.tamu.edu/DL_Program/graduate_seminar_series/Documents/MichaelCrichton_global%20warming.pdf Separately, he's got a pretty interesting autobiography..."Travels." The book chronicles his life as an author and traveler. The first half is one of my favorite books as it reflects a very successful yet pretty torn/introspective person. The second half of the book is WIERD--so fair warning. http://www.amazon.com/Travels-Vintage-Michael-Crichton-ebook/dp/B007UH4H6Y/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&sr=&qid= Interesting article by Crichton. You don't have to have a degree in climatology or have spent your entire life studying it to realize that a lot of settled science has turned out to be false or misunderstood before. And sorry the whole point of demanding it be settled seems to revolve around, let us have complete control over the way you live your life and open your wallet for us. Whether it is warming or cooling or if CO2 has anything to do with it or not. I'm still wondering what is the ideal temp and either way there will be winners and losers as there always has been. If there is more droughts in NA and fewer in Africa who gets to decide which is better. Crops will grow were they haven't before and crops won't grow were they used to. But if all that can be put out is "the sky is falling" hand over your freedom and money. Is it any wonder more and more people are becoming skeptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deepValue Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Ah, this is the guy I had been looking for. I'd actually be interested in your takedown of Lindzen, Liberty, if you don't mind making one more post. Sure: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_arg.htm He's apparently one of the guys paid by big oil too: "Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."" (you can follow reference links for each thing, and they then link to more references if you want to dig deeper) That guy certainly has more credentials than most, but that's not what matters, what matters is the validity of his arguments. I don't see much that is convincing, and apparently the experts don't either. Nobody disagrees that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles, or that models aren't perfect. That's weak. What matters is what's different about this cycle (much faster without obvious natural causes like supervolcanoe eruption or whatever, with a fast rising of carbon PPM in the atmosphere because we put lots of gigatonnes of it there since the industrial revolution), etc. It just boggles my mind that anyone would think that we could put billions and billions of tons of a gas that is known to trap infrared heat in the atmosphere, and that nothing would happen. It's like if a company's earnings rise year after year after year... Maybe the daily fluctuations and random factors would cause a lot of noise, but all else being equal the long-term overall trend would be up and up. Fair enough. Thanks for the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'm still wondering what is the ideal temp and either way there will be winners and losers as there always has been. What you need to understand is that it just keeps going. We're pumping more carbon in the atmosphere, and most of it doesn't go away for decades if not centuries. It accumulates. And the rate at which we're adding is also accelerating. It's not about "oh well, who knows, maybe hotter is better?", it's about creating an out-of-control feedback loop. Even if we get to temps that are better than what we have now, we won't stay there, we'll keep warming unless we make a big change. There's so much inertia in the system that by the time it's obvious to all that we're in deep trouble, it'll be way too late to change course. And almost all species on earth have evolved within a certain range and can't just run the A/C or wear different clothes like us (and for those who think "they'll just adapt", realize that most climate changes happen over millennia if not millions of years, we're doing it in the range of 100s of years)... Climate is hard for the same reason investing is hard; it requires long-term thinking, and humans aren't wired that way. I'm all for market mechanisms where there's a market, but there isn't with our planet's climate (you get concentrated benefits today, and diffuse harm way down the line). It's like hoping market forces are enough to make sure we avoid nuclear war. What if it happened during the cold war. Would you sue those who caused it to make it right? Would you just let the magic market make sure bombs are in safe hands? Well, there's even less price mechanism for having a planet that stays within temperature ranges that are hospitable to current life. At least with war, you get immediate feedback that tells you it's bad and people can understand that.. Most of the opponents of climate science seem to work from their conclusion backwards: I don't want socialism, I don't want my liberties to be curtailed, so I believe that there's no warming, or if there is, it'll all be all right anyway. Let me google search for someone with a PHD who thinks the same way. Well, I don't want socialism either (I've read Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Rockwell, Mises, etc), and I like being free thank you very much. But I'm rational enough to realize that a screwed up planet leads to a worse future than a more stable and hospitable planet, and that to make a dent on that problem requires large scale changes that won't happen on their own because there isn't a market mechanism here. There's way more than enough coal and oil in the ground to screw the future many times over. We can't wait to run out of it, we must make cleaner technologies more cost competitive so there isn't the need to burn it all (and ideally we'd develop ways to suck carbon out of the air). That's why I'm for removing fossil fuel subsidies and putting a price on carbon that ratchets up over time (to internalize the real costs that are currently not priced in burning the stuff -- you can even make it revenue-neutral and cut income and corporate taxes by the same amount), which should encourage a fairly rapid switch to things like solar, uranium, thorium, wind, hydro, EGS, as well as big investments in energy efficiency (we waste so much), the electrification of transportation, reforestation and other carbon sinks, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Guys guys guys. Y'all are missing the point. The point isn't whether the earth's warming is man-made or not. That is irrelevant! The point is that the only way to allow human beings to survive and flourish in the context of a changing climate is by leaving them free from coercion to exercise the mind. To discover, create, and implement technology freely and voluntarily. Remember that whole individual rights thing? Ya know... America?? Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are so passe these days. I don't think you get it. Don't you see the potential "revenue" that the parasitic class can suck out of the productive people of the world with a carbon tax? "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I don't think you get it. Don't you see the potential "revenue" that the parasitic class can suck out of the productive people of the world with a carbon tax? "If you drive a car, I'll tax the street If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet" 1) That's not a scientific argument. The climate doesn't care about our politics, and what we're doing has an impact regardless of whether it's politically convenient or inconvenient for some. 2) There are many ways to attack this problems, some I probably dislike just as much as you do. It's just lazy thinking and strawman-building to act like everybody who agrees with the science on earth's climate must agree on everything that anyone has ever put forward about it. I mean, Buffett's a democrat, right? Is he exactly the same as all other democrats? Are all republicans like Munger? Labels dangerously distort reality. Personally, I'd be happy if all taxes on incomes, payrolls and consumption went away and were replaced by various taxes on toxins and pollutants that ratcheted up as our production of those went down. There are problems with this, but there are problems with the current system too. A carbon tax could be entirely revenue-neutral with exactly the same amount cut in taxes elsewhere as is raised there. Right now fossil fuels are getting a hidden subsidy (on top of the non-hidden ones) because they don't have to pay for the damage that they do, but we'll all have to pay for it over time. If they did pay, prices would be higher and the switch to and development of cleaner sources of energy would be much faster than it is now. Believe me, I wish burning all this fossil fuel didn't have negative impacts. Things would be much simpler. But we don't get to pick our reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sys Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'd be happy if all taxes on incomes, payrolls and consumption went away and were replaced by various taxes on toxins and pollutants that ratcheted up as our production of those went down. There are problems with this, but there are problems with the current system too. A carbon tax could be entirely revenue-neutral with exactly the same amount cut in taxes elsewhere as is raised there. there was an interesting planet money segment on this. worth listening to. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/07/12/201502003/episode-472-the-one-page-plan-to-fix-global-warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyska Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Believe me, I wish burning all this fossil fuel didn't have negative impacts. Things would be much simpler. But we don't get to pick our reality. But the benefits far outweigh the negative impacts, I have no guilt for how the standard of living has been raised exponentially by it. And on the scale of toxins that man is putting into the environment, I see carbon dioxide as far, far up the list of things to tackle first. Are the environmental costs of rare earth mineral extraction and processing in other countries factored in. Somehow I doubt it, but it makes the green people feel smug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 But the benefits far outweigh the negative impacts, I have no guilt for how the standard of living has been raised exponentially by it. And on the scale of toxins that man is putting into the environment, I see carbon dioxide as far, far up the list of things to tackle first. Are the environmental costs of rare earth mineral extraction and processing in other countries factored in. Somehow I doubt it, but it makes the green people feel smug. I never downplayed the benefits, I'm not for stopping the use of all fossil fuels overnight, and I realize that there was probably no other way for the civilization to reach this point than by harnessing buried hydrocarbons. But now that we know more and have other techs, I want to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy. This is different from a lot of cost-benefit analyses because the harm accumulates and can become more or less irreversible. It's not like "well, cars kill some people in accidents, but overall the benefits of the extra mobility is greater than the harm caused so it's worth it". Each of those deaths and maimings are independent, they don't compound each other. What we're facing is more like living on Easter Island a long time ago and cutting all the trees one by one. You can say: "Well, we make fire with the trees and cook stuff, that's more useful than having a tree still standing", but over time you run out of trees and the island can't support your civilization anymore but by then you can't really do much about it anymore because it's too late... Maybe it takes a really long time to get there and people don't really notice as it happens, but the end result is still very real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matjone Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No offense meant to liberty or anyone else, but I love it when two board members are in a disagreement about something and they both say they are making one last post on the subject. A torrent of posts from both of them is guaranteed to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APG12 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No offense meant to liberty or anyone else, but I love it when two board members are in a disagreement about something and they both say they are making one last post on the subject. A torrent of posts from both of them is guaranteed to follow. Pffft, that was four pages ago. Ancient history now. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 No offense meant to liberty or anyone else, but I love it when two board members are in a disagreement about something and they both say they are making one last post on the subject. A torrent of posts from both of them is guaranteed to follow. It's one clear indication that I'm not as smart as some posters here who always stay far away from threads like these, regardless of how ridiculous some of the things posted are. I'm working on self-control, but sometimes I just can't resist. I'm trying, and will try harder in the future :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turar Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Saw this comment on Reddit today, thought some here might like it: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sys Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 the first comment in that post (from "tired_of_nonsense" in case it doesn't stay first) is very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now