Shooting at the Holocaust Museum (Now with Global Warming)

[Kurosen]

Those are some great strawmen.

[GodHand Prime]

Originally Posted by Kurosen

Those are some great strawmen.

Assuming you're talking about my post, I'd like to suggest that "straw man" doesn't mean what you think it means. You asserted that believing in and acting on global warming has no cost. I pointed out some costs.

EDIT: Sorry, you did mention "costs." I meant to say that you asserted that believing in and acting on global warming has no drawbacks, and was in every way a preferable thing to the alternative.

[The Wizard Who Did It]

Originally Posted by GodHand Prime

What about the morality of telling underdeveloped nations that they can't use their ample natural resources? The global warming movement is pretty much guaranteeing that no new competition from abroad will emerge for any big industry, unless they can feasibly do so using technologies that are still decades (at least) away from being viable, let alone affordable. It also prevents the construction or powering of hospitals. That's right - global warming activism denies health care to underdeveloped countries.

Right, because it's impossible for more developed countries to construct generators for under developed countries to power their hospitals and shit.

Oh right, I forgot. The best economic and social systems are ones where everyone always looks out for themselves, as is evidenced by the possible world-shattering issues being supported by these systems.

That said, you're ignoring that under developed countries don't really have a significant foothold in the market using current economic policy anyway.

What about the morality of causing a complete shutdown of our way of life? Suddenly eschewing all currently viable power sources in favor of experimental power sources that one day, decades down the road, might be able to power the necessary devices for our world to work as it is now would have a few consequences, I think.

That would be a problem, if there wasn't already evidence that many of these power sources work perfectly fine. It's just that big businesses with a vested interest in not developing power sources (those related to fuel, for example) have actively worked to make sure that these systems do not get off the ground.

What about the morality of spending billions of dollars to fix a problem we don't have?

The thing is that an inefficient use of resources is a problem we have whether we have a global warming problem or not. So updating and improving our technology towards a more green path is a good solution even if global warming doesn't exist (to the degree in question). If it does exist, then we're just getting two birds with one stone.

What about the morality of, well, lying?

Well when discussing this policy, I'd argue that any lying being done would be a white lie. Sure, some of the claims made are complete bullshit. However, if it scares people into supporting a more efficient and effective infrastructure, I can't in good heart say that it's an inherently bad thing.

But then, the only costs are the world economy, our way of life, the lives of the poor, our integrity, and the principles of science. A small price to pay for the power rush of believing mankind capable of ruining the world, and the self-importance of believing you can fix it.

Or you can just say "we should probably make a few changes to reduce the amount of pollution we throw around." I can't see how increasing the quality of life for people in general by making some sacrifices in the short term is a bad thing.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by GodHand Prime

What about the morality of, well, lying?

Yeah, NASA is totally lying.

Global warming is a conspiracy, maaaaaaaaaaaan, all cooked up by ?????????????????????? for the benefit of ??????????????????????? because ????????????????????? gets them ????????????????????????????

*SMOKES WEED*

[Kurosen]

Originally Posted by GodHand Prime

I meant to say that you asserted that believing in and acting on global warming has no drawbacks, and was in every way a preferable thing to the alternative.

The costs are trivial. Your versions of them are grossly inflated (i.e. misrepresentations) to make your points. Straw man. Thanks for playing.

What I love about the scientific conspiracy angle is that it depends upon complete ignorance of the scientific process.

Scientists do not sit around all day patting each other on the back. It's a cut throat system where everyone is constantly seeking to prove the prevailing wisdom wrong. You don't get grant money, fame, and prestige by proving that Einstein was right. You get it by proving that he was wrong and that you are right.

Yes, sometimes scientists lie or fudge their results -- intentionally or unintentionally -- this is basic human nature and cannot be avoided...which is why there is such an incredible emphasis on repeatable results. It's not a perfect system, but it weeds out falsehoods better than anything else we've invented thus far. For global warming to be a "hoax" would require the willing participation of hundreds (thousands?) of ambitious men and women to put aside their careers and egos to...uh...annoy some oil companies I guess.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by GodHand Prime

Except how this is very, very much not the case.

What about the morality of telling underdeveloped nations that they can't use their ample natural resources? The global warming movement is pretty much guaranteeing that no new competition from abroad will emerge for any big industry, unless they can feasibly do so using technologies that are still decades (at least) away from being viable, let alone affordable. It also prevents the construction or powering of hospitals. That's right - global warming activism denies health care to underdeveloped countries.

Allow me to share a story one of my teachers once shared with me.

Once upon a time a company was test marketing an electic car. He got to lease this vechile and try it. He loved it, it was vastly better then his gas powered one. So much so he had every intention of keeping it. Then an oil company bought out the people that made it, discontinued the project, and forced him to return the car.

Alternatives have existed for over a decade. The technology exists, now. It just isn't implimented. We. Dont. Need. Oil.

[GodHand Prime]

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

Right, because it's impossible for more developed countries to construct generators for under developed countries to power their hospitals and shit.

Oh right, I forgot. The best economic and social systems are ones where everyone always looks out for themselves, as is evidenced by the possible world-shattering issues being supported by these systems.

That said, you're ignoring that under developed countries don't really have a significant foothold in the market using current economic policy anyway.

Parts and fuel for generators have to come from somewhere, man. And they're not cheap. Under current environmental regulation, the best available to small hospitals is solar panels, which are still very expensive. Two solar panels provide enough power to run a light bulb to work by, or a refrigerator to store medicine in, but not both at once. Forget about actual modern equipment.

With access to their fossil fuels, these countries could sell the surplus to buy generators that run on a fuel they can afford. They don't have this access, and so they can't.

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

That would be a problem, if there wasn't already evidence that many of these power sources work perfectly fine. It's just that big businesses with a vested interest in not developing power sources (those related to fuel, for example) have actively worked to make sure that these systems do not get off the ground.

Yeah, no. There's been work going on for many years to try and find alternative power sources, but no one can come up with a way to make them sustainable. The scientists are still working on a way to make things like wind and solar power viable on a large scale, but they're too costly and inefficient.

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

The thing is that an inefficient use of resources is a problem we have whether we have a global warming problem or not. So updating and improving our technology towards a more green path is a good solution even if global warming doesn't exist (to the degree in question). If it does exist, then we're just getting two birds with one stone.

If it's an energy efficiency issue, let's make it an energy efficiency issue. I'm cool with that. I'm all for developing more energy sources. My issue is with global warming, and all the hysteria and scientific dishonesty and real human cost that goes along with it.

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

Well when discussing this policy, I'd argue that any lying being done would be a white lie. Sure, some of the claims made are complete bullshit. However, if it scares people into supporting a more efficient and effective infrastructure, I can't in good heart say that it's an inherently bad thing.

It's people like you who kill science, and I think you should have your computer taken away for this.

Originally Posted by The Wizard Who Did It

Or you can just say "we should probably make a few changes to reduce the amount of pollution we throw around." I can't see how increasing the quality of life for people in general by making some sacrifices in the short term is a bad thing.

They've got to be informed sacrifices made willingly. The global warming scare interferes with that. Advances in reducing actual environmentally harmful emissions would be great. But CO2 is an incredibly environmentally beneficial gas, and the absurd lengths we're going to in order to curtail its emission are not only costly, but harmful.

[Fifthfiend]

No seriously get back to the part where every climate scientist in the world is lying and only ___________________ will tell us the truth, man.

[Kurosen]

But CO2 is an incredibly environmentally beneficial gas, and the absurd lengths we're going to in order to curtail its emission are not only costly, but harmful.

We're pumping over 400 years' worth of carbon into the atmosphere every year and it's increasing every year.

I mean, a liter of water every day is incredibly beneficial to you, but 400 liters per day seems like a bit of a strain.

[GodHand Prime]

Originally Posted by Kurosen

The costs are trivial. Your versions of them are grossly inflated (i.e. misrepresentations) to make your points. Straw man. Thanks for playing.

What I love about the scientific conspiracy angle is that it depends upon complete ignorance of the scientific process.

Scientists do not sit around all day patting each other on the back. It's a cut throat system where everyone is constantly seeking to prove the prevailing wisdom wrong. You don't get grant money, fame, and prestige by proving that Einstein was right. You get it by proving that he was wrong and that you are right.

Yes, sometimes scientists lie or fudge their results -- intentionally or unintentionally -- this is basic human nature and cannot be avoided...which is why there is such an incredible emphasis on repeatable results. It's not a perfect system, but it weeds out falsehoods better than anything else we've invented thus far. For global warming to be a "hoax" would require the willing participation of hundreds (thousands?) of ambitious men and women to put aside their careers and egos to...uh...annoy some oil companies I guess.

Except that this interpretation of the scientific progress assumes that everyone is playing by the rules. Let's go over some of the basic reasons why they don't.

1) Scientists are people.
2) People want money.
3) Scientists largely get money from grants.
4) Grants are controlled by politicians.
5) Politicians decide who to give grants to based on who is saying what they want to hear.

Then there's the basic underlying fact that humans want to think they're more powerful than they are.