Liberals are...smarter!

[ElasticNinja]

Heck, even if there wasn't man mad climate change, isn't it completely and utterly ******ed to waste resources which took millions of years to generate, and to completely feck up our enviornment?

 

[byteware]

Heck, even if there wasn't man mad climate change, isn't it completely and utterly ******ed to waste resources which took millions of years to generate, and to completely feck up our enviornment?

Let me explain why it is important to understand WHY climate change occurs before making any changes.

Let's say CO2 has 100 times the effect on the climate that some scientists claim it has. That would mean our CO2 output is the only thing keeping us from plunging into an ice age.

What if CO2 is part of the cloud formation process (a process we don't completely understand yet). Reducing CO2 could reduce cloud cover, sending temperatures sky rocketing on this planet.

Making any change is stupid unless you know what effect that change will have.

How many times have we changed something to be more environmentally friendly, only to discover we destroyed our environment worse than we would have otherwise? Too many.


Climate is complicated. VERY VERY complicated. It is not as simple as it's been made out to be, and we don't know enough about it. We need to be studying our climate, instead of making baseless predictions.

 

[Saintshroomie]

I completely agree. However, it took a LONG time to win over consensus in the scientific community because it was challenging such an age old scientific "Fact".

Yes, but these very same scientists will ridicule anyone who ISN'T convinced.

I'm not arguing against science. It's the best process we have. What I'm arguing is that the reality of the process isn't as neat and tidy as you present it.

I read this quote today (paraphrasing): Science is information. Religion is interpretation.

What we don't know is exactly where I would expect it to be. Creation of life, Creation of the Universe.

God hates homosexuals? I've seen no evidence of that, even in the Bible. The real answer is that the speaker hates homosexuals, and hides behind God to get away with it.

That is how science SHOULD work. There is evidence that suggests that Global Warming is not man made (or at least not mostly man made). However, the scientific community that depends on GW grants for funding refuse to consider that information.

Something to keep in mind. Most of the scientists who support Global Warming suffer from the same flaw as those hired by the oil companies to oppose it. Both depend on their answers for their pay check. If GW scientists determined that GW was not man made, then they no longer get paid. The same is true for oil company employed scientists who oppose it. If they ever determined it was man made, they would no longer get paid.

Both parties like getting paid.



3 things:

1) I'm not arguing that the scientific method is wrong.

2) I'm arguing that some practice it flawed. To some degree EVERY scientist practices it wrong, for different reasons.

3) I just use GW as an example. The same flaws that infect the GW science, infect EVERY science. It's the nature of people, not the scientific method.



Evidence is subjective if it depends on your perception of events.

That's what makes it different from Empirical evidence.

With subjective evidence, I understand that will only convince me because of my perception of the events.

I cannot use Subjective evidence to convince others. I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

With Empirical evidence, I understand that it should be convincing to anyone who understands the science/data/math/whatever.

I CAN and SHOULD use Empirical evidence to convince others. I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.



If you look back through my posts, you will notice that I mentioned that there are people who take religion in every bad way that you've stated. I have agreed with you, but at the current time, we haven't been talking about that in regards to religion.

As far as the Ad hominem attacks, it's not an Ad Hominem attack to state that all scientists are human with human motivations.

And no, you don't have to be a wretch to have human motivations.

And no, you cannot discount science simply because of human motivations (even greedy scientists can be right).

Ok, i'm only going to make a few points, cause I'm getting tired of writing these long responses.

1. I agree ridicule is no way to win an argument and its certainly no way to refute one.

2. Science isn't always executed in a clean and tidy way, so I guess its agreed.

3. I can't really say anything else about the lack of knowledge in those areas, except that IMO your thinking is non sequitur.

4. As far as my mentioning of the Westboro Baptist Church, you missed the point. Just because they provide an answer does not mean that the answer has any worth. As for your opinion on the churches point of view, you cannot prove that since they are talking about the mind of god. Who is to say that god is not angry with homosexuals, Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. What I'm saying is that anyone could speculate about what God wants us to do, but what would be the point.

5. The global warming bit, I can't disagree with you on the fact that money plays a part in all things in the world today. With that being said, you can't pick and choose when that becomes an excuse not to believe something unless you have evidence to back that up. To use it in the context you have, you might as well think that those scientists at CERN are just building a fake machine to make you think they are doing work (we all know its just a giant database for porn).

6. I understand exactly what subjective evidence and empirical evidence is, but thats not what you said. You used the word "proof"...which I took issue with. I do applaud you though for not presenting subjective evidence as proof for others to believe in a God, it would be non-sensical (not to mention impersonal).

7. Your right, it is not an ad hominem attack to call a scientist human, with human motivations. However, it is an ad hominem attack to say that this fact is a reason not to believe them, which is the basis of the argument you put forth for GW scientists.

I read that article you posted about the GW plagiarism. Seeing as how the author of the IPCC report wrote the book he plagiarised from, it might be a good idea to actually look at the sources he used to both write his book and the report. The article characterizes them as if they were blogger posts (the article you sent was from a blogger post I believe), but many of them are in fact legitamate and scholarly journals. Look for yourself in the report. The fact is, fiction can be based in science...I think they have a name for that.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_II/ipcc_sar_wg_II_full_report.pdf

I'll admit that the rest of your post is very interesting, and if true somewhat disturbing. I'll be sure to keep learning on the subject.

 

[Saintshroomie]

Maybe someone should make a climate change thread for this.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Let me explain why it is important to understand WHY climate change occurs before making any changes.

Let's say CO2 has 100 times the effect on the climate that some scientists claim it has. That would mean our CO2 output is the only thing keeping us from plunging into an ice age.

What if CO2 is part of the cloud formation process (a process we don't completely understand yet). Reducing CO2 could reduce cloud cover, sending temperatures sky rocketing on this planet.

Making any change is stupid unless you know what effect that change will have.

How many times have we changed something to be more environmentally friendly, only to discover we destroyed our environment worse than we would have otherwise? Too many.


Climate is complicated. VERY VERY complicated. It is not as simple as it's been made out to be, and we don't know enough about it. We need to be studying our climate, instead of making baseless predictions.

Ice Age?

WTF!

It takes thousands of years to go into an ice-age

Get your facts straight

The time for debate is over!

The debate was ten years ago

But again as, usual, the poor will suffer most
But you will be dead in ~80 years and are wealthy, so wont suffer much consequenses

 

[mpw]

.

 

[Saintshroomie]

Ice Age?

WTF!

It takes thousands of years to go into an ice-age

Get your facts straight

The time for debate is over!

The debate was ten years ago

But again as, usual, the poor will suffer most
But you will be dead in ~80 years and are wealthy, so wont suffer much consequenses

Dude, his argument was hypothetical, so you clearly did not understand.

If you want to have an honest discussion about something, try not imploding at the end of your post.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Dude, his argument was hypothetical, so you clearly did not understand.

If you want to have an honest discussion about something, try not imploding at the end of your post.

Exactly
His argument was Hypotethical and made little sense.

Unlike climate research which has been thourougly researched for years and consensus has been reached, and the odd non-consensus report is usually linked to big oil.

Imploding at the end?



EDIT: I have yet to see proof that
a) there is no global warming
b) humans do not have a detrimental effect on the enviornment
c) Rupert Murdoch isn't a major propaganda tool of Big Oil
d) Biurning fossil fuels is good for the enviornment
e) The poor who will be affected most are inherently evil and deserve it

 

[byteware]

Ok, i'm only going to make a few points, cause I'm getting tired of writing these long responses.

Agreed.

1. I agree ridicule is no way to win an argument and its certainly no way to refute one.

Agreed.

2. Science isn't always executed in a clean and tidy way, so I guess its agreed.

This is my main point.

3. I can't really say anything else about the lack of knowledge in those areas, except that IMO your thinking is non sequitur.

2 was my point. The rest just evidence of 2.

4. As far as my mentioning of the Westboro Baptist Church, you missed the point. Just because they provide an answer does not mean that the answer has any worth. As for your opinion on the churches point of view, you cannot prove that since they are talking about the mind of god. Who is to say that god is not angry with homosexuals, Leviticus 20:13 says that they should be put to death. What I'm saying is that anyone could speculate about what God wants us to do, but what would be the point.

I would argue that since the Bible says that GOD makes people homosexual... and the Bible says that GOD is love, it could very easily be argued that God doesn't hate homosexuals.

5. The global warming bit, I can't disagree with you on the fact that money plays a part in all things in the world today. With that being said, you can't pick and choose when that becomes an excuse not to believe something unless you have evidence to back that up. To use it in the context you have, you might as well think that those scientists at CERN are just building a fake machine to make you think they are doing work (we all know its just a giant database for porn).

Cern, and GW are different beasts. Cern is about proving scientific theory. We have access to the theories that Cern is attempting to prove.

GW is about politics. The theory has moved beyond trying to prove it, and has moved to trying to get politicians to change (which would profit the scientists immensely).

6. I understand exactly what subjective evidence and empirical evidence is, but thats not what you said. You used the word "proof"...which I took issue with. I do applaud you though for not presenting subjective evidence as proof for others to believe in a God, it would be non-sensical (not to mention impersonal).

One meaning of proof is experience.

7. Your right, it is not an ad hominem attack to call a scientist human, with human motivations. However, it is an ad hominem attack to say that this fact is a reason not to believe them, which is the basis of the argument you put forth for GW scientists.

I use them as an example. I have plenty of other reasons to not believe them (although, I take one claim at a time with the expectation that it is true, and investigate it as best I can to determine whether or not it is).

I read that article you posted about the GW plagiarism. Seeing as how the author of the IPCC report wrote the book he plagiarised from, it might be a good idea to actually look at the sources he used to both write his book and the report. The article characterizes them as if they were blogger posts (the article you sent was from a blogger post I believe), but many of them are in fact legitamate and scholarly journals. Look for yourself in the report. The fact is, fiction can be based in science...I think they have a name for that.

The fact that an environmentalist who hasn't been trained in climate science was appointed to this panel, and did no further research, but only copied his previous material doesn't, in itself, prove the shoddy work that was done there?

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_II/ipcc_sar_wg_II_full_report.pdf

I'll admit that the rest of your post is very interesting, and if true somewhat disturbing. I'll be sure to keep learning on the subject.

I hope I've spurred you on to read on the topic.

 

[byteware]

Ice Age?

WTF!

It takes thousands of years to go into an ice-age

Get your facts straight

The time for debate is over!

The debate was ten years ago

But again as, usual, the poor will suffer most
But you will be dead in ~80 years and are wealthy, so wont suffer much consequenses

While I was throwing out possibilities... you may want to rethink your position here.

The last "Little Ice Age" only took a matter of months (current theory, subject to change).

It took just six months for a warm and sunny Europe to be engulfed in ice, according to new research.
Previous studies have suggested the arrival of the last Ice Age nearly 13,000 years ago took about a decade - but now scientists believe the process was up to 20 times as fast.

Ice Age took just SIX months to arrive... not 10 years | Mail Online

 

[Saintshroomie]

Exactly
His argument was Hypotethical and made little sense.

If it didn't make sense to you, then it would behoove you to say what part of it didn't make sense to you rather than the nonsensical "WTF"...

Unlike climate research which has been thourougly researched for years and consensus has been reached, and the odd non-consensus report is usually linked to big oil.

I tend to agree with you, and if I'm not mistaken byteware even acknowledges big oils roll in the whole ordeal.

Imploding at the end?

I was referring to this little spat...

The time for debate is over!

The debate was ten years ago

But again as, usual, the poor will suffer most
But you will be dead in ~80 years and are wealthy, so wont suffer much consequenses

 

[byteware]

That is a great example of what I've said before; those that believe have stopped asking why they believe, stopped seeking answers.

I'm genuinly glad you're content with your decision if it brings you comfort, but while you're almost certainly right that whatever this elusive 'proof' is, it probably won't convince me to believe in God, and I think you're also right that nothing I can say will weaken your proof; I also think that by not even allowing the 'proof' to be examined, you're not allowing any reasoned argument to be made. What if it I could provide you with a reasonable explanation for your proof? what if it was so beyond explanation it made me believe? You don't even want to look for an answer.

My proof is deeply personal to me. It is mine. And I do not share it with nameless people.

And in case you are wondering. I still question what I know.

Yes; but to suggest that the consumption of resources a a rate that is ever growing, and which is literally unsustainable is anything but fool-hardy is to simply bury your head in the sand.

No one claimed that. Not believing in AGW doesn't mean that I have to believe that.

My current house plans involve receiving all power from solar panels (and NOT living like an energy miser). I also want an electric car. I want EESTOR to finally put out the product that they have claimed that they can.

Most of that I want for financial reasons. It is cheaper to use electricity than it is to use Gas. Solar panels will pay for themselves over the life of the house. When I Retire, I should have 0 bills to deal with other than food and some water (I plan on a system for capturing and filtering rain for drinking water).

This all makes FINANCIAL sense. And I WILL do it for that reason.

 

[byteware]

Exactly
His argument was Hypotethical and made little sense.

Unlike climate research which has been thourougly researched for years and consensus has been reached, and the odd non-consensus report is usually linked to big oil.

Often, but not always. Those members of the IPCC who have dissented from the overall findings are not linked to Big oil.

EDIT: I have yet to see proof that
a) there is no global warming
b) humans do not have a detrimental effect on the enviornment
c) Rupert Murdoch isn't a major propaganda tool of Big Oil
d) Biurning fossil fuels is good for the enviornment
e) The poor who will be affected most are inherently evil and deserve it

I can explain why you haven't seen proof of these. It's because we haven't discussed a single one of those claims. We haven't made a single one of those claims. It might be best to look for those answers from someone who claims them to be true.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I can explain why you haven't seen proof of these. It's because we haven't discussed a single one of those claims. We haven't made a single one of those claims. It might be best to look for those answers from someone who claims them to be true.

Not here, but I have looked around and yeah nothing


@shroomie, WTF was because his point of the x100 made little/no sense
If its non-sensical its because I abbreviated without full stops

As for little spat, I was pointing out that people can create their own reasons to believe things as its convinient for them

 

[Saintshroomie]

I would argue that since the Bible says that GOD makes people homosexual... and the Bible says that GOD is love, it could very easily be argued that God doesn't hate homosexuals.

Where does it say these two things? I agree that you could make the argument that God doesn't hate homosexuals (personally I would like to believe that if there was a God he wouldn't hate one of his creations), the bible is a bit contradictory on the subject IMO.

Cern, and GW are different beasts. Cern is about proving scientific theory. We have access to the theories that Cern is attempting to prove.

GW is about politics. The theory has moved beyond trying to prove it, and has moved to trying to get politicians to change (which would profit the scientists immensely).

The only difference I can see is that CERN can prove their theories in a controlled environment, while GW scientists don't have that benefit. The very experiment would hinge on societal change (as it turns out, it's a very political process). In the end though, they are both trying to prove a theory. As far as who would benefit, you make it sound as if its one giant conspiracy theory. I would argue, true or false, it doesn't matter. Society would benefit more as whole by moving to a less fossil fuel driven economy, unless you think there is an infinite supply of the stuff.

One meaning of proof is experience.

I'll grant that proof can be an experience, but in order for it to be considered sufficient evidence to establish the truth of something, the experience can't be subjective. As an example, many people believe in aliens abducting people from the planet. Many say they experienced this. If it could be established as fact that the abduction experience really happened, then you would have proof of aliens. Since this can't ever be established as fact (usually because of some sort of mind erasing ray) we can clearly state that these experiences do nothing to prove the idea that aliens are abducting people.

I use them as an example. I have plenty of other reasons to not believe them (although, I take one claim at a time with the expectation that it is true, and investigate it as best I can to determine whether or not it is).

I can't really ask for anything more than that.

The fact that an environmentalist who hasn't been trained in climate science was appointed to this panel, and did no further research, but only copied his previous material doesn't, in itself, prove the shoddy work that was done there?

Ok, two things. Firstly, the fact that someone is not a climatologist does not mean they have no place on the panel to begin with. A climatologist wouldn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground when it came to say the spread of the mosquito population. You said yourself that the climate is very very complicated. It is also safe to assume that should it change, the affects of that change would also be very very complicated. The point being that the panel does not only study whether or not the climate is changing, but also what those affects are, something that spans multiple branches of science, not just climatology. Secondly, the fact that he reused his previous research only goes to show that he did not re-research the subject. I wouldn't count this as shoddy, especially since we already established in previous posts that it wouldn't make sense to reinvent electricity before you decided to make a product that could use it.

I hope I've spurred you on to read on the topic.

You certainly have, its quite the interesting topic.

TBH, the only thing I think GW neigh sayers have going for them is that GW science is not a proven fact, but rather deduced from the evidence that exists. To be blunt though, it's not a proven fact that hell exists, but a lot of people sure are trying to avoid it.

 

[Saintshroomie]

@shroomie, WTF was because his point of the x100 made little/no sense
If its non-sensical its because I abbreviated without full stops

You still haven't explained how it makes little or no sense to assume, in a hypothetical scenario none the less, that carbon has an affect 100 times more powerful than what scientists predict. He is making a hypothetical assumption to make the point that changing something you don't entirely understand can be a dangerous game.

As for little spat, I was pointing out that people can create their own reasons to believe things as its convinient for them

I must have been reading a different post.

 

[byteware]

Where does it say these two things? I agree that you could make the argument that God doesn't hate homosexuals (personally I would like to believe that if there was a God he wouldn't hate one of his creations), the bible is a bit contradictory on the subject IMO.

Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

The only difference I can see is that CERN can prove their theories in a controlled environment, while GW scientists don't have that benefit. The very experiment would hinge on societal change (as it turns out, it's a very political process). In the end though, they are both trying to prove a theory. As far as who would benefit, you make it sound as if its one giant conspiracy theory.

I don't agree that AGW scientists are trying to prove their theory. Many (All that I have read on the matter) state that it's already been proven. That's the problem. It HASN'T been proven.

One giant conspiracy theory? No. The backlash against Gallileo wasn't a conspiracy, it was just people who had decided the world was one way, and wouldn't listen to anyone who thought otherwise. People who claim to have the scientific truth, without scientific proof, are as bad as those who opposed Gallileo. Evolution has a ton more evidence to support it. I believe Evolution is likely how the Earth was populated, because scientists have presented a preponderance of evidence to support it.

I would argue, true or false, it doesn't matter. Society would benefit more as whole by moving to a less fossil fuel driven economy, unless you think there is an infinite supply of the stuff.

I completely agree. However, where we disagree is whether or not FORCING society to move to a less fossil fuel society will overall benefit society.

I think, personally, that nothing good will come from forcing people away from fossil fuels. Especially since it's already happening naturally. Electric hybrids (although an economic wash for the consumer) are plentiful now. Full electric vehicles are coming soon. Hopefully EESTOR or A123 will produce the next generation energy storage that will meet our electrical storage needs for the coming vehicular revolution.

The only good that will come from trying to force people away from Fossil fuels, is that people like Al Gore will get richer. The poor will get poorer.

I'll grant that proof can be an experience, but in order for it to be considered sufficient evidence to establish the truth of something, the experience can't be subjective. As an example, many people believe in aliens abducting people from the planet. Many say they experienced this. If it could be established as fact that the abduction experience really happened, then you would have proof of aliens. Since this can't ever be established as fact (usually because of some sort of mind erasing ray) we can clearly state that these experiences do nothing to prove the idea that aliens are abducting people.

Hence subjective and Objective. Subjective proof is only proof to the one person. Objective proof is proof to anyone.

Objective proof would convince you. Subjective proof would not.


Ok, two things. Firstly, the fact that someone is not a climatologist does not mean they have no place on the panel to begin with. A climatologist wouldn't know his asshole from a hole in the ground when it came to say the spread of the mosquito population. You said yourself that the climate is very very complicated. It is also safe to assume that should it change, the affects of that change would also be very very complicated. The point being that the panel does not only study whether or not the climate is changing, but also what those affects are, something that spans multiple branches of science, not just climatology. Secondly, the fact that he reused his previous research only goes to show that he did not re-research the subject. I wouldn't count this as shoddy, especially since we already established in previous posts that it wouldn't make sense to reinvent electricity before you decided to make a product that could use it.

You should read this... A world leading expert in the area of mosquito born diseases was turned down to work on the mosquito born disease portion of the report. Of the 22 authors, only 1 was a professional entomologist. 2 were physicians who had spent their entire career as environmental activists.

One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.

Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Ni

 

[byteware]

Not here, but I have looked around and yeah nothing


@shroomie, WTF was because his point of the x100 made little/no sense
If its non-sensical its because I abbreviated without full stops

As for little spat, I was pointing out that people can create their own reasons to believe things as its convinient for them

Since the whole post was about not believing anything without proof... I don't see how you can come to that conclusion at all.

 

[Saintshroomie]

Thank you for the references. The bible certainly is unclear on this topic.

I don't agree that AGW scientists are trying to prove their theory. Many (All that I have read on the matter) state that it's already been proven. That's the problem. It HASN'T been proven.

Ok, I

 

[byteware]

Ok, I’ve already agreed with you on the subject that GW hasn’t been proven. And you’re right to say that claiming that as a fact is conjecture, but to say that they aren’t trying to prove it is just as absurd, especially in regards to the mountains of studies on the subject (for or against). Keep in mind I’m not saying anything in regards to the legitimacy of those studies, that is another topic. But what you are questioning isn’t their evidence, at least not in any meaningful kind of way. What you have brought into question is their ethical motives (or lack thereof) on which they perform those studies. This is the textbook example of an ad hominem attack.

I have yet to have a study to "prove" AGW presented to me, that is better than the IPCC.

I don’t quite understand why you brought Galileo into the subject. I can’t really argue with you about those that didn’t believe him, but your analogy is dependent on who you think is playing Galileo in the debate. And I’ll agree that people who claim to have scientific truth without scientific proof are indeed na

 

[Saintshroomie]

I have yet to have a study to "prove" AGW presented to me, that is better than the IPCC.

Much of what the IPCC does isn't really a study. What they have shown a propensity for is interpreting actual scientific studies performed by others (right or wrong).

Just to point out, that just because the "consensus" (which isn't a consensus at all) is wrong, doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. It's not really dependent on who's who. It's just an illustration, that just because I think the majority is wrong, doesn't mean I think there is a large conspiracy.

I think you misunderstood when I said you make it sound like a big conspiracy. What I was referring to was the fact that you were implying GW scientists were perpetuating a lie based on their desire to get funding. That fits the bill of a conspiracy to me.

Societies and cultures change all by themselves.

You make them sound as if they were separate from the people who make them up. Those changes don't take affect except through the people that make up those societies, government is included in that.

For instance, there was no government regulation or mandate when it came to changing over to vehicles that used Gasoline (or diesel) from vehicles that used steam.

The change to electricity from natural gas was not forced.

I'm still not sure where you are getting the idea that the government affecting change in society is not natural (or as you put it forced), IMO sometimes it's even necessary.

There are benefits from being independent of fossil fuels, but banning the use of fossil fuels tomorrow would obviously have more drawbacks than benefits. (exaggeration... I know that no one here is advocating that we stop using fossil fuels tomorrow).

No argument here.

My point being, we are already moving away from fossil fuels, there is no need to force that change. As soon as something like the EESU from EESTOR comes to the market, the shift to electric from gas will be near instantaneous.

I still don't see where you are getting the idea that something is being forced. To suggest that things in society "just happen" naturally is a pretty bold claim that I don't think you can support. All change is affected by those who try to shape society through one endeavor or another. If something in society did not occur a certain way, it would be pretty presumptuous to say that the reason was because it wasn't natural. It would be more likely to say that the reason was because someone or multiple someones did not try to shape society that way.

Al Gore is pushing Carbon Tax credits. I'm sure you are familiar with them. You should also be familiar with the fact that Al Gore is heavily invested in the companies that would deal with these credits, and would profit heavily if we ever passed that concept into law.

You are right though. Companies that specialize in non-fossil fuel tech would make a killing, but they would make that killing by taking money from us. We as a nation would not be able to afford that tech at this point. So, while they would be getting richer, our every day survival would become drastically more expensive.

As far as carbon tax credits go your right, Gore would probably make money on that. However, that isn't what you said. You were implying that people like Gore would get rich if society did not use fossil fuels, and that poor people would only be poorer. Thats pretty sweeping, especially since you didn't really elaborate on who counts as people like Gore (Perhaps people that invest money in green energy?). I'll agree that people who are invested in energy companies would make money should we stop using fossil fuels (kinda goes without saying though, its the whole capitalism thing), but I don't think you can prove that should that ever happen poor people will be made poorer for it.

To say that companies would make their killing by taking money from us isn't really saying anything. We live in a capitalist society, this is how it works. They invent something, and we pay to use it. As for whether or not we can afford that technology right now, you are correct, the price of other energy producing methods is higher than that of using fossil fuels. That is why we invest in it though, to perfect it, and in doing so making it cheaper and more efficient. This is how cars and computers came to be. So to say that poor people will be any poorer than they already are solely based on using a different source of energy has no founding unless you make the assumption that fossil fuels will always cost less than other forms of energy. This is an assumption that has no evidence to support it.

I agree, you need Empirical evidence to disprove AGW, but that's the same evidence you need to prove it.

They claim it. The burden of proof is on them.

I can't agree with you more. But keep in mind that if someone says their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, they've just made a claim that must be backed up by evidence as well.

 

[byteware]

Much of what the IPCC does isn't really a study. What they have shown a propensity for is interpreting actual scientific studies performed by others (right or wrong).

I think you misunderstood when I said you make it sound like a big conspiracy. What I was referring to was the fact that you were implying GW scientists were perpetuating a lie based on their desire to get funding. That fits the bill of a conspiracy to me.

Hence my use of Gallileo as an example.

His detractors wanted something to be true. They fought that it WAS true. There was no conspiracy to cover up the science. It was just they needed something to be true, and desperately clung to it.

The same thing is in effect here. They desperately want AGW to be true... and they cling to it.

You make them sound as if they were separate from the people who make them up. Those changes don't take affect except through the people that make up those societies, government is included in that.

I'm still not sure where you are getting the idea that the government affecting change in society is not natural (or as you put it forced), IMO sometimes it's even necessary.

If I choose to go out and buy an electric car because it fits my life and it's what I want. That's natural. It's my choice. If I go out to buy a car, and I have to buy an electric car, because the government won't allow me to buy anything else. That's not natural. That's forced.

Government's forcing change is never as smooth as when it is done through a natural social shift.

There is a time for the government to force a change. However, if society is already making the change, then forcing the change will only cause problems that aren't necessary.

I still don't see where you are getting the idea that something is being forced. To suggest that things in society "just happen" naturally is a pretty bold claim that I don't think you can support. All change is affected by those who try to shape society through one endeavor or another. If something in society did not occur a certain way, it would be pretty presumptuous to say that the reason was because it wasn't natural. It would be more likely to say that the reason was because someone or multiple someones did not try to shape society that way.

Let's take cell phones for example. I assume you have one. 20 years ago, no one had them (or almost no one). Now everyone has them. Why? Did the government come down and force you to buy one? No. Someone offered you a choice, it was affordable, and it fit what you needed/wanted. So you bought the service.

We have moved to a society were even children are given cell phones without any interference from the government (regulation aside). The government isn't required for societal shift. We shift well enough on our own. If we weren't moving away from fossil fuels already, then sure, the government should get involved, but since we are already moving away from fossil fuels, there's no point. They aren't going to make the process smoother, or cheaper.

As far as carbon tax credits go your right, Gore would probably make money on that. However, that isn't what you said. You were implying that people like Gore would get rich if society did not use fossil fuels, and that poor people would only be poorer.

That is not what I meant at all. What I meant was that the government forcing us away from fossil fuels, will not benefit the poor, it will only make people like Gore richer, and the poor poorer. Things like Carbon tax credits will make the poor poorer, and the rich richer. They aren't actually designed to help anything.

I can't agree with you more. But keep in mind that if someone says their interpretation of the evidence is wrong, they've just made a claim that must be backed up by evidence as well.

True, but without evidence to support AGW, there is also no evidence to argue against it.

All of the AGW computer models are based upon theories that have not been proven. Without the assumption that greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to heat up, there can be no prediction of how much greenhouse gases will cause the Earth to heat up.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Regarding AGW, I just dont get why governments cant just build/support the building of Nuclear Power Plants, Windfarms, Solar Farms etc instead of supporting the idea of continuing to build, expand and extend the lifetime of fossil fuel ones

Its plain ludicrous to not, even without AGW

 

[byteware]

Regarding AGW, I just dont get why governments cant just build/support the building of Nuclear Power Plants, Windfarms, Solar Farms etc instead of supporting the idea of continuing to build, expand and extend the lifetime of fossil fuel ones

Its plain ludicrous to not, even without AGW

They do support these types of energy sources. However, it's new technology. It's going to be slow going even WITH government support.

Did you know that we are building a 500 MW solar farm in Arizona?

Most people don't know.

I personally think that it's ridiculous not to have solar panels installed on houses when they are built. Wrap the cost into the mortgage and they will more than pay for themselves over the life of the home.

 

[Rota]

Regarding AGW, I just dont get why governments cant just build/support the building of Nuclear Power Plants, Windfarms, Solar Farms etc instead of supporting the idea of continuing to build, expand and extend the lifetime of fossil fuel ones

Its plain ludicrous to not, even without AGW

I can at least agree with you there. Nuclear power would be great.