hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 26, 2008 13:09:47 GMT -5
On the 1pm top of the hour newsbreak, CBS news just referenced the most recently released data and the polar ice caps over North America and they are greater than any year since 1966. The average temperature was also down and lower than any but 2 years in the past 70 years. I don't know that this "proves" anything, but it would at least question the "certainty" with which some advocates claim the opposite. That has been my position all along. I have been very vocal that exploring alternative fuels, sustainable fuels and cleaner burning fuels simply makes good sense. I have also thought that increasing fuel efficiency is simply a wise and prudent decision. Having said that however, the veracity with which some insist on the certainty of so called global warming is questionable. We simply do not know with statistical certainty at this point. My criticisms are simply that some very vocal advocates are acting as if we are dealing with a proven and predictable relationship and we simply are not. Furthermore, I think that both sides know this. Therefore those on either side are seemingly interested in things other than the issue iteself. Egads, but I thought it was only the "evil" capitalistic greeds from "big oil" that were looking out for number one? Nope, that motivation is going strong on both sides of the aisle.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 26, 2008 13:27:01 GMT -5
Just curious what you think of this logic
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 26, 2008 14:40:23 GMT -5
seattle, I will have to look at home tonight after the baseball game. Dial up isn't conducive to youtubing.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Feb 27, 2008 7:07:33 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 27, 2008 9:35:22 GMT -5
Just curious what you think of this logic This is awful logic, even if the guy doesn't look like Bobby Flay if he decided to teach biology to undergrads. Let's make the item in question a meteor striking Earth. The same columns and rows, the same everything. Based on this guy's logic, we should devote all our money to saving the world from a meteor strike. (it also works for preemptive strikes against presumptive nuclear powers - if there's a chance they could use it, you need to invade). The other problem is that regulation and politics isn't about binary choices. There's no "yes" or "no" answer for regulation - it's no regulation versus some amount of regulation. And the political and social questions just get thrown out there as automatic negatives. Yes, the doomsday scenario if the environment goes to hell is much worse than the doomsday scenario if econuts make it legal to stab people with sharp sticks if they get into a car. But that's no reason to automatically favor regulation.
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Feb 27, 2008 10:05:12 GMT -5
Just curious what you think of this logic This is awful logic, even if the guy doesn't look like Bobby Flay if he decided to teach biology to undergrads. Let's make the item in question a meteor striking Earth. The same columns and rows, the same everything. Based on this guy's logic, we should devote all our money to saving the world from a meteor strike. (it also works for preemptive strikes against presumptive nuclear powers - if there's a chance they could use it, you need to invade). The other problem is that regulation and politics isn't about binary choices. There's no "yes" or "no" answer for regulation - it's no regulation versus some amount of regulation. And the political and social questions just get thrown out there as automatic negatives. Yes, the doomsday scenario if the environment goes to hell is much worse than the doomsday scenario if econuts make it legal to stab people with sharp sticks if they get into a car. But that's no reason to automatically favor regulation. Did I miss part of that video? Where did he say "devote all our money" and indicate that it was all or nothing in terms of regulation. It was pretty simplistic -- take action or don't take action. I assume he purposely did not get into what action to take, because that is where the discussion gets complicated.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 27, 2008 10:49:47 GMT -5
The "regulation" was my shorthand for taking action and not taking action. "Taking action" probably involves spending lots of money to develop technologies as well as regulation (which has opportunity costs that he fairly illustrates).
The problem is that the "complicated" part is what matters. Some people advocate restricting or eliminating air travel due to its environmental cost. Some people want to essentially rework American cities. My problem is when people use the "awful lottery ticket" explanation to justify any action.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 12:01:43 GMT -5
Instead of refuting your points, I'd point out that he has made a few follow-ups to that video to answer questions like yours. Check it out if you're interested. Obviously he made it as simplistic as possible, that was the point.
I personally am still dumbfounded that in the United States, the issues of Global Warming and emissions are political issues. It's about science not politics. I don't know what to make of these articles because I'm not a scientist, but I can tell you this: The issue of Global Warming isn't something for political pundits to duke it out over. Taking action should not be about cost and benefit, but rather whether or not the problem exists. That's all this guy is saying. In a case like this, where if scientists are right, humans would have to power to stop any sort of impending global catastrophe, why not ask.
This shouldn't "I like hugging trees, you like big corporation campaign contributions". It's (potentially) far too important.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Feb 27, 2008 12:52:37 GMT -5
Instead of refuting your points, I'd point out that he has made a few follow-ups to that video to answer questions like yours. Check it out if you're interested. Obviously he made it as simplistic as possible, that was the point. I personally am still dumbfounded that in the United States, the issues of Global Warming and emissions are political issues. It's about science not politics. I don't know what to make of these articles because I'm not a scientist, but I can tell you this: The issue of Global Warming isn't something for political pundits to duke it out over. Taking action should not be about cost and benefit, but rather whether or not the problem exists. That's all this guy is saying. In a case like this, where if scientists are right, humans would have to power to stop any sort of impending global catastrophe, why not ask. This shouldn't "I like hugging trees, you like big corporation campaign contributions". It's (potentially) far too important. You're dumbfounded that an issue that requires government action has become a political issue? Really?
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 13:13:36 GMT -5
TBird- I didn't say the issue of HOW we deal with global warming shouldn't be political. What I'm saying is that politicians and amateur scientists need to stop debating about whether or not global warming exists. That something for science to decide. These articles aside, there is almost a consensus in the scientific community that green house gas emissions are have a negative impact on the ozone layer yadda yadda yadda... I'm going to out on a limb and say that non of us on this board is in a position to accurately and completely interpret the news stories mentioned above. As a result, we are arguing politics on an issue that is scientific. THAT is my point.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 27, 2008 13:22:02 GMT -5
Seattle, in fairness, the reason it becomes political is that byt the time the scientists get done, it might be too late. One theory is that there are geograpohic cycles of warming and cooling spells. The more we learn, the more we need to analyze what we thought we had already "learned." But since the "danger" comes from what is already somewhat of a political issue, the natural result is one that is completely political in nature. I am not saying that is a good thing, just that it is what is bound to happen.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 13:52:48 GMT -5
Oh believe me I know. I just think it's a shame. It especially frustrates me when people (not you guys... I'm talking like TV pundits) talk like they know what's going on when, like you said, scientists are still exploring other options like the natural heating/cooling cycles one.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 27, 2008 13:55:30 GMT -5
TBird- I didn't say the issue of HOW we deal with global warming shouldn't be political. What I'm saying is that politicians and amateur scientists need to stop debating about whether or not global warming exists. That something for science to decide. These articles aside, there is almost a consensus in the scientific community that green house gas emissions are have a negative impact on the ozone layer yadda yadda yadda... I'm going to out on a limb and say that non of us on this board is in a position to accurately and completely interpret the news stories mentioned above. As a result, we are arguing politics on an issue that is scientific. THAT is my point. We are not "arguing politics on an issue that is scientific". I hate it when scientists say "well, it's science" and claim that it's a holy temple far above the concerns of evil politicians and inept bureaucrats. And if they're questioned ... "well, you don't really understand it". Government matters. A lot. The reason this issue is so contentious is that the means to address the problem is so varied. Some will entail huge financial and opportunity costs. Some will entail small ones. Some will have a big effect. Some won't. One item which remains unresolved in the scientific community is how significant the effect of greenhouse gases is. This matters a lot and it affects how seriously we should take the problem. Saying that "there is a problem" and saying "there is a big problem" are two very different things.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 14:16:16 GMT -5
TBird- I didn't say the issue of HOW we deal with global warming shouldn't be political. What I'm saying is that politicians and amateur scientists need to stop debating about whether or not global warming exists. That something for science to decide. These articles aside, there is almost a consensus in the scientific community that green house gas emissions are have a negative impact on the ozone layer yadda yadda yadda... I'm going to out on a limb and say that non of us on this board is in a position to accurately and completely interpret the news stories mentioned above. As a result, we are arguing politics on an issue that is scientific. THAT is my point. We are not "arguing politics on an issue that is scientific". I hate it when scientists say "well, it's science" and claim that it's a holy temple far above the concerns of evil politicians and inept bureaucrats. And if they're questioned ... "well, you don't really understand it". Government matters. A lot. The reason this issue is so contentious is that the means to address the problem is so varied. Some will entail huge financial and opportunity costs. Some will entail small ones. Some will have a big effect. Some won't. One item which remains unresolved in the scientific community is how significant the effect of greenhouse gases is. This matters a lot and it affects how seriously we should take the problem. Saying that "there is a problem" and saying "there is a big problem" are two very different things. Exorcist you're completely right. Let's just hold a nationwide vote to decide whether or not global warming is a problem. Maybe then we could get some clear answers that won't be lost in all that science mumbo-jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 14:35:57 GMT -5
Hifi's identified the main problem, which makes it more interesting to talk about. Scientists might not have a definitive answer until it's too late. That's why the video's logic makes sense. It's Pascal's Wager.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 27, 2008 14:52:42 GMT -5
Hifi's identified the main problem, which makes it more interesting to talk about. Scientists might not have a definitive answer until it's too late. That's why the video's logic makes sense. It's Pascal's Wager. The video's logic is incorrect. Pascal's Wager works because God either exists or doesn't. God doesn't partially exist. And politics doesn't necessarily mean a vote. It means horse trading, determining what decisions are best given a variety of constraints. The video's logic ignores that. It's the most frightening video I've ever seen because this person talked it over with his friends, and no one poked any holes in it whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 14:57:00 GMT -5
Nah... Pascal's works because there are only two options. Either global warming will cause the extinction of the human race if left unchecked or it won't. Same idea.
This really isn't getting anywhere.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 27, 2008 15:06:25 GMT -5
Sigh. Here we go again. Paging NevadaHoya & SirSaxa..... First question: hifi, where does the data you referenced in the first post come from (i.e., who released the data), and where can I have a look at it? hifi wrote: I have been very vocal that exploring alternative fuels, sustainable fuels and cleaner burning fuels simply makes good sense. I have also thought that increasing fuel efficiency is simply a wise and prudent decision. True hifi wrote: "We simply do not know with statistical certainty at this point. My criticisms are simply that some very vocal advocates are acting as if we are dealing with a proven and predictable relationship and we simply are not." Second question (& sub-questions): where's the harm in taking the action that you said, above, "makes good sense," and are "wise and prudent decision "? If you agree with some of the proposed solutions, why get your panties in a bunch about "some very vocal advocates"? I don't hear you getting up in arms about "some very vocal advocates" on other issues; why this one?
hifi wrote: Furthermore, I think that both sides know this. Therefore those on either side are seemingly interested in things other than the issue iteself.
For the last time, this is not an issue that splits down any "aisle." There are not "sides" no matter how much people want there to be. Yes, there are differences of opinion about principle and degree, but there are not two or even three camps, and there is not one or even two issues.
Global climate and the data that suggest links between greenhouse gas emissions on a long-term scale and resultant climatic consequences are complex issues that require public, private, non-profit, and non-governmental sectors to collaborate toward comprehensive solutions, not mid-20th century political wrangling.
hifi wrote: Egads, but I thought it was only the "evil" capitalistic greeds from "big oil" that were looking out for number one?
What does this add to your argument? Don't you think it's a shameless strawman and deleterious to constructive debate?
exorcist wrote: We are not "arguing politics on an issue that is scientific". I hate it when scientists say "well, it's science" and claim that it's a holy temple far above the concerns of evil politicians and inept bureaucrats. And if they're questioned ... "well, you don't really understand it".
Is this a general complaint or specific to the climate change subject? Because if you're making the complaint about the latter, I would commend to you the mountain of reports and syntheses of data whereby members of the scientific community are desperately trying to present complicated data for digestion by non-scientists. The scientists I work with bend over backwards to make their subjects accessible. Some just aren't very good communicators. Can you give an example of your point?
exorcist wrote: Government matters. A lot. The reason this issue is so contentious is that the means to address the problem is so varied. Some will entail huge financial and opportunity costs. Some will entail small ones. Some will have a big effect. Some won't.
Great point.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 27, 2008 15:20:50 GMT -5
Nah... Pascal's works because there are only two options. Either global warming will cause the extinction of the human race if left unchecked or it won't. Same idea. This really isn't getting anywhere. I'll make one last shot to advance this. Part of it is that I'm surprised - it seems so obvious to me. There are a variety of options. Global warming may cause the extinction of the human race tomorrow, or 2020, or when WG wins a national championship (i.e., never). It's possible in theory that there could be a "Day After Tomorrow" tipping point, but it's more likely that things will change very subtly. This time question is a significant one, and it's directly related to how much damage is being done to the planet by man. On this, as far as I'm aware, there's significant dispute (hence the "worst-case estimates"). This ties in with solutions, which is things that can be done, of which there are infinite numbers of policy recommendations. These changes will have a variable effect both on 1) how costly they are (both in financial and opportunity versions) and 2) how much of an impact they may have. Small changes may have big consequences, though it's likely that spending more money will eventually lead to diminshing returns. The issue becomes laying those diminishing returns over the danger. Let's say that, at current levels, humanity will be ended within fifty (or X) years. Actions to reduce those levels by 5% (or Y) will extend that to five thousand (or Z) years. The problem is that no one really knows what the true values for X, Y, and Z are. The scientific community remains in total debate about them. And the greater that Y becomes, the more people scream in economic pain. Which brings us to the video. It ignores the debate about the numbers, which to me are critical. It's like debating walking across the street - if you never cross the street, you can't get to other side, but if you do and get hit by a car, then you'll be dead or paralyzed and can't get to the other side anyway, ergo you should never cross the street. It ignores the chance of getting hit by a car, and the fact that, if you cross in crosswalks, your chances of death are much smaller. Does that help convey my opinion? EDIT - one other thing - my complaints are mainly about the video, rather than about the debate on global warming in general. There are many better arguments for it than this, which seems really simplistic.
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 27, 2008 15:37:09 GMT -5
Perfectly.
I'm pretty sure you just don't understand what I'm saying and it's probably my fault. You are addressing the important question of HOW to act. I am addressing the important question of WHETHER OR NOT to act. I'm not in any sort of disagreement that deciding what actions to take depends a lot of the variables you outlined. I'm simply saying, as is the video, that the cost of shrugging off global warming and then realizing that we shouldn't have is far greater than the cost of cleaning up emissions now and then realizing that they didn't really harm us (which is highly unlikely).
And I'm not saying you are shrugging off the issue. Far from it.
Regarding Video/Pascal: Both are simplistic. That is the biggest criticism of them. There are a lot of other options aside from the four given. The point is to exaggerate each of the four scenarios to show the POSSIBLE consequences of each. That's why it, and the video, can work. I'm not, and never have said, that either fully explain the situation, it's just an interesting, and yes logical, way of looking at it.
|
|