S.o.s!!

[Siamanto]

Re: S.o.s!!

Anonymouse, there is no use. I have been down this line before and once Siamanto's feelings get hurt, there is nothing to be "reasoned" with him.

If "there is no use' then why did you take the time to reply, below? What happened, why couldn't you control yourself and refrain from replying? Was your immature ego is so hurt that you couldn't refrain from replying? Or the "genius???" that you are had an enlightening idea - i.e. "a post that is teh win?" As usual, you're so laughable!

There in lies the problem. You put too much trust in the googles and wikipedias.

Did anybody mention Wikipedia? Is it what you do, limit yourself to Wikipedia when you google? I knew that you were mediocre, but not to this point!

Talk to some REAL climatologists and you will soon realize man-made Global Warming is mainly a political agenda and has little "proof" in science.

For the sake of argument, let'a assume that you did and I did not; so what did they tell you and how is it a political agenda??? Of course, the European public opinion cares so much about American political agendas???

The "evidence" is very similar to reports that claimed we are moving towards the next ice age just what, 30 years ago?

What is the evidence and how is it "very similar to reports that claimed we are moving towards the next ice age just what, 30 years ago?"

And once again so that you fully grasp what I am saying (hopefully without having your emotions cloud what you are reading): I am not saying there is no evidence of the Earth getting warmer in the last century and in the last few decades. But trying to make the leap and connecting it to human activity is much like trying to decide what is happening in a soccer match with just a picture. Hope that is clear now.

There is nothing complex in what you stated and I have grasped it the first time. I replied by pointing to your ignorance of the techniques used and the data gathered on the subject. Unfortunately, either "your emotions cloud what you are reading" or you are intellectually inapt to understand a simple reply.

... and if you want to bring math into it, you are trying to fit a large nth degree model with very localized and sparse samples and ANY idiot (even the very mediocre ones) will tell you that it is a futile attempt

Please, bring the Math! You really should because I'd like to have some fun at your expense!
In the past, you amused me and made me laugh with your simplistic views and I won't mind some amusement.

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

Now, I have a partly-genuine question. I'm a little perplexed: what is the political motivation for "environmentalists" to fight for major business and industry policy changes.

The problem with paranoid "environmentalists" is a lot like the reactions of those that buy into the post 9-11 "fear" climate. To continue on this parallel, pretty much over night we saw this country go into shear panic as to the impending doom that the "terrorists" are bringing. But did anything really change from 9/10 to 9/11? Of course not.

Same with Global Warming. This climate of "impending doom" and the fear that accompanies it is being used and abused to immediately shift people's views and stands on certain topics. Now one may argue that the final motivations behind the Global Warming movement is a "good" one (promoting energy efficiency, environmental conciousness, etc), but there is also the inherent danger of the "Anahita Syndrom" that comes along with it.

To clarify this a bit more ... people who disagree with eating of animals are using Global Warming as an excuse to bring to light to the "scientific observations" that farts of cows in Texas are also contributing to this. Then you have other people that are advocating electric vehicles as "environmentally friendly" alternative to our regular cars where it is entirely possible that those electric vehicles cause far more polution than internal combustion engines (starting from the fact that most electricity in the US comes from burning coal to the fact that the large batteries used in electric vehicles contain much more nasty chemicals in them than what might be coming out of the tailpipe of a new Corolla burning ethanol).

[Sip]

Re: S.o.s!!

aren't ill-posed problems a b*tch?

But that's where Ph.D's come from! At the heart of pretty much every Ph.D. topic, there is b*tchin non-linear optimization problem ... otherwise, the problem is too simple to begin with

[Siamanto]

Re: S.o.s!!

That's the thing Sip! Even if we assume for a minute, for the sake of argument, that there is global warming, there is absolutely no concrete or conclusive evidence that suggests man is the prime culprit.

It's more about what man can do about it; can you focus on that instead of viewing it as a commie/socialist/Islamist/Martian - aren't Martians green??? - conspiracy???

Well that's the thing Kar. Environmentalists are not truly concerned about the planet but about controlling people. It's just another avenue for the discredited ideology of Marxism. Since Communism fell now all these bumbling morons rush to environmentalism and the peak of their intents was manifested in the Kyoto Protocol, a stupid international treaty that only required the U.S. to cut emissions and left other countries such as China to do as they please. Furthermore this would have required massive outsourcing of companies as they would have to relocate to countries where Kyoto wouldn't apply to make money.

[Anonymouse, as a friend, I think that you really need to do something with your paranoia and lighten up. I'm really sincere when I say that you're scaring me, I'm not saying it to discredit your statements. You need to listen to yourself!]
Also, many believe that the US is losing markets only because their technologies/products are obsolete and environment unfriendly.
However, I agree that China is abusing it's "developing country" status to ignore certain obligations; however, may soon become more environment friendly than the US.

[Siamanto]

Re: S.o.s!!

I find it amusing that you paint my views as "ideological" as if yours are made from the sweet purée of unfalsifiable zen and reason. I also find it ironic that you have the gall to call my views "religious" when it is precisely the almost automaton-like adherence to the global warming facade by most people, complete with its own religious imagery and zeal with Al Gore as the messiah.

From the simple expression of ideological and religious convinctions, it degraded to pure calumniation and diffamation? From your over-reaction, Al Gore seem to exist in your world but does not in mine. I hear about the Environmental Issues at least once a day - i.e. News, debate, documentary, paper etc. - and only once or twice a year about Al Gore.
Try to think globally and free your mind from it's confinement to the US!

You then go into a brash non-sequitur journey comparing my skepticism and refusal to accept the global warming facade on par with CIA torture chambers and neo-con wet dreams as if I support such things, nevermind how they tie in or relate to the global warming point. My guess is you did not think this through all the way and made some spurious analogy merely for the sake of smear and not for the sake of proving a point.

Calling such alarmingly religious sentiments, reminiscent of American anti-communist phobia, "skepticism????" Nice try! Now, that is funny and amusing???
I'm sorry, but the following sounds religiously scary and neo-conish to me:

...there is no reason to believe these global alarmists...who want to control society, industry and individuals by what is nothing more than another variant of socialism.

Such an ideological statement - not even philosophical i.e. epistemological - seems to be sooooooooooooooo popular among the scientifically untrained laymen. Ironic, but human???
Can you please give us some examples of the supposed "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" Thanks!

Here you have appeared to create an intellectual Berlin Wall similar to what you did when we were discussing the French riots. When I proceeded to even make mention of my own views, you lambasted me and chided me for even daring to do so as I could not properly comment anything relating to France nor hold an opinion without having visited France.

Now you are doing something similar. You are trying to advance the ridiculous point that those who disagree with the global warming thesis are "scientifically untrained laymen" and if they were not they would surely agree with the thesis and see the truths as they are oh so self-evident. Hidden in this assumption is that the only way one would be able to disagree and even offer a valid opinion on this topic is if one at least as some scientific credentials. This is, my French-speaking earth zealot, pure horsepucky.

What an pertinent argument about the "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" I'm convinced now!!!
If you are so confident of yourself, why do you have to desperately calumniate with "cheap shots?" Can't you simply provide examples of "manipulated statistics and faulty computer projections???" Something to think about!

Honestly, do you have anything relevant to add that is not simply an emotional outburst and/or ranting about Al Gore who means little outside of the US? Again, the issue is neither about Al Gore, nor US domestic politics.

Maybe you should follow your own prescription and not jump to conclusions as that is not scientific.

So I should simply join with you the neo-conish anti Al Gore, anti-Green, anti-commie, anti-terrorist, anti-humanity sect???
Thanks for the invitation!

Going to the point, global warming's high point I consider Kyoto and about the only thing Bush did right was to scrap Kyoto because it placed the burden on the United States to cut emissions while not requiring China – the world’s biggest polluter – and other polluting third-world countries to do a thing and essentially gave them a blank check. Furthermore, the regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the regulations don’t apply.

Those are political issues and convictions - i.e. ideological of nature - and are of no scientific value. Of course, I'm neither saying that I agree or disagree with you on the subject; I'm just saying that they are of no relevance as to the empirical existence of Global Warming and other environmental issues.

[karoaper]

Re: S.o.s!!

Well that's the thing Kar. Environmentalists are not truly concerned about the planet but about controlling people. It's just another avenue for the discredited ideology of Marxism. Since Communism fell now all these bumbling morons rush to environmentalism and the peak of their intents was manifested in the Kyoto Protocol, a stupid international treaty that only required the U.S. to cut emissions and left other countries such as China to do as they please. Furthermore this would have required massive outsourcing of companies as they would have to relocate to countries where Kyoto wouldn't apply to make money.

I certainly understand that one of the uses of ideologies is to control people, though I wouldn't peg "environmentalism" as an ideal ideology (-1 point) for such a use. Of course, as with all ideology, there are always people who pick it up as a crusade for a lack of things to do. However, at the same token I believe it's absolutely true that there are scientists who are environmentalists, motivated only by their assessment of the effect of human actions on the environment.

I guess I would say that what you said is true or not depending on the actions/changes that people demand, not on the conclusions they arrive at or their scientific based (hopefully) arguments.

[karoaper]

Re: S.o.s!!

... and if you want to bring math into it, you are trying to fit a large nth degree model with very localized and sparse samples and ANY idiot (even the very mediocre ones) will tell you that it is a futile attempt

aren't ill-posed problems a b*tch?

[Anonymouse]

Re: S.o.s!!

Now, I have a partly-genuine question. I'm a little perplexed: what is the political motivation for "environmentalists" to fight for major business and industry policy changes. If they actually secretly believed that it's all BS, what corporation or a mogul or industry is looking to undercut the involved sectors of industry: namely the auto, energy, and lumber. Do the solar power industry folks have that much money and political clout as be able to influence the top politicians? The question is partly cynical, but partly genuine because maybe there are real reasons, but I'm not seeing. The only real thing I've ever heard anywhere, besides generic references to "political motivation" and "politicized climatology" was the idiotic statement by some Congressman that without the "scare-tactics" Weather Channel wouldn't have a good rating.

Well that's the thing Kar. Environmentalists are not truly concerned about the planet but about controlling people. It's just another avenue for the discredited ideology of Marxism. Since Communism fell now all these bumbling morons rush to environmentalism and the peak of their intents was manifested in the Kyoto Protocol, a stupid international treaty that only required the U.S. to cut emissions and left other countries such as China to do as they please. Furthermore this would have required massive outsourcing of companies as they would have to relocate to countries where Kyoto wouldn't apply to make money.

[Anonymouse]

Re: S.o.s!!

That's the thing Sip! Even if we assume for a minute, for the sake of argument, that there is global warming, there is absolutely no concrete or conclusive evidence that suggests man is the prime culprit.

[karoaper]

Re: S.o.s!!

Haha, this topic again. Guys, if the scientists are arguing about this, we lay-people should probably refrain from arguing 100% towards one or another side.

Having said that, the one cold hard fact is that the climate changes in the last 100 or so years break all previous records. I've talked to people in hydrology department, environmental engineering department and whatever sources I've found on the net. Now, whether these changes are man-made or not is where the argument lies, not in whether these major changes are occurring or not.

Even though the scientists may not know the very long-term cycle behavior, they can model the consequences when a new record in a certain aspect of the climate is broken. And we're getting very close to some limits, which could cause major changes in the environment of our planet earth. And what's more scary is that we're getting close to these limits at previously unseen rate.

Now, I have a partly-genuine question. I'm a little perplexed: what is the political motivation for "environmentalists" to fight for major business and industry policy changes. If they actually secretly believed that it's all BS, what corporation or a mogul or industry is looking to undercut the involved sectors of industry: namely the auto, energy, and lumber. Do the solar power industry folks have that much money and political clout as be able to influence the top politicians? The question is partly cynical, but partly genuine because maybe there are real reasons, but I'm not seeing. The only real thing I've ever heard anywhere, besides generic references to "political motivation" and "politicized climatology" was the idiotic statement by some Congressman that without the "scare-tactics" Weather Channel wouldn't have a good rating.