[quote]Waittz wrote:
Since humankind do not work together, think the same way, act and behave in a uniform manner or work in the same view of best interest
[/quote]
This is another part of the issue as well. America could just say “fuck it” and do 6 million things to try and make all those things happen. If South American countries don’t follow suit, the whole Rain Forest bit…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
yup[/quote]
Ahhh, man’s consistent inability to truly understand its own limitations.
On topic sections: men can only get so big, we have set limits
PWI: Man can literally control the Earth and create a better world
And may I ask, what are the costs of this “better” world?[/quote]
That’s quite the extreme you’ve leapt to there. Who’s saying we can control the Earth? The simple fact is that we can mitigate certain aspects of the ever-changing planet we live on. We’ve already significantly cleaned up the air and the waterways in this country. There aren’t any rivers catching on fire here lately, that’s for sure. We aren’t going to undo or reverse anything, but we can certainly slow some processes down that will have the effect of maintaining our current living standards along with improving many areas of them. We have already improved the waterways and the air we breathe in many areas. LA is nowhere near as smoggy now as it was 40 years ago and many of our oceans and rivers are in muc better shape for fishing and recreation than they were 40 years ago. So I suppose in that respect, yes, we can control the Earth.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Are you of the opinion that climate change poses no threat to life as we know it?[/quote]
Not near as much of a threat as the zealous people espousing the idea that we do something about it. There is no concern about a particular problem, it’s a fear that things will change and even if there’s evidence to suggest that things could or will change for the better, there’s still fear. Even worse, is the insistence that we must change things to avoid catastrophically changing things as we know them and preserve life as we know it. It’s just an abject fear. The fear of fear itself.
Case in point: [quote]Just because there have been periods of time with higher temps and CO2 in the past and life survived/thrived doesn’t mean we will.[/quote]
It’s a false perception/proposition/option/threat that’s overwhelmingly conjectural. You might as well say, “Just because life survived and thrived during the First Coming of Jesus Christ, doesn’t mean we’ll survive the Second!” There have been points in the past where CO2 levels were lower and global mean temperature was lower and we certainly weren’t thriving and our survival was by no means assured. Less than a generation after we brought ourselves to the brink of potentially and acutely annihilating ourselves, with no indication that we’re entirely out of the woods yet, you’re certain that our main concern is CO2 levels 50-200 yrs. into the future. Our survival/thriving never is, was, or (potentially) will be guaranteed!
EDIT: I didn’t mean to disparage Christians or Christianity. Rather highlight that AGW may or may not be science but what to do about it is, pretty decidedly, a belief system.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
yup[/quote]
Ahhh, man’s consistent inability to truly understand its own limitations.
On topic sections: men can only get so big, we have set limits
PWI: Man can literally control the Earth and create a better world
And may I ask, what are the costs of this “better” world?[/quote]
That’s quite the extreme you’ve leapt to there. Who’s saying we can control the Earth? The simple fact is that we can mitigate certain aspects of the ever-changing planet we live on. We’ve already significantly cleaned up the air and the waterways in this country. There aren’t any rivers catching on fire here lately, that’s for sure. We aren’t going to undo or reverse anything, but we can certainly slow some processes down that will have the effect of maintaining our current living standards along with improving many areas of them. We have already improved the waterways and the air we breathe in many areas. LA is nowhere near as smoggy now as it was 40 years ago and many of our oceans and rivers are in muc better shape for fishing and recreation than they were 40 years ago. So I suppose in that respect, yes, we can control the Earth.[/quote]
Well, to be fair the cartoon takes it to the extreme first.
It seems like everything you’ve listed, which I agree is good, is only fixing our own fuckups in the first place. Not really changing anything or controlling any situation that we didn’t create in the first place. I guess I didn’t read the cartoon as to be saying that…
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
yup[/quote]
Ahhh, man’s consistent inability to truly understand its own limitations.
On topic sections: men can only get so big, we have set limits
PWI: Man can literally control the Earth and create a better world
And may I ask, what are the costs of this “better” world?[/quote]
That’s quite the extreme you’ve leapt to there. Who’s saying we can control the Earth? The simple fact is that we can mitigate certain aspects of the ever-changing planet we live on. We’ve already significantly cleaned up the air and the waterways in this country. There aren’t any rivers catching on fire here lately, that’s for sure. We aren’t going to undo or reverse anything, but we can certainly slow some processes down that will have the effect of maintaining our current living standards along with improving many areas of them. We have already improved the waterways and the air we breathe in many areas. LA is nowhere near as smoggy now as it was 40 years ago and many of our oceans and rivers are in muc better shape for fishing and recreation than they were 40 years ago. So I suppose in that respect, yes, we can control the Earth.[/quote]
Well, to be fair the cartoon takes it to the extreme first.
It seems like everything you’ve listed, which I agree is good, is only fixing our own fuckups in the first place. Not really changing anything or controlling any situation that we didn’t create in the first place. I guess I didn’t read the cartoon as to be saying that…[/quote]
I don’t watch cartoons so I missed that one. But really, no offense or anything, but what is the point of arguing against something that a goddamned cartoon says? If it’s so far off-base, how much further off-base are you by lending it any sort of legitimacy by even acknowledging it?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
If it’s so far off-base, how much further off-base are you by lending it any sort of legitimacy by even acknowledging it?[/quote]
Eh, I don’t really think the political cartoon Waitts posted was THAT far off base with its intended message, but rather the way it tried to get that message across.
Guys I am doing my part to try and help the global warming. I just went outside and released some methane.
You know about that cartoon Waitz posted (which I thought was good btw); I’ve always said that whether you believe mankind has caused global warming or not, most of the goals should be the same regardless. Why wouldn’t we want cheaper, more efficient, renewable, cleaner energy?
The problem is, these global warming nuts think that it’s such a catastrophe that we have to go in the opposite direction. We have to stop CO2 emissions and devolve in the field of energy with dumbass ideas like ethanol in our gas and smart cars and bio fuel and even solar is not yet as efficient as we realistically need it to be.
I still maintain we need more money pumped into plasma arc tech.
Haha man some of you dudes get way too testy about these things. I just saw that comic on FB today and it reminded me of this thread.
DB’s original post is still strange to me. No individual accepting or denying climate change will make any difference in the grand scheme so why even bother trying to convince them one way or the other? I mentioned this in a diff thread but this is basically why I dont recycle. It doesnt make a difference.
[quote]csulli wrote:
I still maintain we need more money pumped into plasma arc tech.[/quote]
So we all need one of theses?
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Haha man some of you dudes get way too testy about these things. I just saw that comic on FB today and it reminded me of this thread.
DB’s original post is still strange to me. No individual accepting or denying climate change will make any difference in the grand scheme so why even bother trying to convince them one way or the other? I mentioned this in a diff thread but this is basically why I dont recycle. It doesnt make a difference. [/quote]
First off, why bring my name into this?
Secondly, if you had been around in the seventies when rivers caught fire and lake Erie was too dirty to swim in you might have a different opinion on what small changes can do. I don’t think we can stop any cataclysmic event that may or may not be about to happen, but we sure as hell can make it a better place to be while we are here.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I don’t think we can stop any cataclysmic event that may or may not be about to happen, but we sure as hell can make it a better place to be while we are here.[/quote]
I agree with this, and live my life in a way to try and accomplish it, to varying degrees.
But, and my main beef with hardcore “we need to make super drastic changes” people is, we have to be smart and be sure we are putting resources in the best direction. Not just pissing money up a rope for what amounts to nothing, when we could have put those resources elsewhere and gotten better results.
I’m not s denier as much as skeptical of anything government talks about this much, lol. I’ve come to not trust them much at their word.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Haha man some of you dudes get way too testy about these things. I just saw that comic on FB today and it reminded me of this thread.
DB’s original post is still strange to me. No individual accepting or denying climate change will make any difference in the grand scheme so why even bother trying to convince them one way or the other? I mentioned this in a diff thread but this is basically why I dont recycle. It doesnt make a difference. [/quote]
First off, why bring my name into this?
Secondly, if you had been around in the seventies when rivers caught fire and lake Erie was too dirty to swim in you might have a different opinion on what small changes can do. I don’t think we can stop any cataclysmic event that may or may not be about to happen, but we sure as hell can make it a better place to be while we are here.[/quote]
I wanst aware of your existance.
Back in the 70’s i was just a twinkle in my dads eye so you are correct i might have a different opinion, but then again i really do love using styrofoam. It is just so useful.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I don’t think we can stop any cataclysmic event that may or may not be about to happen, but we sure as hell can make it a better place to be while we are here.[/quote]
I agree with this, and live my life in a way to try and accomplish it, to varying degrees.
But, and my main beef with hardcore “we need to make super drastic changes” people is, we have to be smart and be sure we are putting resources in the best direction. Not just pissing money up a rope for what amounts to nothing, when we could have put those resources elsewhere and gotten better results.
I’m not s denier as much as skeptical of anything government talks about this much, lol. I’ve come to not trust them much at their word. [/quote]
Solyndra ring a bell. That money could have been used elsewhere.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I don’t think we can stop any cataclysmic event that may or may not be about to happen, but we sure as hell can make it a better place to be while we are here.[/quote]
I agree with this, and live my life in a way to try and accomplish it, to varying degrees.
But, and my main beef with hardcore “we need to make super drastic changes” people is, we have to be smart and be sure we are putting resources in the best direction. Not just pissing money up a rope for what amounts to nothing, when we could have put those resources elsewhere and gotten better results.
I’m not s denier as much as skeptical of anything government talks about this much, lol. I’ve come to not trust them much at their word. [/quote]
I still maintain that those hardcore people you mention, regardless of how much effort and money they piss away, in the grand scheme wont make a difference. We as a population are very aware that smoking is bad and will kill you. How much money and efforts are put into anti smoking? When is the last time you made it one full day without seeing someone smoke or a butt on the ground?
For these thigns to works, everyone has to be on board or nothing will happen. The fact alone that DB mentions 97% of the scientific community agrees is a problem. Just remember for every 97 people recycling, 3 are burning styrofoam cups.
for all you young punks 
a story of Donora PA
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
for all you young punks a story of Donora PA
http://www.donora.fire-dept.net/1948smog.htm[/quote]
You have to realize that my generation has no attention span. I click the link and immediately mentally projected that gif Derek uses where it is some chick opening up legs and it just says “too long did not read”.
…and I am supposed to be considered one of the bright and successfull ones of this doomed generation. Yer fucked 'Merica.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
for all you young punks a story of Donora PA
http://www.donora.fire-dept.net/1948smog.htm[/quote]
You have to realize that my generation has no attention span. I click the link and immediately mentally projected that gif Derek uses where it is some chick opening up legs and it just says “too long did not read”.
…and I am supposed to be considered one of the bright and successfull ones of this doomed generation. Yer fucked 'Merica. [/quote]
This does not happen anymore, and when it does it is a natural phenomenon. We have come a long way since the 70’s. Now that crowd has nothing to do, but they need to get paid so they find something new to yell and scream about.
We have learned and we are moving forward. US is not the issue. China and India are poluting a ton. I will say I am looking to get solar panels and a wind turbine at my new house. I wish it was cheaper, but it is what it is.
Anyone know anything about Power4Patriots? I saw a sales pitch, but did not know if it works or not. Thinking of building my own solar panels and wind turbine that could cut down he cost a bit.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
for all you young punks a story of Donora PA
http://www.donora.fire-dept.net/1948smog.htm[/quote]
You have to realize that my generation has no attention span. I click the link and immediately mentally projected that gif Derek uses where it is some chick opening up legs and it just says “too long did not read”.
…and I am supposed to be considered one of the bright and successfull ones of this doomed generation. Yer fucked 'Merica. [/quote]
This does not happen anymore, and when it does it is a natural phenomenon. We have come a long way since the 70’s. Now that crowd has nothing to do, but they need to get paid so they find something new to yell and scream about.
We have learned and we are moving forward. US is not the issue. China and India are poluting a ton. I will say I am looking to get solar panels and a wind turbine at my new house. I wish it was cheaper, but it is what it is.
Anyone know anything about Power4Patriots? I saw a sales pitch, but did not know if it works or not. Thinking of building my own solar panels and wind turbine that could cut down he cost a bit.[/quote]
When I got back from India I kept thinking about that after seeing it firsthand. Like if you treat your body very well, eat right, exercise, take your vitamins etc but have gangrene on one small apendage and dont treat it, it will spread and you will die regardless of your other health regimines. Put into the context of the world as a whole, maybe it explains my earlier stance on the proposed argument.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
I stated I am against them based on the utter lack of data.[/quote]
So you’re decidedly against GMOs based on an utter lack of data? If yes please reconcile that with your advocacy of data-driven decision-making.
That’s the thing, there isn’t zero data. You just choose to ignore or dismiss the entire mountain of data that exists. There’s no point in redirecting you to the studies that have been done and do exist and, increasingly, it’s becoming obvious that there’s no appealing to what would otherwise be normal abilities to observe and reason. You’re a zealot.
facepalm This gives me the overwhelming impression that when I use the term ‘prior distributions’ you think I mean ‘historical dispersals’ and not ‘information or facts known prior to analysis’.
Fisher himself, rather eloquently, in the introduction to Design of Experiments rather explicitly states that; “(Heavily paraphrased)While statistician hold sway over their data, experiments, and interpretations, the implications of that work must be reconciled with the common understanding and that the statistician holds no greater or lesser ability than the next thinking man in this regard.” Experiments, even well designed ones, don’t contain or generate the truth, they, at best, reveal it. Distributions exist(ed) independent of experimentation and data exists regardless of collection.
Bayes Theorem also rather strongly suggests that just because no experiments have been performed does not mean no data exists. The prior distribution is the cornerstone of it. If a man walks into a bar, says he’s the best billiards player in the world, snaps his fingers and all the balls (save the cue balls) on all the tables in the room rocket into the pockets in numerical order all at once. Because of my knowledge of prior distributions with regard to humans, bars, and billiards, I don’t have to ask him to do it again as proof.
Shannon’s work indicates similarly, more information is conveyed from the realization of a single (or few) rare event(s) than the n-th iteration of a common event. Extrapolating, for the progressively information-consumption inhibited, no amount of winning pool by snapping fingers is relevant.
If gramoxone kills people (and mice, rats, cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses, chickens…) and glyphosate doesn’t, n trials are unnecessary. If I use RoundUp soybeans to feed more people than I did with plain old soybeans and gramoxone, there is little to no math to be done.
Don’t bother with a reply unless it’s video footage of a living organism consuming significant dose of gramoxone and surviving or consuming the equivalently small amount of GMOs and being killed in a similar manner.