Total servers: 2
Who's still around? (Forum Discussion ) by Rock April 21, 2019, 10:40:55 pm
DE nonstop + voting
Liero v1.0 – 100lt
IP: 144.76.67.162
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 15
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5
Players:
US nonstop + voting
Modern Warfare1.0 – 20lt
IP: 69.12.73.163
Game Mode: Death Match
Lives: 0
Max Kills: 15
Version: OpenLieroX 0.58 rc5
Players:
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Global Warming Debate  (Read 2702 times)

Spectro

The Global Warming Debate
« on: May 24, 2008, 11:13:09 pm »
As a skeptic I've found myself lacking the knowledge and expertise from either side to make a clear judgment. Yes, the global warming philosophy has infatuated society. I see it, but I also question it. It wouldn't be surprising if the mainstream media has cooked up a tremendous overreaction to the whole pro-warming agenda. Yes, if there are alleged facts that demand attention- let the people see them, but when I hear about 31,000 scientists who attest to the global warming theory standing as nothing but an incompetently rendered farce, I have to second guess things. Why does the mainstream media come out with all the facts supporting global warming, but none that completely debunk it like these 31,000 scientists?

The success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased US federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars before 1990 to $1.7 billion today. Where does that funding go? Mostly to scientists who are trying to make a living. What happens if a scientist doesn't agree with the agenda? They don't get funded. So "just go with it" and put food on your plate, or debunk the silly global warming notion and loose your job.

It's a notion that needs its own debate, but only after giving this a read:
http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/names-of-over-30000-scientists-rejecting-global-warming-hypothesis/

nihil abyssyncyst

Re: The Global Warming Debate
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2008, 12:35:25 am »
Spectro,
The site you give a link to is a paranoid right wing conspiracy theory website. Look at some of the other things on that page, they rant on about how capitalist countries are supposedly in a communist conspiracy to destroy national identities and put everyone in concentration camps. Capitalist governments could be pursuing long term political changes, but even if so you will probably hear the least intelligent discussion about it from right wing conspiracy theorists, who live in a fantasy land where everyone they disagree with is really working together behind the scenes and evidence against it becomes evidence for it. Their minds work like this: "If there is proof against something, that is actually proof for it because they must have something to hide". These right wingers also have something to sell you -- they want you to vote for politicians that aim to eliminate public education, welfare, and environmental laws. Right wing populists just represent another group of exploiters: smaller businesses who want lower taxes for themselves and resent big business connections to government.

Fact is, you can find 30 thousand scientists to back any whack theory, even creationism. The percent of scientists believing something doesn't prove whether it is true or not, and in this case its not much to brag about, probably less than 1 percent of US and European scientists, with no indication of how many of them are even experts in the field they are signing this statement saying they know everything about for. It should also say what percent of these scientists who doubt global warming also back the theory of creationism -- my bet is there is significant overlap as there is a symbiotic relationship between religion, right wing ideology, and pseudoscience. Creationists have used this type of ploy numerous times as part of propaganda directed towards their followers and the uninformed public once they have given up on actual scientific arguments. A list of people who believe something doesn't prove a thing. Instead you need to have actual scientific arguments presented to even have a topic worth discussing. For the most obvious example of why the page you gave doesn't even encourage me to look further into it: why do they not make a single argument relating to the geologic-historical rise in CO2 and ice ages, the main evidence used by scientists about the relationship between emissions and climate change? Instead, they quote arguments about several other smaller natural cycles that take place on a scale of a couple of decades. It reminds me a lot of arguments with creationists who like to use diversions about minor details while ignoring the gross geologic record.

It is true academic disciplines can become politicized and through control of funding by financial elites, who for example in the fields of sociology and economics like to fund all sorts of studies of trivial importance while refusing to fund research into how much faster society could advance by creating a planned economy. In the case of global warming, it is possible that capitalist governments could use something like this to push through legislation that increases sales taxes, which are regressive because they tax a higher proportion of money for people with lower incomes. We should refuse all regressive sales taxes and instead make the capitalists pay for it by taking away their property without compensation and creating a rational planned economy that would invest in other forms of energy and eliminate or reduce certain types of polluting production that create waste and have little value.

There is a natural cycle evident in the geologic record that shows the earth has repeated ice ages. To what degree humans are affecting it I leave for actual scientists to determine. An article in Scientific American magazine several years ago described how global warming caused by humans ended the last ice age early. The evidence is that there is a layer of soot in the ice cores which corresponds to the time that humans discovered fire and burned down lots of forests. The darker color of a layer of deposited soot increased the absorption of energy from the sun and ended the ice age significantly earlier than the previous ice ages in the geologic record did. The thing about the way natural cycles work, is global warming could also cause global cooling as there are global mechanisms that restore the system to balance. Could we figure out a way to control environmental change to prevent natural global warming or future ice ages? I don't know but humanity would have the best shot to choose correctly if we overthrew capitalism and its irrational profit system, and united with an international planned economy that could be subject of reason without interference from murderously greedy propertied interests.

Here are some environmental problems to worry about that are not global warming related:
-Pollution of the oceans (Is there really a continent sized area of floating trash in the middle of the ocean? Yes.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
-Depletion of fish, and such high levels of mercury in the ocean that you shouldn't even eat fish anymore (especially children and women who want to have them).
-Imperialist oil companies in Africa and their client states polluting and exploiting, and killing protesters.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalqYjcjA2Y

Keep using skepticism and scientific reasoning, and make sure to also be skeptical of works that present themselves as skeptical. Remember that that someone telling you to think outside the box is not always correct and if they aren't, they will have a much easier time fooling you if you are unaware of the basic arguments and evidence accumulated for the mainstream "inside the box" knowledge.

-nihil abyssyncyst
Logged

Spectro

Re: The Global Warming Debate
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2008, 05:03:21 am »
Thank you nihil!! The day's wait was well worth it. I was beginning to think I was talking to an unprovocative wall for a sec there =P

Your response was exactly what I was digging for (despite it seeming like you took that shit personally lol), in that it's the extreme opposition to an extreme opposition. Facts and data can often be twisted and misconstrued to form any position of desire, but how can you tell which sources to trust? It wasn't surprising to hear about a possible correlation between conservative creationists and con-global warming because it was actually my idiot father to raise a debate with me from the con-global warming perspective. So there's another notch on the creationist correlation belt. He listens to a lot of right winger radio and is a self-proclaimed conservative Christian, so I indubitably wanted to bring his position up to get rocked.

=}


So here's my own crosses for the sake of keeping the discussion alive: Were geographic locations taken into account in the Scientific American article that could attest to volcanic activity not being the cause of the soot? Volcanic activity has always been the largest factor in earths history for stirring thangs up so to say, so I'm interested to know that there was little possibility of volcanoes existing in the proximity of the soot found in ice while taking into account that ash plumes from large volcanoes can travel hundreds if not thousands miles (ex).

And woah bro:

Quote
who live in a fantasy land where everyone they disagree with is really working together behind the scenes and evidence against it becomes evidence for it. Their minds work like this: "If there is proof against something, that is actually proof for it because they must have something to hide". These right wingers also have something to sell you -- they want you to vote for politicians that aim to eliminate public education, welfare, and environmental laws. Right wing populists just represent another group of exploiters: smaller businesses who want lower taxes for themselves and resent big business connections to government.

None of that generalization shit lol- it defeats the position that your opposition is paranoid and, to me at least, makes you look like the paranoid one (aka hypocrisy). That's not meant to sting you personally (really really), but a precaution us skeptics have to take is not to get too emotionally involved in our well developed views that we begin attacking the people with our own extreme categorizations. Not too many right wingers actually believe that shit- most are just mindless drones assuming a widely accepted position amongst their peers as their own. Just looking for more science + facts with cited sources, and less conspiracy theory babel that starts offending people yaknow? "Keep it real" =P

Quote
It is true academic disciplines can become politicized and through control of funding by financial elites, who for example in the fields of sociology and economics like to fund all sorts of studies of trivial importance while refusing to fund research into how much faster society could advance by creating a planned economy. In the case of global warming, it is possible that capitalist governments could use something like this to push through legislation that increases sales taxes, which are regressive because they tax a higher proportion of money for people with lower incomes. We should refuse all regressive sales taxes and instead make the capitalists pay for it by taking away their property without compensation and creating a rational planned economy that would invest in other forms of energy and eliminate or reduce certain types of polluting production that create waste and have little value.

Most eloquently, unrealistically awesome concept ever. Unfortunado, the big biz capitalists who have the majority of the worlds wealth distribution also have their foot in the door with the government systems that deploy our school curriculum. I like using the rockefellers in my examples because I did a bit of digging on them. The rockefellers are renowned philanthropists as well as robber barons, so they don't just give away their money for the hell of it- there has always been an agenda (conspiracy theory that they could lead us to believe). So when billions of their dollars go into school systems- they want to have influence on how people think. Until a hefty population [power in numbers] becomes less avariciously corrupted, more intellectually inclined, and exposed to the larger realizations you speak of- it'll be hard to overcome the suppressive campaigns of some of these assholes. They really mean business and it's going to take isolated intellectual societies to set examples for the world.

I say we inhabit a large island and declare independence =] But I'm digressing, so please ask for a new topic on that- I'm just jonesin to share some mind blowing insights on that subject =P

lexon

Re: The Global Warming Debate
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2008, 07:30:54 am »
Logged
 

nihil abyssyncyst

Re: The Global Warming Debate
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2008, 08:22:37 pm »
Friends,

Don't worry I'm not taking any of this as personal insults, though you could probably tell I think the result of peoples political views is important so I will not be shy to use intense rhetoric.

Upon looking at the Scientific American article (http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/news/0305046.pdf) again, it seems it is just referring to burning of forests and not a layer of soot on the ice caps; I must have gotten that from somewhere else. It should be noted that Scientific American magazine is not a peer review journal but more a source of science news, and it covers new theories that might not be accepted. There is another article (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/Schmidt_etal_2.html) that disputes the claims made in the that one, instead arguing that a source for greenhouse gases during that time could be wetlands.

I don't know the answer to Spectro's question about possible volcanic sources in relation to recent history. Volcanoes are thought by scientists to be the cause of certain major periods of extinction in geological history (ex. 250 million years ago http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/20/tech/main668212.shtml). With regards to their relevance to the current debate, I do know that for example Rush Limbaugh is always claiming that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than humans do, however he has been criticized by scientists for ignoring the difference between types of gases that volcanoes release and types of gases that humans release.

55 million years ago there was a global warming event that may have been caused by rising CO2 levels similar to what we have produced today. The article says it took place over a 5000 year timeframe. http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2006/2006-01-05-04.asp

Here is an article from last year describing the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, probably one of the most authoritative statements of the accepted view within science. They say the evidence is unequivocal and they have a degree of confidence of over 9 out of 10.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070202085036.htm

Even though I made a connection between several viewpoints I view to be incorrect and symbiotic, it does not always logically follow that one idea held by a group being wrong proves other ideas held by a group being wrong. We have to look at individual ideas and use reasoning. Also Spectro you don't have to call your dad an idiot just because he believes certain idiotic ideas.

The generalization I was using was not necessarily referring to all global warming skeptics, but particularly to the website given by Spectro and most of the websites linked by it, which among other things had advertisements for the libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul. Ron Paul has friendly connections with the far right John Birch Society, and does indeed hold the views I described. Also, the mainstream Republican Party has elements that hold these same views. There are variations in right wing and conservative thought as there are variations in thought in general, but the group I am describing is real and they are one component of the right, as the right is one component of capitalism (along with the liberals and Democratic Party). Pat Buchanan is a paradigmatic example in of the right wing populist type in recent US political history. Sorry to muddy up the scientific side of the argument by pointing out the political aims of the website that was promoting the idea, but it does have some relevance. The accepted viewpoint on climate change affects the laws, and historically the Republican Party has nominated people from the far right American Enterprise Institute to cabinet positions, in departments that the nominees advocate abolishing. The American Enterprise Institute advocates getting rid of most government functions including education, welfare, and environment (but they love the imperialist military and private property law).

Also while we are on the subject of foundation supported think tanks and policy institutes, I am glad you bring up Rockefeller as he makes the subject easy to introduce and explain. Rockefeller first set up his foundation around the time he ordered mobsters to mass murder coal miners and their families who were on strike in Ludlow, Colorado. His foundation went around erasing the history of this event. Then, when labor radicalism surged in the 30s and there were general strikes being led by communists winning in several major cities, FDR used the Rockefeller Foundation's plans to create social security and some other new deal projects as a way to make some concessions to reduce labor militancy, and also to do a more regressive social security than the systems that were set up in Europe. For example, Bismarck's pension system did not require workers to pay into it, while Rockefeller's Social Security makes workers pay a substantial percent.

In the USA, foundations are tax-free entities that the wealthy are allowed to create so they do not have to pay any taxes and instead can their tax money to influence politics. This is why the top 1 percent pay a much lower proportion of taxes than the 9 percent underneath them who carry the main tax burden (and that 9 percent's complaints about this kind of thing are a basis for conservative and right wing "anti-tax" populism). The top foundations are owned by billionaire families and the top couple hundred of them have the most weight in politics compared to any other group in society. Foundations finance think tanks, which create propaganda to be used by the media, and policy discussion institutes, which create journals to be consumed by the "attentive public" and write all the laws that congress even considers. Think tanks are one of the top sources cited in the mainstream media (also owned by the same financial capitalists), up there with top government sources. Yes you are reading what amounts to the capitalist class's "party line" in mainstream newspapers. Think tanks could be creating good studies, but they also are ideological and many unscrupulously create bogus studies that use the trick where they cite things that cite other things, and know that no one checks citations back too far so they can get away with using plausible arguments that they know not to be true, in order to influence politics.

Policy discussion institutes do a couple of things. One is that they write the laws that congress will actually consider (the US constitution says that any citizen can write a law and the government will consider it and there is a hopper where you can drop your law off in DC. However Congress tables every law that doesn't originate from their corporate sponsors). Another is they create these journals that you can sometimes see on magazine stands at places like Barnes and Noble, that will look like an academic journal and is intended to be consumed by a more interested audience. Foreign Affairs is a major one of these, it is the journal of the Committee on Foreign Relations(CFR), the biggest policy group that includes all the biggest businesspeople with an interest in foreign policy. The CFR was brought directly into the state department before the US entered World War 2, and made the plan where the US would enter the war late and take everyone else's colonies, create their own "grand area" of economic and political domination, change the public rhetoric from the past practice of openly stating US economic interests when invading other countries as they had in Latin America and Philippines and instead change to using the more ambiguous phrase "national interest" that would be a cover for business interest, which would not be stated openly anymore (as it was making it too easy for the communists to describe imperialism if they kept being that open). FDR was just following this plan when he worked for over a year to provoke Japan to attack, and the later US governments were just following this plan when they carried out mass murder in Korea, Vietnam and elsewhere to keep those areas under their neocolonial domination.

Another major US foundation is the Ford Foundation. Ford used to finance the placing of Hitler's books in libraries. The Ford Foundation is a well known conduit for CIA funds which it can use in several ways. One is to finance crappy development projects in the third world that attempt to lure people away from the ideas of socialism by giving them a capitalist supported project that very mildly alleviates the worst of their suffering but does not change fundamental social problems that can only be solved by socialist revolution. Another is to finance "human rights" groups that are biased towards the US and its allies. They will only finance human rights groups that have never opposed imperialism and that present human rights violations in US and its allies as single incidents that are not part of a larger pattern but will present human rights violations in US enemies as parts of larger patterns. For example Amnesty International is one of these CIA/Ford Foundation supported groups which was systematically biased towards US imperialist interests during the cold war. A third thing that is financed by these groups are "Non-Governmental Organizations" (NGOs) which they use to overthrow governments. They do this by literally paying poor people to protest full time until a government falls. Examples where they have done this are Bulgaria, Albania, Serbia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and attempts that have failed include Myanmar and Venezuela. They just replace one corrupt government with another corrupt government that is more pro-US. If you want links to more information about these let me know.

And what do foundations have to do with the environment? The only environmental laws that get passed are reviewed by these groups that make exceptions for every corporation that would lose profit otherwise.

For more information about the ruling class structure in the USA, look at the sociologist G. William Domhoff's book "Who Rules America?" He is a liberal democrat but he presents a solid description of why the US is a class dominated society. I know this is obvious to most people but I have met many people who refuse to believe it, because US nationalist ideology says that we do not have social classes because that the American Revolution separated us from the more entrenched social and aristocratic class structure of Europe. The middle class people are the ones most in denial about this, as working class people are pretty aware of their lot and upper class people are very socially conscious and exclusive about this.

To really change things, the working class and all other people interested in a good future of humanity will need to create their own political organization independent of the capitalist class, their foundations and their political parties (Republicans, Democrats, and Greens), and aimed at revolution rather than being willing to give up the main fight for a couple minor reforms (as reformist social democratic and labor parties do in most other industrialized countries). I support a Marxist group called the Spartacist League (spartacist.org) that aims to build such parties on the Leninist model in every country to lead world socialist revolution.

New Octobers!

-nihil abyssyncyst
Logged

FunkyLemon

Re: The Global Warming Debate
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2008, 01:25:30 pm »
It's weird. Here in Germany they teach you in school why Global Warming is happening and that it IS.
I'm not sure what opinion to have.
But one thing's sure. Even if it isn't real we're still destroying our planet and killing each other...
Logged

Gaston

Re: The Global Warming Debate
« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2008, 02:59:15 am »
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. I have no reason to believe that this IS IT, compared to all the other problems we've had (and still have actually) in the past. As far as I'm concerned, the concept of global warming has more to do with political agendas than with actual scientific problems. That's not to say that global warming is unscientific. But it's just the stuff the average joe gets served on a plate, is not, as it is mostly opinionated garbage coming out of the mouth of unqualified politicians. Eventually you will also see that the US will take a stance that global warming is real. This has to do with how mainly Russia controls eastern europe with their power production. Most of which are made in a way that would contribute to global warming.
Logged
26 Mars 2007
Belle: woah, is that a neatly snuck in sexproposition? Could I ask you to take of your pants?
Pages: [1]   Go Up