+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 43

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    553

    Why do environmentalists not debate?

    I don't get this if we were talking about any other science dealing with a complex system such as the Climate and its not clear how it all works, you welcome debate in the field.

    Yet people have questions on the projections and want to debate policy with the assumption that is simple:

    The Global Warming movement may be correct but it may also not be correct, if we are to best deal with the crisis one way or another what is the most economic course.

    You start calling us Hitler or worst and start calling names saying we are wrong.

    Here are some simple layperson questions every American should be asking:

    - How much is the planet really heating up?

    - Will the negative effects of global warming really outweigh the positive effects and if so by how much exactly?

    - How much does human activity really contribute to global warming as opposed to non-human factors?

    - How much can government policies really sow global warming and how will these policies affect our liberty and our economy?

    - If we don't take the word of our weatherperson to tell us what the weather will be like for more than three days ahead, why should we trust climate scientists talking many decades ahead?

    I'm not a climate scientist but it seems the global warming side is so dogmatic and is unwilling to debate even basic policy that it like talking to a diehard Spanish Inquisitor about heresy in the dark ages. You say we have our minds made-up its not true we have many questions and see no answers that your average layperson can understand. And no debate on the costs to our freedoms and liberty, our economic needs and risks to that of what we see as drastic plans.

    Some like myself accept this is happening but think that careful plans and realistic goals have to be made using resources to be optimally effective. I see it more useful to create new crops that can handle higher heat and less water environments, develop clean sources of water and water reclaimation, finding ways to provide more basic medicines to more people etc. Deal with problems right here and now that this can benefit and later could be used for adaption to a warmer global climate as well. In other words assume the best but plan for the worst in ways that are politically viable for all nations to do including the United States and China and other nations. Its a perfectly reasonable position and far more realistic than trying to foist a radical plan of action that could prove not needed, after all you global warming folks could be wrong. If you are we could end up wasting a huge sum of money for nothing.

  2. #2
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings. User Rank
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Debate what?....facts are not determined by debating, but by evidence.

    For example, we can debate the Holocaust, still has no change whether or not it happed...it's a historical fact.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    553

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Facts? I have a clear list of questions that generally are things laypeople need to understand clearly, including politicians and policymakers.

    It seems to me there are clear areas to debate both on the analysis of the scientific evidence and the range of studies by a variety of sources. And further policy on how to deal with projected problems with an eye for taking the broadest number of options that are cost effective for the merits.

    These are real problems with Global Warming science and their supporters we have questions and maybe a different outlook on the issue, then we are labeled heretics (or worse).

    After all its very possible you could be utterly wrong or that Global Warming could prove more beneficial than negative overall.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,120

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    I do agree that Global Warming is happening, too many scientist believe so to deny it. And it can be proved by numbers. However I can not agree with assumption that human activity contributed 100% to its effect.

    Also I agree that should be debates. Politicians are asking for sacrifices from citizen they represent. So they should tell us how much of our prosperity is going to be sacrificed and what change will it bring. They can not just tell us: "we are going to do it for you". Tell us in your election campaign what are you going to do to combat global warming and how much is it going to cost.

    At the end, I personally believe, we(USA) can not do anything to make real change. With China building 40 new dirty coal plants every year, there is no way we can offset them. And I am not talking about India and oil rich countries that pollute like there is no tomorrow.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    506

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    "Debate"? As far as I can tell, here's how "debates" work.

    Code:
     -----------
    (   Start   )
     -----------
          |
          |<---------------------------------------------------
          v                                                    |
      ------------                                             |
     /Invite Gore/    Gore accepts     -----------             |
    / to debate / ------------------->/  Debate  /             |
    ------------                      -----------              |
          |                           |          |             |
          | Gore           "Skeptics" |          | "Skeptics"  |
          | declines              win |          | lose        |
          v                           |          v             |
      ------------                    |     ----------         |
     / Call Gore /                    |    / Throw a /---------
    /  a coward /                     |   /hissy fit/
    ------------                      |   ----------
          |                           |
          v                           |
     ----------                       |
    | Victory! |<---------------------
     ----------
          |
          v
     -----------
    (    End    )
     -----------
    Put simply, "debate" will be nice if you "skeptics" will accept a priori the possibility that you may be wrong.

    Unfortunately, you "skeptics" never do that. You show no intention whatsoever of changing your positions if you're proven wrong. Every time you've been debunked, you simply come back with the same garbage, or different garbage.

    What meaning can there be in such "debates"? Isn't it just an excuse to create noise and blow smoke?
    Last edited by bic; 03-24-2008 at 11:24 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by borisf96 View Post
    I do agree that Global Warming is happening, too many scientist believe so to deny it.
    True....1/2 a degree...possibly...in a hundred years time. Gee, I'm scared! By the way, we're in a cooling trend. Don't throw away your overcoats just yet! :yelcutelaughA:

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    506

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    phlipper further proves my claim that denialists' demands for "debate" are just an excuse to make noise.

  8. #8
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by bic View Post
    phlipper further proves my claim that denialists' demands for "debate" are just an excuse to make noise.
    If this is what you call proof, bic, no wonder you can't convince anyone about GW

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    506

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Thus spake Lord_jag the Channeler of Souls from Invisible Skeptical Climatologists,

    "If this is what you call proof, bic, no wonder you can't convince anyone about GW"

    I think I did convince JTB7, and that's why phlipper decided to hurl insults at him.

    phlipper and Lord_jag have just provided further proof... that they'll never admit the possibility that they may be wrong. Obviously, a "debate" under such conditions will be worse than meaningless.

  10. #10
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by bic View Post
    Thus spake Lord_jag the Channeler of Souls from Invisible Skeptical Climatologists,

    "If this is what you call proof, bic, no wonder you can't convince anyone about GW"

    I think I did convince JTB7, and that's why phlipper decided to hurl insults at him.

    phlipper and Lord_jag have just provided further proof... that they'll never admit the possibility that they may be wrong. Obviously, a "debate" under such conditions will be worse than meaningless.
    There goes the pot again... calling everyone black but himself.

    Denouncing other people for hurling insults in the very same message that he hurls the same repetative insult.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    506

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Thus spake Lord_jag the Channeler of Souls from Invisible Skeptical Climatologists,

    "Denouncing other people for hurling insults in the very same message that he hurls the same repetative insult."

    It's not an "insult" to describe your argumentative tactics. It's not an "insult" to point out that you "skeptics" always try to rule out a priori the possibility that you're wrong.

    * * *

    Yet further proof that denialists won't change their positions no matter what. If their arguments are debunked, then they've been "insulted", yeah. Even trying to prove they're wrong is itself a wrong thing to do, goo goo g'joob. Conclusion: denialists are never wrong!

    That may be the kind of "debate" you want, but nobody's obliged to humour you.
    Last edited by bic; 03-25-2008 at 07:24 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    506

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    And just for good measure, here's my flowchart to describe global warming "debates" again:

    Code:
     -----------
    (   Start   )
     -----------
          |
          |<---------------------------------------------------
          v                                                    |
      ------------                                             |
     /Invite Gore/    Gore accepts     -----------             |
    / to debate / ------------------->/  Debate  /             |
    ------------                      -----------              |
          |                           |          |             |
          | Gore           "Skeptics" |          | "Skeptics"  |
          | declines              win |          | lose        |
          v                           |          v             |
      ------------                    |     ----------         |
     / Call Gore /                    |    / Throw a /---------
    /  a coward /                     |   /hissy fit/
    ------------                      |   ----------
          |                           |
          v                           |
     ----------                       |
    | Victory! |<---------------------
     ----------
          |
          v
     -----------
    (    End    )
     -----------
    Unless our "skeptics" provide evidence that they don't follow the above pattern, I'll continue to maintain that "debates" are simply useless except for making noise.
    Last edited by bic; 03-25-2008 at 07:30 AM.

  13. #13
    Lord_jag's Avatar
    Lord_jag is offline I am God because I say I am. Prove me wrong. User Rank
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,796

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by bic View Post
    Thus spake Lord_jag the Channeler of Souls from Invisible Skeptical Climatologists,

    "Denouncing other people for hurling insults in the very same message that he hurls the same repetative insult."

    It's not an "insult" to describe your argumentative tactics. It's not an "insult" to point out that you "skeptics" always try to rule out a priori the possibility that you're wrong.

    * * *

    Yet further proof that denialists won't change their positions no matter what. If their arguments are debunked, then they've been "insulted", yeah. Even trying to prove they're wrong is itself a wrong thing to do, goo goo g'joob. Conclusion: denialists are never wrong!

    That may be the kind of "debate" you want, but nobody's obliged to humour you.
    It is an insult to call people deragatory names. Even if I don't care that I "channel souls" the message is clearly intended to be derogatory and insulting.

    Yet further proof that you made a false presumption, based your arguement on it and then once again used the false presuption to claim proof.

    So that would make you a denialist wouldn't it? Cause you can'y be wrong. Not when you can change reality to suit your statements...

    Oh and thanks for repeating your previous post of the stupid flowchart. Could you post that 15 more times now? I really miss how you repeat your posts every day until someone notices it and comments on your repetativeness. Hey if you post it 3 more times, I might just believe it!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    553

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Well I think there is a large difference between demonstrating Global Warming is happening even the more jaded skeptics can't refute historical records for the last few decades. And taking that as evidence of a catastrophic Global Warming taking what I would consider rather drastic and expensive actions when its unclear what course the climate could take.

    I stated some simple questions that any layperson would want answered clearly by each and all sides of the Global Warming issue. I accuse the GW advocates of scaring people and raising an uproar without the sufficient demonstration that they are far more likely ,than not, correct. Saying one side is for just being skeptical are De Facto wrong without addressing fully legitimate questions is also being overly stubborn. Many of these questions which are key to deciding what policies are best for addressing GW and the debates over those issues are also part of the areas needed a sound debate.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    550

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    "If we don't take the word of our weatherperson to tell us what the weather will be like for more than three days ahead, why should we trust climate scientists talking many decades ahead?" - rubyslippers

    This should explain it:

    "This argument betrays a misunderstanding of the difference between weather, which is chaotic and unpredictable, and climate which is weather averaged out over time."
    - from skeptical science, #35: Scientists can't even predict the weather.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Why do environmentalists not debate?

    Quote Originally Posted by rubyslippers View Post
    Well I think there is a large difference between demonstrating Global Warming is happening even the more jaded skeptics can't refute historical records for the last few decades. And taking that as evidence of a catastrophic Global Warming taking what I would consider rather drastic and expensive actions when its unclear what course the climate could take.

    I stated some simple questions that any layperson would want answered clearly by each and all sides of the Global Warming issue. I accuse the GW advocates of scaring people and raising an uproar without the sufficient demonstration that they are far more likely ,than not, correct. Saying one side is for just being skeptical are De Facto wrong without addressing fully legitimate questions is also being overly stubborn. Many of these questions which are key to deciding what policies are best for addressing GW and the debates over those issues are also part of the areas needed a sound debate.

    You make a lot of sense. Trouble is, people like bic are scared to death of any data that calls into question their AGW religon. The number of talented climate scientists who are not on board with current AGW theories is increasing daily.

    "Many scientists are actually predicting a possible global cooling in the next half-century".
    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/D....aspx?id=72771

    "Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree.That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded up or down."
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,333328,00.html

    Then, there's this:
    Global Cooling is a Serious Problem
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2071

Similar Threads

  1. Evolutionists vs. Environmentalists
    By naturefreak2101 in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2011, 07:32 AM
  2. Will Environmentalists EVER Grow Up?
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 07:38 AM
  3. Who won debate #2
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-08-2008, 08:26 PM
  4. Deadly Environmentalists
    By Grim17 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-15-2007, 08:40 PM
  5. Humans: Environmentalists Don't Get It
    By rubyslippers in forum Science Scams
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 12-31-2006, 10:59 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •