Wordle - daily game
- maryte - Apr 25, 2024 - 3:21pm
SCOTUS
- rgio - Apr 25, 2024 - 3:20pm
Joe Biden
- kurtster - Apr 25, 2024 - 3:04pm
NY Times Strands
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 25, 2024 - 3:00pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- islander - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:28pm
Breaking News
- islander - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:25pm
Things You Thought Today
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:12pm
Trump
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2024 - 2:07pm
The Obituary Page
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 12:49pm
Poetry Forum
- Manbird - Apr 25, 2024 - 12:30pm
Neil Young
- buddy - Apr 25, 2024 - 11:57am
Ask an Atheist
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 11:02am
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:36am
Afghanistan
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:26am
Israel
- R_P - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:06am
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2024 - 10:00am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:56am
What the hell OV?
- miamizsun - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:46am
The Abortion Wars
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:27am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Isabeau - Apr 25, 2024 - 9:21am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Proclivities - Apr 25, 2024 - 7:33am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- ColdMiser - Apr 25, 2024 - 7:15am
NYTimes Connections
- Bill_J - Apr 25, 2024 - 7:13am
What's that smell?
- Manbird - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:27pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:20pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- oldviolin - Apr 24, 2024 - 9:50pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 24, 2024 - 10:55am
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- rgio - Apr 24, 2024 - 8:44am
TV shows you watch
- Beaker - Apr 24, 2024 - 7:32am
The Moon
- haresfur - Apr 23, 2024 - 9:29pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- Bill_J - Apr 23, 2024 - 7:15pm
China
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 5:35pm
Economix
- islander - Apr 23, 2024 - 12:11pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 11:05am
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- sunybuny - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:53am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- Red_Dragon - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:42pm
Ukraine
- haresfur - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:19pm
songs that ROCK!
- Steely_D - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:50pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- q4Fry - Apr 22, 2024 - 11:57am
Republican Party
- R_P - Apr 22, 2024 - 9:36am
Mini Meetups - Post Here!
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 22, 2024 - 8:59am
Malaysia
- dcruzj - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:30am
Canada
- westslope - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:23am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:03am
Broccoli for cats - you gotta see this!
- Bill_J - Apr 21, 2024 - 6:16pm
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 21, 2024 - 3:06pm
Main Mix Playlist
- thisbody - Apr 21, 2024 - 12:04pm
George Orwell
- oldviolin - Apr 21, 2024 - 11:36am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 20, 2024 - 7:44pm
What Did You See Today?
- Welly - Apr 20, 2024 - 4:50pm
Radio Paradise on multiple Echo speakers via an Alexa Rou...
- victory806 - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:11pm
Libertarian Party
- R_P - Apr 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Remembering the Good Old Days
- kurtster - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:37am
Words I didn't know...yrs ago
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:06pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:59pm
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:51pm
MILESTONES: Famous People, Dead Today, Born Today, Etc.
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:44pm
2024 Elections!
- steeler - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:49pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:55am
how do you feel right now?
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:02am
When I need a Laugh I ...
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:43am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
|
Index »
Radio Paradise/General »
General Discussion »
Climate Change
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 117, 118, 119 ... 125, 126, 127 Next |
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:33am |
|
steeler wrote:
I surely do not know.
My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one. There are those denying that there is a problem. So, we are stuck on that. Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?
That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem.
Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms. However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?
What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?
There are some who still claim the earth is flat. Do we wait for them to come around, or do we build ships and sail for new lands? At what point do we stop the study? How much evidence is enough? We could literally study this one to death, but I doubt that's a good approach.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:29am |
|
Monkeysdad wrote:
But is there a solution?
I surely do not know. My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one. There are those denying that there is a problem. So, we are stuck on that. Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem? That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem, implying that their motives are nefarious and unpure. Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms. However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great? What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:27am |
|
Monkeysdad wrote:
But is there a solution?
Well, a significant majority of the peer reviewed science indicates that we are at least accelerating the problem with our carbon emissions. So a reasonable solution would be to limit our carbon emissions. Everyone is free to continue to get a significant majority of the peer reviewed science to change their mind and say that there is no impact, but until then it seems prudent that we do what we can instead of continuing the same behaviors that that appear to be driving the problem.
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:27am |
|
BasmntMadman wrote: Uh-oh. He's got records on you, pal. Expect some....Links!!...gasp....
first smartass who posts a pic of sausages gets a wedgie, or deserves one, anyway
Oh, what the heck...
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:26am |
|
steeler wrote:
What is the vastly expensive and intrusive program? I have not heard of a specific plan.
I do not hear a debate about what should be done. As you say, one side of the spectrum is arguing that nothing should be done. That can only be justified if no problem exists or the problem that exists has no possible solution.
I expect we'll be hearing about specifics soon enough.
|
|
Monkeysdad
Location: Simi Valley, CA Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:24am |
|
steeler wrote:
What is the vastly expensive and intrusive program? I have not heard of a specific plan.
I do not hear a debate about what should be done. As you say, one side of the spectrum is arguing that nothing should be done. That can only be justified if no problem exists or the problem that exists has no possible solution.
But is there a solution?
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:20am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: steeler wrote:Just shows how polarized America has become.
One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . . I'm baffled by that. And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance. It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety. Sad, really.
Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process. This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail. What is the vastly expensive and intrusive program? I have not heard of a specific plan. I do not hear a debate about what should be done. As you say, one side of the spectrum is arguing that nothing should be done. That can only be justified if no problem exists or the problem that exists has no possible solution.
|
|
BasmntMadman
Location: Off-White Gardens
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:20am |
|
islander wrote: Yes argumentative. That is what you do here. You would take a contrary position to just about anything on the other side of your agenda/ideology and prepare a 27 post dissertation w/ the graphs, supporting blogs, commentary, 4 part harmony, and a reserve of any likely opponents posting history to throw back at them on a moments notice. Hyper-partisan hackery is your tagline.
Uh-oh. He's got records on you, pal. Expect some....Links!!...gasp.... first smartass who posts a pic of sausages gets a wedgie, or deserves one, anyway
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:18am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: steeler wrote:Just shows how polarized America has become.
One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . . I'm baffled by that. And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance. It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety. Sad, really.
Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process. This Every issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail. Typo/fixed.
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:17am |
|
Lazy8 wrote: steeler wrote:Just shows how polarized America has become.
One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . . I'm baffled by that. And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance. It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety. Sad, really.
Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process. This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail. Why can't I say it like that? I must be lost in my own BS or something. I've tried to say this very thing, only to fall between the cracks in my philosophy...
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:17am |
|
islander wrote: Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.
My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided. I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.
Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
The oil example is a good one. We should be able to agree that oil is a finite resource that has been seriously depleted, and that there is a need to develop alternative energy sources. Yet, we do not agree on that. Instead, we get sidetracked into convoluted, labyrinthinian arguments about who is trying to manipulate whom and for what reasons (usually unspecified). Once the discussions focus more on motivations than upon substances, the rabbit hole opens ever wider, eventually swallowing reason. I think you frame this issue fairly well. I would frame it as follows: We agree there is climate change, but we disagree as to its causes. Primarily, this boils down to those who say that climate change occurs naturally and inevitably, so we should not do anything to interefere. In sum: don't worry about it. On the other side are those who believe that the writing is on the wall, and that human consumption has contributed immensely to the current state. I say, even if human consumption has not knocked the whole natural order of things out of whack, we still have to know that something is happening that can be and likely will be threatening to human and animal life. Yesterday I cited the Ice Age as an example of something that occurred and wiped out species. The earth survived, sure, but a lot of species did not. That, alone, seems to me to provide ample reason for concern. So, why we should be looking for answers, we're bogged down on whether there, in fact, is a problem. Wonder if the dinosaurs had the same conversations?
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:14am |
|
Beaker wrote: Argumentative? Excuse me. I'm merely responding to Dio's alarmist drama of implicating skeptics of global warming as being directly equatable with the now well known lies of tobacco companies. Dishonest discussion such at that of Dio deserves to be called out for what it is: hyper-partisan hackery.
Yes argumentative. That is what you do here. You would take a contrary position to just about anything on the other side of your agenda/ideology and prepare a 27 post dissertation w/ the graphs, supporting blogs, commentary, 4 part harmony, and a reserve of any likely opponents posting history to throw back at them on a moments notice. Hyper-partisan hackery is your tagline.
|
|
dionysius
Location: The People's Republic of Austin Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:13am |
|
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:12am |
|
steeler wrote:Just shows how polarized America has become.
One would think that this would be non-partisan issue, but no . . . I'm baffled by that. And it also is why the discussion has degenerated. More dogma than anything else, and it blots out much of the substance. It's become more akin to a reality television show, with people crying fraud and greed, and trying to claim their 15 minutes of notoriety. Sad, really.
Not such a surprise, really. One side pitches a vastly expensive and intrusive program of government involvement in every aspect of our lives, the other pitches business as usual. If the solutions to the problems had been framed differently it could have turned out very differently, but neither side wants to solve the problem unless it means vanquishing the other side in the process. This issue is being used to push other agendas. Suspicion of those other agendas is driving resistance to an honest assessment of the problem and a rational discussion of solutions. Both sides have their hammers and see the issue as a nail.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:11am |
|
hobiejoe wrote: Will you marry me? love MrsHJ.
The day Mrs.Islander tires of me.
|
|
hobiejoe
Location: Still in the tunnel, looking for the light. Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:09am |
|
islander wrote: Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.
My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided. I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.
Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
Will you marry me? love MrsHJ.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:04am |
|
Beaker wrote: How very hyper-partisan of you. I truly hope you end up eating those words.
how very argumentative of you. What if he's right (as the majority of valid scientific opinion indicates), and we really should be doing something to minimize our impact on climate change? Doesn't matter, it would be much better if you got to win the argument and got to sing the "nah, nah, nah, nah" song while doing your victory dance.
|
|
oldviolin
Location: esse quam videri Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:04am |
|
islander wrote: Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings.
My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided. I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem.
Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
Thank you, P.
|
|
islander
Location: West coast somewhere Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 10:02am |
|
dionysius wrote: If you're equating the two sides in this "debate" then I'm mystified. There's no equivalence. Climate change denial is every bit as honest, rational and respectable as the campaign to cast doubt on the harmful effects of tobacco. Remember that? (Indeed, it has many of the same motives and many of the same people behind it.) All they can do is delay the inevitable, but this delay is fatal, when we urgently need to be accomplishing something. Denial and footdragging hurts everyone, and that's hard to forgive.
Not at all. I'm very much on the side of Climate change is pretty much settled (as settled as any scientific endeavor ever is). The "not caused by people" side will jump all over the ambiguity there, but that is the scientific method - always open for review, but it doesn't mean that we don't make decisions and take actions based on our current findings. My point on the politics is that on any issue, people simply dig in based on ideology. They refuse to even hear the there evidence, they have decided. I believe climate change to be settled at this point and think we need to be taking actions based on our current assessment. This doesn't meant that I'm not willing to look at alternative views, or entertain the possibility that there is another cause, just show me that evidence. In the mean time, let's go fix the looming problem. Unfortunately this same problem exists on economics, regulation, religion, health care, education..... you name it. Anything that comes up we trench in and go for the win. All the time we spend fighting takes away from time we could be fixing/progressing. Climate change is a grand example. The oil dependent, pollution creating base has been a know problem for decades. Only in the last few years are we really talking about it, and we have trenched in along party lines and the only agreements we have reached are meaningless to the growing problem.
|
|
MrsHobieJoe
Location: somewhere in Europe Gender:
|
Posted:
Dec 8, 2009 - 9:25am |
|
I'm just getting pissed off at what are clearly concerted attempts to derail Copenhagen. Grrrrrrrrrrr. Decision time folks. This is the point to opt in as citizens of the world.
|
|
|