More Evidence of Global Warming

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

Gav, I think you might be wrong on the speed issue. I read an article citing research on ice cores taken from Greenland that indicated that severe climate change(cooling in this case) could happen in as little as a decade.

Actually, there is a very interesting theory (sort of publicized by the Day After Tomorrow) that an influx of cold water from melting ice-caps (caused by a global warming trend) will slow down and eventually stop the gulf stream current. The result of which is the temperature in western europe becoming much like the temperature in mid-northern Canada. You Brits complaining about your Isle's rain? No problem, it'll just snow. Slightly less severe in the US, but still not pleasant. This global drop in temperature means the snow will accumulate more at the poles, and the glaciers will begin their slow advance once again. And we are due. Ice ages occur once every 10,000 years or so, and the last one was 11,000 years ago. HOWEVER, A change in global climate as drastic as the one we have seen coupled with the rise in carbon in the atmosphere is unprecidented. Moreover, one cannot simply ignore the fact that these data began to trend upwards with the beginning of industrialization.

Re: ad Hominem. I was angry because Rogue made the unfounded assumption that any given extreme environmentalist is a communist. I would first ask him to define 'extreme' and then tell him to shut his mouth because he has no idea what he's talking about. Communisim is no better or worse for the environment than capitalism. I was also annoyed at the suggestion that such people have motives other than stated, especially since the neocon leaders of his party of choice have a stated policy of 'tell the people what they want to hear so we can further our agenda'. Lastly, relating communisim and environmentalism is definitely an ad-hominem attack because it has no merit within the framework of the debate and serves no purpose other than to associate a group with one which is considered undesireable by the public at large.

[Point_Left]

I believe that Global Warming is caused largely by polititions. I mean, think of all the hot air they expel! That can't be good for the environment.

Seriously: regardless of weather or not global warming is a real phenomema (caused by human beings or not), we need to stop polluting. There is only one planet in this solar system worth living on. Let's keep it that way. We have the ability to stop or at least greatly slow the damage to our planet. It is expensive? Well, you keep encouraging us young people to invest in our futures (via education), why shouldn't our race invest in the same thing?

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And Telkanuru---what we shall do is, yes, you guessed it, chide you for the unwarranted ad hominem attack...AND for the Appeal to Ridicule which you appended in an attempt to defuse the force of any criticism of the attack. Tsk and double tsk!

What can I say? I'm from the blood, love, and rhetoric school. I can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, or blood and rhetoric without the love, or all three, concurrant or consecutive. But I can't do you love or rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. [/obscure reference]

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Gav

Inq' you are getting the geographical pole mixed up with the Magnetic. The Geographical pole will always be where it is. The Magnetic pole moves around. In fact we appear to be at the start of the next shift (when the magnetic poles flip).

It would also be true to say that the landmass at the poles haven't always been where they are now - due to continental drift - however that doesn't affect the geographical poles either.

The geographical pole does move realtive to the Solar System, but not relative to Earth. So North is always North here, but the North Star will not always be North.

On the global warming issue-

When it comes to the environment, a) I don't care how many species of ant die in the rain forest every day and b) If we really screw up, we'll all die and the Earth will recover. Personally, I don't think that Global Warming is enough to kill all of us. Some, maybe, but not all. And if it does, hey, problem solved.

I will now return to the safety of the left wing.

[Gav]

Thanks for your agreement. The geographical North pole is always in the same place no matter what position the Earth is to the Sun. Precession is a wonderful thing - no? I didn't mention the North Star.

[Gav]

Actually, there is a very interesting theory (sort of publicized by the Day After Tomorrow) that an influx of cold water from melting ice-caps (caused by a global warming trend) will slow down and eventually stop the gulf stream current. The result of which is the temperature in western europe becoming much like the temperature in mid-northern Canada. You Brits complaining about your Isle's rain? No problem, it'll just snow. Slightly less severe in the US, but still not pleasant. This global drop in temperature means the snow will accumulate more at the poles, and the glaciers will begin their slow advance once again. And we are due. Ice ages occur once every 10,000 years or so, and the last one was 11,000 years ago. HOWEVER, A change in global climate as drastic as the one we have seen coupled with the rise in carbon in the atmosphere is unprecidented. Moreover, one cannot simply ignore the fact that these data began to trend upwards with the beginning of industrialization.

Yes, this is what I was alluding to. I tried to update my last comment with an explanation of that but kept getting "Server too busy". This is one of the things I worry about (with regards to Global Warming) as it means Scotland will end up with a climate similair to Siberia. This would effectively be the end of Scotland [as I know it] and that is something that I think would be a great shame.

Well that's the prediction.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Drifter

But don't let the obvious impact your need to feel morally and intellectually superior by showing how those whacky liberals can't seem to get thier story straight ha ha snicker snicker.

Gee, ad hominem attacks are so very convincing, aren't they?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

the neocon leaders of his party of choice have a stated policy of 'tell the people what they want to hear so we can further our agenda'.

Stated where? I have never heard this "policy" iterated...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

What can I say? I'm from the blood, love, and rhetoric school. I can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, or blood and rhetoric without the love, or all three, concurrant or consecutive. But I can't do you love or rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. [/obscure reference]

Bloody hell.

[telkanuru]

Something from Mr. Goldwater. The exact quote is contained within a book back at my dorm. Remind me Monday.

[Inquartata]

Uh...Goldwater was a "neocon"?!

[telkanuru]

According to a good number, Goldwater was the first real neocon...Linkage

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

What can I say? I'm from the blood, love, and rhetoric school. I can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, or blood and rhetoric without the love, or all three, concurrant or consecutive. But I can't do you love or rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. [/obscure reference]

Stoppard's obscure? Since when?

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

HOWEVER, A change in global climate as drastic as the one we have seen coupled with the rise in carbon in the atmosphere is unprecidented. Moreover, one cannot simply ignore the fact that these data began to trend upwards with the beginning of industrialization.

I blame industrialization less and population growth much more. Yes, the two often go hand in hand, up to a point.(some western nation have dropped below replacement in their population growth) Human population growth is simply staggering. Anthropological studies believe that the total population of the Earth, as little as 4,00 years ago , was about that of today's California. Burning of forests, changing grasslands into farmlands and grazing by domesticated herds have done more, in my opinion, to change the environment than industrialization alone. Which is why I feel that stopping industry or cutting back on emissions won't do anything to stop the global environment from changing.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

What can I say? I'm from the blood, love, and rhetoric school. I can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, or blood and rhetoric without the love, or all three, concurrant or consecutive. But I can't do you love or rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. [/obscure reference]

Ahh.............I can still hear Richard Dryfuss' voice! That made a great movie!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

According to a good number, Goldwater was the first real neocon...Linkage

From the blurbs in their titles, those all seem to be saying that Goldwater was NOT a 'neocon'. If anything he represents the mainstream of the old sort of conservatism ( paleoconservative? ).

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

Re: ad Hominem. I was angry because Rogue made the unfounded assumption that any given extreme environmentalist is a communist. I would first ask him to define 'extreme' and then tell him to shut his mouth because he has no idea what he's talking about.

Why would you ask me a question, of which you don't yet know my answer, and already know your response?
Shut my mouth?
What would you do next, strike me?

Wow, you are angry. I don't think the blame lies with me though. You must be a very unhappy person.

[Rogue]

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."
Louis Proyect, Columbia University

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

Abolition of private property?
...bring about justice and equality?

Earth Day- April 22nd
Vladimir Lenin's Birthday- April 22nd

Well, shut my mouth!

# "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000….This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970

So we are in a ice age now?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by Rogue

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."
Louis Proyect, Columbia University

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998

Abolition of private property?
...bring about justice and equality?

Earth Day- April 22nd
Vladimir Lenin's Birthday- April 22nd

Well, shut my mouth!

# "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000….This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."
Kenneth E. F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day 1970

So we are in a ice age now?

That some environmentalists are socialists does not imply that ALL environmentalists are socialists. A coincidence does not a causality make. Selective facts. That one environmentalist is wrong does not mean that all environmentalists are wrong. A deduction is not a fact unless the premises are conclusively true. That ALL communists are socialist does not, in turn, imply that ALL socialists are communists. Hmmmm. Seems to be lacking a basis in the basics.

To further your knowledge of Aristotlen syllogisms I refer you to the thread on Rhetoric and Logic.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by jBirch

That some environmentalists are socialists does not imply that ALL environmentalists are socialists. A coincidence does not a causality make. Selective facts. That one environmentalist is wrong does not mean that all environmentalists are wrong. A deduction is not a fact unless the premises are conclusively true. That ALL communists are socialist does not, in turn, imply that ALL socialists are communists. Hmmmm. Seems to be lacking a basis in the basics.

To further your knowledge of Aristotlen syllogisms I refer you to the thread on Rhetoric and Logic.

Straw Man
I never made the claim ALL. You did. Maybe you should review fallacies.

Originally Posted by Rogue

It is interesting to note that a lot of Radical environmentalist seem to also be ant-capitalist/communist.
If I were a communist and I wanted to do something to stop the growth of the Free Market, I would join and support