Should you believe in climate change?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I got the impression it was more like science will save us if we keep improving the breed.

Yes exactly I have been repeating this notion over the telegraph all day but nobody takes notice!

The IQ of the human race has been rising. Three points per decade in the US, for the last century.

And we only just now gave it the Internet, so, unless we really fuck things up, this trend will continue for a while. Most people aren't on line yet; and so, are unaware, and yet to experience their deep and lasting outrage and anger at me for my ideas.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes exactly I have been repeating this notion over the telegraph all day but nobody takes notice! ...

If the notion that trading off natural resources now to advance science so it can solve our natural resources problems later was valid, all our fresh water sources that were naturally potable before pollution would be naturally potable again today. Science has already given us the technology to restore them to that state; but, even where there's a will and a way it still takes time. If scientists find a solution (other than prevention) to global warming, will there still be enough time to implement it and at what cost to other aspects of humanity? Based on past performance of that notion; also, the lack of reliable time line projections for both scientific achievement and global warming, that notion seems to require a leap of faith that many don't share.

I hope you're right; but, forgive me if I prefer to hedge my bet with an ounce of prevention because it seems to still be worth a pound of cure where natural resources are concerned.

LLAP

[xoxoxoBruce]

I prefer to hedge my bet with an ounce of prevention because it seems to still be worth a pound of cure where natural resources are concerned.

That doesn't matter because you don't have the power to act on your convictions. The ones with the power benefit more by maintaining the status quo. And if the oceans rise, or weather becomes intolerable, they'll tell the staff they're moving to one of their homes in a more pleasant location.

You see, it's not two sided, I take the third side.
It ain't my fault, it ain't my decision, ain't nothing I can do about it, it's all THEIR fault.

[sexobon]

Your third side is a copout typical of people who don't have enough time left to get involved which also means that when it comes to whether or not I can act on my convictions, you don't have a mouth.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course it is, it's apparently also the majority opinion in this country.
We are Legion.
We do not know.
We do not care.
Expect beer.

You're right, I apologize, I should have said effectively act on your convictions.

[sexobon]

It's cute when old folks like you and UT try to use reverse psychology on others so they'll make your cases in rebuttals.

The majority opinion in this country changes every 4 or 8 years. I'll be around to affect the balancing act for awhile yet. While I'm not a proponent of your third side, I see a middle ground.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Yes exactly I have been repeating this notion over the telegraph all day but nobody takes notice!

The IQ of the human race has been rising. Three points per decade in the US, for the last century.

And we only just now gave it the Internet, so, unless we really fuck things up, this trend will continue for a while. Most people aren't on line yet; and so, are unaware, and yet to experience their deep and lasting outrage and anger at me for my ideas.

The fly in (y)our ointment would seem to be governing ourselves in the mean-time. We seem to be electing a lot of controlling mother-fuckers who'd like to impose their pre-human values on others. Our fascination with war to teach democratic values to the unenlightened seems counter-productive unless we can bomb them with high speed internet, something we still haven't bombed rural America with.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by sexobon

It's cute when old folks like you and UT try to use reverse psychology on others so they'll make your cases in rebuttals..

Wrong analysis. I'm tired of going round and round, like a dog chasing his tail, on this. Everyone has staked out their position and will not be swayed, because they're not even listening anymore.

The majority opinion in this country changes every 4 or 8 years. I'll be around to affect the balancing act for awhile yet. While I'm not a proponent of your third side, I see a middle ground.

The majority opinion on what changes every four to eight years? Certainly not on global warming/climate change/what to do about it.
Besides, even if the majority opinion flops one way or the other, so what? Congress doesn't care, they do what they're told by the people who own them. They'll do it without fear of voter backlash, too, because the few that vote are so stupid they'll vote against their own, and the country's, best interest when the party says to.

[Undertoad]

I took my leading questions and crossed them out!

Then they were needed anyway.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by sexobon

If the notion that trading off natural resources now to advance science so it can solve our natural resources problems later was valid, all our fresh water sources that were naturally potable before pollution would be naturally potable again today.

They are, or is this one of those leading questions? Once we figured out we were doing this type of damage, we moved an awful lot of the water polluting to other countries. We made it illegal in the rich places, thus promoting manufacturing in poorer countries without such regulations.

It all worked, and now rivers and lakes that were heavily polluted are now clean. The Cuyahoga River is no longer on fire. Boston Harbor hosts wildlife now. You could swim in major metropolitan rivers now.

The Clean Water Act is considered one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever. And now, previously clean rivers and lakes in China are now choked with algae and pollution, worse than the west's ever were. We successfully moved the problem out of our backyard.

That's why I said we are going to need World Police to pressure AGW by force. As energy gets more expensive, the worst people on the world will get money and power by using it any way they see fit. Problem is global so moving it isn't going to work.

Unless we move it to outer space...

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Once we figured out we were doing this type of damage, we moved an awful lot of the water polluting to other countries. We made it illegal in the rich places, thus promoting manufacturing in poorer countries without such regulations.

Delaware River above Port Jervis (northern tip of New Jersey) was some of the cleanest water. Rated Grade A by the National Park Service. In Reagan's day, one could see it getting dirtier. And yet it was still Grade A because it was so clean. During Clinton's time we saw it get cleaner.

So why does Philadelphia not take their water from the Delaware River? Because it is so dirty. Cleaner water is obtained from the Schukylll River. So what happens in 100 miles from the cleanest of the clean to so dirty? Clearly this does not happen if we have so successfully cleaned up the rivers.


Meanwhile Americans pay $35 for gasoline. Only $4 moves the car. $31 is wasted as heat and noise. If we addressed real reasons for global warning (a major shortage of innovation), then $12 of $35 moves a car. But we do not do that. Since 1970, what has been the purpose of every American auto company? Not to make a better product. To make more profits. To enrich top management.

Why do companies with misguided objectives so harm the environment? Many if not most innovation that makes better cars and reduces harmful impacts to the environment eventually appear as patriotic American cars made by better American patriots who are citizens of Korea, Japan, and Europe. After all, less destruction to the environment also means higher gasoline mileage. Why is that not important and good?

The if not a most significant reason for Global Warming are so many Americans who hate innovation. As apparent even by fools so who hated environmental controls in 1970s automobiles. Large numbers of Americans so hate America when they advocate hate of innovation and the resulting progress. These fools love the status quo. Denial of global warning and reasons why it exists are typically found in those who hate innovation and the advancement of mankind.

[Lamplighter]

...The Clean Water Act is considered one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever. ...

CLA is second only to: National DO NOT CALL Registry

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by sexobon

If the notion that trading off natural resources now to advance science so it can solve our natural resources problems later was valid, all our fresh water sources that were naturally potable before pollution would be naturally potable again today.

Here, "our" refers to the world's natural resources, not just this country's. Global warming to global water pollution, apples to apples. There's just a longer time line for water pollution anywhere to become a problem for everyone everywhere compared to air pollution. My contention was that even if science comes up with a technological solution to global warming (as it has for water pollution), it will take time to implement globally and associated costs will take a toll on other aspects of humanity. UT reinforced those points. Thank you.

I don't fall into either the science will save us or the there's nothing we can do categories. The former is just another rationalization for holding the latter position. Did you ever notice that people who think we'll need a World Police for something are often the same people who think we shouldn't be the world's police (even though we may be the lesser of all evils). Fascinating.

LLAP

[xoxoxoBruce]

Did you ever notice that people who think we'll need a World Police for something are often the same people who think we shouldn't be the world's police (even though we may be the lesser of all evils). Fascinating.

It would be easy less difficult to get every country to comply if they could be squeezed financially, but free enterprise and black markets rule that option out.

So how the fuck can you enforce rules on countries that don't want them? Who makes the rules? Vote on them? One vote per country whether they have a Billion or 238 citizens? Putin? Kim?

Say we are the world police, and a country says fuck off, you're not the boss of me. Would you support a war to enforce environmental rules? A war with a nuclear power?
How about Russia being world police? Would you say, yes boss, right away boss? No? What makes you think they would?

[sexobon]

So many questions, so misdirected. We'll conquer the world through the time honored tradition of intermarriage. Of course, we may have to make sacrifices such as having more than one spouse to make it work in time to prevent global warming. How many can I put you down for?

(contingent upon Mexico not conquering us first)