General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I was just at Party City. There is plenty of it there.

GET OUT OF HERE OSCAR FACE.

This is referring to helium and not global warming right?

Yes.
...... although I think it also applies to the GW theme. Yes, we will survive.

DC may or may not be around in a few decades, so we can all check back and remember who took which side of this debate. My short-term prediction is we will revert back to the 1970's scare of Global Cooling. Anyone remember that BS? People were definitely afraid.

We need to regulate pollution and the use of natural resources - suggesting that the free market is enough is (speechless)

Yes, Improva. We both understand that you are pro-government control over everything, whereas, I believe people make decisions (free markets) for themselves without government coercion (without consequences)

I have come to the conclusion that I must respect and accept your position on economics and centralized government. It is what you believe.

Let's leave those long back-n-forth discussions to the other threads we have debated. If anything, these arguments will only prove my main concern....... that people are using totalitarian (govt) tactics VS real science to acheive their global control agendas -- via legislation to stop a certain disaster or extinction of the human race.

We will be okay. Earth is resilient.

Sneakers, don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you're not even trying to understand the science behind it. For this reason, I won't waste a lot of time trying to convince you. I'm just curious, what would have to happen to make you change your mind?

You continuously make bold claims without even bothering to check the facts. For example, no, there was never a consensus among scientists that global cooling would occur.

Free market can solve everything? Have you ever learnt economics? I mean just plain old econ 101. It's just naive to think externalities don't exist. I don't know if there are economists who are even close to as fanatical about free markets as you are.

What would make you come around and accept global warming? If not 97% of scientists said it's taking place, but 99.9%? What about climate change do you not understand that makes you doubt it? I'm honestly curious about this, because I believe that it's a huge problem that needs to be solved and for this we need people to understand the problem.

But as far as Global Warming, this is unrelated. It is just an example of lifecycles for resources. We will survive. The worse thing that could happen, is getting the government involved. Let the free markets decide the next steps.

================================

lol

We will be okay. Earth is resilient.

I think the sentiment that "it'll work itself out" misses the mark a little. We can see that ecosystems on planets are delicate. There's growing evidence to suggest that Mars and in particular Venus had a similar environment to Earth (water, atmosphere, etc) and whilst this gives no support to the idea that humans can inflict enough damage to cause this, it remains that planets are not in static or regressive states and imbalances can certainly fuck them up on grand scales.

The climate debate is centering around one side saying it's unlikely humans are significantly contributing to global warming and the other saying it's likely. At this stage it's too early to come to 100% certain conclusions, this leaves us with non-zero estimates ranging from small to large and the predictions if this is true range from quite bad to cataclysmic. Risk/reward shows that whatever side you're on it's essential to be making the necessary adjustments to avoid this potential calamity. If someone says "pay me $200 or play Russian roulette with this 1000 barrel gun", of course you're going to pay him the money, to say "I want to save my money, it'll probably work out" or "I bet there's no bullets in that gun" would be irrational.

I think it's clear on this issue we should be over cautious in our reaction and reign it in (which may be hard) if as our understanding improves it shows human caused global warming to be less and less likely. Firstly, because the adjustments we'd have to make now to protect against this potential threat are quite small and grow very large as time goes on, it would be very unfortunate if we realized GW is a real threat in 15-20 years and have to immediately cut emissions by 50% (as opposed to ~3% now). Secondly, I would much rather be thinking in a few decades "oh well we spent a few trillion protecting against a non-existent threat, learnt a ton about our environment and got a few cool technologies out of it" rather that... oh fuck we're screwed.

Getting on to whether the free market will naturally make the necessary adjustments, I can't see how it will without external motivations. Right now they have little responsibility for their emissions or even suffer the effects for them. They're generally not going to take financial hits for altruistic reasons or long term gambles that if they sink a ton of money into green-tech it'll pay off. Green energy isn't cost effective at this point, the free market is getting involved largely due to incentives for them and disincentives to their non-green comrades. There will come a time where Green energy will be a cost effective competitor to fossil fuels and these motivators can be lifted. We could debate on how we think these motivators should be in place (maybe carbon tax isn't a good idea) but the idea of incentivizing Green tech to fast track it's development and profitability is something I support.

I'm fine with a government taking the reigns to combat this risk, just as I'm fine with them controlling nuclear weapons. I don't want the unconscious hive mind directing either and hoping it naturally works out, the stakes are too high.

For those who do not think the government does not already have some control over resources, take a look at this photo. Lakehurst NJ - Nazi Germany's Hindenburg

How many people know......
............that the Hindeburg was a Nazi dirigible (Zeppelin Company)? We do not see the swastika on the famous Hindenburg crash -- because the tail burned first.

Everyone already knew that hydrogen was very dangerious. So WHY didn't they use helium in the hindenburg?
......because the US government would not give helium to hitler. He was threatening europe and the hindenburg was seen as a potential weapon for crossing the channel dropping bombs on Engand.



But again, Helium or other evironmentalist causes are not related to the thread regarding whether GW is going to end the world, or is it exaggerated?

GET OUT OF HERE OSCAR FACE.

The fat lady has sung on this one.

Sneakers, don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you're not even trying to understand the science behind it. For this reason, I won't waste a lot of time trying to convince you. I'm just curious, what would have to happen to make you change your mind?
................

I posted it above.
It was Crichton's suggestion to put the models up with a 10 year predition. If they cannot do that, why are they predicting castatrophies 100 years from now? They don't, because the numbers keep changing to fit the scenario. Overly convenient and "prejudice" to the outcome of models.

The problem today -- and the reason the public is becoming more skeptical each year -- is because the doomsday alarmists have been wrong about a lot of things. They keep changing the hypothesis of the models when they do not work out as predicted.

Simply put the models to a 10-year test.
Create the hypothesis and let the numbers be presented in the open. True scientists would jump at that proposal. Be the person to prove it. Be the person to solve the climate equation......then refine that to the weather forecasts. The individual or team would probably win a valid Nobel Peace Price. A true hero for everyone.

ooops.....Nobel Peace Price winner, Al Gore, did predict world demise in 10 years due to GW (Jan 2006).
clock is ticking. 3+ years left.


NOTE: again, nothing accomplished today. Behind schedule. Need to catch up on some studies.

ooops.....Al Gore did predict world demise in 10 years due to GW (Jan 2006).
clock is ticking. 3+ years left.

Could you point me to any current scientific literature that's citing something Al Gore said? That would make your constant Pope Gore statements relevant to this thread.

The problem today -- and the reason the public is becoming more skeptical each year -- is because the doomsday alarmists have been wrong about a lot of things. They keep changing the hypothesis of the models when they do not work out as predicted.

What have they been wrong about? You are basically saying that 97% of climate scientists have no clue what they are doing. You think they don't even know how scientific research should be done.
Honestly, I'm not even sure if you understand the difference between weather and climate. It's not like you first have to be able to make accurate predictions about the next year or so to be able to predict what will happen in a hundred years.

One thing I completely agree with. (paraphrased) Scientists cannot even predict the climate for the next month, yet they are making disaster predictions for a 100 years. Why don't they just apply their models to 10 years.

This is exactly it IMO. Fulfilling a 10 year prediction would make it crystal clear , enough to make believers of everyone, even for those who current believers think are just too dumb to see their GW truth. As of today, nothing that the GW alarmist predict comes true.....which increases doubt among the general population and honest non-invested scientists.

The models that are being developed do predict the weather over 10 year periods. There are several large scale models in use throughout the world and mostly they roughly agree. One of the problems is that the information everybody actually gets is provided by a few or at least nudged by a few powerful sources (on both sides). Not many people are particularly interested in the view for the next 10 years, and the newspapers are always concentrating on the 100 year view - it is more controversial.
Here is a 10 year one I've just found for the usa.
http://www.farm-equipment.com/pages/Spre/Farming-in-2021.php
The scientists are constantly trying to do there best and the typically are willing to admit and correct any errors find. Here is one from 2008 on the BBC site.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7376301.stm
These models are constantly being checked and modified to account for the latest research and new data, they also run these over the data from the past to see how well they do predicting the last few decades. It is quite easy for me to believe that this approach is going to lead to predictions close enough to be worth taking notice of.

After looking for various sources of information I stumbled on this site
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_we_trust_climate_models_increasingly_the_answer_is_yes/2360/
I really liked this site it had lots of really interesting articles on it.

The Met Office in the UK is actually very good at predicting the weather over a few days (up to a week it is quite accurate). These predictions are done for small parts of the country, the weather is very chaotic system and there will always be problems predicting local weather precisely for long terms. They still do general predictions for the very long term ie, 100 years, and it doesn't seem good. A lack of rainfall predicted in the south of the UK is probably the worst part. I'm ok though as the north west gets off reasonably well, we'll just have to stop those sneaky southeners stealing our water.

The following was written in the third century, long before a chunk of coal, drop of oil, ounce of aluminum were of known use to man:

You must know that that the world has grown old, and does not remain in its former vigour. It bears witness to its own decline. The rainfall and the sun's warmth are both diminishing; the metals are nearly exhausted; the husbandman is failing in the fields, the sailor on the seas, the soldier in the camp, honesty in the market, justice in the courts, concord in friendships, skill in the arts, discipline in morals. This is the sentence passed upon the world, that everything which has a beginning should perish, that things which have reach maturity should grow old, the strong weak, the great small, and that after weakness and shrinkage should come dissolution.

But this time the end is nigh, man will cease to advance and destroy the world around him....

Very good point.

"Anybody who tells you that we're running out of resources or in a terrible mess are idiots. We can't run out of resources. Resources exist when the human mind sees how to use something, to say we're running out of resources is like saying we're running out of brain cells.”
-Robert Anton Wilson

skeptical believer

Very good point.

"Anybody who tells you that we're running out of resources or in a terrible mess are idiots. We can't run out of resources. Resources exist when the human mind sees how to use something, to say we're running out of resources is like saying we're running out of brain cells.”
-Robert Anton Wilson

His redefinition of resources is very amusing - and very wrong.

I posted it above.
It was Crichton's suggestion to put the models up with a 10 year predition. If they cannot do that, why are they predicting castatrophies 100 years from now? They don't, because the numbers keep changing to fit the scenario. Overly convenient and "prejudice" to the outcome of models.

The problem today -- and the reason the public is becoming more skeptical each year -- is because the doomsday alarmists have been wrong about a lot of things. They keep changing the hypothesis of the models when they do not work out as predicted.

Simply put the models to a 10-year test.
Create the hypothesis and let the numbers be presented in the open. True scientists would jump at that proposal. Be the person to prove it. Be the person to solve the climate equation......then refine that to the weather forecasts. The individual or team would probably win a valid Nobel Peace Price. A true hero for everyone.

ooops.....Nobel Peace Price winner, Al Gore, did predict world demise in 10 years due to GW (Jan 2006).
clock is ticking. 3+ years left.


NOTE: again, nothing accomplished today. Behind schedule. Need to catch up on some studies.

Al Gore and Chrichton's have both demonstrated that they do not understand anything about climate changes. They don't suddenly appear. It is a gradual process with very high variance. 10 years is meaningless nonsense.

You don't need a model to understand why we need to regulate the levels of CO2 we produce. That only requires some high school physics. I posted some videos that should be easy to follow.