Life In 19x19

“garbage sites” = sites with information you do not like?

I thought meanwhile you’d be used to everybody else being wrong and fools and you being right

Magicwand wrote:

Bill Spight wrote:

Magicwand wrote:Scientists cameup with multiple model that has been proven wrong and you still believe them.

What makes you think that those models have been proven wrong? Thanks.

one that i am talking about is model that most politicans use"catastrophic weather model."(temperature will rise 5degree or higher next 100 years. NYC will be under water. number of huricane will triple and stronger. etc etc.)

Politicians are not scientists.

Bonobo wrote:“garbage sites” = sites with information you do not like?

i thought meanwhile you’d be used to everybody else being wrong and fools and you being right

to me garbage sites are sites that has political motivations and biased.
then again...most mainstream medias are biased..

so many opinions on this issue and many brought good points but have not convinced me yet.
which means that nobody knows what the real truth is. Yet they are convinced that it will kill mankinds.

i really dont care what they believe as long as my tax money is not wasted in a shadow of a paper tiger that everyone believe it is true.

very surprised that so many ppl actually believe what i think is a BS.

Hehe... MW gets back, reloaded with new series of 'irrefutable arguments' from the far right. Funny...

Anyhow - I am not going to argue all that, others will do it better, most of it has already been said, and just go look at serious sites or raw data yourself. So, I take these two points as my axioms, as being demonstrated, proven, and confirmed:

• Global warming is a fact - temperatures are on the rise, although sometimes jerkily
• Human activities are a contributing factor, although not the only cause (we can argue to what extend, but the fact is that humans contribute)

Lets get to the interesting part.

Magicwand wrote:IMO spending trillions of $ in CO2 level is like buying 1,000,000 $ car insurance for flat tire.

See, MW - *now* you are getting into the area of opinion, and this is what might make the conversation valid again. Disputing and denying facts is boring and unproductive.

The unbiased situation is, pretty much, like that: we have all these trillions of dollars in our budget, and we have to spend it on something. There is a lot of 'something', and the money is not really that much, all things considered, so we need to make some sacrifices, especially in this day and age. And this makes the discussion about how exactly we should spend the money both interesting and relevant (and highly political.)

However - since we are talking opinions now, and political ones, so I am sure it violates the TOS somehow. For this reasons - just a few quick points for you to think about:

• Environment is important, and I think that steps should be taken in protecting it. It is an expense today, true, but I think future generations will thank us for it. Rush Limbaugh would rather take the money for himself and his buddies today and to hell with the kids and grandkids.
• I am not sure if environment should be on the top of our list, but it should be somewhere in there - all other developed countries are thinking the same, and even most americans agree. Rush Limbaugh would rather not even acknowledge environment exists.
• Spending on the environment is much much better than spending on wars (tell me MW - did you support Bush on the Iraq war, which was *proven* to be a hoax? how much did *that* cost?) Rush Limbaugh would rather spend the money on more wars.
• I think spending on environment is better than on subsidies for big business or on bailouts for big corporations - all of which is happening and supported by the right-wing extremists, like Rush Limbaugh.
• Each year we spend countless billions on defense - even though our 'defense' is pretty much 'offense' these day, and a stronger one that most other countries combined. I think I rather put at least part of this money towards something more productive - like environment. Rush Limbaugh would rather build more bombs.
• I could go on and on... but I hope you get the point. If the country stops spending on idiotic things like wars and making the rich even richer - I think we can have a good discussion about how to prioritize the remaining expenses... but as long as we spend on stupid things like wars and bailouts - I rather spend on the environment.

As you can notice - I all of the above thoughts are not dependent on 'belief' in Global Warming or not. Even if Global Warming is just a hoax, I would still rather spend on environment than on wars. Taking Global Warming into account, the issue becomes even more urgent.

Magicwand wrote:to me garbage sites are sites that has political motivations and biased.
then again...most mainstream medias are biased..

They are? How do you know?

Magicwand wrote:[..] many brought good points but have not convinced me yet.
which means that nobody knows what the real truth is. [..]

From “many brought good points” and “have not convinced me yet”, how exactly do you come to the conclusion—because “which means” IS a conclusion—that nobody knows what the real truth is?

I’m not saying that anybody knows what “real truth” is, but I’d be interested in how you explain your conclusion. To me, this very much sounds like “if I don’t know then nobody knows”.

HermanHiddema wrote:

Magicwand wrote:to me garbage sites are sites that has political motivations and biased.
then again...most mainstream medias are biased..

They are? How do you know?

Corporate owned media in the US have a well-known conservative bias. They have to please their masters. This includes such farces as giving equal time time to climate deniers. I am sure this is what MW is referring to.

Magicwand wrote:ok...i think about 10% of people think it is a hoax and few doesnt care or dont have any opinion...
now i will ask question and see if you (90%) can answer.
if climate change is man made...then how did it started up trend since 1700 when man made cause was abscent?
how did medival warm period created if man made factor was missing?

As I suggested in my previous post, you should try and answer these questions for those of us who believe in man-made global warming. If you can accurately approximate our answers, then perhaps you understand the debate. If you cannot, then how can you refute us?

Magicwand wrote:if climate change is man made...then how did it started up trend since 1700 when man made cause was abscent?
how did medival warm period created if man made factor was missing?

[list=]
1850, not 1700.
Ice ages and inter-ace age periods don't care about man-made whatever. Climate has periods, huge ones
According to climate periodicity cycles we should be entering a (real) ice age. Where it is?
[/list]

Actually I don't care about convincing you, because it's clear you just want one-sided explanations. What's your stand on evolution? I think climate change today is like evolution when Darwin exposed it: not enough data to firmly convince anyone. Soon (10-20 years) the Hekla volcano in Iceland will erupt (look up about previous eruptions of it), and this will bring global temperatures down (3-4 degrees for quite a long period) and right-wing d********s will say climate change was greenheads theory and now wrong.

RBerenguel wrote:[..] What's your stand on evolution?

ROTFL, that’s exactly what I thought about asking MW yesterday but was too “afraid” of his answer.

BTW currently German news are full w/ reports about global warming and rise of the oceans being even worse and coming faster than those “doomsters” predicted. Bah, all those communist media influencers

I think the only question that arises for educated people is this: Do we care about what the world will be like for our kids and grandkids? Or do we think everything’s just here for us old folks to use up and throw away?

Bantari wrote:Hehe... MW gets back.......
..... urgent.

Well said.
George Bush had to start war to protect us. so he said.
I think it can be argue that it was for our defense against radical jihad. which i agree.
and i will stop there because that is another political discussion which this forum prohibit.

these are my thought:
I never thought i was right wing until people said i am far right.
I always thought i was the norm and could not understand why so many ppl think different.
Rush makes dumb statement every now and then but that is true for everyone that i know.
i dont understand why he get blamed for that all by himself.
I dont think i will ever change my belief until i see some hard evidence and i dont see anyone providing me with that anytime soon.
I am not here to argue with everyone. I am curious how others think and why they think that way.
at least i found out that i am not alone.

Bonobo wrote:Do we care about what the world will be like for our kids and grandkids? Or do we think everything’s just here for us old folks to use up and throw away?

I have you daughters who i want to give them clean environment and happy life.
I just dont believe that environment change will effect them enough for me to go along with that idea.
there are better ways we can give them better life. spending everything we have on something we can not even fix...is not a good idea.

Magicwand wrote:

Bantari wrote:Hehe... MW gets back.......
..... urgent.

I never thought i was right wing until people said i am far right.
I always thought i was the norm and could not understand why so many ppl think different.

This is because you move in a very closed circuits. You listen to only "those" news, and read only "those" newspapers, and go to only "those" websites - and everything else you think of as 'garbage' as you say. This is very similar to other groups, like religious fanatics, for example, who by the virtue of their selective information intake are suffering from the false impression that 'everybody thinks like that' and 'only a small minority of blinded malcontents thinks otherwise' and 'if they only opened their minds they would see the truth' - all the time not realizing that it is *you* who has a closed mind.

The trick is - the people you listen to are very much interested in convincing you of this - after all, how can what they say be wrong if the vast majority agrees?

But in many cases, as with Global Warming, the vast majority does *not* agree! As a matter of fact - it is a very small minority, unfortunately backed by some very deep pockets, which tries to down-play any climate changes for their own purposes.

And so you are being fed lies on daily basis, until at some point you don't know what is what anymore, and you come up arguing like you do here. And then you seem surprised that your views are not really that popular.

This, if nothing else, should tell you how badly you are manipulated by the people you listen to.

This is why I keep stressing - do your own research, do not just rely on the word of politically-motivated sources. And there is political motivation on both sides, just to make it clear, so it is very important to think for yourself rather than just listen.

If everybody around you, and all the sources you listen to - they all tell you the same thing - be aware that something is wrong, and you need to expand your horizons. On political issues you *never* have consensus, usually not even a decisive majority, and if you think you do, you are wearing blinders. Look and think for yourself, dude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave

esp. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_o ... o_the_Cave

But maybe Darwin/evolution is a good example precisely because of a common misunderstanding.

The "problem" was reconciling theory and observations. What we see (what he and his contemporaries were seeing) is population of organisms organized in species with relatively narrow variation of form. In other words, if evolution were taking place, why were they not observing a continuum of form?

That's why his book was titled "Origin of the Species". Darwin was explaining why we would (at any spot in time) see the population of an organism organized as a species and the mechanism by which the characteristics of this species could change over time. Why we should expect to observe that even though evolution was taking place.

Understand? The opposition arguments of the day (*) were based on the expectation "if evolution were taking place we would be observing a continuum of form."

* I mean the scientific opposition to evolution, not the religious opposition to evolution.