CLIMATE CHAOS - Bush's climate of fear (BBC report)

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I had resolved to give up on A2K because most everything interesting had already been said, and the overall quality of the discorse appears to be winding down.

Translation: my boys are getting the crap kicked out of them these days, and it is much harder to play defense than offense, so I'm taking my ball home...

...

No ... Translation: Those with whom I used to engage in interesting and spirited debate have been replaced by posters who appear to be more desirous of calling those they disagree with names than they are in carrying on an intelligent discussion.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

No ... Translation: Those with whom I used to engage in interesting and spirited debate have been replaced by posters who appear to be more desirous of calling those they disagree with names than they are in carrying on an intelligent discussion.

You mean, there are 'imposters' here, old-known A2K-names are actually different persons now?

0 Replies

Right, Tico, Right, lol...

I find it to be funny that at the height of Republican triumph - back during the 2004 election and right thereafter - you found plenty of Republicans posting on here, all the time. Now that things aren't going so well, you don't, because the 'rational voices' all are gone. Not because there isn't much to crow about anymore, nah, that couldn't be it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

No ... Translation: Those with whom I used to engage in interesting and spirited debate have been replaced by posters who appear to be more desirous of calling those they disagree with names than they are in carrying on an intelligent discussion.

You mean, there are 'imposters' here, old-known A2K-names are actually different persons now?

Perhaps a metamorphosis in some posters ... in other cases, the thoughtful posters have been replaced by the posters I described.

For your edification:

Quote:

re·place
tr.v. re·placed, re·plac·ing, re·plac·es
1. To put back into a former position or place.
2. To take or fill the place of.
3. To be or provide a substitute for.
4. To pay back or return; refund.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Right, Tico, Right, lol...

I find it to be funny that at the height of Republican triumph - back during the 2004 election and right thereafter - you found plenty of Republicans posting on here, all the time. Now that things aren't going so well, you don't, because the 'rational voices' all are gone. Not because there isn't much to crow about anymore, nah, that couldn't be it.

Cycloptichorn

If you haven't noticed the level of discourse from the left plummeting of late, you haven't been paying attention.

0 Replies

Why don't you point out some examples, then, if they are so obvious?

Bitterness is all that I can see from your side these days; bitterness at failed opportunity. I know you Republicans are great fans of history, and how do you think this era will be looked upon by future Republicans? Your party had all the power there was to have in America, and accomplished little to nothing. It must make you mad, and I don't blame you.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I imagine if george felt any reluctance to leave before, that feeling has passed.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why don't you point out some examples, then, if they are so obvious?

Bitterness is all that I can see from your side these days; bitterness at failed opportunity. I know you Republicans are great fans of history, and how do you think this era will be looked upon by future Republicans? Your party had all the power there was to have in America, and accomplished little to nothing. It must make you mad, and I don't blame you.

Cycloptichorn

example:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
I had resolved to give up on A2K because most everything interesting had already been said, and the overall quality of the discorse appears to be winding down.

Translation: my boys are getting the crap kicked out of them these days, and it is much harder to play defense than offense, so I'm taking my ball home...

Of course, this is merely more low-quality discourse, and will summarily be either ridiculed or ignored.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Heh

Batting a thousand

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I still fail to see why there are so many people are so hellbent to discredit global warming as junk science.
The basic underlying premise of global warming is that there is an abundance of pollution that is affecting the health of the environment.
An abundance of pollution affecting the health of the environment has, is currently, and will continue to affect us if nothing is done to mitigate the effects of mass pollution.

The environmentalists are using care tactics to bring nations from defiance to compliance, and the business sector is using the fear of massive recession and job losses as a defense.

I thought that there was at least a consciousness about global pollution that was universally accepted.

0 Replies

I can see how one would want to debate the effectiveness of any measures that respond to climate change. In particular, I understand the concern with over-regulation of industry. But I don't understand effectively denying the problem exists in order to avoid doing anything about it. And manipulating information so that it looks like the science isn't clear is one way to do that.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Bitterness is all that I can see from your side these days; bitterness at failed opportunity. I know you Republicans are great fans of history, and how do you think this era will be looked upon by future Republicans? Your party had all the power there was to have in America, and accomplished little to nothing. It must make you mad, and I don't blame you.

Cycloptichorn

It is generally possible to ascertain the thoughts and ideas of those who post here (sometimes, depending on the clarity of their prose). However it is not possible to know their motives or inner thoughts.

At its best this is an exchange of ideas, opinion, and information. It is not a contest and there are no winners or losers (except perhaps for some who find that important).

Apart from your fantasies about the motivation of those with whom you evidently disagree here, what have you offered us?

Tico,

Thanks for your kind words - our opinions are reciprocal.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I can see how one would want to debate the effectiveness of any measures that respond to climate change. In particular, I understand the concern with over-regulation of industry. But I don't understand effectively denying the problem exists in order to avoid doing anything about it. And manipulating information so that it looks like the science isn't clear is one way to do that.

Because the conclusions science suggests cannot be defended in 30 second commercials and 90 second interviews. I believe the position I am arguing on A2K comes pretty close to what climatology and economics have to say about the isue: Global warming is real, is a problem, but not worth fixing given Kyoto's cost of fixing it. (William Nordhaus, who pioneered the economic analysis of global warming, suggests that a modest fuel tax may bring more climatological benefit than economic cost, but that every international treaty proposed so far wouldn't.)

But while I believe my position is correct, that's not my argument here. It is that my position, true or false, it is very difficult to defend, as I found out by arguing it here on A2K. It is easy to say that global warming is a problem, so we must stop it, period. It is easy to argue that there is no such thing as global warming, or in any case we're not really sure. But thinking in tradeoffs is difficult and boring, so arguing from reality produces soundbites that no TV audience wants to hear. Accordingly, people go for the easy, false storyline that comes closest to what they really believe.

0 Replies

Ok, but is there even a debate about the possible ways to address it? Is Kyoto the only solution considered? I think what makes people alarmist is the idea that, well, Kyoto was a bad idea so we're just going to do nothing. Ok, so Kyoto sucks, then what? What would be better? When I say there's no debate about global warming, that's what I mean.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, so Kyoto sucks, then what? What would be better? When I say there's no debate about global warming, that's what I mean.

From my computer in Munich, Germany, it looks as if Gore's movie has triggered quite a lot of debate -- and that in the 3 years I'd been on A2K, there has never been a darth of global warming threads, nor of people who kept them alive.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Ok, but is there even a debate about the possible ways to address it? Is Kyoto the only solution considered? I think what makes people alarmist is the idea that, well, Kyoto was a bad idea so we're just going to do nothing. Ok, so Kyoto sucks, then what? What would be better? When I say there's no debate about global warming, that's what I mean.

Substitute "global warming" with "potentially irreversable global pollution", and I would hope the discussions would take a different turn.
You're right, the mere suggestion of "Kyoto" sets off alarms.

0 Replies

I assure you, FreeDuck, that there are many proposals as to what to do. Thomas' post is quite correct. If there is a problem--eg Is the alleged growth in Co2 emissions something that will materially affect our lives? then there are various scenarios available with which to address it.

Mr. Thomas is correct. Kyoto is very very expensive. If certain procedures are established( trading rights for Co2 emissions- procedures which are loaded with real economic problems), then the costs are estimated to be about 2% of GDP in 2050 and 4% of GDP in 2100. And it must be rememebered, that IF the present predicitions of warming are correct, the Kyoto Protocol would have an inconsequential impact on the climate system.

We would be spending tons of money throughout the world for nothing. It is important that we get it right. IF the warming warmings are correct, we need to spend much much more than Kyoto has indicated.

The whole problem becomes almost insoluble when we consider, IF the warming predictions are correct, that China and India's combined pollution will overwhelm the efforts of the West to make an progress.

0 Replies

By following Malthus modeling we can conclude that Mystic Connecticut now has a population of 17 million 468,000. Pretty damn scary if you ask me. On the other hand, if we follow George W. Bush we can conclude that Mystic Connecticut was moved to the outskirts of Lippstadt German in 1919 and now supports a small pizza industry which contributes to the tax base and employes 17 teenagers keeping them off the streets as well as purchasing MP3 players.

0 Replies

I concur Bernard.
But the fact that our efforts would potentially and effectively negated by China and India do not convince me the effort is worthless.
I recycle, drive a hybrid vehicle, utilize any provincially or federally sponsored "green" programs for my home.....in spite of the fact that the family of 8 next door does absolutely nothing but negate the efforts that I undertake.

One must lead by example.

0 Replies

It's not that hard to change the world if you start by changing yourself.

0 Replies

CLIMATE CHAOS - Bush's climate of fear (BBC report)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know