Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

global warming

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: global warming

    Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
    The global warming argument in the US is pretty clear cut antidotal evidence trumps all facts. Facts have little to do with out politics. Any fact brought out on any issue is obviously a conspiracy made up by those science people. Science is evil and should be disregarded.

    Idiocracy is the American way no one else will tell us what is true. If we want something to be true we'll make it up.
    If "idiocracy" is the American way, then how would you describe the communist chinese way, the third world way? Words like poverty, and fear come to my mind when I think of the residents of those places. Sure we don't all agree and some will never be convinced regardless of the evidence, but at least we are free to think our own thoughts right or wrong. I can't help but look at the poor alternatives to our American Idocracy when I read such things, sorry it's a bad habit.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: global warming

      Your arguments tend to put China and third world countries as the other options. I have a number of friends around the world. Many who I have argued politics with. England, Australia, Canada, Italy for examples. When I talk politics with any of those friends they use fact based arguments. Outsiders looking in on our politics always have questions like 'why is US politics such bullshit?'

      I don't believe those countries are any better then the US. It is simply an observation that their political arguments generally include facts on both sides of the argument.

      One of my arguments for example is free speech should not be restricted in any form. All of the above countries have more restrictive free speech laws then the US. When arguing against me on behalf of their countries they present actual arguments and citations. I don't feel like I'm talking to some child that can't step back and look at a problem objectively. One of the biggest hurdles I hit now with the argument is the US is rapidly adopting legislation that restricts free speech in similar ways to those countries.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: global warming

        boytyperanma - Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't severe and extreme weather a factor of global warming?

        Last winter we got eighteen inches of snow. We were snowed in for eight days straight. It was forty years since we had that much snow, and even then it didn't last for eight days.

        Our winters are usually wet and cool, not cold.

        Last summer we had nine straight days over 100 degrees. We hit a high of 109 on one day, and exceeded 105 for several days. Lows were in the eighties.

        Our summers are usually warm and dry, but this was far beyond anything any Portlander had ever experienced.

        The weather in our region is moderate. But the past year has packed some historical weather events.

        That said, I'm not qualified to link this to global warming. But the experts that have made the subject their lifes work seem to think extreme weather is one of the manifestations of global warming.

        We have come to a curious juncture in our society where science and knowledge not gleaned from a pundits book is held in contempt and ridiculed. Like Donald Fagan sang "The things that pass for knowledge I can't understand ".

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: global warming

          Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
          Your arguments tend to put China and third world countries as the other options. I have a number of friends around the world. Many who I have argued politics with. England, Australia, Canada, Italy for examples. When I talk politics with any of those friends they use fact based arguments. Outsiders looking in on our politics always have questions like 'why is US politics such bullshit?'

          I don't believe those countries are any better then the US. It is simply an observation that their political arguments generally include facts on both sides of the argument.

          One of my arguments for example is free speech should not be restricted in any form. All of the above countries have more restrictive free speech laws then the US. When arguing against me on behalf of their countries they present actual arguments and citations. I don't feel like I'm talking to some child that can't step back and look at a problem objectively. One of the biggest hurdles I hit now with the argument is the US is rapidly adopting legislation that restricts free speech in similar ways to those countries.
          How I argue and how other Americans choose to base their opinions may not fit your design, but that's what happens when you interact with a diverse group and not a select number of friends who agree to your rules. Do I need to cite facts that folks in communist china and the third world live in poverty and fear their governments? That happens to be my opinion based on my life experience, just as you believe in American idiocracy. I have thoughts on our freedom of speech and while I won't quote hard facts I have an overall belief based on the abuses I have witnessed on the Internet and in several forms of media, that our framers of the Constitution never meant the freedom of speech to protect people who use it to abuse, defile, insult and otherwise cause harm to others. Now that's my opinion based on my experience, not hard facts that I can readily produce to be be verified or disputed. If you think I act like a child because I don't produce hard facts, that is your prerogative but I think it dismisses a lot of good, healthy debate. There is something to be said about opinion based on life experience and original thought as opposed to reguritating what you believe to be facts. Facts can sometimes be twisted.

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: global warming

            Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
            The global warming argument in the US is pretty clear cut antidotal evidence trumps all facts. Facts have little to do with out politics. Any fact brought out on any issue is obviously a conspiracy made up by those science people. Science is evil and should be disregarded.

            Idiocracy is the American way no one else will tell us what is true. If we want something to be true we'll make it up.
            The trouble with me is, I was taught about global cooling in my youth, Then we were going to run out of fossil fuels in 20 or 30 years, then global warming, AIDS was going to kill a huge number of us. It seems the epidemics never stop and none of them happen. I have a theory as to why global warming has traction that won't stop, but it has nothing to do with facts on there part......... or mine for that matter.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: global warming

              Objectivity is often lost in debates. While having a perspective is natural, including a common point from which to differentiate is important.

              The right wing is completely driven by ideology and avoids or otherwise dismisses facts. The left wing is equally extreme but they use facts most of the time to back up their arguments.

              Life experiences is a slippery slope. It certainly informs, but it isn't accurate. A child growing up in poverty is going to have an entirely different world view and life experience than a middle class kid that didn't go hungry. A child growing up in on a farm is going to have a whole different idea of independent living than a middle class kid in the city.

              The country is polarized because neither side can agree on an objective middle ground. The right thinks their ideology is the only legitimate and rightful heir to the throne while the left just has hippie dreams of utopia.

              When someone cites a pundits book of opinions as their bible, we have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: global warming

                Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                Objectivity is often lost in debates. While having a perspective is natural, including a common point from which to differentiate is important.

                The right wing is completely driven by ideology and avoids or otherwise dismisses facts. The left wing is equally extreme but they use facts most of the time to back up their arguments.

                Life experiences is a slippery slope. It certainly informs, but it isn't accurate. A child growing up in poverty is going to have an entirely different world view and life experience than a middle class kid that didn't go hungry. A child growing up in on a farm is going to have a whole different idea of independent living than a middle class kid in the city.

                The country is polarized because neither side can agree on an objective middle ground. The right thinks their ideology is the only legitimate and rightful heir to the throne while the left just has hippie dreams of utopia.

                When someone cites a pundits book of opinions as their bible, we have seen the enemy and the enemy is us.
                Gosh, I hate to appear argumentative but I just can't agree with your observation, opinions or facts if that's what the former are based upon. My opinion once again not fact based is that both groups you mention are equally guilty of picking and choosing the "facts" that fit their needs. Life experiences are the ultimate factual basis for an informed opinion, because they are the direct result of reality, not some potentially biased source. The child growing up in poverty and fear in communist china is an expert on his situation, even if his understanding of the world beyond is erroneous. We project our values on others and reach an informed conclusion, probably with more accuracy than people who live in places where there is not a free flow of information. I think the country is becoming less and less polarized because we have seen the enemy and it is them! We will unite more in the future as we come to understand how we have been mislead and lied to by both extremes. Americans are losing their jobs, homes and hope, while growing more and more dependant on communist china and you really think now is the time to debate global warming? I've been called a liberal, conservative and few other things but right now my greatest concern is the seriousness of our broken economy and the inability of more people to properly focus on this issue.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: global warming

                  Originally posted by Frankiarmz View Post
                  How I argue and how other Americans choose to base their opinions may not fit your design, but that's what happens when you interact with a diverse group and not a select number of friends who agree to your rules. Do I need to cite facts that folks in communist china and the third world live in poverty and fear their governments? That happens to be my opinion based on my life experience, just as you believe in American idiocracy. I have thoughts on our freedom of speech and while I won't quote hard facts I have an overall belief based on the abuses I have witnessed on the Internet and in several forms of media, that our framers of the Constitution never meant the freedom of speech to protect people who use it to abuse, defile, insult and otherwise cause harm to others. Now that's my opinion based on my experience, not hard facts that I can readily produce to be be verified or disputed. If you think I act like a child because I don't produce hard facts, that is your prerogative but I think it dismisses a lot of good, healthy debate. There is something to be said about opinion based on life experience and original thought as opposed to reguritating what you believe to be facts. Facts can sometimes be twisted.
                  Frank I did not mean to apply the entirety of my post to you. I welcome opinion and life experience in any debate. They are generally the foundation that causes us to search for facts to develop our arguments. If someone states it is their opinion I have no issues with them having it. I have issues with people ignoring or making up facts to support their opinion.

                  People willing to argue the preponderance of evidence of AGW is not enough to convince them AGW is occurring, sure they are welcome to that opinion, I personally think its an ignorant opinion but they are welcome to it.

                  People stating as fact there is no evidence of AGW are at best misinformed. Bringing 'facts' like that to the table promotes ignorance and allows our political debate to become that of an idiocracy.

                  In other countries if you claim AGW doesn't exist you'd likely be dismissed as a moron. In the US it seems to be given credit as a legitimate argument.

                  There are plenty of arguments to be made whether we should change our policies to adjust for AGW. Other countries are having those debates already In the US we have the additional of a lunatic fringe that will not allow those necessary arguments to take place.

                  To me sticking your fingers and your ears to block the facts from getting in and claiming AGW doesn't exist is not a good rational factual or intelligent argument.

                  I opt for some government pressure for greener technologies but at the same time do not think we are at a point we should make sacrifices in our economy to push it. There are many greener technologies that are both good for the environment and good for the consumer.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: global warming

                    Lock it.

                    J.C.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: global warming

                      Originally posted by JCsPlumbing View Post
                      Lock it.
                      I can not agree with that request. Unlike the other thread I see little or no reason to stop this discussion.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: global warming

                        Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                        The global warming argument in the US is pretty clear cut antidotal evidence trumps all facts. Facts have little to do with out politics. Any fact brought out on any issue is obviously a conspiracy made up by those science people. Science is evil and should be disregarded.

                        Idiocracy is the American way no one else will tell us what is true. If we want something to be true we'll make it up.


                        Truer words have never been spoken
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: global warming

                          Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                          Frank I did not mean to apply the entirety of my post to you. I welcome opinion and life experience in any debate. They are generally the foundation that causes us to search for facts to develop our arguments. If someone states it is their opinion I have no issues with them having it. I have issues with people ignoring or making up facts to support their opinion.

                          People willing to argue the preponderance of evidence of AGW is not enough to convince them AGW is occurring, sure they are welcome to that opinion, I personally think its an ignorant opinion but they are welcome to it.

                          People stating as fact there is no evidence of AGW are at best misinformed. Bringing 'facts' like that to the table promotes ignorance and allows our political debate to become that of an idiocracy.

                          In other countries if you claim AGW doesn't exist you'd likely be dismissed as a moron. In the US it seems to be given credit as a legitimate argument.

                          There are plenty of arguments to be made whether we should change our policies to adjust for AGW. Other countries are having those debates already In the US we have the additional of a lunatic fringe that will not allow those necessary arguments to take place.

                          To me sticking your fingers and your ears to block the facts from getting in and claiming AGW doesn't exist is not a good rational factual or intelligent argument.

                          I opt for some government pressure for greener technologies but at the same time do not think we are at a point we should make sacrifices in our economy to push it. There are many greener technologies that are both good for the environment and good for the consumer.
                          Please excuse me if I get carried away, I enjoy the interaction but have some personal issues stressing me out. Good post, thanks.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: global warming

                            Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post
                            Your arguments tend to put China and third world countries as the other options. I have a number of friends around the world. Many who I have argued politics with. England, Australia, Canada, Italy for examples. When I talk politics with any of those friends they use fact based arguments. Outsiders looking in on our politics always have questions like 'why is US politics such bullshit?'

                            I don't believe those countries are any better then the US. It is simply an observation that their political arguments generally include facts on both sides of the argument.

                            One of my arguments for example is free speech should not be restricted in any form. All of the above countries have more restrictive free speech laws then the US. When arguing against me on behalf of their countries they present actual arguments and citations. I don't feel like I'm talking to some child that can't step back and look at a problem objectively. One of the biggest hurdles I hit now with the argument is the US is rapidly adopting legislation that restricts free speech in similar ways to those countries.
                            We in Australia have just as much freedom of speech as you in the US have but we have stricture deformation laws than you have and if we in Australia or the UK say something about someone or something and it is not true then we can be sued and that shuts outs freedom of speech.

                            Tony

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: global warming

                              Originally posted by AFM View Post
                              We in Australia have just as much freedom of speech as you in the US have
                              Forgive me if I'm under educated in the laws of your country but freedom of speech is not specifically included in your constitution. It can be argued it was implied but it is not guaranteed. Your courts have made it clear that in the context of political discussion free speech shall not be infringed.

                              In other aspects of free speech however that right is not so concrete the government can and does enforce censorship as they see fit. From a human rights perspective the Australian government is not ranking highly because our their recent actions to moderate and censor internet activities.

                              I would conclude that Australians do not have as much freedom of speech as we enjoy in the US. I would also say it is not only your stronger anti-defamation laws that make that so.

                              I don't get any sense that the state limitations of free speech are even impacting your average citizen. By most reasonable peoples standards the free speech of your citizens is not restricted in a meaningful way. I however am not a reasonable person on issues of personal liberty I take an extreme stance on such issues. I value freedom above all regardless of consequence.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: global warming

                                Originally posted by boytyperanma View Post

                                People willing to argue the preponderance of evidence of AGW is not enough to convince them AGW is occurring, sure they are welcome to that opinion, I personally think its an ignorant opinion but they are welcome to it.

                                Where is this preponderance of evidence? What makes you think your facts are more valid than anyone else's?


                                People stating as fact there is no evidence of AGW are at best misinformed. Bringing 'facts' like that to the table promotes ignorance and allows our political debate to become that of an idiocracy.

                                And I can argue the exact opposite


                                In other countries if you claim AGW doesn't exist you'd likely be dismissed as a moron. In the US it seems to be given credit as a legitimate argument.

                                Where is the proof to back that up?

                                There are plenty of arguments to be made whether we should change our policies to adjust for AGW. Other countries are having those debates already In the US we have the additional of a lunatic fringe that will not allow those necessary arguments to take place.

                                To me sticking your fingers and your ears to block the facts from getting in and claiming AGW doesn't exist is not a good rational factual or intelligent argument.

                                Neither you, nor anyone else can "prove AGW exists" nor can anyone prove that man has had anything at all to do with it if it does exist.

                                I opt for some government pressure for greener technologies but at the same time do not think we are at a point we should make sacrifices in our economy to push it. There are many greener technologies that are both good for the environment and good for the consumer.
                                This is a stupid argument because no matter what governments or man does it will not change the situation in the least. Earth itself is responsible for 99.9% of the carbon released into the atmosphere, and there's plenty of proof to back that up.
                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X