Hurricanes-Where are they?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Hurricanes-Where are they? » Hurricanes-Where are they?

Hurricanes-Where are they?
If man-made global warming is true, we'd have hurricanes right now.

Page: 1 2

Hurricanes-Where are they?

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/18/07 - 05:11 AM:	#26
Gramm wrote: Errmmmm cough....Not exactly overwhelming evidence...now is it ? If I may, speak on Mr Anon's behalf. The ironic point Anon is making, is that most Global Warming Doomsayers have been shrill over the last five years with claims that MAN MADE Global Warming would cause both an increase in and an intensity of "Hurricanes". Errmmm cough...My point was ironic too... Anyway, don't wish to contribute much to this thread, there's something indecent about it. It's like asking: Hey, by the way, where's the next genocide ? As if death of human people had to be displayed to make a point. As for the sun: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth... Edited by enkidu on 08/18/07 - 05:29 AM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

To
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Liverpool
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 152

Posted 08/18/07 - 05:48 AM:	#27
enkidu wrote: As for the sun: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth... Without reference to the specific article above, I get New Scientist every week. Their coverage of climat change is very one sided, and typically consists of assertion rather than scientific reason. I think maybe their position on AGW is influenced by their commercial need to maximise readership, which would be understandable.

TriXstaH
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2007
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 100

Posted 08/18/07 - 05:52 AM:	#28
The is one, right now somewhere (near jamaica I believe), and there are probably more on the way

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/18/07 - 06:06 AM:	#29
To wrote: Without reference to the specific article above, I get New Scientist every week. Their coverage of climat change is very one sided, and typically consists of assertion rather than scientific reason. I think maybe their position on AGW is influenced by their commercial need to maximise readership, which would be understandable. All sciences magazines articles will consist of assertion rather than scientific reason, and especially when it comes to meteorology, it is mostly to share the data they collected (here, the sun activity and the world temperature), apart if you are the one directly collecting the data, there is hardly any reasoning involved. And even when some reasoning processes could be displayed, these magazines are not meant to do so, they are for a general readership, who doesnt want to be caught in technical details. If you want to see them, and if you have the scientific level to understand it, you'd better go through university publications.
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/18/07 - 06:20 AM:	#30
enkidu wrote: All sciences magazines articles will consist of assertion rather than scientific reason, There is hardly any reasoning involved. And even when some reasoning processes could be displayed, these magazines are not meant to do so Heavens above Enkidu ! Are you serious... or are you trying to be ironic again..? Little wonder it's called 'Newscientist' then eh ? Gramm Edited by Gramm on 08/18/07 - 06:24 AM
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/18/07 - 10:33 AM:	#31
Gramm wrote: Heavens above Enkidu ! Are you serious... or are you trying to be ironic again..? Little wonder it's called 'Newscientist' then eh ? Gramm If you don't know that, then it might be the root of the problem rather than a scheme orchestrated by the IPCC to destroy the oil lobby, or whatever their aim may be. If you read an article about Fermat last theorem in a science magazine, don't expect to find a detailed proof of it in there. These magazines provide a summary of the advancement of science at a point of time, they are not meant to be the science, but simply a vulgarisation of it, and there is a very significant difference. Real bits of science are published in university publications, often available on the net provided you are affiliated to a university or pay for the service, though a few articles may be available free of charge. Edited by enkidu on 08/18/07 - 07:36 PM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/18/07 - 10:34 AM:	#32
enkidu wrote: "If man-made global warming is true, we'd have hurricanes right now." Then I guess man-made global warming warming may be true, you were just a week early. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2007_04L_5-day... Not to talk of Erin, Flossie or Sepat. Oh, yes. I've heard something about this. But it's been rather disappointing, considering: Wikipedia wrote: ...it killed 3 people. That is, so far. Remember Katrina? Rita? Catagory fives. Tons dead. A city ripped to shreads. I didn't see that happening this year or last year. In fact, if Al Gore was right, we'd have two cities destroyed last year and three this year already. Of course, this is rather pointless, because any natural disaster is now an excuse to blame the oil companies and further the Green Agenda. Volcanos? Result of the oil companies drilling into the earth and harming mother nature! Tornados? An example of how airplanes burning oil from the oil companies can change our weather! And the thing is, the IPCC, Greenpeace, and anyone else who claims to be a priest of the Church of Gaia can say even the nonsense I just typed above and 80% of the human race will believe it whole-heartedly. To wrote: Without reference to the specific article above, I get New Scientist every week. Their coverage of climat change is very one sided, and typically consists of assertion rather than scientific reason. Well, that's all any of the "proof" is, since not only do they give us such little insight on how they get the info, but most of the research consists of plugging numbers into a computer program that could very well be designed to say "It's man-made global warming!" no matter what actually numbers you plug in. If these programs were so fool proof and capable of predicting things, we would know when earthquakes will strike or when the next terrorist attack is. enkidu wrote: Anyway, don't wish to contribute much to this thread, there's something indecent about it. It's like asking: Hey, by the way, where's the next genocide ? As if death of human people had to be displayed to make a point. Uh, enkidu? That's much of what the whole hurricane thing is about. It's taking a horrible catastrophy and blaming it on the political opponents to further one's agenda. I actually remember groups like CNN saying stuff like: "We're sure the people of New Orleans are considerably disappointed that relief forces from the US government did not arrive until now." Excuse me, but since when has the US had hyperdrives installed on their battleships or aircraft carriers? Were they supposed to be waiting in the middle of the storm and get smashed themselves? That'd be very helpful. enkidu wrote: If you want to see them, and if you have the scientific level to understand it, you'd better go through university publications. Which consists of: "If you want to get funding and 'qualifications' from us, all you have to do is to espouse what we want the common person to believe." I'm sure that the actual publications say much more than that. Probably has tons of words that only somebody who has memorized the Oxford Dictionay could know of. Edited by Mr.Anonymous on 08/18/07 - 11:28 AM
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/18/07 - 11:33 AM:	#33
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Oh, yes. I've heard something about this. But it's been rather disappointing, considering: Remember Katrina? Rita? Catagory fives. Tons dead. A city ripped to shreads. I didn't see that happening this year or last year. In fact, if Al Gore was right, we'd have two cities destroyed last year and three this year already. There was something indecent about it, now, clearly it is indecent. I don't know about you but I am not dissapointed when people don't die. And for your information, it is not Katrina which killed most but the breaking of the levees in New Orleans, and the lack of response from the government. Mr.Anonymous wrote: Well, that's all any of the "proof" is, since not only do they give us such little insight on how they get the info, but most of the research consists of plugging numbers into a computer program that could very well be designed to say "It's man-made global warming!" no matter what actually numbers you plug in. If these programs were so fool proof and capable of predicting things, we would know when earthquakes will strike or when the next terrorist attack is. If you expect to be taken seriously after writing such comments, delusion is your problem. Yes, meteorology is a complicated science, and global climate evolution even more complicated. It deals with very large partial differential equations systems, and no mathematical methods can solve them accurately as of now, we are reduced to estimate the result, and this result is unfortunately very sensitive to the slightest change in initial conditions, which cannot be known accurately. As a consequence, if you are not able to understand how such systems are "solved" and how these solutions are implemented into a computer model, you can't judge this work. Nobody ever said that these models were exact, but no science is exact. Some people don't think that HIV causes AIDS, and they are able to come up with reasons, because many things are not understood about this disease, it is however because of the vast amount of research done using the idea that AIDS is caused by HIV that many people today are still living. I think you simply don't understand what is science, you seem to think that it provides us with perfect knowledge, but it does not work this way, science progresses slowly and with difficulty, assuming an hypothesis that seems likely at one point of time and furthering the research in this direction, until it reaches an satisfying explanation about a known fact, some level of predictibility, or it is disproved by some other observations. If you wish to complain about the politization of the IPCC, I would certainly agree with you, there definitely are some political interests at work, but rejecting all university sciences that is done about climate changes is simply ridiculous, unless, you can indeed prove your point very strongly, something that nobody has done so far on this forum. Edited by enkidu on 08/18/07 - 12:27 PM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/18/07 - 02:27 PM:	#34
enkidu wrote: There was something indecent about it, now, clearly it is indecent. I don't know about you but I am not dissapointed when people don't die. I'm not dissappointed. I'm entertained by the fact that this ideology clearly has a consistancy and yet people continue to follow it. And for your information, it is not Katrina which killed most but the breaking of the levees in New Orleans, and the lack of response from the government. 1) What was responsible for breaking the levees in the first place, even if they were poorly built. This actually proves what I have been saying for a long time: that instead of allocating money to build a up a movement that is only good at either making people feel guilt when they are using gas or feel 'saved' when they buy a hybrid that only inconviences them. 2) As I said earlier, it's not like the national guard has worp technology. If you expect to be taken seriously after writing such comments, delusion is your problem. Sorry, but right now I am far from delusional. Yes, meteorology is a complicated science, and global climate evolution even more complicated. It deals with very large partial differential equations systems, and no mathematical methods can solve them accurately as of now, we are reduced to estimate the result, and this result is unfortunately very sensitive to the slightest change in initial conditions, which cannot be known accurately. As a consequence, if you are not able to understand how such systems are "solved" and how these solutions are implemented into a computer model, you can't judge this work. Then should we go around claiming that a theory produced from this system is absolute fact when we aren't even certain exactly how it works? Nobody ever said that these models were exact, but no science is exact. If the models aren't esact, then why should we claim that their products are exact? Some people don't think that HIV causes AIDS, and they are able to come up with reasons, because many things are not understood about this disease, it is however because of the vast amount of research done using the idea that AIDS is caused by HIV that many people today are still living. Right, but you shouldn't go around telling people to stop using protection if you aren't absolutely certain. In the same way, we shouldn't be telling people to stop providing big corporations their usual profits unless we absolutely certain that their manner of productivity compromises our survival. I think you simply don't understand what is science, you seem to think that it provides us with perfect knowledge, but it does not work this way, science progresses slowly and with difficulty, assuming an hypothesis that seems likely at one point of time and furthering the research in this direction, until it reaches an satisfying explanation about a known fact, some level of predictibility, or it is disproved by some other observations. Okay, where was the slowness and difficulty? All I see is few ice cores pulled out of some unknown iceburg (for all we know, the footage comes from scientific activities unrelated to the theory of man-made global warming) and some younger scientists looking into some telescopes and plugging in some numbers into a computer program. If you wish to complain about the politization of the IPCC, I would certainly agree with you, there definitely are some political interests at work, but rejecting all university sciences that is done about climate changes is simply ridiculous, unless, you can indeed prove your point very strongly, something that nobody has done so far on this forum. I don't think you really get endiku. This whole thing is politized. It's nothing but politization. And besides, no matter how many points either me or Gramn bring up, it's not enough. I think the only ways that the theory of man-made global warming can finally be shown to be the mass deception it is are: 1) When the planet's predicted to be at the hotest, a mini-ice age occures. 2) Al Gore and the IPCC publicly state that they were wrong all this time. 3) The theory falls out of fasion. Out of the last two I can't figure out which is more unlikely to happen. Therefore, my hopes are that even hell freezes over.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 08/18/07 - 03:05 PM:	#35
I see more blathering in this thread from global warming deniers who cannot point to a single scientific source for their claims. Nice to see. I also see an attack on the Oreskes paper, which is hardly surprising. What Oreskes demonstrated, using a perfectly acceptable method, was the extent to which there was disagreement about global warming in the scientific literature. There was little or no disagreement on the subject found by the study. This whole thread is based on the premise that there is a scientific claim being made that is, indeed, not made in scientific papers. A brilliant use of the straw man argument.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/18/07 - 04:54 PM:	#36
Kwalish Kid wrote: I see more blathering in this thread from global warming deniers who cannot point to a single scientific source for their claims. Gramn has provided plenty of information. Nice to see. Really? Because it means that your belief goes unchallenged? This whole thread is based on the premise that there is a scientific claim being made that is, indeed, not made in scientific papers. A brilliant use of the straw man argument. The thread is based on the premise that what was claimed to be "scientific fact" (a phrase I hear endlessly) is showing itself to not be true, and that the thread initiator is asked through a series of sarcastic remarks the thread readers to reconsider one of the ideologies they may have accepted already. Oh, and enkidu? I forgot to mention, but I clicked on the link and it did not function. Which was a shame, because I wanted to see what it said.
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/18/07 - 06:31 PM:	#37
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Right, but you shouldn't go around telling people to stop using protection if you aren't absolutely certain. In the same way, we shouldn't be telling people to stop providing big corporations their usual profits unless we absolutely certain that their manner of productivity compromises our survival. So that is the problem. you only want to act out of absolute certainty. Then you'll never act, because absolute certainty is impossible to have either in science or in everyday life, nonetheless you are acting, you have acted all over your life, making decisions out of partial information, sometimes extremely important decision (if you have lived a bit) but always with partial information. AIDS researchers do the same, the likelihood that HIV produces AIDS is high enough for them to have invested time and money in furthering the research in this direction, and that yields some result. Climate evolution scientists have identified CO2 as a likely driver of global warming and they now further their researches in this direction, the difference is that it has a direct political impact, and therefore some politicians have taken hold of this oppportunity and proselytise for actions to prevent global warming. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT OR SPEAK FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, they have a political discourse, referring to certainties because most people wants to have them before doing anything (isn't it your case?), it is a distortion of the political discourse in addition to a philosophical fallacy, just as Bush said he was certain there was WMDs in Iraq, today, Al Gore says he is absolutely certain that CO2 causes GW, those are mere instances of what Leo Strauss called the "noble lies" and they are the essence of contemporean politics, within USA and beyond, it's a problem of political discourse (related to the philosophical fallacy that most people commits in requiring certainties) not of science. As for your compassion for big corporations, it is very touching, but the most clever of them are already moving away from the oil market, haven't you heard of Beyond Petroleum (though for now, it's more marketing than anything else, it still is representative of a trend); good corporations adapt to the market, those that don't dissapear, that's what is called competition. They really don't need your compassion and will do just as well without it. By the way, didn't you wonder why such companies finance at such a low level anti-GW movements ? The most important figure I heard of (from Al Gore) is a ridiculous 10 millions USD/year by Exxon-Mobil. Don't you think that if there was any hope to further their benefits from that venue, they would put a bit more effort into it (Exxon-Mobil is making a 10 billions USD profit per quarter these days)? Rather I guess they have sufficiently well-informed analysts that know there is very little material in today's science to back any hope of denying a link between CO2 and GW (maybe just as much as the material for denying a link between HIV and AIDS, or between cancer and smoking to take another example). You pose such corporations as the poor victims of a propaganda. But clearly, they have the means to defend themselves, should they feel any need to do so, which they have not so far. As for the link, it works from the message I pasted it in, it does not from a quote, somebody has already mentionned the problem of truncation of the address in another thread, I think it was Perseus. Edited by enkidu on 08/19/07 - 07:06 PM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 08/20/07 - 06:37 PM:	#38
You guys had to go and talk about it didn't you. Now look what you did. Dean is a monster.
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 08/21/07 - 12:54 AM:	#39
SIR2U wrote: You guys had to go and talk about it didn't you. Now look what you did. Dean is a monster. I've read about a few feeble attempts to blame this current "Monster" hurricane on "Global Warming" But now your claiming that OUR discussion seems to have caused it... Gee...whizz... What a Great day for Science. Gramm
_____________________ Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 08/21/07 - 03:50 PM:	#40
You guys have no sense of humor.
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Mr.Anonymous
Secret Agent

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Location: A higher realm (a.k.a. Philosophy Forums)
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 612

Last Blog:

Posted 08/22/07 - 06:40 PM:	#41
enkidu wrote: So that is the problem. you only want to act out of absolute certainty. Then you'll never act, because absolute certainty is impossible to have either in science or in everyday life, nonetheless you are acting, you have acted all over your life, making decisions out of partial information, sometimes extremely important decision (if you have lived a bit) but always with partial information. But we are talking about the persecution of a lifestyle when various scientists (ignored by the masses) have raised significant doubts and questions. AIDS researchers do the same, the likelihood that HIV produces AIDS is high enough for them to have invested time and money in furthering the research in this direction, and that yields some result. But with AIDS, we have significant proof. With global warming, we just have assertion after assertion, articles that are identical in description. Climate evolution scientists have identified CO2 as a likely driver of global warming Some scientists. Maybe even a majority, but a majority does not make an idea true. and they now further their researches in this direction, the difference is that it has a direct political impact, and therefore some politicians have taken hold of this oppportunity and proselytise for actions to prevent global warming. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT OR SPEAK FOR THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, they have a political discourse, referring to certainties because most people wants to have them before doing anything (isn't it your case?), it is a distortion of the political discourse in addition to a philosophical fallacy, just as Bush said he was certain there was WMDs in Iraq, today, Al Gore says he is absolutely certain that CO2 causes GW, those are mere instances of what Leo Strauss called the "noble lies" and they are the essence of contemporean politics, within USA and beyond, it's a problem of political discourse (related to the philosophical fallacy that most people commits in requiring certainties) not of science. 1) In the case of Iraq, we had other perfectly good reasons to take the fight there: torture by the Baathist Secret Police, Saddam providing Al-Qaeda with training grounds (yes, Al-Qaeda was present before we came there), and the fact that even if there was no nukes, there were chemical weapons. I've seen news reports showing troops revealing chemical weapon factories, right on CNN itself. And what reasons do we have for reducing emitions? Only one that can benefit us: the promise of making the weather less harmful. And were not sure about that. But what does emition ruduction cause? Oh, I don't know...inaffective hybrid cars, decreased industry efficency...the only benefit I see in not using oil is so that OPEC doesn't get on our nerves, but do you really want to cost several hundred employees their jobs for something we're not sure of? As for your compassion for big corporations, it is very touching, but the most clever of them are already moving away from the oil market, haven't you heard of Beyond Petroleum (though for now, it's more marketing than anything else, it still is representative of a trend); good corporations adapt to the market, those that don't dissapear, that's what is called competition. They really don't need your compassion and will do just as well without it. Yes, I've heard of BP and I think it's great what they are doing, but I can't agree with the idea that we need to impose it on Haliburton or whoever still decides to gather oil. Let the market naturally take care of this. By the way, didn't you wonder why such companies finance at such a low level anti-GW movements ? The most important figure I heard of (from Al Gore) is a ridiculous 10 millions USD/year by Exxon-Mobil. Don't you think that if there was any hope to further their benefits from that venue, they would put a bit more effort into it (Exxon-Mobil is making a 10 billions USD profit per quarter these days)? Rather I guess they have sufficiently well-informed analysts that know there is very little material in today's science to back any hope of denying a link between CO2 and GW (maybe just as much as the material for denying a link between HIV and AIDS, or between cancer and smoking to take another example). You pose such corporations as the poor victims of a propaganda. But clearly, they have the means to defend themselves, should they feel any need to do so, which they have not so far. They shouldn't have to defend themselves from environmentalists. Corporations have the right to pursue their investments without interference from the UN, the IPCC, or whatever eco-socialist group just wants to feel powerful. As for the link, it works from the message I pasted it in, it does not from a quote, somebody has already mentionned the problem of truncation of the address in another thread, I think it was Perseus. I'll try it out then. Thanks. SIR2U wrote: You guys have no sense of humor. Sorry, this is an angry subject. My humor is best invested in waffles. Why waffles? No clue...
_____________________ Freedom is thought. Fear is weakness. Information is power.

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/22/07 - 08:48 PM:	#42
Mr.Anonymous wrote: But we are talking about the persecution of a lifestyle when various scientists (ignored by the masses) have raised significant doubts and questions. Let's be parsimonious in our choice of words, persecution refers to a totally different thing, and as for skeptic scientists, I don't know about you, but I consider myself part of the mass, and those scientists have access to TV show, internet sites,..., they even have their wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_...), nobody torture them, or exterminate them or incarcerate them, so basically, nobody persecute them or anybody about this matter. Mr.Anonymous wrote: But with AIDS, we have significant proof. With global warming, we just have assertion after assertion, articles that are identical in description. Some reputed scientists have expressed skepticism about the link between HIV and AIDS, they also have their wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_dissident), and despite what you call "significant proof", they can claim a nobel laureate in their rank. Mr.Anonymous wrote: Some scientists. Maybe even a majority, but a majority does not make an idea true. Neither does a minority. Mr.Anonymous wrote: 1) In the case of Iraq, we had other perfectly good reasons to take the fight there: torture by the Baathist Secret Police, Saddam providing Al-Qaeda with training grounds (yes, Al-Qaeda was present before we came there), and the fact that even if there was no nukes, there were chemical weapons. I've seen news reports showing troops revealing chemical weapon factories, right on CNN itself. And what reasons do we have for reducing emitions? Only one that can benefit us: the promise of making the weather less harmful. And were not sure about that. But what does emition ruduction cause? Oh, I don't know...inaffective hybrid cars, decreased industry efficency...the only benefit I see in not using oil is so that OPEC doesn't get on our nerves, but do you really want to cost several hundred employees their jobs for something we're not sure of? I don't want to start a discussion about this matter here, if you wish to, start a new thread and I may contribute, I would just say that many a responsible government disagreed with this war, for very reasonable reasons, that were ignored or scoffed at by USA. Mr.Anonymous wrote: Yes, I've heard of BP and I think it's great what they are doing, but I can't agree with the idea that we need to impose it on Haliburton or whoever still decides to gather oil. Let the market naturally take care of this. The market is not a person, it does not take care of anything, not even of itself (leave it alone, and it will crash, and reinvent itself, but crash is painful for people living in the market so we have to manage it, for instance, without the central banks, it would actually have crashed 2 weeks ago). Such idea of a personified market that would look upon the world as a kind of benevolent god is mystical and non-sensical. Capitalism is good not because it provides the world with some hidden harmony, but because it can adapt to anything, it is amorphous and can therefore take any form. So is the market, it adapts, and if Halliburton does not adapt to the future world, whatever this one is, the market will crush it as it crushes any bad company. I am sorry for the people working for them, but so is capitalism, I am also sorry for weavers, coalminers, farmers,...etc. We can be sorry for all single person who once had a secured job, and saw this job becoming obsolete in a short while, but again, so is the way of capitalism, if you want to avoid it, then you got to opt for some kind of socialism. Mr.Anonymous wrote: They shouldn't have to defend themselves from environmentalists. Corporations have the right to pursue their investments without interference from the UN, the IPCC, or whatever eco-socialist group just wants to feel powerful. Corporations have to adapt, if you wish to give them some special right without regard to the world, you again advocate socialism, or more specifically stalinism where it is the world that has to conform to the corporations. In USSR, typically, shops were plenty of things nobody wanted, but since it was these things that made the more sense from an economic point of view, it was these that were to be consumed, regardless of the demand. And the world today says that GW is a problem, by doing so, it defines a market. If you wish to contest this state of affair, you can vote, you're living in a democracy, and if it is not enough for you, them you can learn the science and voice out an informed opinion about this case. Edited by enkidu on 08/23/07 - 07:00 AM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 08/22/07 - 10:42 PM:	#43
Mr.Anonymous wrote: Gramn has provided plenty of information. So far, the only scientific information provided by anyone has been from the IPCC. That doesn't sound like a font of information for global warming skepticism, does it? Please find us even one source for your main premise: that global warming scientists claim the number of hurricanes is currently on the rise. Until you can do that, all that you have written is merely baseless conjecture.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

To
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Liverpool
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 152

Posted 08/22/07 - 11:08 PM:	#44
Kwalish, One source: Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 \| doi: 10.1038/nature03906

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 08/23/07 - 01:27 AM:	#45
enkidu wrote: The market is not a person, it does not take care of anything, not even of itself (leave it alone, and it will crash, and reinvent itself, but crash is painful for people living in the market so we have to manage it, for instance, without the central banks, it would actually have crashed 2 weeks ago). Such idea of a personified market that would look upon the world as a kind of benevolent god is mystical and non-sensical. Capitalism is good not because it provides the world with some hidden harmony, but because it can adapt to anything, it is amorphous and can therefore take any form. enkidu, thanks for your post, you have written an excellent reply to the points Mr Anonymous made, however it is the issue of whether the market can solve the problems of GW which interests me most here. GW is seen by some companies as a market opportunity, however creating markets is about convincing someone else to buy something, it doesn't directly involve actually solving the GW problem. One example of a business opportunity is offsetting. In the case of air travel this could prove counter productive since it provides a means to reduce the guilt and responsibility of air passengers yet (probably) doesn't fully offset the effect of GW by airliners for various reasons. As a consequence perhaps the business opportunity indirectly exacerbates GW since it is part of the business Doctrine of increasing turnover and growth. Similarly other initiatives may make it appear as if companies may be doing more than they actually are. Moreover, any Business opportunity provides the potential for more travel / office space etc. I think what I am saying do we need a fundamentally different economic system one that is channelled to meet need or happiness rather than fictitious wealth?
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

enkidu
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 830

Posted 08/23/07 - 06:57 AM:	#46
perseus wrote: enkidu, thanks for your post, you have written an excellent reply to the points Mr Anonymous made, however it is the issue of whether the market can solve the problems of GW which interests me most here. GW is seen by some companies as a market opportunity, however creating markets is about convincing someone else to buy something, it doesn't directly involve actually solving the GW problem. One example of a business opportunity is offsetting. In the case of air travel this could prove counter productive since it provides a means to reduce the guilt and responsibility of air passengers yet (probably) doesn't fully offset the effect of GW by airliners for various reasons. As a consequence perhaps the business opportunity indirectly exacerbates GW since it is part of the business Doctrine of increasing turnover and growth. Similarly other initiatives may make it appear as if companies may be doing more than they actually are. Moreover, any Business opportunity provides the potential for more travel / office space etc. I think what I am saying do we need a fundamentally different economic system one that is channelled to meet need or happiness rather than fictitious wealth? Thanks for your appreciation. As for your question, I don't think capitalism need to be scrapped in favor of another system, which would subjugate the economic to the politic in a radical way. My opinion, is that despite the fact that the politic and the economic obviously relates to each other, the complete subjugation of one to the other is a negative thing, and curiously, whatever direction the subjugation occurs in, it leads to some kind of authoritary socialism (the only difference would be the people in power). It is the task of the politic to define the goals of society and the scope of means that may be used to attain these goals, then it is the economic that realises the processes in order to reach these goals. Once the politic has set the social goals and the legal means, the economic can indeed be left alone or under minimal supervision (it actually is exactly what Adam Smith did propose, he never advocated any other version than this limited laissez-faire). If by a fundamentally different economic system, you mean a system that won't be rooted in individual profit, I am afraid this is utopian (or leading to a form of totalitarianism where individual will be said what to think), what may be worked upon, is what one understand by profit, indeed it has not to be material, but this is a cultural problem, not something inherent to the economic system, that basically only consists in letting people to pursue freely (within the laws) the goals of their choice (here again within the scope of what the politic has defined as acceptable goals). Edited by enkidu on 08/23/07 - 08:02 AM
_____________________ "The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 08/23/07 - 09:34 AM:	#47
To wrote: Kwalish, One source: Emanuel, K. (2005), Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years, Nature, online publication; published online 31 July 2005 \| doi: 10.1038/nature03906 An excellent source. Bravo. Let's quote the abstract in full: Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and�taking into account an increasing coastal population�a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century. So this source shows that Mr. A's premise is not true. The models do not show an increase in the frequency of hurricanes.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

To
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Liverpool
Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 152

Posted 08/23/07 - 09:51 AM:	#48
Kwalish, good reply!

SIR2U
Why

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Location: Honduras
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 697

Posted 09/05/07 - 08:00 AM:	#49
Now I'm not syre what I believe I thought that Felix was going to be the end of us.
_____________________ Unknown Alanic wiseman. "Ignorance and bad teeth have at least one thing in common. Keeping your mouth closed makes them both less obvious"

Hypatia
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2006
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 11/27/07 - 03:54 PM:	#50
Hello Mr.Anonymous, Re hurricanes and your whinge about the global warming scientists, etc, you need more information. As you say yourself, information is power. Take a look at the Scientific American, July issue (look at August Issue also for global warming generally). Better still, read the IPCC summary report. Apropos being smug, you sound a bit smug yourself ! Hypatia.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.