Global Warming is a Hoax

**Cheshire_cat** · 08-17-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Borrowing from Steve Colbert: "Folks, global warming is worse than politically correct: it's factually correct."

Sorry, I threw that in for humor only. It's a contentious topic, and I'd like to understand more about how an intelligent person like yourself could reach other conclusions. I personally am so wrapped up in this topic because I think humans are God's finest creation, and I want our species to continue beyond my own short lifetime. So the comment above is just a little bit of levity and nothing more.
[/size][/font]

I have a good friend who takes your position on many things and we will sit for hours discussing such issues, I enjoy it a lot. I have actually changed some of my views on things due to some of our debates. I credit you with opening up a lot of these discussions, I believe it keeps us sharp and also gives us insight to what other people believe. As you might have guessed I take a conservative stand on most issues, but I would like to think that I am still open to new ideas and information, and as far as the issue of global warming is concerned I know I could be wrong. And where I get frustrated is when people push for regulation laws that hurt other people’s way of life and then offer no solution for it. I would not mind shutting down plants if at the same time we were opening new and safer ones. There is a double standard, I saw a poll a while back that said most senators and congress members drove larger SUVs’ democrats included, and some of these guys are the ones who are trying to get laws pass about such regulations. But that is life in D.C... I do appreciate your debates and you always provide good articles which is a lot more than some people do liberal or conservative.

**whym** · 08-17-2007, 02:35 PM

One thing that we should all realise, whether man-made climate change is happening or not, is that we should not punish the developing world by saying - "you should not develop because you will contribute to climate change".

India, China, African countries and all other areas of the world that are still developing should be allowed to use their own resources as much as they need to, to industrialise in the same way Britain, the USA, Europe and other places across the world have. No burden over climate change should be put on them at all - until they have developed to the degree where we are not forcing them to live in poverty.

I am unsure on man-made climate change, but as a Christian, I feel that we should look after the world we inhabit.

**thevirus** · 08-17-2007, 02:43 PM

That is such a joke, global warming is clearly not a hoax. If you look at the temperature abnormalities map you can see how strange the weather patterns have become. And they will only continue to change, we are to used to our industrial way of life.

**Learning Newbie** · 08-17-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

If you’re going to call me full of crap I suggest that you read me and understand me entirely. First of all, I never said that our climate is not changing; what I said is global warming (that is our planet is heating up due to what we as humans have done) is still a theory, and what I said is true. If you think otherwise, try and prove me wrong.

Of course Global Warming is a theory! The thing is people don't understand what science is. It's not a bag full of facts. It's not incontrovertible laws. The scientific method isn't capable of proving anything. Ever, under any circumstances. More and more certainty can be amassed, but never reaching 100 %.

Outside of guys in white lab coats with microscopes, theory has a different meaning: some idea that might or might not be true. That's why I have to point out that gravity is a theory as well. Like global temperature change as caused by human activity.

There is a near consensus among scientists with specialized knowledge on all facets of the problem, but that's a different thing than a proven fact. So while I disagree with the conclusion Cheshire Cat reaches by looking at the evidence, I have to stand up and say he's not full of crap, he actually speaks the truth on this matter. I think he's wrong, ultimately, but he's not an uneducated country bumpkin for pointing out a lack of firm proof. I think that statement needs to be seen in context, but again, I'm not here to win an argument, just to share my knowledge and background and views, and all of those confirm what Cat says.

**Learning Newbie** · 08-17-2007, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

India, China, African countries and all other areas of the world that are still developing should be allowed to use their own resources as much as they need to, to industrialise in the same way Britain, the USA, Europe and other places across the world have. No burden over climate change should be put on them at all - until they have developed to the degree where we are not forcing them to live in poverty.

I disagree. Actually I think it's wrong to have an income tax, because at heart, I don't think the government has a right to claim ownership of part of your labor. We're not slaves. But things like creating pollution, the air belongs equally to everyone who breathes it.

So (1) I don't think China, India, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia should be allowed to spew enough pollution to negatively impact people outside their countries, but (2) since the US and Europe already did all that, and the air is still polluted from trains from the 1800s mostly across the US, it seems like the already industrialized world maybe owes the developing world a hand up.

They don't have to follow the exact same path we did to a modern, post-industrialized economy. China gets a lot of its energy from burning coal, which is horrible for global climate change, and also as we're learning from Utah, it's not so good for the exploited workers, either. I really don't like nuclear power, but it's much less pollution than burning coal. Maybe what we need to do is help developing countries set up clean sources of power. Help them skip all the middle part about learning, and messing up, and maybe another Chernobyl, and pull them up to our level in the most important technologies.

**whym** · 08-17-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

what we need to do is help developing countries set up clean sources of power. Help them skip all the middle part about learning, and messing up, and maybe another Chernobyl, and pull them up to our level in the most important technologies.

Your proposal being? If we find renewable resources expensive (relatively) in our countries, how on earth will developing countries pay for it? As a guy on The Great Global Warming Swindle said, can you imagine running a factory on solar panels??? Lol! Nuclear is unethical and dangerous and alternative energy is simply way too expensive for the developing world.

IF we are going to stop global warming (IF i is man-induced), then it is our job as citezens of the developed world to do this and not force the poor in other countries to live for several more generations as second-class human beings, while we sort out the mess we have made (IF we have made it)

**Learning Newbie** · 08-17-2007, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

Your proposal being? If we find renewable resources expensive (relatively) in our countries, how on earth will developing countries pay for it? As a guy on The Great Global Warming Swindle said, can you imagine running a factory on solar panels??? Lol! Nuclear is unethical and dangerous and alternative energy is simply way too expensive for the developing world.

What makes peaceful, civilian nuclear power unethical? There's a very small amount of intensely toxic pollution, that we bury miles underground in concrete. When you compare that to burning coal that pollutes the sky, gives people asthma that causes them to die 20 or 30 years early, and has freaking rescue workers killed trying to help their fellows in a Utah coal mine, I don't understand how a person could say nuclear is unethical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

IF we are going to stop global warming (IF i is man-induced)

Do you in all honesty believe our actions have no effect? If you graph our scientific progress, our ability to create pollution that can affect complex, finely tuned weather systems, the question of if has vanished. Speaking of nuclear power, did you know that today (or maybe yesterday?), for the first time in history, a nuclear power plant had to shut down (in the Tennessee Valley) because the water in the nearby river, already at 90 degrees, was too hot to cool the reactor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

, then it is our job as citezens of the developed world to do this and not force the poor in other countries to live for several more generations as second-class human beings, while we sort out the mess we have made (IF we have made it)

There are two things that need to happen: (1) like you said, we need to clean up the mess that's already been created, and (2) we need to stop contributing to the mess, stop making things worse. Since China is making more pollution than anywhere else in the world, since half the air pollution in California to BC comes from China, since in many parts of China the sky is darkened with air pollution, China has the responsibility and unique ability to do something to contribute to #2.

Also, where did you get this idea that the only way for a developing country to develop is to follow in the exact footsteps of the West? You know we did a technology grant about a year and a half ago to give India nuclear power, which can provide steady continuous fuel, without a millionth as much pollution. Do you really think we should force people in the developing world, where labor and life are both cheap, to mine for coal until they destroy the atmosphere, and to send their workforce to die in mines every year, when we could simply help them leapfrog beyond that point of needing coal?

**whym** · 08-17-2007, 05:10 PM

I am opposed to nuclear power whatever. I know full well that nuclear power does not contribute to "global warming", but is leaving a trail of nuclear waste behind much different? Nuclear waste will be around for millions of years - an unfair problem we are leaving to our children. Not only does nuclear power produce toxic waste, but in some circumstances, it is extremely dangerous. I know that scientists were testing the reactor and tampering with it when Chernobyl happened so it MIGHT not happen again, but the chance remains. Furthermore, "peaceful" nuclear development CAN shield the production of nuclear weapons e.g. what may be happening in Iran at this very moment.

A world without nuclear power is a safer world

**Learning Newbie** · 08-17-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whym

I am opposed to nuclear power whatever. I know full well that nuclear power does not contribute to "global warming", but is leaving a trail of nuclear waste behind much different? Nuclear waste will be around for millions of years - an unfair problem we are leaving to our children. Not only does nuclear power produce toxic waste, but in some circumstances, it is extremely dangerous. I know that scientists were testing the reactor and tampering with it when Chernobyl happened so it MIGHT not happen again, but the chance remains. Furthermore, "peaceful" nuclear development CAN shield the production of nuclear weapons e.g. what may be happening in Iran at this very moment.

A world without nuclear power is a safer world

What probably is happening in Iran, and what probably will lead to another war that kills thousands of innocent people. Just as an aside, while President Nutcakes is determined to build nukes, most of the ordinary people who live in his country aren't so keen on the idea. And almost none of them have any say. Basically, your last two points are dead on, very correct.

But I say yes to your first question: "but is leaving a trail of nuclear waste behind much different?" If the nuclear waste, which again is more potently toxic than other kinds of waste (I admit without being prodded), is properly cared for, buried deeper than anyone will ever dig and encased in steel and concrete, I think the risk is pretty low. But when indigenous people all over the world are being poisoned drinking or cooking from rivers and lakes, I think nuclear IS much different. It's the potential for bad versus the ongoing, worsening reality of bad.

You're a quite intelligent, thoughtful, and moral person. I could go on talking about ways pollution is hurting and even killing poor people around the world that I think is worse even than poverty, which I agree with you is an unfair situation that needs to end. So if you're up for it, I would love to hear how or why your analysis of the good and the bad that comes with nuclear electricity generation is so much worse than anything else available, like burning gasoline we buy from state sponsors of terrorism, when I think it really boils down to the potential horror of another nuke accident versus the continuing reality of pollution of every kind? I ask because it's clear we both put a lot of thought into our positions, and we both agree on the fundamentals, that we should make the world a better place. So I wonder where is the point where we stop agreeing and go our separate ways?

**Learning Newbie** · 08-17-2007, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cheshire_cat

I have a good friend who takes your position on many things and we will sit for hours discussing such issues, I enjoy it a lot. I have actually changed some of my views on things due to some of our debates. I credit you with opening up a lot of these discussions, I believe it keeps us sharp and also gives us insight to what other people believe. As you might have guessed I take a conservative stand on most issues, but I would like to think that I am still open to new ideas and information, and as far as the issue of global warming is concerned I know I could be wrong.

Yeah, and so could I. Sometimes I forget that. In fact, you should read my latest blog post about Dave, who calls himself Republikin, and how even though I'm the most liberal person you'll ever meet, we've come to find common ground. I've actually learned from him about my own blind spots.

And ultimately that's the goal behind these discussions. It's not to show off how smart we are, it's not to win an argument, it's to find the truth. Or to brainstorm about ways to solve the problem, if there is one, or to figure out what lead us down the wrong path if I'm wrong. I don't think Cheshire Cat is going to win the Nobel Peace Prize, but that doesn't mean your intelligent and patient contributions won't change people's minds, help us all understand what our priorities are, where we agree and where we don't, and just find common ground.

**whym** · 08-17-2007, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

just find common ground.

If we could all find common ground, how much better a world would we live in? It's a dream, but sadly one which will probably never happen