About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew: That link was not enlightening. The author merely asks the question, "Why didn't the process continue with positive feedback and the earth got warmer and warmer, without limit?" The obvious answer, if one believes that warmer temperatures of the oceans releases more CO2, is that the CO2 in the oceans was exhausted.

Methinks that you don't have an justification why humans must take immediate and drastic action because the evidence is that anything we do in the next few centuries will have no measurable impact on global warming, although we may have to adapt to natural changes.

Sam


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 41

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 1:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

As covered, the sea is (Under most circumstances) CO2 neutral, as is plantlife, and when this changes you get Ocean acidification rather than a release of CO2.

Andy.


Post 42

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 1:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I gave you a sanction by error - oh well no big deal.

Andrew - I guarantee that everyone who believes this will be more than happy to use government force to back up these false ideas - even if you try to dance around it and say you will not.  I don't believe living my life and flourishing deserves to be condemned morally by bogus warming scare mongering.  I also find it tragic that it can and will end up doing countless damage to the economy, to people's health and welfare - but note that the intellectual elite will probably do just fine.


Post 43

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 1:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt,

Is this hurting your head? A believer in the free market who believes that global warming is happening?!

It.... simply can't be happening!

Oh, and thanks for the accusation that I'm somehow a liar. It's called for, I'm sure.

Andy.


Post 44

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 3:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It amazes me that, in this forum even, there are many  [or maybe just a few] who still hold to the shibbulah that to alter the enviroment is to destroy it....  not true - it is to change it, something which has been going on since, well, forever [because it is as part of the dynamicism of the universe].... and since man is an integral part of the enviroment, the development of flourishing of being human is a natural changing of the enviroment - even if that should include aiding and abetting 'global warming'......

Post 45

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 4:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert,

No one is claiming that man is unnatural, or that the environment is something that shouldn't be changed under any circumstances. Man has evolved in order to use his brin to utilise the environment to his advantage. Irreversible damage to the earth through global warming by releasing emissions, therefore damaging prospects for bio-diversity and putting millions of people at greater risk of loss of life and property through natural disasters is not life affirming. It's an extremely foolish thing to do.

Andy.


Post 46

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 4:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew:

"As covered, the sea is (Under most circumstances) CO2 neutral, as is plantlife, and when this changes you get Ocean acidification rather than a release of CO2."

Au contraire:

http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102198.html

The Ocean Carbon Cycle
Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean's surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep. "This is the 'soda bottle on a warm day' effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature." This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2.
"Is this hurting your head? A believer in the free market who believes that global warming is happening?! "

Andrew: You're going ballistic. What on earth has believing in global warming have to do with the free market? I have no problem with believing that the earth is warming given sufficient evidence. I just don't think all the evidence is in yet and I believe in free markets.

You're tilting at windmills.

Kurt said: "Andrew - I guarantee that everyone who believes this will be more than happy to use government force to back up these false ideas - ...:

This is the closest I have come to something that he said that caused you to accuse him of calling you a liar. You seem to be confused as to the meaning of a lie and of something which is false. Back to your original accusation that "...temperature increases caused CO2 increases, all of which are either lies, or half-truths, designed to deceive the public." You are accusing some scientist or authority of being a liar ... a term that would get you instantly shot in a saloon in the old West. Kurt accused you of believing in false ideas, which is far different from being a liar. I've noticed that you are very imprecise in the use of words as in your statement that you would "dispute a fact."  Bush may have believed in false data but there is less than no evidence that he lied.

Sam.


Post 47

Tuesday, May 1, 2007 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew:

"A believer in the free market who believes that global warming is happening?!

You are stating that belief in both global warming and free markets is a contradiction.
You believe in global warming.
Therefore you don't believe in free markets.

Yet in the dialogue with Kurt:

Kurt: "So Andrew, are you then saying that it is Ok for me or any company I own shares in, or any other individual, to choose to burn hydrocarbons at any rate I choose to do so?"

Andrew: "I am, but you may find yourself somewhat ostracized from the general community through moral and economic boycotts."


Which clearly gives the impression that you support free markets.

So, there is certainly some deceiving going on here. I'm not sure whether you are intentionally doing this or are just so confused you're deceiving yourself. I, with Kurt believe that you would impose restrictions at the drop of a hat if you had the authority.

Sam


Post 48

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 3:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

The sea releasing CO2 is a relatively rare phenomenon, and as stated on the previous page; "compared to anthropogenic emissions that effect is very small".

My comment "Is this hurting your head? A believer in the free market who believes that global warming is happening?!" was in reference to the fact that Kurt is implying that he believes both to be a contradiction - I do not believe any such thing.

"This is the closest I have come to something that he said that caused you to accuse him of calling you a liar."

Look again. Essentially, it looks something like this;

Kurt - "Do you believe in a lassaiz faire solution to this problem"
Me - "Yes. Using force is unacceptable."

At which point I was "guaranteed" that I would gladly use force if I had the choice. That is in direct contradiction with my earlier statement that I believe that force is an unacceptable solution. For Kurt, this either means that

a) I'm a liar.
b) I'm deceiving myself.

Kurt couldn't possibly know that b) was true, and has no grounds for believing such a thing. What Kurt has done (And now what you're doing) is an accusing me of being a liar.

"Which clearly gives the impression that you support free markets."

I do.

" I'm not sure whether you are intentionally doing this or are just so confused you're deceiving yourself. I, with Kurt believe that you would impose restrictions at the drop of a hat if you had the authority."

Why do you believe this?

Andy.


Post 49

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 6:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Interesting - I don't recall you saying that using force is unacceptable - you kind of danced around the issue:

Kurt - "Do you believe in a lassaiz faire solution to this problem"
Me - "Yes. Using force is unacceptable."


when what you actually said was:

Andrew: "I am, but you may find yourself somewhat ostracized from the general community through moral and economic boycotts."

Of course we all know that even if YOU believe in the free market - the REALITY is that not many others do, and will be glad to use force.  So while I am not saying you are a liar, I am saying that your cheerleading of a bad idea will inevitable help those who will do so.


Post 50

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt - Moral and economic boycotts does not constitute force. Why on earth do you think it comes anywhere near?

Part of the free market rewards companies that acts ethically, and punishes those people who don't.

"Of course we all know that even if YOU believe in the free market - the REALITY is that not many others do, and will be glad to use force.  So while I am not saying you are a liar, I am saying that your cheerleading of a bad idea will inevitable help those who will do so."

Then what am I to do? If I believe human emissions are causing greater levels of global warming, am I to remain silent because some of my potential allies do not advocate the same solutions as I do?

Andy.


Post 51

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 7:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew:

The sea releasing CO2 is a relatively rare phenomenon, and as stated on the previous page; "compared to anthropogenic emissions that effect is very small".
 
Of course it's rare, you dolt  according to your own citation
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
it occurs only after 800 years into a warming period, for 5,000 years. Right now I'm sure it's a very small effect compared to human activity.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
You continue to contradict you own evidence and keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Me: I'm not sure whether you are intentionally doing this or are just so confused you're deceiving yourself. I, with Kurt believe that you would impose restrictions at the drop of a hat if you had the authority."

Andrew: Why do you believe this?


Well, perhaps I'm guilty of lumping you with the Gore group which truly believes in massive, economy-destroying intervention. I honestly can't find anything in what you have actually said but I came across some interesting contradictions in your philosophy. In your profile you identify yourself as a "non-objectivist" while in the following posting you definitely portray yourself as an objectivist. You seem to be a chameleon, changing your color whenever it suits you.

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/GeneralForum/0879.shtml#12

I never spoke about compromising principles, that way well have been a mistake on my part. When I said Objectivism needs to change, I was referring to the objectivist movement, as opposed to the philosophy. Our methods are wrong, the way we advocate voluntary co-operation between people whilst at the same time spend much of our effort attacking the principles of other opbjectivists, as opposed to statists, fundamentalists, socialists, and many others, points out a deep contradiction within our movement. Rand was especially guilty of this, such as when she attacked the libertarian movement. Of course, we (Myself included) may find that Objectivism is a superior philosophy to libertarianism, but this is self-defeating. Libertarians should be our allies, as should all right-wing groups, but ESPECIALLY fellow objectivists, whether we regard them right or wrong on specific subjects, as we have more to gain from co-operating with them than we do but creating a line of ideological difference.

Sam

(Edited by Sam Erica on 5/02, 7:19am)


Post 52

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
did you read this?

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/printer_friendly.cgi?page=/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

It is very clear that the entire purpose of this is anti-capitalism, and anti-freedom, so first you need to realize this is based on false data, and then that the consequences, even were they true, are not as bad as the "cure" these zeolots will impose. 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 53

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 8:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam - Then you've accepted my point about the CO2 from the ocean, which is good.

I'll ask you once - Study the science behind it. There are very, very few people who understand te science who don't believe that humans are having a significant effect on the environment.

And I'm still waiting for the people who claimed we have minimal effect on the environment to either retract their claims, or challenge my rebuttals.

I'm not an Objectivist. I used to be, but I'm not any more. I come here very occasionally because I usually enjoy the debate. This thread is a fine example of the ignorance of science and the reality of the situation by a few people. Nonetheless, I've received sanctions for every single post of mine on this thread, which means that there are people on here who do understand the reality of the situation, but considering the sort of reaction I've got for presenting my argument that contradicts your own viewpoints, it's unsuprising that they're not speaking up.

Andy


Post 54

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 9:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew:

"Then you've accepted my point about the CO2 from the ocean, which is good."

I have not accepted your point about CO2 in the ocean. How could you say that after I called you a dolt for your position?

"And I'm still waiting for the people who claimed we have minimal effect on the environment to either retract their claims, or challenge my rebuttals."

You've had plenty of challenging your rebuttals on this forum.

I certainly believe that humans have had a huge effect on the environment. We've changed forests into farmland, and cities, created smog and much pollution. But that doesn't say that we've created global warming.

"I've received sanctions for every single post of mine on this thread ..."

Another obvious totally false statement: ...and Kurt gave you one by mistake. You appear to have a death wish.


Post 55

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sam,

"Right now I'm sure it's a very small effect compared to human activity" - You answered it yourself. That's what I was looking for. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say any more. Can you clarify?

"You've had plenty of challenging your rebuttals on this forum."

Aside from yours and Kurt's, I don't think I've had any. Certainly nothing about how much of an effect which we've had in terms of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which is what I am looking for. A rejection of that, through criticism of my calculations. I'm be ecstatic to see that right now.

"Another obvious totally false statement: ...and Kurt gave you one by mistake. You appear to have a death wish."

To: Mr Andrew Bowman

4 'Sanction' vote(s) was given to you for your post News Discussions::Global warming fears overblown::19
Learn more about Atlas Points here.
This is an automated response. Please do not reply.
4 'Sanction' vote(s) was given to you for your post News Discussions::Global warming fears overblown::22
Learn more about Atlas Points here.
This is an automated response. Please do not reply.
To: Mr Andrew Bowman
4 'Sanction' vote(s) was given to you for your post News Discussions::Global warming fears overblown::28
Learn more about Atlas Points here.
This is an automated response. Please do not reply.
To: Mr Andrew Bowman
4 'Sanction' vote(s) was given to you for your post News Discussions::Global warming fears overblown::26
Learn more about Atlas Points here.
This is an automated response. Please do not reply.
To: Mr Andrew Bowman
4 'Sanction' vote(s) was given to you for your post News Discussions::Global warming fears overblown::32
Learn more about Atlas Points here.
This is an automated response. Please do not reply.

As well as Kurt's mistaken one - It may not be every single one of my posts on this thread, but there's certainly someone on here who agrees with me, or many people. Either way, I'm not alone in my opinion.

Andy


Post 56

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post 53 Andrew Bowman wrote:

I've received sanctions for every single post of mine on this thread,
At the time you had made 15 posts and 5 were sanctioned, one by mistake. All the non-mistaken ones could be from *one* person.  You've made 9 posts w/o a sanction since the last sanction. So maybe that person's support has waned after seeing more.

In post 26 Andrew Bowman wrote:

As for the solar radiation effect...people keep throwing around the nonsense claim. Basically the compelling bit of evidence against the solar variation theory is that the rate of warming increases even while solar activity decreases.
Human-induced CO2 can be dismissed as flippantly. The global average temperature decreased in the 1940's and 1970's while human-induced CO2 rose rapidly.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 10:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew: I'm very near done with your nonsense.

Jeez, Louise: "Right now I'm sure it's a very small effect compared to human activity" - You answered it yourself. That's what I was looking for. I'm really not sure what you're trying to say any more. Can you clarify?"

This is just baiting. Nobody is/has said that humans aren't belching CO2 into the air. The only issue is if human are causing global warming. Your own citation says it's not.

Five out of 17 posts got sanctions. So much for your "I've received sanctions for every single post of mine on this thread ..."

I'm wasting my time debating with you.







 


Post 58

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

That was to do with the "global cooling" effect caused by sulphur emissions, which we can now account for.

Sam - Good. When you've educated yourself on the matter at hand by studying the science of climatology and have some substantial, relevant criticism of my scienctific method, rather than playing round with words, I'll gladly debate with you. I won't hold my breath, though. You've obviously got a conclusion, and are using that to ascertain what evidence to embrace and what evidence to ignore. I very much doubt your mind is open on this issue. It's laziness, simply put.

Andy.


Post 59

Wednesday, May 2, 2007 - 11:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andrew wrote to me:
That was to do with the "global cooling" effect caused by sulphur emissions, which we can now account for.
I know about the aerosol claim. My point was your flippancy with solar radiation.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.