Thread: Al Gore, Global Warming, And The Burden Of Proof

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Plan B

Cause there's a difference between being proactive and being productive.

how do you know that what is being suggested by the proponents of addressing the issue of global warming wouldn't be 'productive'?

and by 'productive' i'm going to assume you mean in the sense of addressing the issue, and not increasing capitalist production.

By capitalist production, you must be referring to the many 'scientists' who are making money out of this stuff, and the greenies who are gaining political status from a populist lie. (Much like Hitler, Bush have done).

Originally Posted by Shitman

I'm not as smart as most of you, so in a debate I will mostly lose, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are smarter men than you that know this climate change racket is a load of bull.
It's easy to call me wrong but not so easy to call a top judge in his court a liar.

We've been through all this "codswallow" of yours already before: The judge does not make any judgment about climate change nor the science involved in it.

Inform yourself, you were given links before.

Originally Posted by raycarey

Originally Posted by Shitman

I'm not as smart as most of you,

now, now. boon mee and chinthee are regular posters here, and you'll have no problem besting them in any debate.

Well now, this is typical of someone with little sense of self worth and a blatantly inferior intellect isn't it? Ray drags me into a thread where I have proffered no opinion whatsoever.

Ray, is your foundation in knowledge so fragile that you must drop to these levels? Do you feel time passing you by in your mediocre journey through life? What do you do anyway? Nothing important I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Plan B

By capitalist production, you must be referring to the many 'scientists' who are making money out of this stuff, and the greenies who are gaining political status from a populist lie. (Much like Hitler, Bush have done).

Don't you know what "capitalist production" is?

Since this would lead off-topic, Google's your friend.

Originally Posted by stroller

sum my post up with a quote

Originally Posted by Shitman

I'm not as smart as most of you, so in a debate I will mostly lose, but that doesn't alter the fact that there are smarter men than you that know this climate change racket is a load of bull.

Shitman, smart men doesn't mean they know the truth, that's the point of debating issues, the debate is the truth, not the answers as they don't really exist

Originally Posted by stroller

Since this would lead off-topic, Google's your friend.

As a child I was brutally savaged by a search engine.
Google is not my friend, in fact it is my sworn enemy! I shall seek my REVENGE!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Butterfly

smart men doesn't mean they know the truth, that's the point of debating issues, the debate is the truth, not the answers as they don't really exist

I take that to mean nobody knows what's going on & that it's all made-up?

Originally Posted by Ivor Biggun

Originally Posted by Butterfly

maybe I will stop by and throw you a few bananas for you to choke on

You're a coward Butterfly and every post you now make, varifies it. Now do what you say and "stop by and throw a few bananas". I do not resort to insults easily but I think you are very immature and your posts show this.

I have known this Mental Genius for some time now, and I cannot vouch for his being a coward. But I can definately state that he is a snotty little adolescent twit.

I suppose that by now, he has managed to grow into a full size physical body. However, when it comes to maturity of mind, or attaining any degree of wisdom, he is worse than a "Day late and a Dollar Short". ANYTHING he(it) has to say should be turned 180 degrees in order to make any sense of his attempt as discourse.

Were I he, I too would not give out my address to anyone. They may get a look and wish to take pictures, so the rest of the forum can observe him in all his "gory" glory.

Incidentially, I once had the post that Cleo, who was a regular poster at the Bear Pit, sent him publically. He was doing his usual childish routine one day, making sexual inuendos, and she finally had had enough. Her post to him was the Ultimate Putdown I have ever read. It was so scathing I just had to save it and place it in "My Documents". Unfortunately, I have since reinstalled XP a couple of times and have it saved on disc somewhere and would have to look it up.

It is the Classic Put-Down and should be studied by one and all as to how any little twerp is set in his place by a strong woman. I'll look for it.

Originally Posted by John L

Were I he, I too would not give out my address to anyone. They may get a look and wish to take pictures, so the rest of the forum can observe him in all his "gory" glory.

Well, since this is a Thailand based forum, quite a few members have met him, and he appears to be quite 'normal'.
I can't vouch for him any further than that, but judging by his stature he has no reason to be afraid of meeting any of the deranged wingnuts who are after his ass.

Originally Posted by John L

Incidentially, I once had the post that Cleo, who was a regular poster at the Bear Pit, sent him publically. He was doing his usual childish routine one day, making sexual inuendos, and she finally had had enough. Her post to him was the Ultimate Putdown I have ever read. It was so scathing I just had to save it and place it in "My Documents". Unfortunately, I have since reinstalled XP a couple of times and have it saved on disc somewhere and would have to look it up.

Fascinating...yawn.

What was the topic again?

Originally Posted by stroller

Fascinating

What was the topic again

What the fuck is the bear pit?

There's more junk science on global warming (from all sides) than on any scientific topic I've ever seen. What isn't junk science is the impact of the burning of fossil fuels on infertility, cancer, respiratory illnesses and birth defects. If environmentalists want the planet to end its addiction to fossil fuels, why don't they simply focus on the very real and worrying health effects of this sort of chemical violence? These scientific findings aren't nearly as disputable.

Originally Posted by John L

Were I he, I too would not give out my address to anyone. They may get a look and wish to take pictures, so the rest of the forum can observe him in all his "gory" glory.

I don't give a shit what he looks like or perceives himself to be, my address still stands for his visit to feed me bananas. I quiver in me boots waiting

these global warming deniers (who really are a very insignificant minority) remind me of the type who don't believe in evolution...and are probably very similar to those who kept arguing that the earth was flat.

Originally Posted by raycarey

these global warming deniers (who really are a very insignificant minority) remind me of the type who don't believe in evolution...and are probably very similar to those who kept arguing that the earth was flat.

Errr, you continue to pigeon hole people in a stereotypical mentality. As an "Anthropogenic" global warming SKEPTIC, I also believe in natural selection as well. I'm a physical anthropologist, so why shouldn't I?

And the number of SKEPTICS is much larger than you acknowledge,..........and growing, by the way. Most of us are otimistic by nature, and find it a bit hard to swallow the idea that the world is going to end and man is the cause for it.

Once again no one is projecting the end of the world, odd that you keep repeating this mantra.

JohnL seems to have the collectavist mentality common among people who don't want to hear bad news.

so, the number of global warming deniers...

Originally Posted by John L

is much larger than you acknowledge,..........and growing, by the way

do you guys wear your tinfoil hats at annual conventions?

^
Agreed, I get utterly confused when presented with supporting material by either side which I am not equipped to assess.

But reducing environmental pollution, being more prudent with the use of resources and moving away from fossil fuels makes sense anyway.

That sounds like common sense to me. Even if the world as we know it not going to end for some while yet, I still would prefer not to live in a garbage tip.

This is a good resource for anyone seeking to understand more about climate and climate change.

And speaking of hot aire in Thailand, there is this recent development.

Hot Air in Bangkok

by Indur Goklany



After five days of contentious discussions in Bangkok, governments from nearly 200 countries last week agreed to an agenda for further talks to forge a new United Nations global warming agreement. One sticking point has been developing nations' insistence that industrialized countries should take the first steps in reducing emissions and should help finance reductions in developing countries. But this represents a serious misreading of the underlying economic situation.

The theory behind the "developed countries should pay" model was articulated by Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change: "The problem of climate change . . . is a result of rich countries' emissions, not the result of poor countries' emissions. The historic responsibility of this problem lies with industrial nations."

Indur Goklany is the author of The Improving State of the World, (Cato Institute, 2007), from which this op-ed is excerpted.

Yet although greenhouse gas emissions can be blamed on nations based on the location of emission activities, these emissions are the effluvia of civilization and all its activities. In today's interconnected world, economic activity in one country helps provide livelihoods and incomes for many inhabitants elsewhere, and vice versa. A substantial portion of economic growth in developing countries is attributable to trade, remittances, tourism and direct investment from industrialized countries.

For example, remittances, mainly from the United States, Britain and the oil-rich Gulf states, account for 13% of Bangladesh's GDP. Absent economic activities that directly or indirectly fuel such contributions to developing countries, U.S. emissions might be lower, but so would jobs and incomes in developing countries like Bangladesh.

These linkages have had hugely positive effects. Greenhouse-gas-fueled economic activity has enabled today's rich societies to invest in agricultural, medical and public health research that has raised crop yields and lowered hunger in developing countries; to devise effective medical interventions to address old diseases like tuberculosis, malaria, diarrhea and smallpox and new diseases like AIDS; and to provide aid in times of famine or other natural disasters.

Absent such economic activity, human capital would have been lower worldwide. Consider, for instance, the millions of non-Americans who have been cycled through universities in the U.S. who then returned to advance their native countries' economic and technological development.

Some might argue that one should not take indirect effects of greenhouse-gas-producing activities into consideration: Only direct effects should be considered. But the notion of assigning responsibility or demanding compensation for climate change is itself based on indirect and inadvertent outcomes. Industrialized countries did not emit greenhouse gas emissions just for fun. There are clearly benefits.

So if the U.S. contribution to global warming, for instance, could be estimated, the next step would be to estimate the net harm caused to, say, Bangladesh. This requires estimating both direct and indirect impacts not just of climate change but all greenhouse gas-producing activities on Bangladesh.

This raises some serious questions, including: Had there been no greenhouse gas-producing activities in the U.S., what would have been Bangladesh's GDP and level of human well-being? How would that affect life expectancy, which is currently 62 years but was only 35 years in 1945? Would Bangladesh's hunger and malnutrition rates rise? How many Bangladeshis were saved in the 1960s and 1970s because of food aid from industrialized countries? How much of its increase in agricultural productivity is due to higher CO2 levels, or indirectly due to efforts enabled because the U.S. was wealthy enough to support them? If future agricultural productivity declines due to climate change, how do you subtract past and present benefits from future harms?

Clearly, it's premature to assign "responsibility" to industrialized countries for net damages to developing countries, since we don't know whether those damages have, in fact, been incurred. Even if one could assign responsibility for climate change, it does not follow that it would be "fairer" if industrialized nations were to expend resources now on ambitious mitigation measures, based partly on the premise that it would reduce future climate change risks for developing nations. The same resources would, in the short- to medium term, provide greater and faster benefits to precisely those nations by reducing existing — and generally larger — climate-sensitive risks and vulnerabilities such as hunger, malaria and the threat of cyclones and other extreme events.

The U.N. climatocrats owe it to the people of the developing world to consider these trade-offs before they charge ahead with their ambitious new agenda.

And how exactly would reducing hunger in Bangladesh prevent the country from being flooded as a result of rising sea levels?

What's meant by "mitigation" is this, btw:

Mitigation of global warming involves taking actions aimed at reducing the extent of global warming. This is in contrast to adaptation to global warming which involves taking action to minimize the effects of global warming. Scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of non-linear climate transitions[1] is leading to increased effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in an attempt to mitigate global warming.

Mitigation of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by stroller

And how exactly would reducing hunger in Bangladesh prevent the country from being flooded as a result of rising sea levels?

What's meant by "mitigation" is this, btw:

Mitigation of global warming involves taking actions aimed at reducing the extent of global warming. This is in contrast to adaptation to global warming which involves taking action to minimize the effects of global warming. Scientific consensus on global warming, together with the precautionary principle and the fear of non-linear climate transitions[1] is leading to increased effort to develop new technologies and sciences and carefully manage others in an attempt to mitigate global warming.

Mitigation of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You tell me Stroll-man.

I am not the one who's made the proposition nor posted it, Johnny.