Global Warming, anyone?

[michaeledward]

Do a search and then report back kid. Also, keep looking up the sky is falling.

Upon further research. I can quite convincingly report that the user known as 'jeffbeish' does engage (or at least has engaged on two seperate, provable instances), in "pseudoscientific drivel about environmental- political nonsense."

What's more, by his continued denials, proves his hypocrosy.

Signed:

"The kid"

 

[JPR]

Well, as expected you expose yourself the phony in both Martial Arts and in the professional community. When you mature come back.

I thought I might help you with a couple of facts so that you could avoid embarrassing yourself by accident again. If you are purposefully trying to make yourself look foolish then you can ignore what follows and have at it.



First, Feisty Mouse is indeed a scientist. Fiesty works in a university lab.



Second, Fiesty is also a Martial Artist. I have trained Kali and Jun Fan with Fiesty.



Third, you may not agree with a person's position or opinions, but that really isn't license to assault their character. Character assaults often come from people that have logically weak arguments.



Fourth, and final, one evidence of maturity is the ability to balance courage and consideration. Courage to express your own opinions, and consideration to listen and understand someone else’s point of view.



JPR

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Thanks for the "street cred", JPR. It's nice to see you here, too!

 

[jeffbeish]

When you finish venting your immature vile do you two fondle only yourselves? Wow, working in a lab. Whee. A real live bad guy too. Well, I suspect that both of your training was canceled due to lack of interest. As we used to say to young recruits in the military -- I have more time in the chow line than either of you have at the dojo.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Jeff, you have shown nothing but disrespect to amazing arrogance and prepubescent "tough guy" language. I am surprised to learn that you have extensive training in the military, or MA - the folks I have met with either or both kinds of training tend to be a lot more circumspect in their language, and respectful of others, whether they agree or disagree.

I take your childish comments and personal slurs as an open admission that you cannot and will not argue facts on global warming.

And it's "bad GIRL" to you, punk.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Dear Jeff:

Thanks for reinforcing my prejudice that the true badasses are always courteous, polite and soft-spoken.

And oh yes--they also tend to take the simplest way, which in this case would be to cite evidence and offer better arguments.

Of course, one of the nice things about the Internet IS that one can pretend to be whoever one wants, right?

 

[michaeledward]

When you finish venting your immature vile do you two fondle only yourselves?

Ahh ... gee ... I really hate to do this, but not so much that I won't.

Jeff the word 'vile' is an adjective. Adjectives are words used to describe nouns. But you actually used the word as a noun. Shame on you.

What you probably meant was the word 'bile', which is a noun. Although, I am not sure that 'immature' would be an appropriate adjective to describe liver secretions.

Anyhow, after the word 'vile' (or 'bile'), there really should have been a comma, to separate the two clauses of your sentence. Might I suggest the book 'Eats Shoots & Leaves' by Lynne Truss. This book explains the importance of punctuation when arguing a point.

I really hate to pick nits, so I will forgive any other spelling mistakes in your posts. After all, I can read typo as good as the best of them. And I have been known to mis a word or two myself.

Cheers.

Mike

 

[JPR]

I would like to try to refocus the thread, so here it goes.

I think the debate shouldn’t really be “are we affecting the environment”, because I don’t think that is a debatable point. Humans (as well as all other living things) affect the environment by simply living.


For example, when you enter a room you affect the environment of that room in a measurable way. The temperature in the room will begin to rise. The humidity in the room will increase. The oxygen in the room will decrease while the CO2 levels will rise. This is your direct affect upon the limited environment of a room. We normally do not notice this effect because we have developed systems that stabilize the room’s environment (air conditioning) and a room isn’t really a closed loop system (you can leave it, or open it up, it exchanges air with external environments, etc.). When we do notice the change is when the stabilization system fails, or we overload the system’s capacity. It is sort of like being in a crowded elevator. The temperature rises, the air becomes “stuffy” and generally people are uncomfortable.



This relates to the issue of global warming. Everything that lives upon this planet is affecting the environment. However, the world was created as filtration system to provide a somewhat stable set of conditions so that life could exist. The debate, IMHO, should center on the question of “are we outpacing the capacity of the earth to filter what we produce”. This would be the science issue. Even the evidence that is being used (rising CO2 levels, warmer temperatures, or colder temperatures) isn’t alone compelling. There is a cyclical nature to the ecosystem that we don’t understand because we have a very limited view as to its history and the cycle could be very long. What is happening to the current climate could be totally natural and we could be well within the systems capacity.



Interwoven with the science issue is also an issue of economics. Nothing comes free, corporations are profit driven, and corporations develop products to meet people’s demands (ie. stuff that sells). Look at the 70’s oil crisis. When the supply of oil was restricted (and prices rose) the consumers called for changes. Cars became smaller and more fuel efficient, research into alternative fuels (ethanol and others) was increased, people drove less, people chose to reduce expenditures to heat and cool their homes and work places. All of this happened in response to the supply limitations and the rising prices. We are far from that same mindset today because of the abundance we enjoy.



One of the issues of the economic side is that we have difficulty truly measuring the “cost” of any set of actions. We don’t know fully what the opportunity cost is of developing say, hydrogen fuel cell technology. And right now there isn’t a huge demand for it. So if it were developed, there would be little way to make a product that a consumer would buy to recoup the research and development cost. If we don’t develop it, and the temperature rises (or falls) 10 degrees F what will be the cost then?



Finally, the political perspective also impacts the issue. We seem to have a very difficult time civilly discussing issues (as can be witnessed to by the posting on this board) and handling complex issues. So we become Balkanized and gravitate toward extremes. Some liberal thinking is that it is a vast conspiracy of the oil company’s to make obscene profits at the cost of the planet while conservative thinking is that it is a vast conspiracy of the environmental movement to foist some sort of global communism upon us, restrict our choices and destroy our way of life. I wish the issue were really that easy. The truth lies somewhere between. We are somewhat a victim of our own success and an addict to our own desires. We want more, always for less and usually right now. These motives drive our choices. Our choices drive the corporations and the politicians.



Our challenge is to be able to advance as a civilization while maintaining the viability of the environment we live in. It is to allow for individual freedom of choice but temper it with responsibility for the affects it has upon my neighbor and upon future generations. Look in the mirror, there you find the heart of the issue and the main solution to the problem.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

That was a lovely post, JPR.

I would argue that evidence suggests that global climate change is being accelerated or adversely influenced in disturbing ways due to human activity - namely, the burning of fossil fuels on a very large scale, and the resultant CO2 dump. But I am certainly willing to discuss the different kinds of data and sources the data come from.

And it is very much a complicated issue, in part how to implement change when we may not, today, this second, "hafta" change. I would suggest that the financial benefits of low-energy alternatives, along with the political and environmental (on another level - such as reducing ozone levels and smog in cities, or reducing the risk of oil spills) benefits of energy use reduction and alternative energy sources, would be the best motivators for people.

Snaps to you.

 

[rmcrobertson]

While I too appreciate the politeness and reason, I'm afraid I don't agree with several of your basic premises. And, because I think they show what part of the problem is, I'd like to explain what I mean.

I don't buy the notion--the belief, actually--that, "the world was created as filtration system to provide a somewhat stable set of conditions so that life could exist." That's religion, not science--and while it's a pleasant far distance from the sort of weird millenarialist thinking that has led some Christians to say that we SHOULD tear up the planet, because a) the End Times are near anyway, and b) Jesus wants to see that we've been busy, it leads to conclusions that aren't warranted.

When we strip mine a ridge in West Virginia, that is not Nature, not if the word, "nature," means anything at all. It's human action, human design that's at work--and this is very far from simply walking around and exhaling. Moreover, we've jacked around with the environment so that we can procreate in seemingly-endless profusion: that's not, "Nature," either. It's irresponsible human action.

Moreover, there's a false premise about this, "filtration system," business--actually, there are three. The damage--or if you prefer, the effect--isn't simply a matter of producing chemicals that the planet might or might not filter. It's also a matter of literally changing the atmosphere, changing the way the planet absorbs/reflects light, and the wavelengths at which these phenomena occur. Then, there's the fact that we've already torn out or destroyed a great deal of that filtration system--check out stupid destruction of rain forest, check out the proliferation of, "dead zones," in the ocean, check out the erasure of fish species. And last, there are already very good indicators that we have ALREADY grossly overloaded any, "filtering," mechanisms you want to name, the most famous of which are the worldwide changes to coral reef habitats.

Last, this stuff about, "free choice," and "consumer demand." Sure, we should learn to make better choices. Unfortunately, our whole idea of, "choice," and of, "freedom," is now tied up tight with consumerism, waste, and the "right," to use more and more children's toys like Ski-Doos and motorbikes. It's tied up with eating all we want, driving wherever we want, and immediate comfort. So, since our whole idea of "choice," operates within the parameters of consumerism....our "choices," aren't likely to be responsible.

Thanks for the courtesy, and the reason. I don't agree at all.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I thought I might help you with a couple of facts so that you could avoid embarrassing yourself by accident again. If you are purposefully trying to make yourself look foolish then you can ignore what follows and have at it.

Good man, JPR.

She deserves the back up.

We note you are much calmer in personality than me.



SCS

 

[KenpoTess]

Keep it on Topic People.. Personal Attacks Will NOT Be Tolerated.

If you have issues with Someone, Please either Take it Off the boards or use the Ignore Feature.

~Tess
-MT S. Mod-

 

[michaeledward]

I think I have to align myself with Robert on these last few posts. JPR, your comments seem to be very 'Homo Sapien Centric', as if the whole world were designed as a platform for our existance.

But man plays such an incredibly small role in the history of the planet, it is arrogant in the extreme to think that everything here is for our purpose.

I believe it is possible to 'kill' the planet, although extremely difficult. We could put enough toxins into the environment that somewhere a single link in the web of life gets broken, and everything starts to collapse in on itself. This could be greenhouse gases, or it could be genetically modified crops introducing changes in the environment.

I do think, however, that it is far more likely that human beings will manage to kill themselves off, and the insects will take over the planet. The planet, and life on the planet will go on, long after we have managed to erase our existance from time.

I do hope we are not just a flash in the pan of Earth's history. But, if we are not, it will be our own arrogance that causes it to be so. We so little understand the impact of what we are doing with science. It's a shame.

Mike

PS - I hope I'm wrong.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

When you finish venting your immature vile do you two fondle only yourselves? Wow, working in a lab. Whee. A real live bad guy too. Well, I suspect that both of your training was canceled due to lack of interest. As we used to say to young recruits in the military -- I have more time in the chow line than either of you have at the dojo.

You DO indeed have more time in the chowline than either of them do in the dojo. JPR and Feisty are fairly new to the martial arts.

64 pounds lost on the Atkins diet, you say? You have more time in the chowline than any of us together.

JPR is an engineer that works for the Navy. Feisty we know about. FEEL FREE to take them on and post some arguments to counter theirs...or go back to the chow line.

You really have a problem with Kali, I note. Looks like you've borrowed someone else's internet sniper tactics with your posts.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Nightingale]

MOD NOTE:

Thread locked pending admin review

-Nightingale-
MT MODERATOR