Knights & Knaves Alehouse

dcs wrote: A week of Bush is like a year of Clinton.

I know, doesn't it seem like he's been in office forever? Like that time I spent a month in Springfield one weekend.

AxeMental wrote:If a democracy tried to enforce rules that went against the US constitution, (either foreign or domestic) you'd likely have a bloody revolution on your hands, depending on how far they pushed it.

LOL. Look around you, a democracy has been enforcing such rules since 1865 with no bloody revolutions in sight.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Speaking of democracy, by the way, isn't it time the US made an instalment on the several million dollar debt it owes the UN?

As Semaj points out, the U.S.' troop deployments on behalf of the U.N. more than make up for the U.N. dues supposedly owed by the U.S.

TheRedPriest wrote:Excellent idea. We dodged the bullet for a year, so let's roll the dice on dodging it another 5, 10 or 20 years. Obviously, hurricanes present no significant threat to the U.S. coastline, and thereby the nation's economy. To say othewise, you're merely engaging in doomsaying.

Of course the U.S. coastline is threatened by hurricanes. However, I do not see how this is a threat to the U.S. economy. I'm sure the private business and private-property owners along the East- and Gulf Coasts would love for the federal government to swoop in and save them from the problems they themselves created. It would be better in the long run if the government did not.

New Orleans is a wholly different situation since the federal government has jurisdiction over ports and interstate waterways (e.g., the Mississippi River). So it is incumbent upon the federal government -- if it continues to make these claims of jurisdiction -- to protect the port of New Orleans.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Joe, back on what you were saying: I understand, and sometimes the barrage of stuff through the media seems overwhelming. The best thing to do is simply be an informed person and rely on a good education. With each succeeding generation, that becomes harder I understand, but it can be done.

For example, my science education was based in the early '80s, when a high school diploma was something to be treasured. Drawing from that, I know several things:

I graduated in 90 and had 4 years of college. I'm not uneducated nor incapable of self-education, I just really think the subject is actually that complex and forming an informed opinion would require an intimate knowledge as opposed to knowledge that is generally accessable to a layman without concentrated study.

1. I know that the "Greenhouse Effect" and a greenhouse work on seperate principles, but what's in a name, hmm? I have a greenhouse, and I don't rely on CO2 to keep it warm in there, I rely on the lack of convection of heat through the glass.

2. CO2 is actually a poor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is much better.

3. CO2 is also one of the heaviest gases known. Thus it sinks. So the question becomes: how can CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere?

Since the CO2 question has recently shifted to "it's trapping heat in the oceans"... since well over 70% of CO2 is in the ocean, other ideas arise.

4. Heat rises.

5. Since water vapor is a better greenhouse gas, and since the ocean is basically made of water, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that it's the water trapping the heat? Assuming heat sinks, of course.

Now given this, what conclusion can I draw? Should I embrace the "CO2 by humans is the culprit" scenario, or should I guess that forces more out of our control are at work?

Actually either would be rational depending on the situation. In some complex systems the lesser inputs exert forces equal to their presence while in other complex systems the determining factors are just those forces present in the least amount. Sorta like the way a small swing-voting block exerts political influence far beyond the proportal size of their members.

I don't think I'm educated enough to determine what is occuring with climate. Are the major factors the "important" ones are are the minor ones the "important" ones? That's what I was saying to BPM-my position is based more upon stupidity than upon knowledge so his debating with me isn't really worth his time as any single person's opinion is only another "x said this" is my large accumulation of "x said this" used to form my uninformed opinion.

joe b.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:The idea that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that humans are causing global warming is propoganda, pure and simple.

I don't think anyone intelligent is saying that, though.

Only if you don't count Al Gore, Ralph Nader, most representatives of the British Labour Party, every representative of the European Green Party, and the vast majority of liberal politicians in the US as intelligent.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:What we're saying is that humans are having an effect on the global climate, and by changing our behaviour, we could change the effect we're having.

There is no doubt that other forms of pollution are having drastic effects on the global climate and ecology. Lead and mercury poisoning are rampant, damage to watershed areas by dams and irrigation systems are causing horrendous stress on ecologies all over the world. Whole habitats are being lost along coastlines because of chemical and biological waste dumping. It's obvious that humans are having a major impact on the earth's ecology. It's also obvious that humans are contributing to the current drastic rise in CO2 levels. What isn't clear is whether this change in CO2 levels is having any effect whatsoever on the climate or ecology of our planet.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried about controlling our CO2 output. Unintended and unforseen consequences are usually the most difficult to deal with and no one really has any idea what a massive increase in CO2 levels will do to our environment. It does mean that ignoring the very tenuous nature of the link between CO2 levels and temperature is stupid. If global warming really is the threat that most people believe it to be, putting all of our eggs in the CO2 basket, when doing so is supported more by emotional attachment to the idea rather than actual scientific fact, is foolish.

Unfortunately, some very talented PR people have turned the issue of anthropogenic global warming into a religion where even discussing the issue of alternate causes or contradictory science is a heresy and anyone who does so is labelled "anti-environment" and accused of being in the back pocket of the oil companies.

PapaerAndPaychecks wrote:As for Ska's point, I had to laugh. The idea that the evil Red Under the Bed is using environmental concerns to erode good, decent American values (such as your inalienable right to drive a 4 litre gas-guzzler without having to pay anything ridiculous like $3 a gallon for fuel) in an effort to further the cause of Global Communism was hilarious.

It's no more hilarious than the idea that every scientist, politician and journalist who questions the link between human acitivities and global warming is either a quack or taking money under the table from some industrial interest group.

Incidentally, Joe... please don't get the impression I'm saying you're uneducated. I'm not saying that at all.

dcs wrote: New Orleans is a wholly different situation since the federal government has jurisdiction over ports and interstate waterways (e.g., the Mississippi River). So it is incumbent upon the federal government -- if it continues to make these claims of jurisdiction -- to protect the port of New Orleans.

Well, that's just it. The Corps of Engineers guaranteed that they constructed a system to withstand up to a Cat 3. The wisdom, or lack really, of protecting only up to a Cat 3 aside, the system they contructed didn't even do that. Sure, a few hours before coming through, Katrina was a Cat 5, but the part of her that skimmed by Louisiana was only Cat 3. Her full force hitting the Mississippi coast was Cat 4.

It was deemed, and still is, too costly to protect against Cat 5. The Dutch can do it, but I guess they have more resources than the U.S.

For what it's worth, I'm glad this thread was started. It's allowed me to merge personal experience with the global warming issue. I really have seen the total lack of leadership from federal, state and local officials prior to, during and after Katrina. Even if there were indisputable, 100% accepted evidence linking human activity to global warming, that it was also universally accepted that global warming were a bad thing and that it was within our ability to curb it, then absolutely nothing would be done about it. Our leaders would just sit back and not make the tough decisions, and we wouldn't make them. Why? Cause it'd hit our pocketbooks.

And the band played on....

dcs: "LOL. Look around you, a democracy has been enforcing such rules since 1865 with no bloody revolutions in sight."

Maybe wishful thinking on my part.

SemajTheSilent wrote:Here's an alternative approach: I got up this morning and found most of the orange juice was gone. Should I assume someone broke into the house last night, drank my juice, and then left without taking anything else or leaving any other sign, or would it be more reasonable to assume my GF drank it before she left this morning?

Actually, there's a much more applicable scenario that I've seen people use to illustrate this point.

It is a known fact that the human body produces more heat energy than it needs to maintain metabolic function. This heat is released into the environment. Thus, human bodies add heat to the environment.

Human population is growing exponentially. Human populations are not only higher than at any time in the past but are growing faster than at any time in the past. Human populations are expected to continue to grow at an every increasing rate in the forseeable future.

The highest growth rate for human population in recorded history coincides with a trend in global warming.

Therefore, an increase in the sum of human body heat (a product of population growth) is causing global warming.

The "science" and "reasoning" behind this conclusion is exactly as strong as the science and reasoning behind the links between rising CO2 levels and global warming.

Does that mean we should impose trade sanctions against every country where the population equilibrium is greater than 1?

Interesting point, BPoM, and sorta coincides with something I had been thinking: how much CO2 is produced by 6 billion people?

If CO2 is the culprit, should we go Kodos the Executioner and demand a population reduction?

SemajTheSilent wrote:Incidentally, Joe... please don't get the impression I'm saying you're uneducated. I'm not saying that at all.

No worries. We're communicating on line and I always try to take what people say in the best light because there's no other non-verbal clues. I mostly said that because I'm kinda new around here and most people don't know much about me.

joe b.

Wow! Amazing. You really get to know the inside of a person on topics like these in a way most topics don’t bring out. They always told me to never talk of Religion or Politics. Perhaps I’ll add Science to that list.

Such passion about a subject! Whether much is known or not: Still there are passions! I have been privileged to some truly interesting point of views. I don’t know if this discussion is a good thing or a bad thing.

It would be great if this much discussion and passion could be generated this quickly on 1st AD&D.

I’m not saying any discussion or opinion or fact is unimportant, just that some things of such magnitude can tare us apart in its discussion if we our not careful. Attacks will be made even unintended on the attackers’ part.

We came here under the pretence that we are all alike in some way. (AD&D) I for one hope this thread will leave us together still. We have already brought Religion and Politics into a Science debate, is there any way to go more wrong?

So before I get to the standing stones outside the walls of the free city, I’m going to pace-bond my blade, dust myself off a bit, and get my money pouches in order. There is always money involved when cities are involved, especially a ‘Free’ city.

Shalaban wrote:I’m not saying any discussion or opinion or fact is unimportant, just that some things of such magnitude can tare us apart in its discussion if we our not careful. Attacks will be made even unintended on the attackers’ part.

That's the great thing about this place, the policy is if you can't hack some friendly disagreement, then you don't belong here. I know I can say whatever I want on this subject to P&P, Semaj, Axe, TheRedPriest, et. al. and even if there is vehement disagreement, frustration, whatever, after the dust settles there won't be any hard feelings. We all understand that sometimes intense discussion brings up uncomfortable situations, but we value the product of those discussions more than we value a politicially correct atmosphere where no one ever has to read anything that makes them even a little bit uncomfortable - and we're all mature enough to let those situations come up without degenerting to calling each other "poopy-heads".

Yeah, were all friends, so differences of opinion matter not. Anyhow, politics, religion and global disaster are only small beans in comparison to AD&D.