Who was just asking about global warming?

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

User avatar
David Loftus
Posts: 3182
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Who was just asking about global warming?

Postby David Loftus » Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:09 pm

Somebody in the last week or two was asking in this neighborhood for some good, basic info on climate change for use in debates/discussions with unbelievers. I thought it was Keith, but I'm not finding the post, or even the thread.

Anyway, just in the last hour, the same day as KOS lost much of what fragile goodwill he had earned from me in recent weeks by mouthing off on the subject on the Pavvy, I've run across a nice, tidy layman's explanation of some of the basic scientific foundation for global warming in Thomas L. Friedman's brand-new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, chapter five ("Global Weirding"), which I am reading to review for the Oregonian. Pick up a copy, or scan through the relevant pages at the bookstore.
War is, at first, the hope that one will be better off; next, the expectation that the other fellow will be worse off; then, the satisfaction that he isn't any better off; and, finally, the surprise at everyone's being worse off. - Karl Kraus

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Postby Moderator » Thu Sep 11, 2008 11:25 pm

It was Keith.

In the Pav.

With a candlestick.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

Douglas Harrison
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:26 am

Postby Douglas Harrison » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:06 am

Kim has his opinion, but the amount of study and investigation already done on global warming allows a reasonable person to understand the risks of inaction that we all face. You try to stop an overloaded cart when it starts to roll, not when it's halfway down the hill.

As for the value of consensus, we must remember that it is the consensus of the wise that should govern us, because the world is complex, facts innumerable, and we must trust in their collective judgement--or be lost to the opinions of demagogues.

D.

Douglas Harrison
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:26 am

Postby Douglas Harrison » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:19 am

Douglas Harrison wrote:... we must trust in such collective judgement--or be lost to the opinions of demagogues.

Corrected.

D.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Postby cynic » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:50 am

link to scientific american interview with t.l.friedman

30 min. all good,stay tuned for the quiz at the end

http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cf ... 0ECE43BA17

klik listen to podcast(i know you could figure that out, i'm borderline OCD)

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:19 am

The scientific information is out there; some book by a propagandist like Friedman won't help. He is getting to the debate late.

The world is flat. Humbug.

Alan Coil
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Southeast Michigan

Postby Alan Coil » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:52 pm

Douglas Harrison wrote:
Douglas Harrison wrote:... we must trust in such collective judgement--or be lost to the opinions of demagogues.

Corrected.

D.


Not corrected quite enough.

Judgment.

:wink:

Alan Coil
Posts: 538
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:21 pm
Location: Southeast Michigan

Postby Alan Coil » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:53 pm

Is one truly OCD if they don't call it CDO?

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Postby cynic » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:07 pm

if a tree falls and no one hears it ,does it make a noise?

i would say....huh?

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:10 pm

KOS just posted something very odd. He doesn't seem to realize that the scientific method has improved by leaps and bounds and consensus is much better backed up. There's gotta be five billion pounds of evidence on our side.

KOS aint me, no more of that.

User avatar
kevinkirby
Posts: 450
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:24 pm
Location: Strode Island
Contact:

Postby kevinkirby » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:58 pm

Scientific discussions of global warming tend to err toward the conservative side, because nobody wants to be caught with their pants down in a flagrant exaggeration of its possible future influence on our climate. My own prediction is that it will have a more rapid, cascading effect than anybody can guess today.

Objectively, sort of like watching the speed of a Martian Sandstorm; at some point in the next decade, the planet will completely change for the hotter within a two year period.

Douglas Harrison
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 12:26 am

Postby Douglas Harrison » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:13 pm

Alan Coil wrote:Not corrected quite enough.

Judgment.

:wink:

I ain't correcting my quirky use of the variant to suit you, Alan. It's the British in me.

Yours in compulsion,
D.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Postby cynic » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:44 pm

dear douglas,

Douglas Harrison wrote:
Alan Coil wrote:Not corrected quite enough.

Judgment.

:wink:

I ain't correcting my quirky use of the variant to suit you, Alan. It's the British in me.

Yours in compulsion,
D.


in my short time here this is, by far, the most vicious response i have read.

pace yourself,the full moon rises monday.

yours in sincere jest,mike

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Postby cynic » Thu Dec 04, 2008 2:26 pm

AND THE CONSENSUS IS...

But uncertainty remains high — often as high as estimates themselves. For instance, researchers think about half of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere gets absorbed by oceans and land, but they do not know precisely where the gases come from and where they end up. This knowledge gap has serious policy implications; until it becomes clear where emissions are going, it will remain difficult to have verifiable credits for sequestering carbon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/scien ... ?th&emc=th
* but they do not know precisely where the gases come from and where they end up*

oh cumoooon!MAKE UP MY MIND!

Douglas Harrison ,where are you ? i trust you're having a fine holiday season.

User avatar
remarck
Posts: 224
Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: Arlington, VA
Contact:

Postby remarck » Sat Dec 13, 2008 2:11 pm

God, I'm so late to this. Ooops. No. That should be, "David, I'm so late to this."

But yes, it was me who posted. My bro in law (haha, soon to be EX bro in law, because my sister finally had the good sense to leave him) was engaging me in an argument about GW, and essentially his position is, since nobody knows FOR CERTAIN what is causing GW, everyone should just sit back and not do anything, because whatever we do will cost a lot of money (i.e. waste resources), could make matters worse, and may not solve the problem.

Despite my point that everything being done to combat GW is ALSO good for people and the environment on every other level.

He's a smart guy, but so was Linus 5lb.-Vitamin-C-Tablet Pauling.

My argument was, we don't need to understand all of the mechanics of GW before making efforts to combat it. If we wait until we fully understand it, we may be doomed.

We don't fully understand gravity, but we know not to trip.

We don't know when we're going to die, but most of us save for retirement.

We don't fully understand women, but we want to date them anyway.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests