Global Warming: Not Man Made

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:56 pm

The short answer to all of these issues is "tax it." If greenhouse gas output is taxed, it becomes a financial incentive to reduce it. Beef is still available, but it costs as much as lobster. A fair trade for having a habitable world, don't you think?

Long, long term, human population is a stickier issue, since as a trend those with the fewest resources, and the least intelligence, have the most children, so you can't use a tax solution. People who don't know any better, or obey their religious mandate to reproduce, tend to be too poor to support their children properly anyway. The only way to reverse that would require getting religion behind the idea of having *fewer* children, something which I doubt is possible. Yet another reason why religion is evil, they tell the stupid to procreate without limit. Sure, it made sense in the days of the Black Death, but really now....

Still, it's the lower population industrial nations that output the most greenhouse gases, not the teeming masses of the third world. That may change over time, of course.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:06 pm

Grand Fromage wrote:Some further info:

http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2 ... chulte.php

This is basically a non-story overall. Just more bullshit from the anti-science crowd.

As we're posting articles about scientists saying other scientists are crap...

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/O ... tracts.htm

Update: The Oreskes abstracts

Naomi Oreskes claims to have 928 abstracts she found listed on the ISI Web of Knowledge database (1993 – 2003) using the keywords "global climate change." However, this claim is incorrect: while the ISI database includes a total of 929 documents for the period in question, it lists only 905 abstracts. It is thus impossible that Oreskes analysed 928 abstracts.

In my original critique, I used the same ISI database and the same key words as Oreskes but used all documents listed therein. While Oreskes did not specify the method she applied in her study, she later confirmed that she had limited her search to “articles”, while I included “all document types” in my initial assessment. This difference appears to explain the discrepancy between the “928” abstracts Oreskes claims to have analysed and the 1117 documents I found and considered, although her figures don’t add up, one way or another.

Some commentators have argued that these differences undermine my main criticism while they validate Oreskes' claim. However, as I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view.'

In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change.

I have posted all documents and abstracts listed in the ISI database under the key words “global climate change” (for the period 1993 – 2003) below, arranged by year. Check for yourself! Make sure you differentiate between implicit and explicit endorsement of the IPCC consensus (“[M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.")

1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:16 pm

Mulu wrote:I take it you don't believe in using condoms either? All warnings go unheeded? Don't bother washing your hands or wearing a seatbelt, it's all too preachy.

As I've already said, I believe global warming is largely the fault of humanity. But of course you've twisted this around to try and make it about me, when it's really about you. It's not about what I believe, but about your approach in expressing what you believe. Even when I agree with you (which is most of the time) I find you to be quite arrogant and unbending in your belief.

I would use an athiest society analogy, but if your university had one, I kind of suspect you would have belonged to it, so that would be a waste of time.

Mayhem · Post by **Mayhem** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:57 pm

Wait, what have you got against Atheists now?

Grand Fromage · Post by **Grand Fromage** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:02 pm

Unlike some lesser tools, NickD has a free-floating retardism that attaches to whatever shiny object attracts his attention at the time. He must've heard the word atheist a minute before making the post and bam, there you go.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:10 pm

Why not just mandate/tax how much people can eat? We're getting fatter all the time, so it makes sense to regulate/tax food intake too. A consumption or calorie tax. Or if human population is the problem, outlaw vaccines and other life extending medicines that keep people alive longer.

NickD · Post by **NickD** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:17 pm

Mayhem wrote:Wait, what have you got against Atheists now?

Got nothing against atheists. I am one myself. I do have a problem with people who decide they're such a hardcore (you know the score!) atheist that they join a society to proclaim their beliefs and attempt to stomp out the differing beliefs of others.

Lusipher · Post by **Lusipher** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:39 pm

Mulu said:

Arnold Schwarzenegger gets it. And let's face it, if *he* gets it as a stalwart cigar smoking Republican, what's *your* problem?

The Terminator is hardly considered a true republican. He ran on that side to get into office since they already had a Dem in office. His wife is a hardcore liberal dem and if you think he doesnt side with her on most issues then your just out of your out of your mind.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:22 am

Zakharra wrote:Why not just mandate/tax how much people can eat? We're getting fatter all the time, so it makes sense to regulate/tax food intake too.

I'm for it, as long as it's the really unhealthy food. Imagine what the menu at McDonalds would turn into if greasy foods were doubled in price? Why, they and all other restaurants would have to find healthier alternatives, which would then potentially reduce waistlines. Potentially.

You know, it's a pretty big coincidence that this whole obesity epidemic started shortly after P.E. got cancelled or reduced at many schools due to the No Child Left Behind nonsense and emphasizing tests over other programs.

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:30 am

NickD wrote:
Mayhem wrote:Wait, what have you got against Atheists now?
Got nothing against atheists. I am one myself. I do have a problem with people who decide they're such a hardcore (you know the score!) atheist that they join a society to proclaim their beliefs and attempt to stomp out the differing beliefs of others.

Yes, we Illuminati have been stomping out beliefs for years. Remember the Tatwanadi religion? Of course not....

Mulu · Post by **Mulu** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:34 am

Danubus wrote:The Terminator is hardly considered a true republican.

He's a fiscal conservative Republican, the old school kind, not this new religio-fascist type. I hope the new type isn't the "true" type, we've had enough of their pretense at governing.

mxlm · Post by **mxlm** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:50 am

Why not just mandate/tax how much people can eat? We're getting fatter all the time, so it makes sense to regulate/tax food intake too.

Why not just kill all the fat people?

And the poor.

And NickD.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:52 am

Danubus wrote:shut up, Nick. What has your little speck of a country ever done?

Oooo
Someone's slightly uptight.

Rotku · Post by **Rotku** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:55 am

Zakharra wrote:Why not just mandate/tax how much people can eat? We're getting fatter all the time, so it makes sense to regulate/tax food intake too.

I'm sure you've got some sarcasm in your voice there, but a tax on fat is a very real option. I know taxing fatty foods, soft drinks etc has certainly (and still is) been considered here.

Zakharra · Post by **Zakharra** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:58 am

Mulu wrote:
Zakharra wrote:Why not just mandate/tax how much people can eat? We're getting fatter all the time, so it makes sense to regulate/tax food intake too.
I'm for it, as long as it's the really unhealthy food. Imagine what the menu at McDonalds would turn into if greasy foods were doubled in price? Why, they and all other restaurants would have to find healthier alternatives, which would then potentially reduce waistlines. Potentially.

You know, it's a pretty big coincidence that this whole obesity epidemic started shortly after P.E. got cancelled or reduced at many schools due to the No Child Left Behind nonsense and emphasizing tests over other programs.

People would still buy the 'unhealthy' food. There is a reason it still sells, because people want it, not salads or 'healthy' foods. People will buy what they want.

I'm sure you've got some sarcasm in your voice there, but a tax on fat is a very real option. I know taxing fatty foods, soft drinks etc has certainly (and still is) been considered here.

Then you'd better look into getting everything taxed. Because it's 'bad' for you. Once you open that pandora's box, it is very hard to close. If greasy food this month, why not foreign food or cultural food next month? What about taxing if you buy more than a certain amount of food per month? If you buy more than the governmental recommended allowance? What is concidered bad can and would be expanded.