Caius
Posts: 175
Joined: 2/2/2005
Status: offline
|
Well after all the time I've spent on collarme and the many discussions and debates I've been tempted to join, it seems a bit odd to be posting for the first time on a non-bdsm-related subject, but what can I say, Fangs, you've inspired me -- of all the many ignorant, mis-informed arguments I've ever seen forwarded here, yours is the most notable, although I'll grant it only achieved that distinction in light of the magnitude and the seriousness of the subject in question. Now you're going to have to forgive me if my response seems harsh and take my word that I'm not usually this strident in expressing my objections to a given point of view. Likewise, I'm not focusing on you as a personal attack; it's simply that your argument is so completely asinine and indicative of the philosophy of denial painstakingly constructed and promoted within the U.S. that I can't help but use it as a springboard to demonstrate the most common fallacies employed in this debate.
To start with the global warming debate is no longer even seriously considered a debate within the scientific community in general. For the better part of half a century, climatologists have been aware of the effects of greenhouse gases and in recent decades have been increasingly and almost universally of the opinion that the unchecked increase of these substances within the Earth's atmosphere will have catastrophic effects. Dissenters to this view, who are comparably few, are almost exclusively specialists whose work is financed by those with a vested interest in downplaying the effects of global warming. And yes, I'm aware of the striking generalization I'm making here, but I'm well-versed enough in this debate to defend this position if anyone cares for me to do so. Now, bear in mind that I believe the scientific community to be largely ignorant
of your ice-cube experiment but I don't think it's likely to sway them greatly, for reasons I'll detail shortly.
Now let's address some particulars:
>> "Eroding shore lines? Yeah, they'are eroding due to age. Rain, wind, and waves do that to shores after a few billion years. Who knew? Sometimes an earthquake or volanic erruption causes these shores to back up and reform."
Yes shorelines are in a constant state of erosion. Typically, however the re-deposit of sediment as well as other geological forces assures that while coastlines may change in shape over the eons, they typically do not shrink on the whole given a constant sea level. However, when a relatively sudden rise in sea level occurs, the effects upon the differing geological strata of fastlands can be devastating. And sea levels ARE rising, all around the world. You may choose to ignore the fact, but I suggest you don't say as much to a resident of Tuvala or any one of the number of other island nations now facing a humanitarian crisis due to the fact that their countries will literally cease to exist within the next few decades.
This seems an appropriate point to address your ice-water experiment. Now I'm not just what possessed you to use your 5th grade science project as evidence against the effects of global warming, but I'm going to have to be particularly critical of you here as this kind of argument is so demonstrative of the laziness and lack of logic with which people approach this debate. If you gave any serious thought to your approach of this situation, you would notice some of the many flaws in your experiment, a very brief sample of which I'll point out here:
The properties of water: While its true that water expands while frozen, it is not true that water tends to contract when heated. However, within a certain range prior to freezing water does become denser under a cooling effect. Your ice water would presumably fall within this range, keep heating it and I assure you the level will rise, although likely only marginally due to the second consideration...
Scale: The world is not a fishbowl. Changes in volume that would be virtually imperceptible in your aquarium scenario could have massive implications when blown up to the numbers we're talking about with global warming. A rise of just a few feet (and even conservative estimates allow for the likelihood of a 2-4 foot rise in sea levels by 2100) would lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of square miles globally. Assume that your aquarium's depth represents the average depth of the worlds oceans (some 12, 000 feet - notice my kindness in translating from metric for you) Are you telling me you can perceive with the naked eye, consistently, the difference of 3 twelve-thousandths of the height of the water in that aquarium?
Geological distribution of water: likewise, glaciers and icebergs are not icecubes. As I believe someone noted above, significant portions of arctic icesheets are above the sea level, not suspended within it, as your icecubes were
>> "Dying Wildlife? The wild is just like the rest of life. It dies and comes back based on seasons and time."
Here's where you lose any credibility you might have had previously. Mass extinctions do not occur with the changing of the seasons. We're not talking about long-established rhythms here, we're talking about a huge plummet in genetic diversity the likes of which has never been recorded in the scientific record, even under the most catastrophic pre-human conditions. Experts in global bio-diversity project that about half of the worlds 30 million surviving species will go extinct in the next _one hundred years_. I'll help you with the math again. That's 150, 000 per year or about 17 per hour... That's a very long, very hot winter.
However, by the same token, we can't lay this entirely in the lap of global warming. The fact of the matter is, our species has been working at this for a long time; without exception, man's entrance on to every landmass it has ever occupied has been followed by mass extinctions. So global warming has some catch-up to do, but it won't take it long to get there - global warming presents a particularly strong threat to ocean-dwelling micro-organisms, a significant part of the biomass which literally every other form of life on this planet depends upon ultimately.
>> "Changing Weather Patterns? The weather changes as the year changes. Some days are hot, others are cool, and then you also have cold ones. It goes with the seasons. Thermometers haven't been around long enough to really prove much with ocean temperaturs. Our weather sattelites haven't been around very long either to know what the weather really does. Do we have any temperature recordings two thousand years ago in the artic? What about just 400 years ago?"
Yes, actually, we do. It's called arctic core drilling which, along with many other scientifically established and highly accurate methodologies, allows us a record of not only temperature but countless other climatological data. And once again, we are not talking about anuality here. There are however, larger cycles but if you mean to reference them your position is still flawed as we're supposed to be headed into a _cooling_ trend for the next several thousand years.
>> Why is it that the media only portrays the temperature increases but not the decreases in our ocean water. If the yearly average temp is up by two degrees, they make it seem like the end of the world. Yet, year after year, we never hear what the yearly avereage is again untill that high is finally broken again. Why do they do this? Because there's an agenda to never
make us feel like we are not safe. We are suppose to always feel like we are in danger of global extenction so that people can make money off suckers. The day the media says we are safe, is the day many will go "Oh I don't have to change much" The feeling of being save slows down our building in technologhy, makes some scientist and politicains seem less needed, and sets
a relaxing status quo. There's nothing to fear but fear itself and it's being used right now."
First off, have you considered the possibility that what you hear is not what everyone else hears? Second, if the yearly average temperature went up by two degrees from one year to the next it WOULD BE the end of the world. Average global temperatures do not fluctuate from year to year by that degree (rarely do they do so by more than a tenth of a degree). Not that they need to...a few degrees is significant to do plenty of damage. If we go up even a hair over the .8-6.0 degrees expected in the next hundred years (a significant acceleration when one considers the .4 degree increase of the last century) then its likely quite literally the end.
However, let's speak to other element that is ridiculously misrepresented in this little section of your tirade -- the suggestion that the media talking up global warming, a concept that's nearly as ridiculous as the fabled "liberal media bias" of the U.S. (you know, the media that is over 90% owned, down to the smallest newspaper, magazine, tv station and studio by only five companies, all of which have strong conservative ties...but that's another caveat.) I honestly don't know where to start with this one. For as long as global warming has been known about the media, in general, has been complicent in downplaying its relevance. Only when the environmental movement garnered enough support and the scientific community became insistent upon their position did they even begin to explore the possibility of negative consequences of this trend to any depth. Still today the media rarely strays far from it's corporate and political allegiances to address the newest wave of research which suggests we're already at, if not beyond, the point of no return.
You would have us believe, however, that the media has oversold us on the seriousness of global warming, using fear-mongering to promote a non-existent crisis. Don't get me wrong, I happen to agree this is one of the most commonly employed social-control mechanisms in the States and the world at large today. It is without a fact a guiding principal of how the media works. However, it's ridiculous to believe this influence would be brought to bear to inflate the significance of global warming as opposed to burying (as indeed it has). The influence of specific persons and organizations that would have anything to gain from blowing up the significance of global warming is minscule, non-existent by scale in fact, compared to that of the many special interests who have significant invested interest in downplaying global warming.
I can go on and on from here -- I certainly haven't scratched the surface of the physical evidence for global warming, nor that of the contributing factors -- but I suspect in this case its going to fall upon deaf ears, but I've written, I believe, more than enough to support my basic suggestion to you that before you promote your idea of the status of climate change any further (and I've seen your kind of reasoning spread fast within the misinformed) you do some very, very basic research beyond chucking some ice into an aquarium. Again, you're going to have to forgive my zealousness with regard to this subject, but unlike killer bees we are in fact talking about something that may very well determine survival of the species and we're coming into a critical period. We can longer afford for anyone to hide themselves from the truth of this situation. If we fail to be realistic about the current state of affairs, it may be that within your lifetime, Fang, that you won't be able to wear that...hrm...smashing leather coat. I'd keep the sunglasses however -- they'll bring rare amusement to a dismal period if you insist upon wearing them and denying global dimming as it finishes the job and kills off the last vegetation and shatters the remenants of the global eco-system.
Perhaps I truely shouldn't be, but I'm simply stunned that the events of this last year have still failed to rouse so many people, Americans in particular, to the obvious truths of climate change. Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be; likely the weather always seems warm when your head is stuck up your ass.
Alright, so there you have it folks, my first post. Hopefully the next one will be considerably less strident and verbose but I see thread suggesting that rape is OVER-reported, so no promises. ;)
< Message edited by Caius -- 6/5/2006 5:46:08 AM >
|
RE: AlGore out of the running? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread