Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you.

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy , all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy , all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

The functioning of Maverni inside a closed system that is very easy to grasp and which has a significant effect on the way people play a game.

vs.

The functioning of climate change in an open system that career scientists spend their entire lives attempting to grasp and which guides policy decisions that have significant effects on culture, capital, and lifestyles.


Ok I see your point now. perfectly analogous.

consequently, I should mention the major salience of the debate has nothing to do with whether their is actually global warming, but rather it cleaves along lines of "americans need to change their lifestyles" vs. "the rest of the world needs to change theres, or no one need change at all." As evidence, I offer only the rhetoric in this thread. Notice the consistency of those who insist GW is a problem, versus the the movement between several arguments of those who do not think it is a problem. From the latter, we see everything from there is no GW, to the sun is causing GW (thus we can't stop it with our actions) to GW is happening but is a good thing. In all of these cases, also notice that the consequence of the "truth" about GW, or lack thereof, is always to allow _americans_ to retain their lifestyles and consumption patters; on top of that sometimes the rest of the world will be required to make a large change (such as Bangledesh farmers moving to Siberia). Whatever the argument chosen and its ultimate effect on policy, it is never the americans that need to make a change.

Think about it. or just think at least. I see very little of that actually happening.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.

Regardless of discussions like this, regardless of who is right. There is NO valid argument to further delay a switch to ecologically sustainable way of life.

Actually there is. Economic costs. Switching to ecologically sustainable way of life now, with our current technology, could be more expensive than waiting a few years for better research and retooling the entire world then. Say if we wait for fusion technology, or the next generation solar cells, it will all be better.

(I don't agree with it, but it is an argument).

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

(I agree with this one, so while I'm a total longhaired smelly hippy. I'm pro nuclear energy).

There you have it. To arguments against.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they strongly disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Edited

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Not often on these subjects, at least not on boards not about these subjects (of course I'm exaggerating a bit). Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

It would seem that for the most part, this should not be an enormous issue, though wind is not one of my favorite prospects anyway. But we have to bear in mind that capturing energy is not a one way trip. The great majority of that energy will be dispersed shortly after collection, in the form of heat. The thermal radiation from factories, and engines and such will help to maintain turbulence in the atmosphere due to convection. I still think that geothermal and solar are our best bets.

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Some people even dispute that. Some say that fossil fuels are created by some strange process in the earth crust.

Well, if they believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old, then the creation of oil must necessarily be rather quick.




And Licker, we were all having a somewhat rousing, but engaging and (mostly) polite discussion of this subject. It really seems that the only one not worth discussing it with is you, so I wonder why you decided that you had to begin to try to sabotage this thread by trolling and making personal attacks?

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

It would seem that for the most part, this should not be an enormous issue, though wind is not one of my favorite prospects anyway. But we have to bear in mind that capturing energy is not a one way trip. The great majority of that energy will be dispersed shortly after collection, in the form of heat. The thermal radiation from factories, and engines and such will help to maintain turbulence in the atmosphere due to convection. I still think that geothermal and solar are our best bets.

It could create more powerful storms. As I live in a country that once had around 1/12 of it destroyed by a storm, and which also is around 50% under the sea level. I would rather not have more dangerous storms. I kinda like it here, no dangerous animals. Mostly liberal laws. Good healthcare, good job opportunities. (I do like geothermal and solar energy. That is heat that is otherwise wasted. We could also use other forms waste heat more efficiently. Some Russian cities have used waste energy from electricity plants to great effect for example).

Well, if they believe that the Earth is only 7000 years old, then the creation of oil must necessarily be rather quick.

Yeah, but I believed it wasn't religious nuts. More fuel industry nuts. There is more on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Note, that I don't believe it. But I also don't have any knowledge about it. They could be right. I just don't know.

[licker]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

And Licker, we were all having a somewhat rousing, but engaging and (mostly) polite discussion of this subject. It really seems that the only one not worth discussing it with is you, so I wonder why you decided that you had to begin to try to sabotage this thread by trolling and making personal attacks?

roflmao...

Sure whatever, maybe you were late to the thread or maybe you have your blinders on, but me thinks thou doth protest too much. Seriously, what personal attacks are you referring to? The ones where I called someone who was being rude, rude? The ones where I used the same rhetoric 'your side' was using on me on you?

I dunno, I'm not complaining about anything anyone has said to me, and it was likely much more personal than anything I've said to you. Jeez, lets see, you make a post calling me a)an idiot, or b)an idiot... wowsers Jim, you sure got your internet etiquette down.

Did you look at the last link I provided? Do you care to actually look at research which doesn't fit with your view of GW? Do you actively seek it out on your own?

Like I said, you want a real discussion on this topic take it to PM, this thread isn't going to get it done anymore.