• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

Last edited:
Ah, the Onion, a most valuable resource but as far as I know we two are the only BFers who have ever cited it. Go figure. . .. ;)

Are we really? Hopefully we have brought this invaluable and reliable news outlet onto people's radar. Though I have to say for pure satire I prefer Breitbart :t:
 
This may have been mentioned in this thread way back in the multitude of posts, so I apologize in advance:

If I were to assume those of you are against AGW are correct, then do you consider it okay that we as humans are spewing chemicals and pollutants into the air?

I'm just always confused on this score because it seems like we should act on the problem regardless of whether AGW is true or not. Or is it literally just the principal of the thing, the "lie of AGW" itself?
 
This may have been mentioned in this thread way back in the multitude of posts, so I apologize in advance:

If I were to assume those of you are against AGW are correct, then do you consider it okay that we as humans are spewing chemicals and pollutants into the air?

I'm just always confused on this score because it seems like we should act on the problem regardless of whether AGW is true or not. Or is it literally just the principal of the thing, the "lie of AGW" itself?

You’re confused because apart from anti-big government ideologues and a handful of superannuated cranks, there is no “principled” opposition to AGW, just various interested parties (e,g., smokestack industry, miners) and hack politicians pandering to their base.
 
Last edited:
fugl,

While that may even be my personal bias, it seemed only fair to ask in the context of this thread what the motivation is with anti-AGW folks if for no other reason than insight on that perspective.

Let's say, for example, it really was some Big Lie, a huge conspiracy on the part of scientists. What then?

Are the anti-AGW out to "tell the truth" but at the same time still supporting some sort of anti-pollution agenda of their own?

Or do they honestly think that we're not really polluting the place and all is well with the world?

-----------

Something like this is playing out in California:

CARB made rules 10-odd years ago that go into force in 2019 over truck (big-rig) emmissions. The industry cites that the scientist who did the study that led to the law might have been wrong.

However, near as I can tell, at worst he is wrong about the specifics of diesel particulates causing cancer.

But even him being wrong does not negate that the discussion is about PM-2.5 pollution, which overall is known to be the worst kind of pollution.

So the truckers want to kill the CARB rule based on possible bad science, but seem to be overlooking that the general category of PM-2.5 is just bad for you according to all kinds of other legitimate science.

I guess in an ideal world, we'd kill the CARB rule for the bad diesel science, but turn right around and keep the rule just because it makes sense anyway. But that's not how government works, so is it okay to keep the rule for the wrong specific reason if it accomplishes a goal that is for the correct reasons in a broader sense?

-----------

An intellectual quandary that probably plays out quite a bit for truly legitimate reasons. But is it the same quandary for anti-AGW folks, or something else?

I think it's a fair enough question to bluntly ask...and would certainly change the tact I'd take when discussing this topic.
 
This may have been mentioned in this thread way back in the multitude of posts, so I apologize in advance:

If I were to assume those of you are against AGW are correct, then do you consider it okay that we as humans are spewing chemicals and pollutants into the air?

I'm just always confused on this score because it seems like we should act on the problem regardless of whether AGW is true or not. Or is it literally just the principal of the thing, the "lie of AGW" itself?

What a ridiculous posting.
...Assuming that some believe that it's 'okay' to trash our planet because they don't believe that man causes warming....outrageous.

And I could assume that many of the pompous AGW blowhards on this forum don't drive combustion engine cars, don't use oil or gas-fired furnaces to heat their homes, or don't use plastic products that are by-products of oil production, all because they 'imperil our planet' and increase CO2 levels.

But I'm not that naive.
It might just be that some of us 'deniers' are far better stewards of our planet than these hypocrites!
 
What a ridiculous posting.
...Assuming that some believe that it's 'okay' to trash our planet because they don't believe that man causes warming....outrageous.

And I could assume that many of the pompous AGW blowhards on this forum don't drive combustion engine cars, don't use oil or gas-fired furnaces to heat their homes, or don't use plastic products that are by-products of oil production, all because they 'imperil our planet' and increase CO2 levels.

But I'm not that naive.
It might just be that some of us 'deniers' are far better stewards of our planet than these hypocrites!
I'm a bit confused by your reply...it's a bit muddled by what seems like an immediate vitriol to an honest question and request for information. If I struck a nerve or mis-interpreted, I apologize, but it wasn't the intent.

My question was in earnest. It sounds like you are anti-AGW (note I avoided the "denier" label...I want to keep this cordial and non-antagonistic), correct?

If so...I honestly want to know your "take" on pollution's affects on the long-term health of the planet, where you think the tact of AGW adherents has gone wrong, etc. If you do not believe in AGW, that is fair enough.

I know of at least two "contingents" of anti-AGW folks: 1) those that are simply against the science but I know nothing of their background beliefs beyond that; 2) those that honestly believe there isn't a pollution problem (regardless of belief for or against AGW) and we're just fine right now.

That isn't to say I know everything about the anti-AGW side, so am looking for an education on that side of things, outside the immediate context of "AGW doesn't exist" and certainly without any of the hateful bias on either side.

Again, I'm not trying to take sides, just get perspective. Tough to have real conversation without some basic understanding of both sides, yes?

Cheers,
 
I'm a bit confused by your reply...it's a bit muddled by what seems like an immediate vitriol to an honest question and request for information. If I struck a nerve or mis-interpreted, I apologize, but it wasn't the intent.

My question was in earnest. It sounds like you are anti-AGW (note I avoided the "denier" label...I want to keep this cordial and non-antagonistic), correct?

If so...I honestly want to know your "take" on pollution's affects on the long-term health of the planet, where you think the tact of AGW adherents has gone wrong, etc. If you do not believe in AGW, that is fair enough.

If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time with that yokel, particularly now when he’s still upset over the results of the mid-terms.
 
If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time
Except that I am honestly curious...and litebeam's the only one that spoke-up.

I have always wondered, but like many people, just made assumptions about those against AGW. Lately, I've gotten it into my head to let people break or bend my assumptions, if they can be cordial about it and use the opportunity for what it is.

I've found having patience and learning about "the other side" has been educational. Sometimes I learn new things, sometimes it reinforces existing things, sometimes it changes me in ways I couldn't have predicted.

It's also a pet hypothesis of mine that two polarized sides yelling at each other without really knowing what is going on in their adversary's head is useless anyway. So might as well try to learn, sympathize, and really dig-in to opposing viewpoints.

Dunno, just seems like the right thing to do, in any case. I can't promise perfect neutrality, but I try the best I can to listen and understand.

I hope litebeam will see it that way, or someone else will step-in and patiently and peacefully enlighten me.
 
If I were you, I wouldn’t waste my time with that yokel, particularly now when he’s still upset over the results of the mid-terms.
Yawn...
Always one step behind, Fugs.
I cared little about the midterms, a loss of power in the House (or even Senate) was completely predictable and expected. What wasn't expected were gains in the Senate.
All I have ever cared about are the courts... On that front the effects of this administration will be very far reaching indeed.

Kevin, if my reaction was terse, I apologize. Most here banter in bad faith with those they disagree with on AGW. Many questions are framed with the obligatory nonsense: "Do you believe God allows global warming?" or "Do you think the Earth is 5000 years old?" I've addressed this stuff before many times.

I believe the Earth warms and cools over millennia. I think we need to be very careful with how we treat this planet, the effects are important and sometimes lasting.
Carbon taxes and credits are a complete scam, IMHO. It is why some want to further the AGW issue. M O N E Y.
 
Last edited:
Calvin, if my reaction was terse, I apologize. Most here banter in bad faith with those they disagree with on AGW.
Understood, and accepted.

I believe the Earth warms and cools over millennia. I think we need to be very careful with how we treat this planet, the effects are important and sometimes lasting.
Do you agree there is a pollution problem, just not that AGW should be the driver for "doing something about it"?

In other words, you might be okay with laws that cut-down emissions but only because "pollution is bad for other reasons"?

In other words, you don't need AGW as an "excuse" to do other things to cut-down on pollution?

And if I put words in your mouth, I apologize in advance. Feel free to correct me and clarify!

Carbon taxes and credits are a complete scam, IMHO. It is why some want to further the AGW issue. M O N E Y.
Yeah all of that stuff really makes me scratch my head and feels like a bait-n-switch really. Or a solution designed by the same bankers who brought us other over-complex and obfuscated methods to do things.

If we're going to tackle pollution, just tackle it head on and take responsibility for it.

For example...while China shutting down it's end of the word recycling chain is a complete nightmare, I really can't disagree with what they did. I was also shocked that we (the USA) didn't have our own ways of dealing with the problem ourselves. I found that a very sad realization (basically made me feel like all my recycling good deeds were a lie) and had to admit it was a long overdue comeuppance.

So similarly....yeah taxes and credits are just shifting the problem away to someone or somewhere else, but not an actual solution.

Thank you for resetting this and giving me a chance to understand your personal take on things, it's very appreciated. :t:
 
. . .It's also a pet hypothesis of mine that two polarized sides yelling at each other without really knowing what is going on in their adversary's head is useless anyway. So might as well try to learn, sympathize, and really dig-in to opposing viewpoints.. . .

Trouble is, sometimes one party’s “right”, with reason and concern for the public good on its side, and the other’s “wrong”—politically motivated, ignorant, corrupt.

.I hope litebeam will see it that way, or someone else will step-in and patiently and peacefully enlighten me.

Good luck on that. . .. ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top