The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 05-29-2009, 11:53 AM
DNA-1842's Avatar
DNA-1842 DNA-1842 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, Europe, Terra - ZZ9 PluralZAlpha
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Indestructible Object View Post
Actually you can run lots of stuff off garbage! You can get either bio-fuel for cars and such or methane gas for electricity from decomposing biological waist. It's also possible to recycle most of what we throw away, reducing the cost and energy required to make new stuff.
Plasmagasification!!
__________________
Gronda Gronda to all Zarking Hoopy Froods! Bowties are cool.
I Am A Friend Of


(And an indirectly founding patron of the Elizadolots Avatar Thingy.)
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-30-2009, 09:43 PM
sraviik's Avatar
sraviik sraviik is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: COOKIES
Posts: 413
Default

ahh... yes that's the one...

I don't believe i've really stated my position, so here it is.

restate...
I don't know that and therefore cannot say beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are solely responsible for global warming. we may have some of an effect but not near as much as many are trying to claim.

Last edited by sraviik : 05-31-2009 at 07:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 05-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

People generally over-emphasise the importance of belief when dealing with physical phenomena. Example: a car hitting a pedestrian at 40 miles per hour kills them around 85% of the time. A car hitting a pedestrian at 30 miles per hour kills them 45% of the time. Your chances of survival at 30mph is 55% and at 40mph, 15%. Of course these are average outcomes when lots of accidents are looked at. A freak occurence might allow someone to survive higher impact crashes or be killed at lower speeds, but you get the idea - you don't want to bet against the odds - when a big lump of metal drives into you you want it to be light and to be going as slowly as possible.

The beliefs of the driver don't have any effect on this. It's just physics. Whether the driver believes they are an amazing driver with superhuman reflexes, or that they believe their car has amazing brakes or that they are a safe driver and more skilled than the average joe is irrelevant. The car travelling at 30 mph moves 44 feet per second and it's just cold hard science (and metal) that does the rest.

Global warming is much the same. Dumping CO2 into the air raises the global temperature and melts glaciers and the polar ice caps. This is a fact, and has been measured extensively, observed with satellites and in the field. Belief is not relevant, physics is. Ice melts when it gets warmer. Some people deny this. It doesn't matter. Just like in the car, it's the physics which counts, not the belief. The effects of global warming will effect everyone regardless of their belief system. It's just cold hard science. No amount of belief in left wing conspiricy theories or "I looked out of my window and it's fine" will change the facts. There will be winners and losers and the effects everywhere won't be the same but extreme weather and the drying up of water systems upon which billions of people rely will lead to huge human suffering.

Last edited by Scribbler : 05-30-2009 at 10:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-31-2009, 07:57 AM
sraviik's Avatar
sraviik sraviik is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: COOKIES
Posts: 413
Default



this is a case of Correlation does not imply causation.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 05-31-2009, 08:33 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sraviik View Post
this is a case of Correlation does not imply causation.
What does imply causation in your book? The number of pirates does not imply causation, because there is obviously no cause-and-effect connection between pirates and climate. While such a connection is known from green house gasses since more then half a century. Your joke is funny but moot.

What your whole argumentation boils down to is: The temperature rises, green house gasses affect the climate, but I dont care anyway. May be it helps to cut CO2 emission, may be not. So, I suggest we do nothing for no reason.

I sincerely do not really understand the reasoning behind the choice for inaction.

And at that point the usual reply is: We dont know for sure... we dont know for sure... Yeah, right. Exactamente. Thats the whole point. We dont know for absolute certainty wether our CO2 emission have no effect at all or do indeed get millions of people to get killed. But a hole bunch of data points into the direction of the latter while nothing implies the first possibility to be correct. I mean, come on! At least admit that you are not arguing. You just dont give a damn. Fine.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:06 AM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sraviik View Post


this is a case of Correlation does not imply causation.
No. This is a case of giant amounts of evidence imply causation and you have decided to take no notice of it. People have known for 200 years that releasing CO2 into air causes it to warm up. Do you deny this basic piece of science? It's great because it's true, easily provable and actually useful, unlike your silly pirate graph. I find it odd that large cities in the US, Japan and Europe have had devastating environmental problems due to dumping crap into the air and yet people still don't believe that mankind can change the climate or air quality. London itself had major toxic fog problems in the 1950s, LA and Tokyo have had major problems too. Perhaps it's their imagination or maybe your pirates had something to do with it. In any case, if I (and the majority of climate scientists) are wrong and you are right, nothing happens. If you are wrong we are all buggered.
I have a newsflash for anyone who may be interested:

Other people exist.

Last edited by Scribbler : 05-31-2009 at 09:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:24 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

I'd be interested in knowing from where you obtained your pirate information. The Navy? Coast Guard? OGS?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:26 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
I'd be interested in knowing from where you obtained your pirate information. The Navy? Coast Guard? OGS?
Its from the Holy Spagethi Monster joke.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:27 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Ohhhhh.... THOSE pirates. I'm down with those pirates, and I bet they DO have something to do with global warming.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-31-2009, 09:32 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

That's a funny graph with some insincere itnention behind it. First of all, I question the data quality. Come on, 17 pirates today, that is beyond rdiciulous. Second, all this graph says is that the number of pirates has decreased over time while average temperatues have increased. You don't need to have studied statistics to understand that you cannot throw two time series together, it's a bit more complicated than working with cross-sectional data.

If you wanna be sincere, plot CO2 emissions or aggregated CO2 emissions and average temperatures, then you should get a nice correlation. Add the theory of the greenhouse effect and TATA, the correlation becomes a causation.

But as Scribbler has indicated before, perhaps the problem is that third world countries are hit harder by climate change than we are and that some of us don't give a damn whether people on another continent die or not. Perhaps it is just as simple.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:19 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.