Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The Kyoto Accord, good or bad?


Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 3:19 pm    Post subject: The Kyoto Accord, good or bad? Reply with quote

This is my essay for law class, in its entirety, on the Kyoto Accord. I hope you can read it, and respond to it intelligently. If you do not agree, then that is perfectly fine, but please do not resort to personal attacks against me.


Humans, more than all other creatures, have a need to understand the world around them. When something changes, we might find out what is causing the change, why it causes that change, and whether or not the change is a good or bad thing. Humans like to feel in control; able to stop the change if need-be. This need for control, however, can in our pursuit of answers lead us down the wrong path. This is just the case of the theory of Global Warming. The significant temperature rise from 1970 to 1998 had people confused, and when someone suggested, with a moderate amount of evidence, that human-caused emissions trapped heat inside the atmosphere, people were only too eager to believe this theory, and begin to brainstorm as to how to stop these emissions. However, the theory of Global Warming, as well as the evidence behind it, is seriously flawed. Nonetheless, the governments of the world got together and in December, 1997, created the Kyoto Accord. One would expect the Kyoto Accord to have sensible, long-term solutions to the alleged problem it was supposed to deal with, however it instead offered band-aid solutions that will have little long-term effect, even if global warming is real. Other programs, such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, offer much better and economically viable solutions. The Kyoto Accord, on the other hand, seriously impairs the economies of developed nations, which slows down scientific development. The Kyoto Accord has asked the world to spend and exorbitant amount of money on a non-solution to a problem that does not exist, and is therefore detrimental to Canada, as well as the world at large.

The Kyoto Accord, with its overwhelming costs, is aimed at solving the problem of Global Warming. The basis for this campaign against Global Warming is a theory that greenhouses gases (GHG) released into the atmosphere, while not blocking off shortwave heat energy coming from the Sun, trap heat bouncing off the surface of the earth, as this reflected heat has much longer frequencies. The major GHG that the Kyoto Accord focuses on is Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This theory is supported by a positive correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature, the fact that CO2 levels are very high when compared to recorded past, and that average temperature increased significantly from the late 19th and early 20th century to 1998, which was the time period shortly after the dawn of the industrial revolution. Those in favour of Kyoto cite many accurate, yet misleading statistics to back up the theory of Global Warming. The first such statistic is the correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures. Yes, it is most certainly true that there is such a correlation, however this in no way proves a causal relationship. In fact, once the full reality of the correlation is revealed, the idea of CO2 causing Global Warming is attacked, rather than supported. This is because CO2 fluctuations actually lag behind temperature fluctuations by about 800 years. What this means is that temperature changes, and then 800 years later a similar change in CO2 levels occurs [1]. Assuming CO2 is incapable of time travel, this draws considerable doubt on the idea that CO2 causes increases in temperature. The more logical idea, which is supported by science, is that it is actually rising temperatures that causes an increase in CO2, not the other way around. This is because when oceans heat up, the water molecules move around faster, losing their ability to hold in CO2 molecules. Since oceans account for almost ½ of yearly CO2 released into the atmosphere [2], this causes a significant increase in CO2 levels. Another claim made by those in favour of Kyoto is that current temperature levels are the highest ever. The “Mann Hockey Stick” is the graph of choice to express this claim. This is the “Mann Hockey Stick”:


[7]

If this graph is accurate, then it certainly paints a convincing picture. The temperature of the last century, according to this graph, is clearly the hottest, and by a wide margin at that. However, the validity of this graph has been called into serious question. This is because in order to get this graph, Michael Mann, the lead scientist behind it, used an algorithm on tree ring data that he collected. This Algorithm has been used with randomly chosen numbers and still produced a hockey stick graph [4]. Empirical evidence of the past, namely the colony created in the now frigid Greenland, and numerous productive vineyards in England, which would be impossible in today’s climate due to cold, suggest that, in the northern hemisphere at least, temperatures have been much higher than what they are today. Here is a more accurate model of the temperature of the last 2000 years:



[7]

In this graph, it is clear that while the temperature has risen in the last 300 years, it is still well below the temperatures during the “medieval warm period”. This suggests that the warming we have seen is well within natural boundaries, and is not definitive proof that Global Warming exists. Despite this, many prominent Kyoto supporters, such as Al Gore, maintain that the debate over global warming in scientific circles is over. This statement simply is not true. In fact, recently the U.S. Senate compiled a list of over 400 prominent scientists, of various fields related to climate from all over the world, who publicly and openly disagree with the findings of the IPCC. Among these scientists is Timothy Ball, the first ever Canadian PhD in climatology [7]. This theory of Global Warming, however, this is not the first time that human-caused emissions have been blamed for a major climate shift. A similar theory was presented in the 1970s, and its name was Global Cooling [8]. The theory then was that the gases emitted by industrial activity were blocking the Sun’s rays. The evidence for global cooling was the extremely low temperatures and the negative correlation between temperature and CO2 from the late 40’s to early 70’s. The fact is that people are too quick to blame human activity for the world’s problems. It is possible for something to significantly increase quality of life without destroying the earth, despite what many fear-mongerers would have people believe. For this reason, spending enormous resources on the Kyoto Accord in order to battle a problem that, in all likelihood, does not exist, is wasteful and ridiculous.


Even if, regardless of all this evidence to the contrary, Global Warming is in fact a result of human-caused emissions, the Kyoto accord is still doing nothing to help the world. This is because Kyoto is orchestrated as the model to inefficiency, and instead of attempting to cause sustainable emission reductions, offers only band-aid solutions that would only briefly delay climate change. The Kyoto Accord requires emission cuts only for developed nations, such as Canada. Countries such as India and China need only to record their emissions, and have no requirement to reduce them in the slightest, despite China and India being #1 and #5 on the list of greenhouse gas emitters, respectively. If Global Warming is real, and if India and China begin releasing emissions with per capita levels similar to developed nations, the results could be disastrous. Also, businesses can simply move their CO2 producing factories to developing nations, meaning that the Kyoto Accord will only shift where CO2 is released, and will do very little to reduce world emissions. This shift, however, will hurt the economies of developed nations who signed the treaty. The Kyoto Accord is also entirely unfair to Canada; since the EU, who designed the protocol, give themselves credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet plants, Canada is one of the very few countries that is actually obliged to significant emission reductions. Even with their alleviated burden, however, many EU nations are still projected to not reach their target goals, such as Italy and Portugal. The fact is that the Kyoto Accord has in the past years, and will in the future, do nothing to prevent the rise of CO2 emissions.

Not only is the lack of enforcement a cause for concern, but the Kyoto Accord’s whole plan at tackling CO2 emissions is also flawed. Even if all countries met their targets, the emission levels would still be only slightly lower than 1990 emission levels in developed nations, while it would be quite higher in developing nations. According to those who drafted the Kyoto protocol, the emissions during the late 80s and early 90s contributed significantly to a rise in global temperature. The Kyoto Accord, then, is only delaying Global Warming, and is not a solution to the problem. The fact of the matter is that with our current technological capabilities, it is impossible for humanity to reduce our emissions so significantly in a sustainable manner. Even the IPCC states that Global Warming is not a 10 or 20-year problem, but a 50-100 year problem. This means that scientific discovery and technological development has time to come up with a solution that will reduce emissions, but will not hurt the economy. If, however, the economies of the western world are destroyed in a vain attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there will be no money available to support this development. Throughout history, scientific and technological development has occurred while the economy was strong. This is because if there is barely money to afford essentials such as food and housing, there will certainly be no money to pay the enormous funds significant research and development require. There are a few economically viable ways to reduce emissions, such as giving tax benefits to those who buy hybrid cars, however the amount of emissions reduction stated under the Kyoto Accord would require companies to significantly reduce their production, which would in turn lead to lay-offs and a crippled economy. Trying to slowly curb the growth of emissions without hurting the economy, as well as looking into technological advancement to reduce emissions in a sustainable fashion, is a long-term solution to the alleged problem of Global Warming that is far more economically viable than the Kyoto Accord, which will only delay the problem.

As previously alluded to, the Kyoto Accord is an economical abomination. Described as having “economy-killing restrictions”, the Kyoto Accord hurts industries, the heart of the North American economy. Expecting businesses in North America to abide by the restrictions of the Kyoto Accord while businesses in China and India can indulge freely is unrealistic and outrageous. As previously stated, businesses have and will move factories to third world countries rather than deal with the restrictive policies of countries trying to abide by the Kyoto Accord. This means that while emissions are not reduced, the economies of western nations are decimated. President Bush estimates that the Kyoto Accord would have cost America $400 billion and 4.9 million jobs. This loss would have devastated both the American and the world economy, as well as ruining the lives of almost 5 million people put out of work. These dire consequences are simply not necessary in fighting climate change. For example, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), which has been both signed and ratified by America and Australia, the two major holdouts on the Kyoto Accord, focuses on emission reduction through the development and sharing of technology, rather than the destruction of western economies. Rather than harsh, sweeping reductions that are not realistic, the APP allows countries to address climate concerns at their own pace, which means that the economies of these countries have not, in recent past, been harmed. This plan is also more effective, as China and India are actually encouraged to reduce their emissions, as opposed to the Kyoto Accord, where they are merely asked to record them. The APP is a long-term solution to a long-term problem, not merely a bandaid solution that will do nothing in the long run. Developing technology that allows a reduction in emissions without a reduction in production will fight climate change, even with population growth. It will also stimulate the economy, rather than harm it. The Kyoto Accord, on the other hand, will do nothing more than harm the economies of the Western World, which will only impede technological development. Additionally, as population increases, production will have to increase to meet our needs, and so sinse Kyoto does not encourage an increase in efficiency, but instead a decrease in production, it is not a viable long-term solution. As previously mentioned, under the Kyoto Accord businesses in North America face unfair competition and unrealistic goals forced upon them, which hurts the economy, costs money, and loses jobs. In the words of the Prime Minister: “…there are no Canadian winners under the Kyoto Accord”. Due to its inefficiency, unfairness to North America, and the availability of better alternatives in terms of the economy, the Kyoto Accord should be abandoned by Canada, as well as the world at large.



Global Warming, the surety of its existence, and the threat is causes if true, have been entirely overblown, not only by the media, but even by the more reputable proponents of the theory. It is possible to have a reasonable discussion as to the severity of Global Warming, whether it exists, and what should be done about it. However, when those such as Al Gore say that the debate is over, and that if everyone does not listen to him and do exactly as he says everyone will be dead in 20 years, the scientific topic of Global Warming and anthropogenic emissions becomes heated and politicized. The fact is that the debate is not over, and there are reputable scientists on both side of the issue, all of whom have good reason and evidence to support their beliefs. However, regardless of how serious Global Warming is, economically atrocious treaties such as the Kyoto Accord are simply not the way to solve it. The only way to deal with Global Warming in the long run, regardless of population growth or the industrialization of the Third-World, is to create new technology that allows companies to manufacture their product at the same rate as usual, but with more efficiency. Expecting companies to significantly lower their production based on a theory is unrealistic and unfair. Certainly, the world cannot simply ignore global warming, however to throw away money and jobs over a problem that may not even exist is rash and unneeded. The solution to this problem, like almost every other problem, is to focus on technology. A plan like the APP is a perfect example of what the world should be doing, rather than wasting money on the Kyoto Accord. The APP is taking measures to make sustainable reductions to CO2 emissions, but is not committing economic suicide by doing it. Canada has already taken the first step by becoming the 7th nation of the APP. This technology-focused initiate, while it will not show immediate results, will over the course of the next century prove far more useful than Kyoto. Companies simply cannot continue to serve a smaller and smaller portion of the population as time goes on, but they can reduce emissions, if given the means to do so. This will only happen if the world, as a whole, abandons Kyoto and focuses on good old fashioned R&D.




Bibliography

[1]http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/dont-confuse-ch.html

[2]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/17/earthlog117.xml

[3] http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/Manns-hockey-stick.gif

[4] http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

[5]http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

[6] http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/cat_climate_part_2.html

[7] http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/

[7] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319

[8] http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2003/oct/031008a.html

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=251682888980468

http://www.nrsp.com/Broten-07.04.18-audit%20centre%20notification.html

http://www.helium.com/items/294938-kyoto-protocol-attempt-develop

http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org/

http://www.thestar.com/article/176382

Back to top
Lynolf



Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 546

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I haven't read the entire post yet, but just for the work you had to write such a big text and putting graphics there, I have to say you have my appreciation. Good job! Very Happy

Edited: My knowledge about the Kyoto Accord is very reduced, but I can always say this:

Which is more important: The safety of the world or the richness of a country? Not to mention that there can't be one thing without the other. Countries shouldn't be so sellfish and worry only about their money. They should think in working together to "save the world", no mather how much resources they have to spend to do it. This isn't a thing for others to do: its for everyone.
Back to top
Feodoric



Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, thanks for posting.

This paper does not provide a credible or convincing argument against global warming. You don't argue against the science; you simply attempt to discredit it. In reality, the science behind climate change is pretty well understood. Climate change was predicted back in the late 1800s when Stefan and Boltzmann were advancing thermodynamics. The physics behind climate change is very solid; the theories predicting climate change are definitely correct, and have been subjected to repeated verification.

So if you're going to argue against climate change, you can't argue against the theories themselves; you have to somehow claim that they have been incorrectly applied. I think that's the claim you're trying to make when you say that the "hockey stick" graph is erroneous. I don't think you proved your point there. What do you mean when you say the graph can be produced by random numbers? How does that lead to the conclusion that the graph presents false information? You haven't shown us the error scientists have made.

The source you site on that point is a paper from an Australian organization called "The Lavoisier Group," and it's basically anti-global warming propaganda. The paper was written by the founder of The Lavoisier Group, Ray Evans, who is a former executive at Australia's Western Mining Corporation (WMC). I got that information from http://www.sourcewatch.org/ .

I have more problems with your argument, but I think this is enough for now.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thankyou for your response, and for keeping it civil. Firstly, it is not just the source that I cited which discredits the Mann Hockey stick, it is thoroughly discredited. My point about the random numbers is that the tree ring data they collected did not lead to the hockey stick, it was the algorithm they used that produced the hockey stick. This is why the graph is erroneous: it is based on an artifically created algorithm, NOT emperical evidence. Also, I am not arguing that climate does not change, I am simply arguing that CO2 has, at best, a very minor impact on that change. Additionally, you stated that predictions were made in the 1800s about climate change. I am curious to know what these predictions were, what they were based on, and how accurate they have proven. The reason I attempt only to discredit the theory of Global Warming is because the burden of proof does not lie on me, as I am arguing the negative. Those arguing that global warming is real must prove their case, they cannot simply state a theory and expect me to disprove it, as disproving something takes far more than proving something.


to Lynolf: While it is true that saving the world is more important than maintaining the economy, my argument is that Kyoto does not save the world, and hinders our ability to do so by hurting the economy. Historically, it has been in times of economic strength that the most advances are made. For example, there was not very much scientific or technological advancement during the Great Depression, because people were too worried about food and shelter for there to be any money spent on research and development. Also, you stated that saving the world is for everyone, which is something I agree with entirely. This is one of my problems with Kyoto, it puts overwhelming burdens on countries such as my own, Canada, while putting no burden on countries such as China and India, both of which emit CO2 at levels higher than Canada. If Kyoto would actually save the world, and was an agreement that put responsibility on everyone, then my essay would have been for it. Sinse it is neither of those things, I wrote my essay in the negative.


Thankyou again to both Lynolf and Feodoric for keeping their posts respectful, and for sticking to the issues at hand.
Back to top
Quantumdemon



Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 67

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You do realize that the first graph cites evidence such as core samples, tree rings and temperature gauges and the one you compared it to sites nothing at all...

Also, basic logic defeats arguments against global warming.

Green House gases are what keep heat in the atmosphere on Earth, this is accepted by both sides.

Co2 is a Green House gas, this is also accepted by both sides.

So...if Green House gases keep temperature in, and Co2 is a green house gas, the last 200 years of the industrial revolution where record levels of Co2 have been released into the atmosphere OBVIOUSLY just might have a lot to with sudden global temperature rises? Why is there an argument at all? Seriously, we all are left brain thinkers for the most part here. Let logic prevail.

Obviously Co2 admissions arent the only cause for global temperature rise. The Earth has been through many natural occuring ice ages and warming periods but the fact remains, aside from drastic global events like a meteor strike...there has never been this rapid of a climate change within a relatively short period of time. Most of the previous climate changes happen within millions if only hundreds of thousands of years. This is all happening within a period of 200 years.

The Kyoto Accord is okay if you care about averting pollution from causing global contastrophe... if not, then it sucks.
Back to top
flea



Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always referred to it as the kyoto protocol, but im not one hundred percent sure about the actual name seeing as that is not incredibly important. I agree strongly with your stance about the failure of the kyoto protocol to prevent future global warming. Its introduction of emission credits have now left the air up for privatization. The air we breathe and the atmosphere we live in can be purchased by large corporations to do what they please with it. Every person owns a piece of air and it is unfair to allow tycoons to control almost infinite credits because they are purchasing them from smaller countries that do not produce as much. Instead of capping the amount of pollution a business can produce, alternative energy solutions have to be introduced to promote a cleaner environment. Its fallacious to suggest though that businesses emit virtually no CO2 or other green house gases, but decreasing the amount is certainly a feasible and realisitc option which advocates against global warming should support. Kyoto was a small step in the right direction, but still it is very far from curtailing the emissions produced by industrial giants.
Back to top
Feodoric



Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What thermodynamics and chemistry predict is that CO2 absorbs heat and prevents it from diffusing out of the atmosphere. I can elaborate on the science of that if you want; as Quantumdemon said and you admitted, there is a scientific consensus on the existence of the greenhouse effect. That's what I was referring to as being predicted in the late 1800s. But it looks like we've moved past that. So it's agreed: the greenhouse effect exists.

But of course there are more factors than just the greenhouse effect that influence day to day temperatures. Weather patterns, etc. What you claim is that the greenhouse effect has little to no impact on the climate, and that the climate science people use to confirm the historical and current correlations between CO2 levels and temperature are faulty.

Now, I don't know climate science. I know physics pretty well, since I'm majoring in it, and I know that the greenhouse effect exists and is completely consistent with proven theory. But I don't know climate science, and so I trust the unbiased and vast majority.

I really don't understand your distrust. The only studies that should be doubted are those that are funded by people who will profit from a particular result. You mistrust the majority of scientists, who have no ties to the oil and gas industry and thus no reason to lie to the public, and instead trust those scientists who are paid by the oil and gas company! Most of your sources are funded by those organizations.

Just take a step back and look at it from a more logical perspective. If you're buying a used car and want to know what kind of shape it's in, do you trust the mechanic paid by the used car dealer or an independent mechanic? If every mechanic paid by the used car dealer says the car is fine, and every mechanic not paid says it's going to break after 50 miles, I think you know who to trust.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quantumdemon wrote:
You do realize that the first graph cites evidence such as core samples, tree rings and temperature gauges and the one you compared it to sites nothing at all...

Also, basic logic defeats arguments against global warming.

Green House gases are what keep heat in the atmosphere on Earth, this is accepted by both sides.

Co2 is a Green House gas, this is also accepted by both sides.

So...if Green House gases keep temperature in, and Co2 is a green house gas, the last 200 years of the industrial revolution where record levels of Co2 have been released into the atmosphere OBVIOUSLY just might have a lot to with sudden global temperature rises? Why is there an argument at all? Seriously, we all are left brain thinkers for the most part here. Let logic prevail.

Obviously Co2 admissions arent the only cause for global temperature rise. The Earth has been through many natural occuring ice ages and warming periods but the fact remains, aside from drastic global events like a meteor strike...there has never been this rapid of a climate change within a relatively short period of time. Most of the previous climate changes happen within millions if only hundreds of thousands of years. This is all happening within a period of 200 years.

The Kyoto Accord is okay if you care about averting pollution from causing global contastrophe... if not, then it sucks.



Your argument that Greehouse Gases cause temperature change, and CO2 is a GHG, therefore CO2 has a lot to do with temperature change, is very weak. While both of those statements are true, CO2 is one of the most minor GHGs, the most common and effective being water vapour. Nobody is arguing that CO2 has 0 effect on temperature, I am arguing that the effect caused by CO2 released by humans on temperature is very small, and is not the global concern it has been presented as. Also, the warming that occured in the last 200 years is by no means an unprecedentedly rapid change in temperature, it is fast, however it began from a time that was so cold it was called the "little ice age". That time was the coldest in the last 2000 years. It is perfectly natural for warming to occur quite rapidly after such a deep cold. You also brought up the validity of the 2 graphs i provided. One was made using an algorithm that, when applied to random numbers, produces the same "hocky-stick" style graph. The tree ring and ice-core samples, as I have already stated, did not cause the graph to show the data that it does, the algorithm did. The 2nd graph has not been disputed, and actually came from the IPCC, which is one of the premier supporters of the Global Warming theory.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Feodoric wrote:
What thermodynamics and chemistry predict is that CO2 absorbs heat and prevents it from diffusing out of the atmosphere. I can elaborate on the science of that if you want; as Quantumdemon said and you admitted, there is a scientific consensus on the existence of the greenhouse effect. That's what I was referring to as being predicted in the late 1800s. But it looks like we've moved past that. So it's agreed: the greenhouse effect exists.

But of course there are more factors than just the greenhouse effect that influence day to day temperatures. Weather patterns, etc. What you claim is that the greenhouse effect has little to no impact on the climate, and that the climate science people use to confirm the historical and current correlations between CO2 levels and temperature are faulty.

Now, I don't know climate science. I know physics pretty well, since I'm majoring in it, and I know that the greenhouse effect exists and is completely consistent with proven theory. But I don't know climate science, and so I trust the unbiased and vast majority.

I really don't understand your distrust. The only studies that should be doubted are those that are funded by people who will profit from a particular result. You mistrust the majority of scientists, who have no ties to the oil and gas industry and thus no reason to lie to the public, and instead trust those scientists who are paid by the oil and gas company! Most of your sources are funded by those organizations.

Just take a step back and look at it from a more logical perspective. If you're buying a used car and want to know what kind of shape it's in, do you trust the mechanic paid by the used car dealer or an independent mechanic? If every mechanic paid by the used car dealer says the car is fine, and every mechanic not paid says it's going to break after 50 miles, I think you know who to trust.


Firstly, scientists absolutely have reason to say that there are problems in the world. They only get funding for research if there is a problem to be solved. Also, many environmentalist organizations fund scientists who happen to support the theory of AGW. Why is it that a scientist paid $100,000 by Greenpeace is unbiased, but one paid $10,000 by Exxon is? Also, unless you have evidence that all of the over 400 scientists collected by the U.S. Senate who openly oppose the theory of global warming, you really have no right to claim that they are all biased. I also know, as a quite open capitalist, that there is a lot of anti-capitalist, anti-corporation, pro-socialist sentiment out there, and what they want and what people like Al Gore call for are very similar. But, if you take a step back, all of this is essentially irrelevant. The lag in the correlation is a scientific fact, oceans causing almost 1/2 of the world's CO2 emissions is a fact, and the increase in ocean's release of CO2 by increasing temperatures is a fact. None of this is disputed. Also, as I mentioned in a previous post, CO2 is one of many GHGs. CO2 accounts for a very small portion of the Greenhouse effect, and human-caused CO2 emissions account for even less. Again, nobody is saying that CO2 does not cause SOME warming, I am simply saying that the warming it causes is very minor, and is by no means a cause for alarm. Additionally, I am arguing that Kyoto does not solve the problem of Global Warming, and it costs the world an enormous sum of money, hindering our ability to develop technology to fight Global Warming, if it does turn out to be a serious issue.

Also, I would like to point out that it is possible for scientists to be wrong. The scientists who proposed the theory of Global Cooling had as much bias as the Global Warming scientists do today. Now, certainly, we know more today than we did 30 years ago, but who knows what we learn about climate change in the next 30 years.
Back to top
Eldariel
Level 3 Judge


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

All I can say is, you're subjected to too much American propaganda.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eldariel wrote:
All I can say is, you're subjected to too much American propaganda.


I am Canadian. Also, I specifically requested that you make intelligent arguments with substance, rather than resorting to personal attacks. If you do not have anything of substance to say, please do not post in this thread.
Back to top
Rosie



Joined: 29 Feb 2008
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Might want to bring up how in the 1970's, everybody was concerned about global cooling; scientists were convinced that they was going to be another ice age.

Your argument could be that global temperature is a periodic function, and that currently we are approaching the maximum of the function over the period.

i could write out the analysis of proving its periodic, based off data, if you wish/ provide the data (grad in mathematics right here).
Back to top
Eldariel
Level 3 Judge


Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 277

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

America = a continent, not a country. That wasn't a personal attack, that was a statement that should contain sufficient information to draw upon; you seem to selectively be choosing sources which support your claims ignoring all the evidence in the contrary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Here's a quote:
"These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with some findings of the IPCC, the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions."

I simply don't see a reason to present elaborate arguments on trivial facts. No new information can be derived from it; it's only spreading the information already available to those who would have missed it so having a discussion on the matter would be rather pointless.

Further, both sides are also likely to remain convinced on their viewpoints. There's enough data to go both ways on the internet for both sides to remain adamant in their views. Thus, the discussion wouldn't even relevantly impact the participating people, and god knows it wouldn't matter even if it did.
Back to top
kfcman



Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 733

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
Also, unless you have evidence that all of the over 400 scientists collected by the U.S. Senate who openly oppose the theory of global warming, you really have no right to claim that they are all biased.


If ALL of the scientists picked by congress openly oppose the idea of global warming, wouldn't that mean that they are biased in not supporting the theory? Also, keep in mind that if you get scientists that have consistent opinions and thoughts on the subject, it would be easy for them to spit out test results that would be decievingly in favor of the falseness of global warming.

Eldariel wrote:
America = a continent, not a country. That wasn't a personal attack, that was a statement that should contain sufficient information to draw upon; you seem to selectively be choosing sources which support your claims ignoring all the evidence in the contrary.


Yes, however, when you simply say, "America" and not South or North America, it would to most people mean, The United States of America, so it can get confusing. So it's just a matter of misunderstanding and clarification, as it's a little harder to clarify yourself due to absence of speech inflections over the internet.

And i must i agree that the same with many persuasive arguments there is source selection in favor of his position. But, many of the sources you can get information on about such a debated topic as global warming, even if you accept all sources, once proving their validity and credibility, that that information can be biased and maticulously selected. Most notably when specifically speaking of global warming, the scientists who do tests for the US Congress, who do not support the theory of global warming like i said before, they can do specific tests or alter test results to make it look as if global warming does not in fact exist.
Back to top
marten2



Joined: 03 Nov 2006
Posts: 22

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with Eldariel that an arguement about global warming and its cause is not going to change anyone's opinion. However, if I read it correctly, the main point of coolcreep's paper is pointing out that the kyoto accord is harmful and therefore should be abandoned. His opinion on the cause of global warming is just an arguement supporting his main point.

The reason people are arguing about your arguement, rather than about your main point is probably your writing style, Coolcreep (I am sorry if I wasn't supposed to comment on this, I just thought it might be important). What you have done is committing about half your article to illustrating
one of your arguement, whereas you could also have mentioned that it is just not yet determined what the cause is, without coming up with all your evidence, so that not everyone was distracted from your main point.

Concerning your main point, I agree on most things you have said. However, I would like to point out that it is in fact nessecary to disprove the theory, rather than that the other party have to prove their theory, as you said in one of your comments. This is because of the way science generally works: to explain something that cannot be explained by the current theories and modles, scientists will try to come up with a theory and collect evidence to make that theory as likely as possible. When it is likely enough, it will be accepted for truth untill someone disproves it.

Even though the existing theory is not yet as likely to be true as, for example, the evolution theory, it is accepted to be true by the majority and therefore must be disproved by experiments before it will be abandoned.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy