or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Good Ol' Days
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Good Ol' Days

post #1 of 44
Thread Starter 
Breitbart

I can see the future historical accounts now....

Remember the good ol' days when the United States used to unilaterally just go in and break countries that it deemed a threat as opposed to say... the entire planet?

It's a pretty simple question to consider when you think about it. If certain countries hold veto power over a climate resolution or fail to ratify a climate treaty and we are "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog," do we just get to take action on our own or do we have to all go over the cliff together?

Think of it as the torture question only with the entire planet as opposed to a building or city at stake. Do you go ahead and take action over the objections and right of others?

It isn't just United States Change/Warming. If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 44
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

--The Declaration of Independence, emphasis added

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #3 of 44
Hi. I am new to this forum, so don't go too hard on me!

This really is an interesting question you're posing here, trumpetman— but I believe your comparison to be flawed!

To begin, it seems that you're proposing a sort of "thought experiment", I think, where you seek to equate

those opposed to the unilateral invasion of Iraq

with

those who think that radical, unilateral measures to contain the problem of climate change are permissible.

It seems that the soi-disant point of your thread, the question If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do? is perhaps a pretext for you to be able to deduce from your "thought experiment" the result:

those who think that radical measures to contain the problem of climate change are needed or permissible are hypocrites, since they were opposed to the kind of unilateral action required by the invasion of Iraq.

To support this argument, I must note that Holdren

Quote:
characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view

and added that these actions

Quote:
could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly

so it does not look likely to be government policy. In other words, it is not an urgent question, so your aim in starting this thread (I suggest!) might not be the 'discussion' you claim you seek!

You also make the comparison between

those who are opposed to torture

and

those who think that radical measures to contain the problem of climate change are needed or permissible

but this is a poor comparison, I think, since you misconstrue the motives of those who object to torture. Those tortured in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in the European and Pacific "black sites" were not tortured to the background of a ticking clock. Torture presents moral problems that make the "ticking clock" argument a terrible over-simplification and not the strongest hook for you to hang your "thought experiment."

Well, my first post is a long one!

I'm glad to be a member of this community.
post #4 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

--The Declaration of Independence, emphasis added

I love noting to people that our Declaration of Independence has a built in self-destruct mechanism.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Internet Nickname View Post

Hi. I am new to this forum, so don't go too hard on me!

You certainly are something new to this forum, IN. This refreshing post contains complete sentences, coherent thoughts, a lack of distracting and cartoonish photos and finally only one insinuation about the intent of the original poster.

That is rare here indeed so congratulations and welcome!

Quote:
This really is an interesting question you're posing here, trumpetman— but I believe your comparison to be flawed!

To begin, it seems that you're proposing a sort of "thought experiment", I think, where you seek to equate

those opposed to the unilateral invasion of Iraq

with

those who think that radical, unilateral measures to contain the problem of climate change are permissible.

It seems that the soi-disant point of your thread, the question If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do? is perhaps a pretext for you to be able to deduce from your "thought experiment" the result:

those who think that radical measures to contain the problem of climate change are needed or permissible are hypocrites, since they were opposed to the kind of unilateral action required by the invasion of Iraq.

I'm simply scaling up the reasoning. If it is wrong to take unilater action to save people, a building, a city or perhaps even a country, it would be wrong to do so to save the planet as well correct?

Quote:
To support this argument, I must note that Holdren

Quote:
characterized the potential need to technologically tinker with the climate as just his personal view

and added that these actions

Quote:
could have grave side effects and would not completely solve all the problems from soaring greenhouse gas emissions. So such actions could not be taken lightly

The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

Certainly discussion is not action and an advisor to the president is not the president himself, but we can have a discussion before these items are being considered for a vote or being put into a bill. The point for now is only discussion.

Quote:
so it does not look likely to be government policy. In other words, it is not an urgent question, so your aim in starting this thread (I suggest!) might not be the 'discussion' you claim you seek!

The question for now is merely one of possibilities and of hypotheticals. Please try not to change the topic by attempting to read into the poster intent. As someone new here, there is no reason to not take someone at their word. Plus it is a bad habit that often leads one to begin attacking the poster rather than the material in the post. Such actions are dealt with rather strictly around here.

Quote:
You also make the comparison between

those who are opposed to torture

and

those who think that radical measures to contain the problem of climate change are needed or permissible

but this is a poor comparison, I think, since you misconstrue the motives of those who object to torture. Those tortured in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and in the European and Pacific "black sites" were not tortured to the background of a ticking clock. Torture presents moral problems that make the "ticking clock" argument a terrible over-simplification and not the strongest hook for you to hang your "thought experiment."

Actually I look at the actions of those who desire to protect. The scale is merely different. Some will claim they are protecting a building, city, state or country. Others will be claiming they are protecting the planet. The point is to what degree do you need the consent of those being protected while acting to protect them?

Quote:
Well, my first post is a long one!

I'm glad to be a member of this community.

Actually it isn't long at all and is well appreciated! Just don't get down on yourself if people who have understanding long posts complain about the lack of pretty pictures and one line quips.

Keep posting and nice to have you here.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #5 of 44
One big difference is that in combating global warming we are protecting ourselves from possible extinction, and you have the basic right to self defense - France does not get a veto on that.

Attacking Iraq was represented as self defense, but that turned out to be a big lie.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #6 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

One big difference is that in combating global warming we are protecting ourselves from possible extinction, and you have the basic right to self defense - France does not get a veto on that.

Attacking Iraq was represented as self defense, but that turned out to be a big lie.

So what about the very likely scenario where we are horribly inconvenienced, but no where near the extinction of the entire species?

I say this because I don't think I've read a scenario where the end of humans happens. Coastal flooding, lots of death, sure but extiction? Not so much.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #7 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So what about the very likely scenario where we are horribly inconvenienced, but no where near the extinction of the entire species?

Or what if even the more moderately negative consequences of global warming turn out to be a big lie?

Or what if the positive consequences of global warming outweigh the negative consequences?
post #8 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

So what about the very likely scenario where we are horribly inconvenienced, but no where near the extinction of the entire species?

I say this because I don't think I've read a scenario where the end of humans happens. Coastal flooding, lots of death, sure but extiction? Not so much.

There are a number of extinction events involved in global warming. The main two are:

1. De-oxygenation of the oceans results in rise of anarobic bacteria, which produce massive quantities of poison gas.

2. Release of methane from warmer oceans (continental shelves have big methane deposits around edges, about 1km down), results in a very fast 6 degree temperature rise, like what happened 55 million years ago (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum)

Also, even it if was just an inconvenience, how big does that have to be before you can take action over international objections? If the gulf stream stopped flowing that is a worse impact to western Europe than, say, Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was to the US.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #9 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Breitbart

I can see the future historical accounts now....

Remember the good ol' days when the United States used to unilaterally just go in and break countries that it deemed a threat as opposed to say... the entire planet?

It's a pretty simple question to consider when you think about it. If certain countries hold veto power over a climate resolution or fail to ratify a climate treaty and we are "in a car with bad brakes driving toward a cliff in the fog," do we just get to take action on our own or do we have to all go over the cliff together?

Think of it as the torture question only with the entire planet as opposed to a building or city at stake. Do you go ahead and take action over the objections and right of others?

It isn't just United States Change/Warming. If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do?

... false dilemma;

Quote:
The informal fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the "fallacy of false choice", or "the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses".

Nuff said.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #10 of 44
The current 2 party political system is a prime example of a false dilemma.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

There are a number of extinction events involved in global warming. The main two are:

1. De-oxygenation of the oceans results in rise of anarobic bacteria, which produce massive quantities of poison gas.

2. Release of methane from warmer oceans (continental shelves have big methane deposits around edges, about 1km down), results in a very fast 6 degree temperature rise, like what happened 55 million years ago (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum)

Also, even it if was just an inconvenience, how big does that have to be before you can take action over international objections? If the gulf stream stopped flowing that is a worse impact to western Europe than, say, Pearl Harbor or 9/11 was to the US.

Cool, so you view is that if we can prove to the satisfaction, I guess of ourselves that everyone is going to due then geoengineering is acceptable. Where is the line for you before that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... false dilemma;

Nuff said.

You are so cute when you try quote logical fallacies.

I'll tell you waht Frank. If you can show me the two choices YOU THINK I've outlined here for the false dilemma, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Have fun.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #12 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I love noting to people that our Declaration of Independence has a built in self-destruct mechanism.

Just a point of order:

The DoI is not a policy mandate, nor does it carry any legal obligation whatsoever. It's just a historical document, an argument presented to King George as a list of grievances.
post #13 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

Just a point of order:

The DoI is not a policy mandate, nor does it carry any legal obligation whatsoever. It's just a historical document, an argument presented to King George as a list of grievances.

I'm sorry, the chair did not recognize you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'm sorry, the chair did not recognize you.

I'm the one with the glasses and gray hair - easily recognizable. That's me in the back row.
post #15 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Cool, so you view is that if we can prove to the satisfaction, I guess of ourselves that everyone is going to due then geoengineering is acceptable. Where is the line for you before that?

I think that geoengineering is way too risky, personally. I think that we should take smaller steps to protect ourselves.

1. As I understand it, the anaerobic bacteria are currently well contained near ocean sulfur vents, we should send submarines down to spray oxygen on them until they are all dead. Safety through genocide. We would have to have pretty tough subs, though, as spraying oxygen on lava could be tricky.

2. We could mine the methane and burn it for fuel, since the CO2 produced is a much less effective greenhouse gas.

3. While we are at it, we should dismantle the dangerous parts of the Canary islands. They are a ticking time bomb, and we could break them up slowly to get rid of the risk of them falling apart all at once.

http://www.rense.com/general13/tidal.htm
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #16 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

I'm the one with the glasses and gray hair - easily recognizable. That's me in the back row.

Yes, well security has just escorted you out due to trying to hold the floor without recognition by the chair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think that geoengineering is way too risky, personally. I think that we should take smaller steps to protect ourselves.

1. As I understand it, the anaerobic bacteria are currently well contained near ocean sulfur vents, we should send submarines down to spray oxygen on them until they are all dead. Safety through genocide. We would have to have pretty tough subs, though, as spraying oxygen on lava could be tricky.

2. We could mine the methane and burn it for fuel, since the CO2 produced is a much less effective greenhouse gas.

3. While we are at it, we should dismantle the dangerous parts of the Canary islands. They are a ticking time bomb, and we could break them up slowly to get rid of the risk of them falling apart all at once.

http://www.rense.com/general13/tidal.htm

Interesting information, more please.

Let me ask you though, these smaller steps, to what degree do you think they would require global consensus?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #17 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Let me ask you though, these smaller steps, to what degree do you think they would require global consensus?

Well, requiring global consensus can be the same thing as committing suicide, so I'd say no. Just think of all the Greenies who would care about the bacteria I want to kill (and the people who live in the Canary Islands would probably care if I dismantled their islands).

For the most part, I don't think that the majority should be able to step on the rights of a minority group - but that stops for me at a certain point based on the size of the minority, and the impact on both groups.

Mining the methane from the continental shelf would have an impact on sea life, and undoubtedly you would have some idiot Greenpeace protesters in zodiacs trying to disrupt the mining operation. If we don't mine and burn the methane, almost all life on earth will die when it is released into the atmosphere. The risk/reward calculation makes me think that we have a valid reason to stomp on the veto power of Greenpeace, and other Greenpeace like idiots, in this case.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #18 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think that geoengineering is way too risky, personally.

Funny thing, geo-engineering has brought us here. So far we just called it "living".
post #19 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamac View Post

Funny thing, geo-engineering has brought us here. So far we just called it "living".

You may call it that, but "we" don't. The popular definition of the term is found here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoengineering
Quote:
The modern concept of geoengineering is usually taken to mean proposals to deliberately manipulate the Earth's climate to counteract the effects of global warming from greenhouse gas emissions.

I'm thinking e1618978 has the right of it - it's not something I'd like to see done, either.
post #20 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post

You may call it that, but "we" don't. The popular definition of the term is found here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeoengineeringI'm thinking e1618978 has the right of it - it's not something I'd like to see done, either.

Looks like the expression was first mentioned on wiki 12/14/2008.

You are seeing it done if you like it or not. The first guy to dig an irrigation canal was a "geo engineer". Until 12/14/08 they called it "planetary engineering". Maybe you like that term better.

Mankind has always dreamed to control the weather, we have succeeded! Hurray!
post #21 of 44
change != control
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

... show me the two choices I've outlined here for the false dilemma ...

Quote:
... do we just get to take action on our own or do we have to all go over the cliff together?

Your very words shown above fit the definition exactly.

False dilemma

Quote:
When a list of more than two choices are offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the "fallacy of false choice", or "the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses".

So we see that the definition isn't strictly bases on two choices.

I do believe that would cover whatever point you are not trying to make.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #23 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your very words shown above fit the definition exactly.

False dilemma



So we see that the definition isn't strictly bases on two choices.

I do believe that would cover whatever point you are not trying to make.

High five Frank! He uses that a lot!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #24 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your very words shown above fit the definition exactly.

False dilemma



So we see that the definition isn't strictly bases on two choices.

I do believe that would cover whatever point you are not trying to make.

I'll be happy to entertain the choices between taking action and not taking action that I left out.

Jesus, Frank I would PM you about this but you turned them off. I'm not trying to publicly embarrass you but please actually read your links.

I'm asking about the United States choosing to act unilaterally or not. There isn't a sort of unilaterally.

Right now you are softly chortling to yourself because I didn't add that someone could be "sort of" pregnant. Just because someone can artificially create a black and white choice where one doesn't exist doesn't there are NEVER clear choices. E# pointed out that he considers it an extinction scenario. I asked for clarification because I didn't want a false dilemma. He clarified but I didn't accuse him of crap (like you are doing) declaring "HA, you didn't include sort of-extinct" because there is no such thing.

Get a grip and turn your PM's back on.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #25 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I'll be happy to entertain the choices between taking action and not taking action that I left out.

Jesus, Frank I would PM you about this but you turned them off. I'm not trying to publicly embarrass you but please actually read your links.

I'm asking about the United States choosing to act unilaterally or not. There isn't a sort of unilaterally.

Right now you are softly chortling to yourself because I didn't add that someone could be "sort of" pregnant. Just because someone can artificially create a black and white choice where one doesn't exist doesn't there are NEVER clear choices. E# pointed out that he considers it an extinction scenario. I asked for clarification because I didn't want a false dilemma. He clarified but I didn't accuse him of crap (like you are doing) declaring "HA, you didn't include sort of-extinct" because there is no such thing.

Get a grip and turn your PM's back on.

You're not embarrassing me in the slightest.

You placed yourself in the embarrassing position by presenting the false dilemma in the first place in your opening post.

As a "thought experiment" it fails miserably.

Your last paragraph is a non sequitur, as the verbage has nothing to do with the original false dilemma.

In fact, this isn't even new material, e. g. your "so called thought experiment". You have followed this line of either/or reasoning in previous CC/GW/AGW threads.

Been there, done that.

As to PM's, if you can't say it in a public forum, I don't want to here it, from anyone, via PM.

As to the USofA acting unilaterally with respect to geoengineering the globe, not going to happen, ever, with respect to CC/GW/AGW.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #26 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

You're not embarrassing me in the slightest.

You placed yourself in the embarrassing position by presenting the false dilemma in the first place in your opening post.

Yes because we can both take action and not take action at the same time.

Quote:
As a "thought experiment" it fails miserably.

Thanks for sharing.

Quote:
As to the USofA acting unilaterally with respect to geoengineering the globe, not going to happen, ever, with respect to CC/GW/AGW.

What leads you to believe the U.S. would never act unilaterally here when that is pretty much their entire history so far?

The rest is garbage and nonsense so I'll ignore it as such. If you want to comment on the poster, you should take it to PM's.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

If you want to comment on the poster, you should take it to PM's.



Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Get a grip

Interesting dichotomy.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #28 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Yes because we can take action or not take action.

tftfy, based on the direct quote in your opening post.

Quote:
What leads you to believe the U.S. would never act unilaterally here when that is pretty much their entire history so far?

Because no single country has sole ownership of the entire biosphere of Planet Earth.

In other words, how could the USofA act "unilaterally" (in the active sense) and not affect the biosphere of all other regions of Planet Earth?

If you mean "unilaterally" in it's current passive context, all countries are acting "unilaterally" and have been for thousands of years.

Also, the costs of an actively pursued geoengineered solution would be enormous, perhaps dwarfing our GDP.

Quote:
The rest is garbage and nonsense so I'll ignore it as such. If you want to comment on the poster, you should take it to PM's.

Call it what you wish, but the fact remains that you have used this exact same either/or point of fallacious argumentation in at least one other CC/GW/AGW thread.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I love noting to people that our Declaration of Independence has a built in self-destruct mechanism.



You certainly are something new to this forum, IN. This refreshing post contains complete sentences, coherent thoughts, a lack of distracting and cartoonish photos and finally only one insinuation about the intent of the original poster.

That is rare here indeed so congratulations and welcome!



I'm simply scaling up the reasoning. If it is wrong to take unilater action to save people, a building, a city or perhaps even a country, it would be wrong to do so to save the planet as well correct?



The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.

Certainly discussion is not action and an advisor to the president is not the president himself, but we can have a discussion before these items are being considered for a vote or being put into a bill. The point for now is only discussion.



The question for now is merely one of possibilities and of hypotheticals. Please try not to change the topic by attempting to read into the poster intent. As someone new here, there is no reason to not take someone at their word. Plus it is a bad habit that often leads one to begin attacking the poster rather than the material in the post. Such actions are dealt with rather strictly around here.



Actually I look at the actions of those who desire to protect. The scale is merely different. Some will claim they are protecting a building, city, state or country. Others will be claiming they are protecting the planet. The point is to what degree do you need the consent of those being protected while acting to protect them?



Actually it isn't long at all and is well appreciated! Just don't get down on yourself if people who have understanding long posts complain about the lack of pretty pictures and one line quips.

Keep posting and nice to have you here.

Quote:
You certainly are something new to this forum, IN. This refreshing post contains complete sentences, coherent thoughts, a lack of distracting and cartoonish photos and finally only one insinuation about the intent of the original poster.

You mean unlike your comparison of me to a " Homeless man " eh what?

Wow! I didn't know trumptman could schmooze!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 44
Solar radiation management

Of course there are no economics associated with any of these methods, but I'd expect their costs to be consummate with the current costs of fossil fuel extraction and usage on a global scale.

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)

Quote:
The ability of stratospheric sulfur aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects[2] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[3] Delivery of precursor gases such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) by artillery, aircraft and balloons has been proposed.

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991,[4] but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential geoengineering efforts.[5] If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes.

Direct delivery of precursors is proposed by Paul Crutzen.[6] This would typically be achieved using H2S or sulfur, delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15-C) or balloons, which would be oxidized to produce SO2.

Mount Pinatubo

Quote:
The effects of the eruption were felt worldwide. It ejected roughly 10 billion metric tonnes (10 cubic kilometres) of magma, and 20 million tons of SO2, bringing vast quantities of minerals and metals to the surface environment. It injected large amounts of aerosols into the stratosphere—more than any eruption since that of Krakatoa in 1883. Over the following months, the aerosols formed a global layer of sulfuric acid haze. Global temperatures dropped by about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F), and ozone depletion temporarily increased substantially.

Note also, that the original link that started this thread made no mention of a single country making/taking a unilateral approach to combat CC/GW/AGW.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #31 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

tftfy, based on the direct quote in your opening post.

I hope you have a point to make because your weird nitpicking isn't making any sense.

Quote:
Because no single country has sole ownership of the entire biosphere of Planet Earth.

In other words, how could the USofA act "unilaterally" (in the active sense) and not affect the biosphere of all other regions of Planet Earth?

If you mean "unilaterally" in it's current passive context, all countries are acting "unilaterally" and have been for thousands of years.

Also, the costs of a actively pursued geoengineered solution would be enormous, perhaps dwarfing our GDP.

Exactly, no country has sole ownership so if a country or countries decide to veto action, do we get to take action anyway since the alternative is possible species extinction or at a minimum just great harm to ourselves and others.

As for the costs, we are adding 20%+ of GDP to our national debt just to fight an economic downturn. You think we wouldn't just borrow or print the money when it would save the entire planet? How can you save something when you are dead or irrevocably harmed? Who would you be saving it for?

Quote:


Call it what you wish, but the fact remains that you have used this exact same either/or point of fallacious argumentation in at least one other CC/GW/AGW thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Solar radiation management

Of course there are no economics associated with any of these methods, but I'd expect their costs to be consummate with the current costs of fossil fuel extraction and usage on a global scale.

Stratospheric sulfur aerosols (geoengineering)

Mount Pinatubo

Note also, that the original link that started this thread made no mention of a single country making/taking a unilateral approach to combat CC/GW/AGW

Regardless, we can discuss what the U.S. is allowed to do. Please engage in discussion instead of weird conspiratorial nonsense. There is nothing in the article that eludes to using allies or alliances either. I have asked for opinions on if we can act unilaterally in this matter. Please share yours and stop harassing me and spamming the thread with insinuations.

Remember the good ol' days when the United States used to unilaterally just go in and break countries that it deemed a threat as opposed to say... the entire planet?

It isn't just United States Change/Warming. If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I hope you have a point to make because your weird nitpicking isn't making any sense.

Exactly, no country has sole ownership so if a country or countries decide to veto action, do we get to take action anyway since the alternative is possible species extinction or at a minimum just great harm to ourselves and others.

As for the costs, we are adding 20%+ of GDP to our national debt just to fight an economic downturn. You think we wouldn't just borrow or print the money when it would save the entire planet? How can you save something when you are dead or irrevocably harmed? Who would you be saving it for?

Regardless, we can discuss what the U.S. is allowed to do. Please engage in discussion instead of weird conspiratorial nonsense. There is nothing in the article that eludes to using allies or alliances either. I have asked for opinions on if we can act unilaterally in this matter. Please share yours and stop harassing me and spamming the thread with insinuations.

Remember the good ol' days when the United States used to unilaterally just go in and break countries that it deemed a threat as opposed to say... the entire planet?

It isn't just United States Change/Warming. If the globe doesn't sign off, what are we allowed to do?

You started this thread using the rhetorical device of the false dilemma, it's right there in your first post for all to see.

Stick to the subject matter, and not the countless tangents you have a proclivity to engage in.

Obviously, ludicrous hypothetical arguments are not above your pay grade.

Understanding the basic engineering, however, is clearly above your pay grade.

Climate change methadone?

Quote:
A wider range of people have now started to publish relevant studies - showing clearly the value of continued research on the topic - and a key one came out this week in JGR-Atmospheres. Robock et al used a coupled GCM with interactive aerosols to see what would happen if they injected huge amounts of SO2 (the precursor of sulphate aerosols) into the tropical or Arctic stratosphere. This is the most talked about (and most feasible) geoengineering idea, based on the cooling impacts of large tropical volcanic eruptions (like Mt. Pinatubo in 1991). Bottom line? This is no panacea.

I know orders of magnitude more about the relevant subject matter than you ever will. You fail to see even the basics, that I can't help you with.

You can lead a horse to water, ...
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #33 of 44
Thread Starter 
Actually you don't know this but my first major in college was aeronautical engineering where I was accepted into the impacted program at Long Beach as a freshman on a waiting list that included upperclassman still trying to get in.

So regardless of your personal attacks, you've shown again, that you refuse to stop making accusations and engage the subject. So back to ignore for you.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #34 of 44
*********Same IP as Hassan.
LL
post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually you don't know this but my first major in college was aeronautical engineering where I was accepted into the impacted program at Long Beach as a freshman on a waiting list that included upperclassman still trying to get in.

So regardless of your personal attacks, you've shown again, that you refuse to stop making accusations and engage the subject. So back to ignore for you.

First paragraph is a major tangent, a non sequitur as it were.

I also saw what happened yesterday, and you know what happened yesterday.

I engaged the subject. Head on. There were no personal attacks based upon my own observation of what transpired yesterday.

You can't make others bend to your will or thought processes, by making them answer your specific narrowly defined question posed in the form of a false dilemma.

What you are suggesting is equivalent to the USofA going it alone in a War on Ecology, War on Environment, or WoE.

And as with all the other failed Wars on Whatever (WoW), this one would also be doomed to utter failure, if the USofA goes it alone, for the umpteenth time, even.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #36 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

What you are suggesting is equivalent to the USofA going it alone in a War on Ecology, War on Environment, or WoE.

And as with all the other failed Wars on Whatever (WoW), this one would also be doomed to utter failure, if the USofA goes it alone, for the umpteenth time, even.

I've decided from now on I'll just ignore the other stuff.

So your view then is that it would be inappropriate and wrong for the U.S. to attempt to fix the climate alone if others do not consent and likewise if they did, it would fail?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #37 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Internet Nickname View Post

*********Same IP as Hassan.

That is a pretty dangerous road to travel down - ip addresses are dynamically assigned via DHCP, so couldn't I pretty often have the same IP address as any other random Qwest subscriber?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #38 of 44
What are the odds that you would have the same ISP and IP as a recently banned member of this forum?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

What are the odds that you would have the same ISP and IP as a recently banned member of this forum?

On further investigation, not very high. Typical lease duration is 8 days, I thought it was an hour or two. Anyway, all Hassan has to do is click "renew DHCP address" and he gets around this IP address check.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #40 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I've decided from now on I'll just ignore the other stuff.

So your view then is that it would be inappropriate and wrong for the U.S. to attempt to fix the climate alone if others do not consent and likewise if they did, it would fail?

IMHO, it would fail no matter what combination of nation states were involved.

Volcanic Explosivity Index

Toba is my favorite on the above list, BTW. (hypothetical population bottleneck)

The whole geoengineering shtick is a dodge from addressing our CO2 emissions directly.

CO2 has a half-life of several decades to hundreds of years.

SO2 has a half-life of a few years.

Pumping/lifting ~20 million metric tons of SO2 into the stratosphere per annum is not a good idea IMHO.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Good Ol' Days