Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Global Warming

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_guest_

Recommended Posts

Good point. Water vapor should be included in that graph. I will read over that section again to see if it is addressed.

Good. I am glad you concede that point. Water vapour makes up 90-95% of the atmosphere so it needs to be taken into account.

Yes and no. I will look into the latter.

You can't have it both ways. It is either yes or no. They are contradicting answers, so only one can be true. Contradictions cannot exist in reality, not in part or in whole. When you hold two or more contradicting premises you have to check your premises as at least one is wrong, if not all of them. In this case only one is wrong as both can't be as their is no alternative to "yes" and "no".

This seems reasonable; I wonder to what extent the pertinent data is available to perform this (that is atmospheric concentrations from as long as 60,000 years back). The hypothesis testing would also need to establish that all other factors (I suppose solar activity would be one) during these two time periods were essentially equivalent. But you know this.

Good on you for admitting that. If only more people I have spoke about this issue with would do so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but I was talking about one question.

Irrelevant, there were two questions:

DarkWaters are you aware of the fact that other planets in the solar system, such as Mars are experiencing global warming as well? Are you also aware that their has been increased solar activities (such as solar wind and sun spots)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrelevant, there were two questions:

And you are a mind reader are you? You can read his mind and know his answer was structured as the response to both (if so then it was very poorly structured) and not as a double answer? No, I thought not.

Besides, the two questions had the same point. I assumed he saw the point and was responding to the point, not the individual questions. Therefore, my comment was not irrelvant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me? I have to be a mind-reader to notice he was asking two different questions with two possible? No, it in fact seems the best assumption in the context. No need to get all sarcastic because I made a reasonable assumption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me? I have to be a mind-reader to notice he was asking two different questions with two possible? No, it in fact seems the best assumption in the context. No need to get all sarcastic because I made a reasonable assumption

The "he" that asked the questions was me! So I think I'd know about the intent! Besides, the mind reading comment was about DW's replies not the questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "he" that asked the questions was me! So I think I'd know about the intent! Besides, the mind reading comment was about DW's replies not the questions.

Doh! Oh sorry I guess I am not paying much attention right now...OK got you. Opps...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know, but I was talking about one question.
Why would that matter? You didn't identify which one of your questions you assumed was being answered contradictorily, and you didn't provide a shred of proof to back up your assertion that that was the question that he conswered contradictorily. Are you claiming to have mind-reading knowledge that DW intended "A&^A" as his answer to one of your questions?

If you're going to start complaining about how people reply to your unproven assertions as being "poorly structured", then we ought to return the favor by complaining about your poorly structured questions and assumptions. For example: it is entirely possible that there has been no increased solar activity, and yet global warming on other planets. And furthermore, your question is about awareness, not whether or not so and so is the case. I would go so far as to conjecture that he actually told you "I am not aware that there is an increase in solar actifity", and base my conjecture on some of the words that DW actually did use in his reply. Therefore the two propositions cannot be conjoined to give you a true proposition, and the answer is fully coherent, if he is indeed aware of the factualness of one claim but not the other. But you seem to be saying that DW is simultaneously aware and not aware of one thing. That's a ridiculous assumption, and until he come loping in and confesses "It's true, I did have a momentary lapse of reason and both was aware and not aware of one and the same proposition", you should not assume that he is proposing a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would that matter? You didn't identify which one of your questions you assumed was being answered contradictorily

Both my questions had yes-no answers, as did the point I was trying to make. To answer yes and no to yes-no questions is contradictory.

If you're going to start complaining about how people reply to your unproven assertions as being "poorly structured"

The structure of his answer was that of one answer, not two. That is how it was poorly structured.

then we ought to return the favor by complaining about your poorly structured questions and assumptions.

The assumption maybe, but not the questions.

For example: it is entirely possible that there has been no increased solar activity, and yet global warming on other planets.

I know it is possible, but given that there has been a recorded increase in solar activity the structure of my questions was not poor.

And furthermore, your question is about awareness, not whether or not so and so is the case.

Please don't treat me like a moron. I know what my own questions were. Besides whether or not you know something is a yes-no thing, not a yes and no. Therefore, my contradiction. point stands.

I would go so far as to conjecture that he actually told you "I am not aware that there is an increase in solar actifity"

Actually he said, "yes and no". That means is is and isn't aware of it. That is a contradiciton.

Therefore the two propositions cannot be conjoined to give you a true proposition, and the answer is fully coherent, if he is indeed aware of the factualness of one claim but not the other.

Then he should of structured his answer as two sentances, not one. One implied both answeres as one. Two implies both answers seperately. That is my problem with his structuring of his answer.

But you seem to be saying that DW is simultaneously aware and not aware of one thing.

I am saying his wording and structure says that, even if unintended.

That's a ridiculous assumption

I based my assumption on his wording and structure.

and until he come loping in and confesses "It's true, I did have a momentary lapse of reason and both was aware and not aware of one and the same proposition", you should not assume that he is proposing a contradiction.

So I should totally ignore the structure and wording of his reply? That is what you are suggesting, even if you don't realise it.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woah woah woahhhhh! Come down Kane (David is right as far as I can tell about at least most of what he says). Now can we PLEASE get back on topic and stop arguign about whether DW asked a contradictory question....

By the way...I would be wary about trustign the New Scientist mag as a source on GW (some of you might already be wary), if its Environt. section is anyting to go by. Go here if you want to judge for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, ELEVEN posts on what I meant when I said "Yes and no." You guys are really great. :lol: I am also impressed by the superhuman restraint exhibited by David who referred to me as DW and not a moniker of the simian variety.

DarkWaters are you aware of the fact that other planets in the solar system, such as Mars are experiencing global warming as well? Are you also aware that their has been increased solar activities (such as solar wind and sun spots)?

DragonMaci, I did not offer any contradictory answers to your questions. Had I foreseen the hilarious chain of events that my brief response triggered, I would have instead answered your questions as follows:

Yes, I am (that is, was at the time of my response) aware that Mars has also been experiencing global warming.

No, I am (that is, was at the time of my response) aware that there is (that is, was at the time of my response) presently aware that there has been an increase in solar activity that concides with the recent trends of global warming.

Thus, there is no need to lecture me on how the law of non-contradiction works. Chances are, if you perceive a fairly active member of this forum to violate the law of identity in a single sentence fragment then the problem most likely stems from a lack of context and not from the member himself (I hope) . :lol:

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for recommending this documentary. I thought that it was exceptionally well done. I have encouraged many of my friends and family (liberals and conservatives alike) to view it. I particularly enjoyed the discussion that links solar activity to global temperatures over the past few hundred years. In retrospect, this connection should be the first hypothesis that everyone investigates. It is just so blindingly obvious.

For those of you who do not wish to view a seventy five minute documentary, here is a good article in Capitalist Magazine summarizing it.

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DragonMaci, I did not offer any contradictory answers to your questions. Had I foreseen the hilarious chain of events that my brief response triggered, I would have instead answered your questions as follows:

Yes, I am (that is, was at the time of my response) aware that Mars has also been experiencing global warming.

No, I am (that is, was at the time of my response) aware that there is (that is, was at the time of my response) presently aware that there has been an increase in solar activity that concides with the recent trends of global warming.

Thus, there is no need to lecture me on how the law of non-contradiction works.

I apologise and thank you for being so calm about it. However, I still take issue with the wording and structure of your original answer, though the new answer is well worded and well-structured. As a writer I can be a bit fussy about that sometimes, especially with written communication.

Anyway, I wanted to thank you for recommending this documentary. I thought that it was exceptionally well done. I have encouraged many of my friends and family (liberals and conservatives alike) to view it.

I agree that it is so well done. That is why at every chance I get I have been recommending that people watch it.

I particularly enjoyed the discussion that links solar activity to global temperatures over the past few hundred years. In retrospect, this connection should be the first hypothesis that everyone investigates. It is just so blindingly obvious.

I agree that it was particularly enjoying and that it should be the first hypothesis. I also agree that it is obvious. Assuming people use their minds that is. However, as I am sure you are aware, many people today choose not to use their minds, choose to turn them off.

For those of you who do not wish to view a seventy five minute documentary, here is a good article in Capitalist Magazine summarizing it.

Thanks. Even, though I have wacthed the documentary about 1.2 times I will read the article, as I am sure it will entertain me.

Update: I was right, I did enjoy it. As always, there language was to my liking.

Edited by DragonMaci
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the lies get anymore ridiculous?

A rise in the average global temperature of two degrees Celsius - now widely expected to occur in coming decades - corresponds to a risk of losing 20 to 30 per cent of species, and two billion people facing water shortages. If emissions keep climbing and temperatures rise four degrees Celsius, a "major extinction" of 40 to 70 per cent of known species is expected - up to three billion people will not have enough water to drink, and millions more will be flooded and face starvation.

Edited by $$$
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the lies get anymore ridiculous?
From your post, it's hard to tell whether you are presenting the second paragraph as someone else's lie, or as your understanding of the true viewpoint that combats some lie. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the lies get anymore ridiculous?

By this would you mean quoting the facts? ;)

A rise in the average global temperature of two degrees Celsius - now widely expected to occur in coming decades - corresponds to a risk of losing 20 to 30 per cent of species, and two billion people facing water shortages. If emissions keep climbing and temperatures rise four degrees Celsius, a "major extinction" of 40 to 70 per cent of known species is expected - up to three billion people will not have enough water to drink, and millions more will be flooded and face starvation.

Interestingly history shows even hotter periods than you are talking of. The really interesting part is that the things you speak of never happened. Why should we assume this time will be so drastically different?

esides in the last 150 years the Earth has heated up 0.7 degrees and the last 10 years has seen no noticeable warming. Why should we assume that in the next few decade that warming will increase by a factor of 10 to 15 times let alone 20 to 30 times?

It's clear that his second paragraph is ridiculous lies. What remains unclear is whether he knows it.

Indeed. However, from his language I would suggest he doesn't know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear that his second paragraph is ridiculous lies. What remains unclear is whether he knows it.

I guess I should have given the source of the lie. Some big report that came out of some world body (I think it was the UN) last week.

I'm not sure why you would assume I would believe this kind of nonsense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have to say though:

If emissions keep climbing and temperatures rise EIGHT degrees Celsius, a "really big massive major extinction" of 80 to 140 per cent of known species in the entire solar system is expected - up to six billion people will not have enough water to drink, and billions more will be flooded and face starvation and really bad things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you would assume I would believe this kind of nonsense...

Because I don't know you from Adam. And for the record, I didn't assume anything.

I do have to say though:

If emissions keep climbing and temperatures rise EIGHT degrees Celsius, a "really big massive major extinction" of 80 to 140 per cent of known species in the entire solar system is expected - up to six billion people will not have enough water to drink, and billions more will be flooded and face starvation and really bad things.

That's almost as ridiculous.

"If emissions keep climbing and temperatures rise"

On what basis did you put these two things next to each other in the sentence? Since emissions don't cause temperature to rise, this is as silly as saying, "If more people keep wearing pants and temperatures rise..."

Second, what does temperature going up have to do with having water to drink? I could name a number of places that are very hot and get plenty of rain. Are you suggesting that deserts are dry because they are hot; because that's a preschooler's understanding of climate and it's so wrong that I'm willing to insinuate that.

Third, what is the point of pondering what would happen if temperatures rise EIGHT degrees if there is no evidence that they will do anything even remotely close to that? The only reason to do such a thing is if one wanted to spread irrational fears. You might as well say, "If the earth suddenly stops rotating, we will all DIE AS WE ARE BAKED TO DEATH OR FROZEN IN AN ETERNAL NIGHT!!!"

I don't know if you intend any of the above or if you are just being careless. Either way, stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Second, what does temperature going up have to do with having water to drink? I could name a number of places that are very hot and get plenty of rain. Are you suggesting that deserts are dry because they are hot; because that's a preschooler's understanding of climate and it's so wrong that I'm willing to insinuate that.

Indeed. One factor is that the rain tends to be dumped from the clouds before it gets to the deserts. This is largely caused by near-by geography, such as mountains. When clouds pass over mountains the rain is dumped before they finish the crossing, sometimes even before they start.

I don't know if you intend any of the above or if you are just being careless. Either way, stop it.

Yes, indeed, please do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why you would assume I would believe this kind of nonsense...
I do have to say though:

If emissions keep climbing and temperatures rise EIGHT degrees Celsius, a "really big massive major extinction" of 80 to 140 per cent of known species in the entire solar system is expected - up to six billion people will not have enough water to drink, and billions more will be flooded and face starvation and really bad things.

Are you trying to pull our legs here? If you weren't a member for a while, I'd swear you were trolling. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...