# Trading Away Our Future In China



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

China funded a good deal of Obama's campaign. Is anyone surprised?


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

News Bot said:


> The economy is suffering and the planet is warming


Yet there were 3000 record low temperatures set this summer in the US.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

paker said:


> Yet there were 3000 record low temperatures set this summer in the US.


And yet record lows continue to be increasingly outpaced by record highs:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112121611.htm


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

And yet both are irrelevant because we have the technology to change the planet's temperature up or down for only a few billion dollars, so all the fear-mongering is merely a fraud for liars to get rich.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

"COUGH" Al Gore "COUGH"


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

I would agree that the fear mongering is irrelevant, but the data itself is not. Without the data, we won't know how to spend the billions you say is sufficient to adjust the thermostat.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> I would agree that the fear mongering is irrelevant, but the data itself is not. Without the data, we won't know how to spend the billions you say is sufficient to adjust the thermostat.


Ummm, which data - the unmonitored temperature stations once under cover and now left in the sunlight?

Well, it doesn't really matter. The simplest solution is the one which allows us to "change our minds" at any time - e.g. panels which reflect on one side and absorb on the other. Then changing direction is as simple as turning them over.

Good news is, thermal satellites will now give us a much more accurate day-by-day / year over year picture than we have ever had.

Bad news is, each and every country will have a different idea about which direction to go - so the hot countries will try to lower the temperature while the cold countries will try to raise it.

Let's see them model THAT!


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Ummm, which data


Reliable data, of course. Wouldn't you agree that reliable data is necessary to understand any issue that can be understood?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> Reliable data, of course. Wouldn't you agree that reliable data is necessary to understand any issue that can be understood?


Data alone is insufficient. A perfect example is the changes to our geography caused by man, and the use of technology which alters the readings. If you just look at the temperatures, you get a skewed picture of changes occurring.

I've consulted for a well-known think tank. I was the only one there with "just" a BA degree, most had one or more PhD's. It is not kind to stereotype, but likewise there is a reason that stereotypes exist. The vast majority of the nice folks I worked with had immense understanding of a very thin slice of life, but no broader understanding of how to look at the interaction of very complex systems. Just being there and asking "stupid new guy questions," I was able to bring a perspective that eluded many of them to problems they THOUGHT they understood.

Don't get me wrong - some day we will get it all figured out and will be able to develop models which take all of these things into account.

But - we ain't there yet.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Data alone is insufficient.


You say that, but then you give an example of the consequences of unreliable or inadequate data, not data's insufficiency. If data alone is insufficient, as you say, then what besides data is required to understand something? What, besides more data, could possibly "unskew" the picture we're getting?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> You say that, but then you give an example of the consequences of unreliable or inadequate data, not data's insufficiency.


No, I gave an example of failure to comprehend the meaning of the data that is available. You simply failed to comprehend the meaning of the example... 



> If data alone is insufficient, as you say, then what besides data is required to understand something?


That is a metaphysical question, and cannot be answered with data.



> What, besides more data, could possibly "unskew" the picture we're getting?


Perhaps we already have sufficient data, but simply lack a correct conclusion. In any event your question is like asking, "When will we know what we don't know?"

To you I will give the answer I give all youngsters:

"Soon."


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

> No, I gave an example of failure to comprehend the meaning of the data that is available.


 No, you said:


> If you just look at the temperatures, you get a skewed picture of changes occurring.


 Which is clearly a case of insufficient or inadequate data, not insufficient understanding of the data, since temperature doesn't tell the whole story.



> In any event your question is like asking, "When will we know what we don't know?"


 No, I'm not asking when we will know that which we do not know. I'm simply trying to nail down what you think knowledge requires. If you say data alone is not enough, then asking you what IS enough is a more than fair question.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I think what phantom is trying to get across is that data is only as good as the people that collect/promote it. And since everyone has an agenda, political or otherwise, we can't expect all the numbers to be a fair reflection of reality and that assumes the data is even available for all to see because in many cases it is not.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 4, 2009)

paker said:


> Yet there were 3000 record low temperatures set this summer in the US.


Global warming is a reference to the average temperature of the entire planet over the following years, it does not mean that everywhere gets warmer, as the polar ice caps melt it lowers the temperature of many sea areas which affects the core temperature of certain regions seasonally so lowering the temperature in those regions at those times, it also affects weather patterns, migratory responses etc..

The term global warming is latched onto as some sort of definitive statement and people respond purely to the term rather than educating themselves to what it means, the fact is that global warming has been happening to this planet for the last 20,000 years since the peak of the ice age, it will continue until all the ice is gone, that will be the end of the current ice age which is still here but coming to its natural end, as the ice reduces global warming will accelerate, we will see more floods, temperatures will rise overall and we will eventually see some pretty high temperatures along with monsoon like rain everywhere, there will be increased volcanic activity and we will probably see a reduction in the earths human population of around 40% as natural resources, especially food becomes scarce.
The planet will then start to rapidly cool down due to the movement of water through the atmosphere and across its surface, also the amount of particulates in the atmosphere and we will see the start of the new ice age, over a few thousand of years, during which time the human population will contract further, by the time the new ice age reaches its peak the human population will be around 10 - 15% of what it is now and will remain around that level until the earths natural warming process kicks in again.
So Al Gore is right that global warming is taking place and he is right that the long term effects will be globally catastrophic on the human race but he is showing mans greatest flaw when he says we can stop it, the human race is a product of the earth not the master of it, heavy industry has only existed for 100 years, the planet has been heating up and cooling down for at least 5 billion years and does not give a hoot for human kind.
Electric cars are not going to save the planet and anyone who thinks they will needs to get there head out of their behind.
Both sides of the argument within the general populace have showed how incredibly stupid and conceited they both are, it is like a giant clown war.

I look at electric cars for what they can do for air quality in congested areas, for their contribution to reducing noise pollution and because they are cool and accelerate like hot butter off a spoon, I'm not stupid enough to think they will be the saviour of mankind and equally I am not stupid enough to believe that the planet respects humanity. The human race will survive but will go through changes like anything else on the planet, one day women with hairy backs will be attractive everywhere, not just in Alabama.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> No, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are prevaricating (and did so by taking my quote out of context - full context restored here). The example is meant to show that the scientists may have a full set of data available (all temperature readings AND information about man-induced geographical changes), yet lacking UNDERSTANDING fail to realize that they need to pick from and combine those separate data sets. If I was less than clear at a third grade level, bad on me - however, your failure to comprehend my meaning despite my spelling out my intent stands as an object lesson to my point that despite having sufficient data incorrect conclusions are often drawn.



> No, I'm not asking when we will know that which we do not know. I'm simply trying to nail down what you think knowledge requires.


On this I have been unwavering - DATA IS INSUFFICIENT. What is necessary beyond that is context-dependent, and some would say that the leap to "understanding" is a miracle. For some, that miracle never happens.





> If you say data alone is not enough, then asking you what IS enough is a more than fair question.


No, it is prevarication. Often times it is only in the clarity of hindsight that we can truly say "what it took" to achieve understanding. Sometimes we can also conjecture that we might have achieved understanding sooner, or using different data - but since that conjecture is based on already having achieved understanding, it is purely hypothetical.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Buckster said:


> Global warming is a reference to the average temperature of the entire planet over the following years, it does not mean that everywhere gets warmer, as the polar ice caps melt it lowers the temperature of many sea areas which affects the core temperature of certain regions seasonally so lowering the temperature in those regions at those times, it also affects weather patterns, migratory responses etc..


That is incorrect. "Global Warming" is the theory that the earth is getting warmer and that the temperature change is SPECIFICALLY because of man-generated CO2. This has been discredited sufficiently that the alarmists are trying to sell the same disaster movie under a new name, "Global Climate Change," as a ploy to steal large portions of the world's wealth for the enrichment of a few. Those to be enriched have no plan to "stop" the "crisis," it is just a scam.

However, if in fact temperature changes really are a PROBLEM (not conclusive), they can be arrested / reversed for only a few billion dollars. This capability is the most scientifically conclusive part of the whole bananna, and is why rational people understand that there is no "crisis," just a popular scam.



> The term global warming is latched onto as some sort of definitive statement and people respond purely to the term rather than educating themselves to what it means, the fact is that global warming has been happening to this planet for the last 20,000 years since the peak of the ice age, it will continue until all the ice is gone, that will be the end of the current ice age which is still here but coming to its natural end, as the ice reduces global warming will accelerate, we will see more floods, temperatures will rise overall and we will eventually see some pretty high temperatures along with monsoon like rain everywhere, there will be increased volcanic activity and we will probably see a reduction in the earths human population of around 40% as natural resources, especially food becomes scarce.


Aside from being a run-on sentence, there is no evidence that increasing temperatures will result in either increased volcanic activity nor population decrease. Given a 10 degree temperature increase (on average), two of the largest land masses on earth will become downright hospitable (Siberia and Canada - the latter of which doubtless the "imperialist Americans" would annex after Mexico finishes annexing the U.S.  ). Those fertile lands can probably support MORE population than the world supports today.



> The planet will then start to rapidly cool down due to the movement of water through the atmosphere and across its surface, also the amount of particulates in the atmosphere and we will see the start of the new ice age, over a few thousand of years, during which time the human population will contract further, by the time the new ice age reaches its peak the human population will be around 10 - 15% of what it is now and will remain around that level until the earths natural warming process kicks in again.


Naturally, all of this assumes that science has it right and that mankind sits idly by. The first is in question, and the second has never happened.



> So Al Gore is right that global warming is taking place and he is right that the long term effects will be globally catastrophic on the human race but he is showing mans greatest flaw when he says we can stop it, the human race is a product of the earth not the master of it, heavy industry has only existed for 100 years, the planet has been heating up and cooling down for at least 5 billion years and does not give a hoot for human kind.


This is a perfect example of my prior post, where there can be plenty of good data and a total lack of understanding.



> Both sides of the argument within the general populace have showed how incredibly stupid and conceited they both are, it is like a giant clown war.


There are more than "two sides" in the discussion. However, the most vocal among those who buy into the scam are certainly engaged in clown wars - and are probably being funded by the same people.



> I look at electric cars for what they can do for air quality in congested areas, for their contribution to reducing noise pollution and because they are cool and accelerate like hot butter off a spoon, I'm not stupid enough to think they will be the saviour of mankind and equally I am not stupid enough to believe that the planet respects humanity. The human race will survive but will go through changes like anything else on the planet, one day women with hairy backs will be attractive everywhere, not just in Alabama.


Another false conclusion - hairy backed women will never be considered attractive. Not even in Alabama.

"Hello Uncle-Dad!"
"Why, howdy Nephew-Son!"


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Note - lest some new folks think my disparagement of the GW scam in any way means that I am opposed to taking action to reduce pollution and our dependence on petroleum - it does not. I just know from history that more government is the cause, not the solution, of these problems.

I believe massive programs should be undertaken both to reduce the use of polluting power sources and reduce the number of humans spewing "harmful" CO2 into the atmosphere (through a huge push for birth control in all the nations experiencing growth - no "Hitler" campaigns please). This latter would have the most rapid and profound impact on the improvement of air and water quality, with the concurrent reduction in herd stocks likewise spewing CO2 and also methane quickly multiplying the improvement.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

Some of the "global warming" advocates should read this. 

*Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say*

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity. 

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using. 

If their "carbon account" hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...uld-be-given-a-personal-carbon-allowance.html

Now who gets these "carbon taxes"? Who will it hurt? The rich? I doubt it. Will it hurt the poor? If it happens, of course it will. Could it happen here?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

paker said:


> Now who gets these "carbon taxes"? Who will it hurt? The rich? I doubt it. Will it hurt the poor? If it happens, of course it will. Could it happen here?


It will if Al Gore gets his way. That tax on the poor will funnel directly into his pocket.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Yes, but its still better than doing nothing at all, right? We have to do something, our children's lives depend on it. A life of oppression is better than no life at all.

Some of the things I hear in the AGW movement make me want to do something. Something massive, but timing is everything and I'm not sure what that action should be just yet. Doing my best to stay informed for now.

Polling numbers seem to indicate that the general public is starting to adopt a more skeptical mood on this topic. One of few things that I take comfort in with this issue.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Yes, but its still better than doing nothing at all, right?


That is a false choice. We and all of humanity ARE doing something, especially those frequenting this forum. New technological breakthroughs are being announced every day, and it is merely a matter of time before better solutions are also cheaper than coal and oil. Stealing money from billions and making them live a poorer lifestyle is merely an excuse for tyranny - if you want an answer affecting the level of pollution in less than 5 years, start with birth control.



> We have to do something, our children's lives depend on it. A life of oppression is better than no life at all.


No, it is not - and I pray for your swift recovery. I pity anyone who actually believes this, or would tolerate this type of sentiment without commenting. False crisis (plural) are always the excuse given for tyranny.



> Some of the things I hear in the AGW movement make me want to do something. Something massive, but timing is everything and I'm not sure what that action should be just yet. Doing my best to stay informed for now.


If you feel you must, send birth control to third world nations. NORPLANT is a good choice, lasts 5 years without need to "remember" anything. It will have more impact per dollar than any other possible investment.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sorry phantom, I was being sarcastic there. I don't believe a word of that and was simply trying to generalize the rhetoric (BS) that we hear about the global warming scam. Often you hear over and over again that we have to do SOMETHING, anything as long as its something that says right on the package that its supposed to do SOME friggin THING about the horrible problem LOL!

Maybe I was too convincing?

I do not believe that being safe is more important than being free. Not by a long shot. Not to mention there is no person or group of people that deserve to decide for everyone else what is the true meaning of reasonable safety at the expense of some "insignificant" freedoms.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Sorry phantom, I was being sarcastic there. I don't believe a word of that and was simply trying to generalize the rhetoric (BS) that we hear about the global warming scam. Often you hear over and over again that we have to do SOMETHING, anything as long as its something that says right on the package that its supposed to do SOME friggin THING about the horrible problem LOL!
> 
> Maybe I was too convincing?
> 
> I do not believe that being safe is more important than being free. Not by a long shot. Not to mention there is no person or group of people that deserve to decide for everyone else what is the true meaning of reasonable safety at the expense of some "insignificant" freedoms.


 ...nice - and I swallowed it whole..! Teach me not to post when drinking...

It really does wrap me around the axle how people are not only completely oblivious to what is really happening, but also so EAGER to believe every pied-pie salesperson selling end-of-the-world snake oil. Stupid should be painful...


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> It really does wrap me around the axle how people are not only completely oblivious to what is really happening, but also so EAGER to believe every pied-pie salesperson selling end-of-the-world snake oil.


But just because there is no lack of hucksters willing to make a dime off of climate change isn't itself evidence that climate change isn't happening. All disasters, real or imagined, always bring out the worst in some people.

Also, with regard to our previous exchange, I deeply apologize if I gave offense. I honestly thought I was asking a simple question. I'd be grateful, however, if you could make your point without being insulting.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> But just because there is no lack of hucksters willing to make a dime off of climate change isn't itself evidence that climate change isn't happening. All disasters, real or imagined, always bring out the worst in some people.


I have never disputed that, and even agree that mankind is undoubtedly responsible for SOME of the changes occurring. How can we not - we now outnumber rats! What I disputed is any indication of urgency - the consensus among even the believers is a few degrees' change over the next 100 years. Scamsters have been yelling "End of the World!" for over 3,000 years of recorded history, but we're still here...



> Also, with regard to our previous exchange, I deeply apologize if I gave offense.


Not at all, I'm just a crusty old cynic! 



> I honestly thought I was asking a simple question. I'd be grateful, however, if you could make your point without being insulting.


Well I'm sorry if I came across heavy-handed. To me it "sounded" like you were bashing my post baselessly. That is a problem with forums - reading any disagreeing post every post sound like it came from a grouchy spouse...


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I have never disputed that, and even agree that mankind is undoubtedly responsible for SOME of the changes occurring. How can we not - we now outnumber rats! What I disputed is any indication of urgency - the consensus among even the believers is a few degrees' change over the next 100 years.


Agree completely, Pholly. Sorry for giving the appearance of bashing, and thanks for understanding.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

PhantomPholly said:


> I have never disputed that, and even agree that mankind is undoubtedly responsible for SOME of the changes occurring. How can we not - we now outnumber rats! What I disputed is any indication of urgency - the consensus among even the believers is a few degrees' change over the next 100 years. Scamsters have been yelling "End of the World!" for over 3,000 years of recorded history, but we're still here...


yes, but we are a better people with each passing day (maybe I should have used the word progressive in there somewhere). Its not fair to compare the savages of 3000 years ago to our modern world today. We are smarter and better as a society. Again, thats what they would say..

It really is amaizing to see how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Everytime I hear the word "expert" on TV I get a sharp pain in my head. Expert according to who? a bunch of his own collage buddies? Lobbyists? politicians that are using the "expert" advice to raise taxes? Then you have the next step up, a team of experts, ooooooo....now thats really impressive

I guess most people just don't want to take responsibility for their own choices so they are content to surrender decision to a self professed expert that makes them feel smart instead.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> Agree completely, Pholly. Sorry for giving the appearance of bashing, and thanks for understanding.


Back atcha!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> yes, but we are a better people with each passing day (maybe I should have used the word progressive in there somewhere). Its not fair to compare the savages of 3000 years ago to our modern world today. We are smarter and better as a society. Again, thats what they would say..
> 
> It really is amaizing to see how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
> 
> ...


Hehe - go read "The Prince" by Machiavelli. Then come back and tell us just exactly how much people have "changed..."



The only thing that's different today as far as I can tell are the actual technology and how convincing the rhetoric is when you have multimedia presentations to back up your personal spin on whatever you're peddling. Taking responsibility? That's for some other jerk to be stuck with.


----------



## Bentzon (Sep 5, 2009)

Don't worry eventually the Chinese will have the same standard of living and it will be even competition again. Might not be in our life time though


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Chinese cities already offer a comparable standard of living...


----------

