Climate Change discussion split from "2050"

[Reluctantly]

lol, climate change.

Isn't this something that's happened throughout history? Why is it suddenly the human beings and their "pollution" that are to blame?

 

[Hawkeye]

Yes, and you view everything and anything as pollution.

This makes no sense. You've basically gone from a suspicion, to agreeing with what I said, to following immediately after with a conclusion to the contrary. Silly Goose.

Care to elaborate on how I would view the following to be classified as pollution: an apple, an acoustic guitar, a porcelain mug, a book, steam, the colour violet

 

[Lot]

I do care about the environment. I also don't think that people will want to change their views until it affects them. The hope is that if what the future hold is dangerous, we will find a way to adapt.

There are so many factors at play in climate change, that I don't really trust either scientific view on the topic. We know a lot, but we don't know enough, IMO.

So I'm restraining from putting my foot down, as of yet. I do think that the pro-human caused people, at least the higher ups, have a profit do make off this whole thing. Which is what ever. So I'm more leery of what they have to say. Then again, many immoral big businesses, have a profit to be made. (I say immoral in the sense of not caring if they hurt people with their actions.)

On a side note. That comparison of modern liberalism and puritanism is one I haven't made before. Make lots of sense. And if we could keep ad hominem to a minimum. Then tensions won't be as high. I hate to see you guys get red in the text.

 

[redbaron]

You're one of those people. People of a different mind than you are simply ignorant in your mind.

Yes, on the issue of biodiversity (and that it needs to be preserved) and some other issues, such as limiting pollution because it causes environmental damage which impacts on humans - yes, I consider anyone who outright doesn't care about environmental damage as ignorant.

Changes to the environment impact animals, which threaten biodiversity, which in turn threatens humans/more animals. If you value humans, you should value the environment - unless you don't quite understand the link.

So yes, working under the assumption that you do care about fellow humans, it naturally leads me to think that if you simply don't care about the environment, you must either be ignorant, or not care about humans/animals.

Because I must say, the only reason I consider people ignorant is when they provide conflicting messages on these sorts of issues. The message you're giving me is this:

You care about humans, yet not care about the environment they live in - despite the fact that the two are inextricably linked.

Do see how that is rather confusing to understand?

 

[The Introvert]

Sorry in advance if it seems like I'm singling you out, Proxy. But some of the stuff you're saying... just no.

Why do you implicitly posit that warming is bad?

Not that I'm here to speak on behalf of Dux, but that wasn't implicitly posited. You made that up.

What pollution? The polluted countries are generally third world ones.

And -

I tried to look up some rankings of which countries pollute the most but I ran into a problem. The rankings which I found classify greenhouse gas emissions as pollution. This biases the rankings.

Please explain how this "biases the rankings"? Is incorporating legitimate data from a legitimate problem into a study a bias? You're full of bullshit! Just admit that you're wrong!

Or, could you saying that air pollution isn't really pollution? That air pollution isn't a problem? Try telling that to Shanghai...

*drowns in irony*

Spoiler

Proxy probably hates that emoticon ^^

Water also plays a large part in cooling. It absorbs the heat when it evaporates and then disperses the heat when it solidifies into rain. It also helps in the formation of clouds.

Yeah, I know. My point was that once it gets to a certain point, it's pretty much out of our hands. Or at least it completes the cycle by itself.

Without the increased level of CO2, the water vapour contributes little to global warming.

It is merely an amplifier, but what use is an amplifier if it has nothing to amplify? For this reason CO2 plays a larger role in climate change than water vapour.

Yes, read my reply to the above ^^

I have a bachelors of engineering (Hons.) with first class honors. I have published papers on modelling in peer reviewed journals. I do have the faculties to read other researchers' work and formulate my own judgements. ^_^

Ah, pardonnez-moi, monsieur honoraire.

Is this better?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Not that I'm here to speak on behalf of Dux, but that wasn't implicitly posited. You made that up.

Duxwing is a very astute and articulate individual. I am sure he does not require your help clarifying what he stated.

Please explain how this "biases the rankings"? Is incorporating legitimate data from a legitimate problem into a study a bias? You're full of bullshit! Just admit that you're wrong!

I did a web search and looked at some rankings. In the calculation of their rankings they classify carbon dioxide and methane emissions as pollutants. Since these are not pollutants, the rankings were biased.

Or, could you saying that air pollution isn't really pollution? That air pollution isn't a problem? Try telling that to Shanghai...

Did I state that air pollution (particulates, sulphur dioxides, etc.) was not a problem? Nope. It is certainly a problem is some areas of the world.

Yes, read my reply to the above ^^

In the models they use the water cycle feedback as an amplification of forcings. Now the magnitude and sign of the this feedback is a very contentious debate in the scientific literature.

Ah, pardonnez-moi, monsieur honoraire.

And you can call me Dr Proxy next year when I finish my PhD.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Stuff...

You're avoiding the issue. You assume that people of a different mind that yourself are ignorant. This is not being intellectually honest. In fact, you're being a dishonorable and disrespectful person. It simply does not make it a pleasurable experience discussing topics with you.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

This makes no sense. You've basically gone from a suspicion, to agreeing with what I said, to following immediately after with a conclusion to the contrary. Silly Goose.

Please forgive my transgression of not articulating myself adequately. You put forward the definition of what is constituted as a pollutant. I agree with the definition. I am afraid this did not relieve me of the burden of feeling as if you view everything as a pollutant. I feel like you perceive affluence being equivocal to pollution and harmful.

 

[redbaron]

You assume that people of a different mind that yourself are ignorant. This is not being intellectually honest.

That irony thing again...

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

All I'm actually trying to figure out is where the inconsistency in your message stems from. For example, in your most recent post:

Did I state that air pollution (particulates, sulphur dioxides, etc.) was not a problem? Nope. It is certainly a problem is some areas of the world.

So air pollution is a problem. Why do you agree on that? I'm going to presume that you say that it's because it affects ecosystems, which in turn impact humans.

Yet if this is the case, why say this?

I must state that I do not value the environment itself. Ergo, arguments highlighting the extinction of species are utterly meaningless to me.

You claim that the extinction of species are utterly meaningless to you, yet readily admit air pollution is a problem. While they might have different impacts, they still both negatively impact humans.

Some species are quite important to the stability of an ecosystem, and their extinction DOES cause changes that negatively impact on humans.

How can you agree that one is a problem, yet another is not? Everything is interconnected in ecosystems. Air pollution is not bad, while extinction of species is irrelevant - they're both relevant in differing ways, and it's important that we go to efforts to preserve both biodiversity as well as air quality.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Redbaron, you have not thought about this issue that you have? You don't think liberally assuming people of a different mind than you being ignorant is a problem? If your partner disagrees with you, do you simply tell your partner of their ignorance? I am worried for you. Remember that there are people you can talk to if you're having problems.

--- Off topic conversation ---

So air pollution is a problem. Why do you agree on that? I'm going to presume that you say that it's because it affects ecosystems, which in turn impact humans.

Yet if this is the case, why say this?

I were to manage a relevant project, I would conduct a cost-benefit analysis, environmental assessment and risk analysis. This is standard practice. In many places of the world, Australia being one of them, if you do not follow standard practice you can be held liable.

You claim that the extinction of species are utterly meaningless to you, yet readily admit air pollution is a problem. While they might have different impacts, they still both negatively impact humans.

Yes, the thought of a particular species became extinct does not provoke me. If people are worried about the extinction of species, who I am to tell them that they're not allowed to do anything about? I certainly don't have the right to prevent them from doing so. I really do welcome people to engage in conservation activities such as land rehabilitation, purchasing land for nature reserves, etc.

Some species are quite important to the stability of an ecosystem, and their extinction DOES cause changes that negatively impact on humans.

Yes some species are quite important for the longevity of ecosystems. Organisms which engage in nitrogen fixation are especially important, to name one. My memory is a tad bit sketchy at times, I do believe these organisms are called Legumes.

How can you agree that one is a problem, yet another is not? Everything is interconnected in ecosystems. Air pollution is not bad, while extinction of species is irrelevant - they're both relevant in differing ways, and it's important that we go to efforts to preserve both biodiversity as well as air quality.

Duxwing mentioned some environmental issues which are also resource management problems. You can solve resource management problems by the institution of sound property rights.

 

[The Introvert]

And you can call me Dr Proxy next year when I finish my PhD.

You should change your avatar name! Dr. Proxy. Sounds badass.
//Derail

 

[redbaron]

Thanks for answering my questions...albeit in a roundabout way.

As for my, 'issue' - seriously Proxy? Come on, victim card doesn't suit you. But since you asked, what usually happens when my partner and I disagree, is we ask questions and challenge the other to consider alternatives. We don't talk over each other and if we detect an inconsistency in the other one's reasoning we ask them to clarify and cite reasons why.

After about 30 minutes of us thoroughly deconstructing each other's ideas, we're both really excited because we've gained greater insight and reached a deeper understanding of each other's and our own minds, which for some reason turns us on and leads to passionate sex because we both enjoy each other's capability for having detached discussion over what are usually touchy subjects.

I will see a therapist tomorrow because I think you might be right, all this mutual understanding and intellectual discourse is putting a strain on the relationship!

 

[Hawkeye]

Please forgive my transgression of not articulating myself adequately. You put forward the definition of what is constituted as a pollutant. I agree with the definition. I am afraid this did not relieve me of the burden of feeling as if you view everything as a pollutant. I feel like you perceive affluence being equivocal to pollution and harmful.

Then you are mistaken. When I mentioned luxury I was referring to materials that require an industrial process to create. I think you knew this though because you said yourself that you could only find "biased" ratings for the most polluting countries.

Have a look at the data on something like world mapper and you'll notice that third world countries produce far less pollution than the more developed countries (even though these countries are regulated).

As for CO2 not being a pollutant, that's just silly thinking. An overabundance of CO2 can be a pollutant because it significantly alters the climate which can lead to harm to the environment.

An extreme example of too much CO2 in the atmosphere would turn Earth into a place as uninhabitable as Venus. As I said though, this is about as extreme as you can go; life would cease way before reaching that level though.

*you never elaborated on my view of seeing everything as being a pollutant. I suggest you retract that ludicrous claim

 

[Polaris]

Yes some species are quite important for the longevity of ecosystems. Organisms which engage in nitrogen fixation are especially important, to name one. My memory is a tad bit sketchy at times, I do believe these organisms are called Legumes.

I think you mean Rhizobia. Rhizobia are nitrogen-fixing soil bacteria which work in association with the roots of legumes. It is a symbiotic relationship because they require a host plant to survive; they harvest nutrients for their survival such as carbohydrates, protein and oxygen.

From article:

"Understanding rhizobia Nitrogen can only be fixed from the atmosphere if the appropriate rhizobial (soil bacteria) species are present. The survival of rhizobia in soil in the absence of its host plant depends on soil pH, temperature, moisture, clay content, and the specific characteristics of the rhizobial strain. Cropping history affects rhizobia populations. If rhizobia are absent, %N-fixed will be zero (i.e. no symbiosis can be formed).

Similarly, %N-fi xed may be less than optimal if the rhizobial strains in the soil are ineffective. This can generally be rectified by inoculating seed with appropriate rhizobia strains before sowing."

- Farming Ahead June 2009 No. 209 www.farmingahead.com.au


Mycorrhiza are also symbiotic associations between the roots of plants and the mycelium of fungi. Ants and many small mammals in Australia are particularly important in the micro-ecological systems of nitrogen fixation. Ants not only help in turning over and aerating soil through burrowing; thus providing oxygen to plants, but they also aid in nitrogen fixation from air to soil through intricate associations with bacteria living on root nodules. Fungi-eating mammals such as the different species of potoroo (some of which are threatened) and small bush-rats are also believed to be very important players in the ecological systems that aid nitrogen uptake in forests in Australia.

Sorry, couldn't resist the correction

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It usage is applied to situations whereby there is a unknown probability that a unknown risk of an unknown significance will occur.

Not really. It's really a simple binary: better or worse based on what we know about the past and present. Science 101: Empiricism doesn't predict the future.

By the way, you shouldn't tread into the subject of economics. It is not your strong point.

This is a thread regarding science in a science subforum. Though in turn I expect you to avoid treading into the subject of reality, as it's not your strong point.

If they're any entrepreneurs out there, a company devoted to soil and erosion rehabilitation could make a pretty penny.

^Broken Window Fallacy.

Yes, I have studied biology, ecology, microbiology, soil, the nonsensical subject called 'sustainability', etc. I am quite a learned individual. I must state this is not the field of my employment.

I suggest you avoid conflating knowing with understanding.

I know that we have been told our whole lives that the environment is something to be valued in itself. That it should be perceived as a deity, mother earth. You wouldn't want to treat your mother poorly now, would you? I think what struck a nerve is that I simply don't hold the "environment" as something to be valued for its own sake. It must raise the ire of certain individuals. "How could this person not value the same things I value?"

I really dislike how ancaps paint a picture of everyone working for and in the government or displaying any favor toward altruism or regulation, regardless of how well founded it may be, as being evil selfish assholes who want to kill or enslave us all like some unnatural alien parasite.

It's not an issue of differing values, it's an issue of lack of recognition of value.

Sound economic theory and practice show us that clearly defined property rights create an environment whereby resources are generally managed properly. This is generally something you don't learn school.

Prove it. I'm/we're still waiting for the evidence I asked for in post #16.

If people are overly concerned about biodiversity or what not, they do something about.

Not if they don't/can't recognize or understand it. Comprehending science requires a certain level of expertise that the bulk of the general public lacks. The general public makes decisions based on the information they have access to, which is often the information that's fed to them. Speaking of which:

Spoiler

My work life is statistics

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.

I tried to look up some rankings of which countries pollute the most but I ran into a problem.

You're going to run into the same problems with rape statistics:

1. Definitions differ by location.
2. Under-reporting is rampant.

Third world countries don't really have these sorts of things.

Why should they? Regulations are just the evil government trying to get in the way.

Children dying of diarrhea induced dehydration. An absolute fucking travesty and you harping on about what countries pollute more.

A localized problem is less of a priority than a systemic problem. You exhibit the same logic as NIMBY-folk who prefer coal to nuclear in spite of very clear air pollution and health statistics demonstrating the former to be far more detrimental to far more people on a national scale.

Yes, and you view everything and anything as pollution.

Stop projecting your splitting.

I have a bachelors of engineering (Hons.) with first class honors. I have published papers on modelling in peer reviewed journals. I do have the faculties to read other researchers' work and formulate my own judgements. ^_^

Yeah, we have pieces of paper too.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Not really. It's really a simple binary: better or worse based on what we know about the past and present. Science 101: Empiricism doesn't predict the future.

I think you have gone on some sort of tangent. This tangent you have raised is well documented in the rationalist verses empiricist debates.

This is a thread regarding science in a science subforum. Though in turn I expect you to avoid treading into the subject of reality, as it's not your strong point.

Resource management and allocation issues are the realm of economics. Duxwing highlighted some resource management issues and a economic solution is private property rights.

^Broken Window Fallacy.

Economics really isn't your strong point. Starting a business to solve a problem which exists has nothing to do with the broken fallacy. No assertions were made stating that the creation of problem and the solution of a problem would be on the whole beneficial to the economy.

I suggest you avoid conflating knowing with understanding.

I suggest you should not presume knowledge and understanding when you have no basis.

It's not an issue of differing values, it's an issue of lack of recognition of value/

Value is subjective. Just because you value something to some extent does not predicate that I must value that same thing to the same extent.

Prove it. I'm/we're still waiting for the evidence I asked for in post #16.

On many occasions I think you're insane. This is one of them.

Have you ever wondered down a simple Walmart consider how it is possible that could supply such a wide variety of goods for low cost? Have ever considered the required logistics? This sort of resource supply and management is would be infeasible without private property vis a vis the market. People have tried and they ran into the economic calculation problem.

I suggest you study economics and history. Particularly how and why markets operate and people's experiments of different system of resource allocation. Pay special attention to the subjects of 'Tragedy of the Commons' and the 'Economic Calculation Problem'. They're quite pertinent to the subject of resource management and allocation.

You can start here:

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=314880&postcount=1
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=352025&postcount=127
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=324606&postcount=69

One example that comes to mind which is empirical is that an early colony in the US practiced communal ownership of the mean of production and found out it did not work. They noted incentive problems and resource allocation problems. They instituted private property rights and found that they were no longer starving during winter. Other empirical examples can be found in the shenanigans that went on in communist countries in regards to their difficulties with resource allocation.

Not if they don't/can't recognize or understand it. Comprehending science requires a certain level of expertise that the bulk of the general public lacks. The general public makes decisions based on the information they have access to, which is often the information that's fed to them.

You are most certainly free to attempt to influence people's thoughts on the particular matter if you perceive it to be a problem.

A localized problem is less of a priority than a systemic problem. You exhibit the same logic as NIMBY-folk who prefer coal to nuclear in spite of very clear air pollution and health statistics demonstrating the former to be far more detrimental to far more people on a national scale.

Yes, a localized problem which is wide-spread throughout third world countries which can't afford to treat water to make it potable and manage waste in an adequate manner. This is wide spread in India, poor countries in South-East Asia, poor African nations, etc. But hey! For someone like you as long as they're humans and not a component of the rest of the environment, it is fine that they suffer and die horrible deaths.

Yeah, we have pieces of paper too.

The fact of the matter is that I am a highly educated and a very capable person.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I think you mean Rhizobia. Rhizobia are nitrogen-fixing soil bacteria which work in association with the roots of legumes. It is a symbiotic relationship because they require a host plant to survive; they harvest nutrients for their survival such as carbohydrates, protein and oxygen.

From article:

"Understanding rhizobia Nitrogen can only be fixed from the atmosphere if the appropriate rhizobial (soil bacteria) species are present. The survival of rhizobia in soil in the absence of its host plant depends on soil pH, temperature, moisture, clay content, and the specific characteristics of the rhizobial strain. Cropping history affects rhizobia populations. If rhizobia are absent, %N-fixed will be zero (i.e. no symbiosis can be formed).

Similarly, %N-fi xed may be less than optimal if the rhizobial strains in the soil are ineffective. This can generally be rectified by inoculating seed with appropriate rhizobia strains before sowing."

- Farming Ahead June 2009 No. 209 www.farmingahead.com.au


Mycorrhiza are also symbiotic associations between the roots of plants and the mycelium of fungi. Ants and many small mammals in Australia are particularly important in the micro-ecological systems of nitrogen fixation. Ants not only help in turning over and aerating soil through burrowing; thus providing oxygen to plants, but they also aid in nitrogen fixation from air to soil through intricate associations with bacteria living on root nodules. Fungi-eating mammals such as the different species of potoroo (some of which are threatened) and small bush-rats are also believed to be very important players in the ecological systems that aid nitrogen uptake in forests in Australia.

Sorry, couldn't resist the correction

Thank you very much. It has been 5 years since I studied the particular subject.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I think you have gone on some sort of tangent. This tangent you have raised is well documented in the rationalist verses empiricist debates.

I think you're unable to comprehend the applications of the concept.

Resource management and allocation issues are the realm of economics. Duxwing highlighted some resource management issues and a economic solution is private property rights.

Data collected under such circumstances is science. The OP asked a question; a question that can be answered with data. The data says that your preferred methods of resource management suck giant rhino balls.

Economics really isn't your strong point. Starting a business to solve a problem which exists has nothing to do with the broken fallacy. No assertions were made stating that the creation of problem and the solution of a problem would be on the whole beneficial to the economy.

So you don't understand the fallacy nor the functions of the environment. Duly noted.

Value is subjective. Just because you value something to some extent does not predicate that I must value that same thing to the same extent.

The fact that some value a thing indicates that said value exists within the system at large.

meaningless drivel

I want evidence complete with a clear chain of causality and p-values. You've thus far responded with elusiveness and disingenuousness. You made the claim. Now back it up.

You are most certainly free to attempt to influence people's thoughts on the particular matter if you perceive it to be a problem.

That's not how it works. Again, you shouldn't delve too deep into that reality thing. It's not your strong suit.

Yes, a localized problem which is wide-spread throughout third world countries which can't afford to treat water to make it potable and manage waste in an adequate manner. This is wide spread in India, poor countries in South-East Asia, poor African nations, etc. But hey! For someone like you as long as they're humans and not a component of the rest of the environment, it is fine that they suffer and die horrible deaths.

Prove that the cause is not local in origin. The conditions of "death by disease diarrhea" are highly variable and dependent upon localized conditions.

Here's a good example of a problem that isn't localized:

Spoiler

Acid rain.

The fact of the matter is that I am a highly educated and a very capable person.

Yeah. So are we. Yet for whatever reason we don't feel the need to broadcast it as such.

 

[Minuend]

You care about humans, yet not care about the environment they live in - despite the fact that the two are inextricably linked.

ProxyAmenRa I'm still wondering how you solve this contradiction

I know that we have been told our whole lives that the environment is something to be valued in itself. That it should be perceived as a deity, mother earth. You wouldn't want to treat your mother poorly now, would you? I think what struck a nerve is that I simply don't hold the "environment" as something to be valued for its own sake. It must raise the ire of certain individuals. "How could this person not value the same things I value?"

Assuming people are merely replying from being provoked and not from knowledge and thinking is condescending.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

ProxyAmenRa I'm still wondering how you solve this contradiction

There is no contradiction. I said in similar words that I don't care for the concept of the environment itself. Mentioning that a particular specie went extinct does not provoke me.

Assuming people are merely replying from being provoked and not from knowledge and thinking is condescending.

Indeed it is.

 

[Hawkeye]

The fact of the matter is that I am a highly educated and a very capable person.

According to whom?

Getting a degree these days is a far cry from being highly educated.

Indeed it is.

Then reply to me properly instead of responding with contradictory nonsense.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I think you're unable to comprehend the applications of the concept.

I did you the benefit of the doubt and read through the wikipedia page. I failed to see the connection to the tangent you made. I think that you are quite poor at communicating ideas. Remember that the obligation is on you that you adequately convey what you wish to. I know this is really hard for you.

So you don't understand the fallacy nor the functions of the environment. Duly noted.

Now, no assertions were made that it is beneficial to the economy if a problem was created/manifested and fix again.

This may help you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erJEaFpS9ls

The fact that some value a thing indicates that said value exists within the system at large.

Well the value exists within your mind and you exist within the system at large.

I want evidence complete with a clear chain of causality and p-values. You've thus far responded with elusiveness and disingenuousness. You made the claim. Now back it up.

I don't care what you want. There is not reason to believe that data collection and performing statistical tests will provide additional information. As for causal reasoning behind what is evident, you can read 'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' by Murry N. Rothbard.

That's not how it works. Again, you shouldn't delve too deep into that reality thing. It's not your strong suit.

You have a very strange mentality. You perceive there to be a problem but simply choose to do nothing about it. Then you try obfuscate your laziness by bait and switch accusations.

Prove that the cause is not local in origin. The conditions of "death by disease diarrhea" are highly variable and dependent upon localized conditions.

I did not assert that the causes were not local in origin.

Yeah. So are we.

I doubt that on many occasions.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I did you the benefit of the doubt and read through the wikipedia page. I failed to see the connection to the tangent you made. I think that you are quite poor at communicating ideas. Remember that the obligation is on you that you adequately convey what you wish to. I know this is really hard for you.

Nah, you're just shitty at attempting to understand. Others ITT and elsewhere seem to understand me quite well. It is not my obligation to explain concepts to a tree stump, as tree stumps are not willing to listen.

Now, no assertions were made that it is beneficial to the economy if a problem was created/manifested and fix again.

1. The systems within the environment exist within a state of dynamic equilibrium.
2. Deleterious activities disrupt that equilibrium.
3. You asserted that financial gain is the result of fixing the disruption, thus implying that disruption is irrelevant.

"Pollution's not a problem if someone gets paid to fix it."

Broken. Window. Fallacy. It's not hard.

I don't care what you want. There is not reason to believe that data collection and performing statistical tests will provide additional information. As for causal reasoning behind what is evident, you can read 'Man, Economy and State with Power and Markets' by Murry N. Rothbard.

*dogmavomit*

[bimgx=450]http://i.qkme.me/3s6ni0.jpg[/bimgx]​

You have a very strange mentality. You perceive there to be a problem but simply choose to do nothing about it. Then you try obfuscate your laziness by bait and switch accusations.

I did not assert that the causes were not local in origin.

I doubt that on many occasions.

[bimgx=350]http://temp_thoughts_resize.s3.amazonaws.com/ce/acccda747ba2e3097f2ba5ccfa1760/someone-knows-more-than-you-do-about-something-yes-let-the-butthurt-flow.jpg[/bimgx]​

 

[Duxwing]

Resource management and allocation issues are the realm of economics. Duxwing highlighted some resource management issues and a economic solution is private property rights.

The question of public or private ownership is less categorical than casological.

For a given landowner, economy, and plot, if economic forces encourage a landowner to better manage his land, and if he can better manage his land, and if he can sufficiently well manage it, then he should privately own it. Situations wherein private ownership is not optimal (or calamitous) include those wherein:

--The landowner is ignorant of or reckless to dangers to his land.
--The landowner lacks the material, emotional, or human resources to better manage his land
--No landowner could better manage the land (e.g., upon which stands a landmark)
--Economic forces encourage or force the landowner to misuse or abuse the land

Therefore, one cannot determine which system better affects a plot of land and its environs until one, so to speak, smells soil and shakes hands.

Economics really isn't your strong point. Starting a business to solve a problem which exists has nothing to do with the broken fallacy. No assertions were made stating that the creation of problem and the solution of a problem would be on the whole beneficial to the economy.

In the Broken Window Parable, the State is encouraged to smash windows to spur economic growth, an action that we know to be futile because the resources that are devoted to making new windows could have otherwise been allocated. The problems that the land management companies solve could have been prevented with a lesser amount of resources than are used to solve it; the economy therefore loses the difference. One could therefore consider the arrangement that you propose to be one of a Cracked (and therefore reparable) Window.

I suggest you should not presume knowledge and understanding when you have no basis.

If I remember that THD has a degree in biology.

Value is subjective. Just because you value something to some extent does not predicate that I must value that same thing to the same extent.

His claim is that after stating that you value all elements of a set 'X,' you have contradicted by stating that you value not an element of a set X.

Have you ever wondered down a simple Walmart consider how it is possible that could supply such a wide variety of goods for low cost? Have ever considered the required logistics? This sort of resource supply and management is would be infeasible without private property vis a vis the market. People have tried and they ran into the economic calculation problem.

I suggest you study economics and history. Particularly how and why markets operate and people's experiments of different system of resource allocation. Pay special attention to the subjects of 'Tragedy of the Commons' and the 'Economic Calculation Problem'. They're quite pertinent to the subject of resource management and allocation.

You can start here:

http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=314880&postcount=1
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=352025&postcount=127
http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=324606&postcount=69

One example that comes to mind which is empirical is that an early colony in the US practiced communal ownership of the mean of production and found out it did not work. They noted incentive problems and resource allocation problems. They instituted private property rights and found that they were no longer starving during winter. Other empirical examples can be found in the shenanigans that went on in communist countries in regards to their difficulties with resource allocation.

And those systems well produced goods! As far as I know, we all agree on that point. We're proposing such a modification to that system as would reduce its environmental impact in the interest of future generations.

You are most certainly free to attempt to influence people's thoughts on the particular matter if you perceive it to be a problem.

I think that he's claiming that destroying parts of the environment is aggression and therefore a matter of the State.

-Duxwing

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Nah, you're just shitty at attempting to understand. Others ITT and elsewhere seem to understand me quite well. It is not my obligation to explain concepts to a tree stump, as tree stumps are not willing to listen.

Really? I doubt that. You seem to write shit for the sake of writing shit. Most of it is gibberish. You have a very long history of doing this.

1. The systems within the environment exist within a state of dynamic equilibrium.

Sure.

2. Deleterious activities disrupt that equilibrium.

Why not?

3. You asserted that financial gain is the result of fixing the disruption, thus implying that disruption is irrelevant.

If the disruption were irrelevant, why would people start a company to fix it? Ideally you would not want a problem manifesting in the first place. At the start, I was merely highlighting that you could make some money fixing a problem which exists.

Broken. Window. Fallacy. It's not hard.

Yes, it isn't hard. I am absolutely perplexed that would see its employment when it wasn't ever used.

I can readily imagine that you encapsulate the information conveyed by this picture:

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The question of public or private ownership is less categorical than casological.

For a given landowner, economy, and plot, if economic forces encourage a landowner to better manage his land, and if he can better manage his land, and if he can sufficiently well manage it, then he should privately own it. Situations wherein private ownership is not optimal (or calamitous) include those wherein:

--The landowner is ignorant of or reckless to dangers to his land.
--The landowner lacks the material, emotional, or human resources to better manage his land
--No landowner could better manage the land (e.g., upon which stands a landmark)
--Economic forces encourage or force the landowner to misuse or abuse the land

Therefore, one cannot determine which system better affects a plot of land and its environs until one, so to speak, smells soil and shakes hands.

Sure, in practice the world is not the ideal. I believe we have had many conversations on this topic in the past over skype.

If I remember that THD has a degree in biology.

This is not what we were talking about.

His claim is that after stating that you value all elements of a set 'X,' you have contradicted by stating that you value not an element of a set X.

I stated I do not value the concept of the environment itself. I may value a subset of the environment. A subset of the environment and the concept of the environment are not the same.

And those systems well produced goods! As far as I know, we all agree on that point. We're proposing such a modification to that system as would reduce its environmental impact in the interest of future generations.

Come on now, I know you're versed in the tragedy of the commons and the role that private property plays in solving issues related.

I think that he's claiming that destroying parts of the environment is aggression and therefore a matter of the State.

No, he was talking about how his fellow man is ignorant. A way to solve this problem is to relieve them of their ignorance. Solving this problem is in the realm of his ability to act. The fact of the matter is that he is just lazy.

 

[Cherry Cola]

What the problem with not valuing the environment in itself? I don't particularly do so, some animals are cooler than others though, it would suck if the Giant Anteater went extinct.

 

[Duxwing]

Sure, in practice the world is not the ideal. I believe we have had many conversations on this topic in the past over skype.

Thus we agree that privatization be applied case by case?

I stated I do not value the concept of the environment itself. I may value a subset of the environment. A subset of the environment and the concept of the environment are not the same.

Logically, and for a short while, yes, you could value only a part of the environment; however, the defining the boundaries of that part is nigh impossible because the part that you value affects the part that I value, and vice versa, and with your neighbor and mine, and the parts of our children in the future. You seem to be very focused upon the immediate, material effects: think of the environment as you would of a Jenga tower in that pulling the wrong block (e.g., letting the Great Plains' topsoil dry to dust) causes it to tumble (Dust Bowl).

Come on now, I know you're versed in the tragedy of the commons and the role that private property plays in solving issues related.

Yes, as I outlined.

No, he was talking about how his fellow man is ignorant. A way to solve this problem is to relieve them of their ignorance. Solving this problem is in the realm of his ability to act. The fact of the matter is that he is just lazy.

Hmm? I didn't see that.

-Duxwing

 

[The Introvert]

Arguing with Proxy is not arguing at all, but rather a shit-slinging competition.

For those getting frustrated, your time is much better spent congratulating him on his high degree of honors education (ejumucashun fer us commin folk) and going about your normal, apparently intellectually insulting life.

Peace.

 

[Hawkeye]

I reckon we put Proxy in a room filled with excessive *COUGH* lethal *COUGH* amounts of CO2 and get him to explain again how that much CO2 isn't a pollutant to his body.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Arguing with Proxy is not arguing at all, but rather a shit-slinging competition.

For those getting frustrated, your time is much better spent congratulating him on his high degree of honors education (ejumucashun fer us commin folk) and going about your normal, apparently intellectually insulting life.

Peace.

There was no debate in the first place. What happened was that some of you became outraged over the fact that I do not value the same things as you do.

 

[Hawkeye]

There was and is a debate, you just don't have any back bone when it comes to admitting you've made a mistake.

Refusing to respond to my posts with anything other than bogus statements which have no evidence backing them merely supports this claim.

I'm not particularly bothered in continuing a "discussion" with you. You clearly have your head so far up your own backside, you cannot see what little knowledge you have on the subject of pollution and climate change. You know, the actual topic of the thread...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

There was and is a debate, you just don't have any back bone when it comes to admitting you've made a mistake.

You're delusional. Suggesting a solution to a resource management problem does not constitute a debate. Your protests of my value system does not constitute a debate. There was no debate.

You know, the actual topic of the thread...

Your hubris is no longer entertaining. This thread was split from another. The topic of the conversation was changed during the conversation. The topic did and does not reflect the conversation.

 

[Grayman]

I reckon we put Proxy in a room filled with excessive *COUGH* lethal *COUGH* amounts of CO2 and get him to explain again how that much CO2 isn't a pollutant to his body.

I feel the same way about water.

 

[Hawkeye]

I feel the same way about water.

Precisely! Too much of something can be just as disastrous as too little: Eutrophication

Using this idea and applying it to an unwanted byproduct makes that excessive material a pollutant if it results in a damaging effect.

Anything can potentially become a pollutant to a system, but it does not mean that everything is. Something that Proxy failed to elaborate on.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

Arguing with Proxy is not arguing at all, but rather a shit-slinging competition.

For those getting frustrated, your time is much better spent congratulating him on his high degree of honors education (ejumucashun fer us commin folk) and going about your normal, apparently intellectually insulting life.

Peace.

But how could we compare?

I reckon we put Proxy in a room filled with excessive *COUGH* lethal *COUGH* amounts of CO2 and get him to explain again how that much CO2 isn't a pollutant to his body.

That's not entertaining enough to sell tickets to...

You don't like my unfounded, dogmatic bias. I don't know why. *cries and strokes ego in the corner*

This thread was split from another. The topic of the conversation was changed during the conversation. The topic did and does not reflect the conversation.

Well, Absurdity initially deemed the derail worthy of its own thread, and... I don't think it's off topic at all, really. I'll also guess that fellow madmin agree.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Well, Absurdity initially deemed the derail worthy of its own thread, and... I don't think it's off topic at all, really. I'll also guess that fellow madmin agree.

The conversation never really matched the title of the thread. Ergo, the title is wrong. It should be something along the lines of 'People pissed off by Proxy not valuing the concept of the environment as much as they do'.

 

[The Introvert]

There was no debate in the first place. What happened was that some of you became outraged over the fact that I do not value the same things as you do.

Outraged?

I don't care whether or not you have the same opinion as I do. I'm just saying when someone has a point on you you move the goalposts, change the subject entirely, and revert to ad-hominem attacks and put words in people's mouths.

I don't care about what you have to say, because I don't respect your opinion (you've never given any reason to), just as I'm sure you don't respect mine.

 

[Latte]

This thread escalated at a moderate pace.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The conversation never really matched the title of the thread. Ergo, the title is wrong. It should be something along the lines of 'People pissed off by Proxy not valuing the concept of the environment as much as they do'.

The title refers to the conversation, which, given the timing of Absurdity's split, refers to posts 1-8. You asked a question, Dux suggested answers begetting data. Seems sciencey.

Basically the split took you out of your element, not changed the thread's content or purpose.

This thread escalated at a moderate pace.

"Oh, he'll give us what we need... It may not be what we want..."

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Outraged?

I don't care whether or not you have the same opinion as I do. I'm just saying when someone has a point on you you move the goalposts, change the subject entirely, and revert to ad-hominem attacks and put words in people's mouths.

I don't care about what you have to say, because I don't respect your opinion (you've never given any reason to), just as I'm sure you don't respect mine.

I didn't move any goal posts. I was just responding to your guys' riled emotions. I don't appreciate having to respond to a bunch guys launching personal attacks at me. You may think I am just am a emotionless INTJ but I do emotions. It feels bad that you guys were so aggressive in demonizing me because I don't value the concept of the environment the same way you do. I know my response to some of your attacks weren't nice and it would have just riled your emotions more. I am sorry for this. Now I am sitting here wondering why can't we just get along? If you guys wanted a discussion on various topics, it can be cordial and with respect.

 

[Hawkeye]

To claim that all you were ever talking about was a "potential solution to a resource management problem" would be fine by me if it were true, alas, this is blatantly not the case.

When you were informed that third world countries were not the main contenders in generating pollution (and you discovered this to be the case when you actually researched it), you said the tables were biased without providing any supporting evidence. This was followed by you attempting to switch the topic to ethics. You then fired bogus claims about me deeming everything and anything to be a pollutant without any elaboration (even when asked to).

It's all there in black and white, clear as crystal...

To put it another way:

when someone has a point on you you move the goalposts, change the subject entirely, and revert to ad-hominem attacks and put words in people's mouths.

 

[Grayman]

Without the increased level of CO2, the water vapour contributes little to global warming.

It is merely an amplifier, but what use is an amplifier if it has nothing to amplify? For this reason CO2 plays a larger role in climate change than water vapour.

It doesn't matter if it does or not because the CO2 will destroy the plankton and cause enough damage in our oceans to make it a large issue long before the earth warms up too much.

Anyways, even with water it contributes little. As the temperature increases so does the rate of heat transfer through convection. Yah, the atmosphere holds more water but it transfers the heat faster through increased evaporation and better convection. Water is the greatest source of the earths temperature stabilization. It helps against most outside affects. This is because the phase changes of water are all so close together that it has great potential to absorb and store energy and then release it when the temperatures try to fluctuate the other direction.

 

[Hawkeye]

It doesn't matter if it does or not because the CO2 will destroy the plankton and cause enough damage in our oceans to make it a large issue long before the earth warms up too much.

Anyways, even with water it contributes little. As the temperature increases so does the rate of heat transfer through convection. Yah, the atmosphere holds more water but it transfers the heat faster through increased evaporation and better convection. Water is the greatest source of the earths temperature stabilization. It helps against most outside affects. This is because the phase changes of water are all so close together that it has great potential to absorb and store energy and then release it when the temperatures try to fluctuate the other direction.

It's true and this is also why Earth will never have a runaway greenhouse effect as extreme as Venus' until the Sun increases in temperature (this is a long way off yet ^^). The problem we have on this planet now though is that by the time equilibrium is reached, the damage has already been done and current environments will have been destroyed.

Extreme climate changes are natural events that have happened every few millennia/millenniums or so. What's happening now however is that we as a species are accelerating the process.

Sure, humans have survived ice ages and no doubt will probably survive the next one, but at what cost?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

You may think I am just am a emotionless INTJ but I do emotions. I know my response to some of your attacks weren't nice and it would have just riled your emotions more. I am sorry for this. Now I am sitting here wondering why can't we just get along?

I'm only a dick because of our history. Otherwise I'm invoking the following in regards to agent-based conflict theory:

If A disagrees with perspective B and both parties are open to changing their views, they are equally at fault in communication if neither changes their views. If A disagrees with perspectives B-Q, it's most likely that A is at fault.

What this really does is raise the question of whether, in the case of the latter, the fault is intrinsic (in which case it's not A's responsibility, it just restricts A to a certain role in the system at large), or whether the fault is due to ignorance or purposeful. If the latter here holds true, then it's a question of how much should be invested in communication in terms of risk vs reward.

I don't know how you think (and I also believe the reverse to be true), which I'm assuming is why our conflicts tend to flare up. I always, always, always; it's automatic and deeply ingrained within my being and a strong default reaction; when a possibility comes up regarding whether something is true or false, assume that it is true and then compare it to the existing supersystem of understanding I've built since birth. This is Ne: What do I know and how does what I know apply to what's in front of me? When further developed, this instinct automatically desires to force and manipulate all things into a single system within which all is true. This is what, philosophically, leads me to take up ideas like panarchy and to explore the nature of subjectivity. This also leads me to auto-reject one-size-fits-all solutions and ideologies. They don't jibe with dynamic equilibrium and subsequently fail when put into practice. The same happens with appeals to authority (like stating you have a degree). A big loud buzzer goes off in my head because the label of accreditation is meaningless, unlike concepts, data, etc.

Though I refuse to believe you possess emotion.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

To claim that all you were ever talking about was a "potential solution to a resource management problem" would be fine by me if it were true, alas, this is blatantly not the case.

It certainly was the case.

When you were informed that third world countries were not the main contenders in generating pollution (and you discovered this to be the case when you actually researched it), you said the tables were biased without providing any supporting evidence. This was followed by you attempting to switch the topic to ethics. You then fired bogus claims about me deeming everything and anything to be a pollutant without any elaboration (even when asked to).

Third world countries do have pollution issues in comparison to affluent nations. Affluent nations are able to afford proper waste management. In my research of what countries are most polluted (not pollute the most), they biased their rankings based on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This is a separate issue from nations which pollute the most. By mass, I can easily imagine a country like the US polluting more than Cambodia. The US produces more waste.

I'm only a dick because of our history. Otherwise I'm invoking the following in regards to agent-based conflict theory:

If A disagrees with perspective B and both parties are open to changing their views, they are equally at fault in communication if neither changes their views. If A disagrees with perspectives B-Q, it's most likely that A is at fault.

What this really does is raise the question of whether, in the case of the latter, the fault is intrinsic (in which case it's not A's responsibility, it just restricts A to a certain role in the system at large), or whether the fault is due to ignorance or purposeful. If the latter here holds true, then it's a question of how much should be invested in communication in terms of risk vs reward.

I don't know how you think (and I also believe the reverse to be true), which I'm assuming is why our conflicts tend to flare up. I always, always, always; it's automatic and deeply ingrained within my being and a strong default reaction; when a possibility comes up regarding whether something is true or false, assume that it is true and then compare it to the existing supersystem of understanding I've built since birth. This is Ne: What do I know and how does what I know apply to what's in front of me? When further developed, this instinct automatically desires to force and manipulate all things into a single system within which all is true. This is what, philosophically, leads me to take up ideas like panarchy and to explore the nature of subjectivity. This also leads me to auto-reject one-size-fits-all solutions and ideologies. They don't jibe with dynamic equilibrium and subsequently fail when put into practice. The same happens with appeals to authority (like stating you have a degree). A big loud buzzer goes off in my head because the label of accreditation is meaningless, unlike concepts, data, etc.

Though I refuse to believe you possess emotion.

It is ok, I forgive you. Next just time refrain from immediately venturing on a path of war.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It is ok, I forgive you. Next just time refrain from immediately venturing on a path of war.

What this response didn't include is a demonstration of understanding of the concepts within what it was in response to. Seems to be a trend, dare I say.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

What this response didn't include is a demonstration of understanding of the concepts within what it was in response to. Seems to be a trend, dare I say.

I forgive you for who you are...Just like I forgave TheGopher for being a lover, not a fighter.

 

[ummidk]

Here we go again

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Here we go again

Sorry. I just found his paragraph to be a tad bit convoluted. If people want clarification about what say, all they need to do is ask. I agree with THD, some solutions to problems are not the be all end all.