Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 78

Thread: EU: Proposed 18% CO2 cut

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by lightweight
    Come on Canuck! Don't try to prove something that can't be proven. It's good to have an open mind of things and try to judge what is being discussed, but being too open minded can lead to false conclusions
    Thats why ill stay neutral I guess...I just think that it should remain a debate.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northampton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,989
    I could sure use some global warming right now. It's like 20 out...
    [O o)O=\x/=O(o O]

    The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.

    Patrick says:
    dads is too long so it wont fit
    so i took hers out
    and put mine in

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Quiggs
    I could sure use some global warming right now. It's like 20 out...
    Its been around -17 Celcius here for a few days with a good amount of wind making it feel like -30

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Thats why ill stay neutral I guess...I just think that it should remain a debate.
    The point is, at this point it's stupid to remain neutral. You obviously fail to understand the extent of our current knowledge as well as the numbers of scientists on both sides of the story.

    You're not making yourself look any more informed by mentioning that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Everyone knows this. It's lunacy that you would even suggest that a panel consisting of the best minds in the field could spend over 5 years improving on what we know and still oversee something so ridiculously simple as this.

    Your ultimate failure lies in the fact that you don't put any trust in people who know far better than you do. Science is a process that yields the best of what we know at any given time. If you'd actually look around for yourself at what we currently know and realistic numbers of who believes what, maybe you'd understand what I'm saying. The numbers on either side of the debate are nowhere near equal. You really need to understand that on the preventative side, there are no hidden agendas. There are no people who stand to personally gain anything from addressing the issue.

    Being neutral is not always a good idea. Maybe for you being impartial is humbling, but it's not smart. The inactive mindset is only going to further the potential damage. Please don't pick and choose what you respond to. Go inform yourself. Read both sides of the debate. Be realistic. Don't rely on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Get back to us.
    Last edited by Egg Nog; 02-08-2007 at 01:53 AM.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Scotland, UK
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    It's lunacy that you would even suggest that a panel consisting of the best minds in the field
    You must be referring to the people on the UCP thread
    Minimising losses can maximise net gains

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Gran Canaria, Spain
    Posts
    3,525
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Isn't that like trying to demolish a house, but since you don't have many tools, you'll just take out the windows?
    No. Since this is a car forum: It's more like you have a car that is too heavy. You want to reduce its weight yourself. A big portion of the car's weight consists of parts like the engine and chassis, you don't have the tools to remove these "parts" yourself and besides you're not looking for a 100% weight reduction which would leave you with no car and a bunch of new problems. What you are looking for is a reduction of let's say 15% so isn't it logical to start by taking out the parts that you can, not the biggest parts sine you still want the car to function?

    See where I'm going?
    http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=31695
    - Are YOU listed? -

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    The point is, at this point it's stupid to remain neutral. You obviously fail to understand the extent of our current knowledge as well as the numbers of scientists on both sides of the story.

    You're not making yourself look any more informed by mentioning that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. Everyone knows this. It's lunacy that you would even suggest that a panel consisting of the best minds in the field could spend over 5 years improving on what we know and still oversee something so ridiculously simple as this.

    Your ultimate failure lies in the fact that you don't put any trust in people who know far better than you do. Science is a process that yields the best of what we know at any given time. If you'd actually look around for yourself at what we currently know and realistic numbers of who believes what, maybe you'd understand what I'm saying. The numbers on either side of the debate are nowhere near equal. You really need to understand that on the preventative side, there are no hidden agendas. There are no people who stand to personally gain anything from addressing the issue.
    You know what your probably right and I promise Ill shutup soon but seriously, your argument is still; lots of people who are well informed agree, therefore it must be correct.

    There are many people who don't agree aswell and you say that my "ultimate failure" is that I don't trust people with more knowledge? How do I know which side to trust?

    You make it sound like there is only one side but remember there are thousands of scientists who disagree, why shouldn't I trust them as much as the ones you have listed?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Pando
    No. Since this is a car forum: It's more like you have a car that is too heavy. You want to reduce its weight yourself. A big portion of the car's weight consists of parts like the engine and chassis, you don't have the tools to remove these "parts" yourself and besides you're not looking for a 100% weight reduction which would leave you with no car and a bunch of new problems. What you are looking for is a reduction of let's say 15% so isn't it logical to start by taking out the parts that you can, not the biggest parts sine you still want the car to function?

    See where I'm going?
    Yes I see you are probably right and my analogy was a bit flawed, however it would be as if saying that you couldn't control the weight of an engine (which you can/lighter materials) so you'll just remove the seats.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    You know what your probably right and I promise Ill shutup soon but seriously, your argument is still; lots of people who are well informed agree, therefore it must be correct.

    There are many people who don't agree aswell and you say that my "ultimate failure" is that I don't trust people with more knowledge? How do I know which side to trust?

    You make it sound like there is only one side but remember there are thousands of scientists who disagree, why shouldn't I trust them as much as the ones you have listed?
    Re-read what I said and get back to me. Nobody is saying that it's an absolute. It would be idiotic to think you could even have a 100% confident answer with a problem so complex.

    It's extremely evident that you don't understand who these people are. Your only argument is "there are people on both sides of the debate, therefore there is no reasonable conclusion". This is utterly fallacious logic. You don't understand any percentages of who believes what or understand what bias is.

    You clearly don't understand the extent of the scientific consensus on climate change. Getting back to the holocaust example; despite extensive proof of its occurrence, there are thousands of people who still deny that it happened. The fact that there are people who go against the best evidence and reasoning doesn't change anything.

    My argument was not "lots of people who are well informed agree, therefore it must be correct". It was "the most informed and unbiased people have extensive evidence and agree, therefore it is (as they say) extremely likely". Nobody can be 100% sure; we all understand that. However, the only thing you're proving to anyone by being completely neutral is that you don't have a very good understanding of the issue.

    Do you think maybe you should be a bit less stubborn, or should I start pointing out every logical fallacy you make?

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    Do you think maybe you should be a bit less stubborn, or should I start pointing out every logical fallacy you make?
    You can if you like, but realize what your saying is that everyone who's against the thesis (climate change is caused by humans) is ignorant or biased. This is what annoys me, Im sorry but why should thousands of scientists automatially be labled biased?

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    33,431
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    You can if you like, but realize what your saying is that everyone who's against the thesis (climate change is caused by humans) is ignorant or biased. This is what annoys me, Im sorry but why should thousands of scientists automatially be labled biased?
    In any case, what's so fundamentally wrong with trying to reduce our input in the problem, therefore reducing the problem itself, that you try to argue endlessly?
    Lack of charisma can be fatal.
    Visca Catalunya!

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Ferrer
    In any case, what's so fundamentally wrong with trying to reduce our input in the problem, therefore reducing the problem itself, that you try to argue endlessly?
    Nothing wrong with fixing it.
    I just don't agree with whats causing it or possibly even how to fix it. But like someone said earlier in this thread at least do it for better air quality.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada
    Posts
    5,773
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    Nothing wrong with fixing it.
    I just don't agree with whats causing it or possibly even how to fix it. But like someone said earlier in this thread at least do it for better air quality.
    The amount of CO2 in the air has nothing to do with air quality.

    Why should thousands of scientists be labelled biased? Well, maybe because many are biased. Many are on corporate payrolls, but that's a minor issue. I hate getting political and bureaucratic about this type of thing. You know how you make up your mind scientifically? You take a look at all the evidence and make a best guess. If you look up the opposition to climate change (on wikipedia even), you'll see that their points don't say "climate change is not being caused by humans" - they just point out known limitations of science, such as cloud physics models in computer weather simulations. These don't contradict anything. This is in fact the same reason why nobody claims to be 100% sure about anything.

    The fact is that nothing is 100%. One very small side of the debate has possible bias and few things to say, and the other very large side has masses of information and no possible personal agendas. One side is extremely likely to be correct and has greater means of proving it, and the other side attempts to point out possible hinderances without condradicting much. It's up to you who to believe, but don't expect a medal when you're in the middle of an almost entirely explainable issue and the neutral midset could do a lot of damage. Look at who's saying what, and look at the odds.
    Last edited by Egg Nog; 02-08-2007 at 03:52 PM.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    True North
    Posts
    7,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
    The amount of CO2 in the air has nothing to do with air quality.

    Why should thousands of scientists be labelled biased? Well, maybe because many are biased. Many are on corporate payrolls, but that's a minor issue. I hate getting political and bureaucratic about this type of thing. You know how you make up your mind scientifically? You take a look at all the evidence and make a best guess. If you look up the opposition to climate change (on wikipedia even), you'll see that their points don't say "climate change is not being caused by humans" - they just point out known limitations of science, such as cloud physics models in computer weather simulations. These don't contradict anything. This is in fact the same reason why nobody claims to be 100% sure about anything.

    The fact is that nothing is 100%. One very small side of the debate has possible bias and few things to say, and the other very large side has masses of information and no possible personal agendas. One side is extremely likely to be correct and has greater means of proving it, and the other side attempts to point out possible hinderances without condradicting much. It's up to you who to believe. Look at who's saying what, and look at the odds.
    You should look at this it's pretty interesting:

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by The_Canuck
    The output of 6 people amongst many other areas
    It's always worth looking up the "about us" stuff on web sites !!
    oh I forgot the "volunteers" as well --- about as reliable scientifically as the local catholic priest
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •