Random Politics & Religion #00 |
||
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Bahamut.Ravael said: » If scientists didn't claim that every weather event, animal extinction, geological phenomenon, and burnt dinner was due to global warming, I might be more inclined to take them more seriously as scientists. Somewhere there's a happy medium between crazy denier and crazy "OMG climate change is responsible for everything"...er.
[+]
Bahamut.Kara said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » So increasing the oil supply via fracking doesn't lower prices? Supply shock from North American oil rippling through global markets I do, it's full of stuff like: "According to the MTOMR, the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market." "“North America has set off a supply shock that is sending ripples throughout the world,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven, who launched the report at the Platts Crude Oil Summit in London. “The good news is that this is helping to ease a market that was relatively tight for several years. The technology that unlocked the bonanza in places like North Dakota can and will be applied elsewhere, potentially leading to a broad reassessment of reserves." and lets not forget. "The growth in North American oil production presents opportunities and challenges, notes the MTOMR. With large-scale North American crude imports tapering off and with excess US refining output looking for markets, the domino effects from this new supply will continue." Are you sure you're reading them? They are discussing how companies should adjust risk assessments and investment stratagies. They don't even remotely discuss pricing at even the barrel level. They are discussing how the technologies coming from north america will potentially send a supply shock. As in other countries (specifically non OECD) will start pumping up the supply using these new mthods as long as it profitable. There is no potentially about it (i underlined the IEA guy who states it). Why are you arguing that production hasn't increased? This is the dumbest thing to nitpick since it's demonstrably true. Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If scientists didn't claim that every weather event, animal extinction, geological phenomenon, and burnt dinner was due to global warming, I might be more inclined to take them more seriously as scientists. Somewhere there's a happy medium between crazy denier and crazy "OMG climate change is responsible for everything"...er. Jetackuu said: » Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If scientists didn't claim that every weather event, animal extinction, geological phenomenon, and burnt dinner was due to global warming, I might be more inclined to take them more seriously as scientists. Somewhere there's a happy medium between crazy denier and crazy "OMG climate change is responsible for everything"...er. real science is. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Jetackuu said: » Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If scientists didn't claim that every weather event, animal extinction, geological phenomenon, and burnt dinner was due to global warming, I might be more inclined to take them more seriously as scientists. Somewhere there's a happy medium between crazy denier and crazy "OMG climate change is responsible for everything"...er. real science is.You'll get all sorts of self proclaimed experts.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Altimaomega said: » Perhaps you should take a look at the dates for all this "evidence", then do a little critical thinking. Just posting that the weather=climate changes over time is fail.. When you do that all I have to do is say "hey look at the past 2-3yrs, the next ice age is coming!" Please don't be a Pleebo and put some thought into the "evidence" you present. Maybe you are the one who should put some thought into your denial. Let's take an example, Antartica ice exent hits record high, you go on a rampage without understanding what it means. Now look at the actual ice mass loss, oh? The biggest insult here is that the alarmists try and discredit the skeptics by pointing to their lack of understanding on the issue, all the while EVERY SINGLE prediction the alarmists have ever made has failed to materialize. Sea level rises? Suck it! Ice coverage? Suck it! Global temps? Suck it! Hurricanes? Suck it! Droughts? Suck it! Polar bears? Suck it! All these things have proven the alarmists lack of understanding on the issue. You have a 19ish percent below 1981-2010 arctic average, and a 6ish percent above 1981-2010 anarctic average. While the anarctic fields are significantly larger in scale, they do not necessarily have the same impact as changes in arctic ice. Or ice and snow in other areas. Which is one of the more frustrating things; people simply read "ooh, we got more ice, nothing to worry about now" because they don't have the slightest idea that it isn't simply the quantity or magnitude that are important, but the also the location and timing.
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Bahamut.Kara said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » So increasing the oil supply via fracking doesn't lower prices? Supply shock from North American oil rippling through global markets I do, it's full of stuff like: "According to the MTOMR, the effects of continued growth in North American supply – led by US light, tight oil (LTO) and Canadian oil sands – will cascade through the global oil market." "“North America has set off a supply shock that is sending ripples throughout the world,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven, who launched the report at the Platts Crude Oil Summit in London. “The good news is that this is helping to ease a market that was relatively tight for several years. The technology that unlocked the bonanza in places like North Dakota can and will be applied elsewhere, potentially leading to a broad reassessment of reserves." and lets not forget. "The growth in North American oil production presents opportunities and challenges, notes the MTOMR. With large-scale North American crude imports tapering off and with excess US refining output looking for markets, the domino effects from this new supply will continue." Are you sure you're reading them? They are discussing how companies should adjust risk assessments and investment stratagies. They don't even remotely discuss pricing at even the barrel level. They are discussing how the technologies coming from north america will potentially send a supply shock. As in other countries (specifically non OECD) will start pumping up the supply using these new mthods as long as it profitable. There is no potentially about it (i underlined the IEA guy who states it). Why are you arguing that production hasn't increased? This is the dumbest thing to nitpick since it's demonstrably true. This is an article about the next five year forecast. How the supply shock (NA producing more than forecasted) from new technologies will create more supply in the next five years (because other countries will start using those technologies and innovating in new directions). Edit: *to make this clear: US oil increased compared to global oil production by 3% from 2009-2013. World: 84,951.2, 87,578.6, 87,869.7, 89,750.2, 90,109.3 United States: 9,130.1, 9,695.6, 10,128.5, 11,118.7, 12,342.5 US% to world supply: 10.7%, 11%, 11.5%, 12.4%, 13.7%
[+]
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » There is no potentially about it (i underlined the IEA guy who states it). Why are you arguing that production hasn't increased? This is the dumbest thing to nitpick since it's demonstrably true. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » So increasing the oil supply via fracking doesn't lower prices? Supply shock from North American oil rippling through global markets Your evidence that you provided is not evidence.
[+]
Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Jetackuu said: » Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If scientists didn't claim that every weather event, animal extinction, geological phenomenon, and burnt dinner was due to global warming, I might be more inclined to take them more seriously as scientists. Somewhere there's a happy medium between crazy denier and crazy "OMG climate change is responsible for everything"...er. real science is.You'll get all sorts of self proclaimed experts. And yet any time I think a particular news commentary is full of crap for saying an event was caused by global warming, I'm immediately labeled a denier out of principle.
[+]
Depends on the event, and the article, example?
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » So increasing the oil supply via fracking doesn't lower prices? Supply shock from North American oil rippling through global markets No it does not. US production is not going to affect the prices, as the amount of production has had no impact on our small percentage of reserves. Both the US and China have less than 3% of the world's oil in reserve, where a country like Saudi Arabia has over 20%. Fracking has done nothing to change this, nausi's links continue to be irrelevant to gas prices. Jetackuu said: » Depends on the event, and the article, example? Just speaking from past experiences on other websites. I've mostly avoided the topic for a while now. I think the most recent event in question had to do with the holes opening up in Russia, though. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » i love that Gruber guy. I like when he shot that one douchebag in the face...
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Jetackuu said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Jetackuu said: » Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If scientists didn't claim that every weather event, animal extinction, geological phenomenon, and burnt dinner was due to global warming, I might be more inclined to take them more seriously as scientists. Somewhere there's a happy medium between crazy denier and crazy "OMG climate change is responsible for everything"...er. real science is.You'll get all sorts of self proclaimed experts. And yet any time I think a particular news commentary is full of crap for saying an event was caused by global warming, I'm immediately labeled a denier out of principle. Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I love when he slaps Ron:
 Or when he was raised by a witch and became the Sheriff of Nottingham:  Bahamut.Ravael said: » I'm immediately labeled a denier out of principle. Oh that's easy.... just embrace the many benefits global warming presents the north coast of ohio and encourage burning coal to help speed it along. it's frickin freezing up here mr. bigglesworth.jpeg  Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Tenuous statements like that are typically qualified to emphasize a casual link. Extreme weather events could be the result of a warmer atmosphere but more data is needed. Actually, I wouldn't even count that as a casual link since the consequence of adding more and more energy into a system is greater turbulence. When you hear things like "Isolated Event A is a direct result of climate change" you're probably getting the results of a news organization sloppily distilling press statements like "Isolated Event A could be part of a increasing trend towards more extreme weather".
[+]
Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Yeah, but making the leap from "ocean temperatures are rising" to "it's all our fault" and actually being able to declare causality with the backing of advanced statistics is a lot more involved than most people (even scientists) are willing to admit. Then again, I'm a tad jaded due to my line of work.
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Yeah, but making the leap from "ocean temperatures are rising" to "it's all our fault" and actually being able to declare causality with the backing of advanced statistics is a lot more involved than most people (even scientists) are willing to admit. Then again, I'm a tad jaded due to my line of work. Well, here's my shorthand version. Temperatures are rising more quickly than at any time we know about that didn't correspond with some kind of major geologic event. We know that CO2 traps more heat than other atmospheric gasses and we know that we're pumping a lot of it out. I'm not saying that it's the base cause, but it is definitely contributory and anything we can do to lessen our impact on our surroundings should at least be explored. The problem is that deniers are claiming the same certainty as tree-huggers with even less evidence and that debate keeps us from having the debate we should be having; how do we deal with climate change and our finite energy sources. Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Yeah, but making the leap from "ocean temperatures are rising" to "it's all our fault" and actually being able to declare causality with the backing of advanced statistics is a lot more involved than most people (even scientists) are willing to admit. Then again, I'm a tad jaded due to my line of work. Well, here's my shorthand version. Temperatures are rising more quickly than at any time we know about that didn't correspond with some kind of major geologic event. We know that CO2 traps more heat than other atmospheric gasses and we know that we're pumping a lot of it out. I'm not saying that it's the base cause, but it is definitely contributory and anything we can do to lessen our impact on our surroundings should at least be explored. The problem is that deniers are claiming the same certainty as tree-huggers with even less evidence and that debate keeps us from having the debate we should be having; how do we deal with climate change and our finite energy sources. Wanna back that statement up a bit? Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Yeah, but making the leap from "ocean temperatures are rising" to "it's all our fault" and actually being able to declare causality with the backing of advanced statistics is a lot more involved than most people (even scientists) are willing to admit. Then again, I'm a tad jaded due to my line of work. Well, here's my shorthand version. Temperatures are rising more quickly than at any time we know about that didn't correspond with some kind of major geologic event. We know that CO2 traps more heat than other atmospheric gasses and we know that we're pumping a lot of it out. I'm not saying that it's the base cause, but it is definitely contributory and anything we can do to lessen our impact on our surroundings should at least be explored. The problem is that deniers are claiming the same certainty as tree-huggers with even less evidence and that debate keeps us from having the debate we should be having; how do we deal with climate change and our finite energy sources. Wanna back that statement up a bit? Pipe down, kiddo, the adults are talking. Odin.Jassik said: » Altimaomega said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Yeah, but making the leap from "ocean temperatures are rising" to "it's all our fault" and actually being able to declare causality with the backing of advanced statistics is a lot more involved than most people (even scientists) are willing to admit. Then again, I'm a tad jaded due to my line of work. Well, here's my shorthand version. Temperatures are rising more quickly than at any time we know about that didn't correspond with some kind of major geologic event. We know that CO2 traps more heat than other atmospheric gasses and we know that we're pumping a lot of it out. I'm not saying that it's the base cause, but it is definitely contributory and anything we can do to lessen our impact on our surroundings should at least be explored. The problem is that deniers are claiming the same certainty as tree-huggers with even less evidence and that debate keeps us from having the debate we should be having; how do we deal with climate change and our finite energy sources. Wanna back that statement up a bit? Pipe down, kiddo, the adults are talking. More like tossing poo. Since the USA is one of the main CO2 producers, why are the temps not rising here? "You're not saying its the base cause but definitely contributing." Contributing to what? The extremely mild temperatures the USA has had and is continuing to have for the past 2 years. You cannot have it both ways. Hotter summers and colder winters have a funny effect on averages amd how some people perceive quote unquote climate change.
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Hotter summers and colder winters have a funny effect on averages amd how some people perceive quote unquote climate change. Except for the past few summers haven't been hotter. So what you should be saying is cooler summers and colder winters have a funny effect on averages and how some people perceive quote unquote climate change.[/quote] Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Not by anyone who's opinion you should care about, but... Global climate is something that affects just about everything. Climate changes on any scale can upset entire ecosystems and disrupt industry. It's not hard for semi-educated people to make causal connections between anything and climate change even if it is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. This constant emphasis on everything different being the polar opposite and must be wrong drives me nuts. People who question conclusions aren't the same as radical deniers any more than people who accept scientific consensus are tree-huggers. I agree with the second paragraph, but the bolded part is what drives me nuts. Educated people and proper scientists should make it a point to not declare causality when there is at best a corollary or coincidental connection. Since you're someone who claims to always state opinions as opinions and facts as facts, I'd assume that you'd recognize that causality shouldn't be something that's declared all willy nilly just because it fits a narrative. I agree, but I also am acutely aware of how much I don't know about many things, and I defer to experts. I wouldn't state their findings as fact, but things like oceanic temperature readings are easy for a layman to understand if they cared to. Yeah, but making the leap from "ocean temperatures are rising" to "it's all our fault" and actually being able to declare causality with the backing of advanced statistics is a lot more involved than most people (even scientists) are willing to admit. Then again, I'm a tad jaded due to my line of work. Well, here's my shorthand version. Temperatures are rising more quickly than at any time we know about that didn't correspond with some kind of major geologic event. We know that CO2 traps more heat than other atmospheric gasses and we know that we're pumping a lot of it out. I'm not saying that it's the base cause, but it is definitely contributory and anything we can do to lessen our impact on our surroundings should at least be explored. The problem is that deniers are claiming the same certainty as tree-huggers with even less evidence and that debate keeps us from having the debate we should be having; how do we deal with climate change and our finite energy sources. Well, I've said this before, but the only discussion we should be having is how to create an economically viable and superior alternative to CO2-producing fuels. You can screw over the citizenry with taxes all you want (I'm looking at you, California) and encourage utopian ideals, but it's all a huge waste of time and money. You want to save the world? Produce the technology and the financial incentive to accept an alternative fuel and stop screwing over the people that are just going to use what's already the currently best option. No amount of preaching climate change is going to do it, no matter how many disasters you correctly/falsely attribute to it.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: » Well, I've said this before, but the only discussion we should be having is how to create an economically viable and superior alternative to CO2-producing fuels. You can screw over the citizenry with taxes all you want (I'm looking at you, California) and encourage utopian ideals, but it's all a huge waste of time and money. You want to save the world? Produce the technology and the financial incentive to accept an alternative fuel and stop screwing over the people that are just going to use what's already the currently best option. No amount of preaching climate change is going to do it, no matter how many disasters you correctly/falsely attribute to it. Very much agreed. The problem is that nobody wants the government to incentivize energy and technology companies to innovate either through tax credits or prohibitive regulation on current methods. As long as there is black gold to be squeezed out of the ground through ever more invasive and dangerous means, they won't make a shift toward more advanced energy sources. You can't give tech companies research money because it's misuse of tax dollars, you can't give companies tax credits because it's croney capitalism, you can't tax or regulate because it's fascism... And we can't get to the bottom of that problem as long as half the country is spouting lines like Altima is.
[+]
|
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
