Good morning...again:
Holmes writes:
I was discussing his site. As a "great environmentalist" he shares no data freely, even stuff he got for free from other people. And instead shills for his book, movie, and soundtrack.
Admittedly, I have not been to his site. However, I fail to see how making a buck should diminish his standing as an environmentalist. Stuff costs money Holmes. People want to be paid, supplies need to be bought, bills need to be paid, etc. What planet do you live on?
Now, should some of the stuff, if he feels it's so important, be made available for free. Yes, I agree with you that some things (like the refs) should be made available. But, like I said, money is a necessity. Does the site mention where the money goes?
Holmes writes:
Reduce is the first part of environmentalism. You explain how selling books and soundtracks adds to that cause.
Here you go again with that condescending "you explain" line of argument. Ok, fine, I'll play along and explain it to you. Here on planet Earth, including even the United States, very few things in life are free. Wouldn’t it be nice if everything he needs (transportation, food, lodging, etc) would be donated? Alas, that is not the case, so he needs to spend money to get the message out. And getting the message out is a very important part of spreading the word. Now, I suppose by your standards, Al Gore could be an utterly fantastic environmentalist by living naked in the woods and feeding on berries and dead animals he finds (only, of course, if they died of NATURAL CAUSES). But then again, what purpose would that serve? Of what value is being an environmentalist if you don’t teach others? How are the uninformed to become informed? Are you suggesting that the best way for him to get out the message would be to stand on the highest mountain and simply yell it out?
You see, teaching others is an additional step that is oh so very important in being an environmentalist, and it’s costly to do so. I would have thought someone as brilliant as you would have known this. I don't know though...maybe you're independently wealthy or something and money means nothing to you.
Holmes writes:
I mean I really just don't get your point here. Let's forget that most coastal cities face this problem anyway due to erosion, and so already have coastal engineering as part of their planning. Why could cities who are facing such issues because of rising water not be able to construct defenses? I want a serious answer.
So you're equating current problems with erosion to potential future sea level increases? Wow.
Ok, let me try this again. I'm going to ignore any potential natural causes for this portion of the discussion (I will hopefully explain these later). Currently, the evidence suggests that global warming (as a result of greenhouse gasses (not just CO2)) is melting the polar ice sheets at an "alarming" rate (as in much more quickly than we earlier predicted). Granted, this "alarming rate" is not meant to imply "over night", but that's not my point anyway. The point is this:
Why should coastal cities, in the future...as the sea levels are rising to the point that "coastal engineering" becomes a neccesity...why should these cites have to deal with this problem when, if people reduced greenhouse gas emissions NOW, the whole situation could have been avoided in the first place. That's what I'm asking Holmes.
If what we do NOW could prevent what you so desperately want to do in the future from needing to be done at all (a VERY VERY VERY costly endeavor I might add...you gonna give em the money Holmes?), why are you apparently so against it? When/if you reply to this, please do not tell me that we're gonna face the problem anyway. That's not what I'm addressing here. My point is actually quite simple. We could "save" there cities from flooding by NOT flooding them.
Now, will they flood anyway, even if we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But if we do not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions then our only option will be to do what you really seem to have a raging hard-on about doing. If we end up needing to do that anyhow, so be it. But the point is this, maybe, just maybe, if we act now, we can avoid the whole issue, or at least delay it for longer period of time.
Now let’s move on the your seemingly “bug up the ass” about NATURAL CAUSES.
First let's look at an earlier exchange:
FliesOnly writes:
by reducing CO2 and other green house gasses emissions we can FAR MORE EASILY deal with NATURAL climate changes.
and your reply (ignoring that I said that this was just a hypothesis of mine)
Holmes writes:
Based on what evidence are you making this conjecture? Yeah you had a fun ride trying to pretend I wasn't asking for that but there it is. The point I had been making is that natural climate changes have been and so certainly can be more drastic than we are seeing today.
ARRRRRG! I just punched my mother in the face...you happy now?
Actually, you're argument is ridiculous. How to I explain this? Ok, let's try this approach:
In the future, our climate is going to change...agreed? Now, we have petty strong evidence (that even you agree with) that our current actions (i.e.: greenhouse gas emissions) are quite problematic and in all likelihood will have rather dramatic consequences for future generations (which you seem to disagree with). These consequences will likely include major coastal flooding, and severe temperature fluctuations in may areas. That is to say, let’s suppose that most of the ice on Greenland melts. The effects of this fresh water, entering the oceans so close to the area where colder saltwater sinks and flows back towards the southern oceans, will be major to say the least.
Ya with me so far? Ok, so what can we do? Well I for one think that maybe we should lower/reduce/stop our greenhouse gas emissions, and for some strange reason you seem to agree with this idea too, but at the same time you also seem to be saying that if we do indeed lower/reduce/stop out greenhouse gas emissions, it'll have no effect on these outcomes anyway, so why bother.
You go on and on and on about natural climate changes and keep asking me what these changes will be and what we are going to do about them. Read this next part S L O W L Y Holmes. I don't fucking know what these changes will be nor do I know what our future generations are going to do about them. Of course, neither do you and here is why...they're natural changes that haven't occurred yet. So what's you point? You seem to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth. First you say you agree that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then you say it won't matter anyway.
Look, for all we know, if we stop our greenhouse gas emissions, future generations may live in paradise until such time that our sun explodes (or whatever it is that's suppose to happen) and the planet is destroyed (and nothing we can do will prevent that, so why worry about it). We just don’t know what natural changes will occur. We do know that our manmade emissions will likely have major effects. Which one do you think we should deal with first?
Holmes writes:
Let me ask, if not for CO2 accumulation, do you have ANY CLUE as to how hot or cold it would be for the next 100-1000 years? What trend and so what effects we'd be facing?
No Holmes, I do not. And I ask again...what's you point?
Holmes writes:
We can stop CO2 and suddenly the temps spike higher or drop out from under us. The only thing we do by eliminating CO2 (and let me make it clear I think this is worthwhile) is remove our contribution to a raised level of temp, we do not guarantee anything about how temps will change or what we will face from them.
For the love of God Holmes...NO SHIT! Man oh man oh man, you do so love to state the obvious, don't you. And yet again I ask...what's your point?
Holmes writes:
See this is how fanatics get. When you don't fit the cardboard cutout villain they think you must be because you disagree with certain aspects of their position, or Gods forbid question their icons, they get confused.
So now I'm a fanatic? Cool, I've never been called a fanatic before. My mother will be so proud (once she gets over the fact that I punched her in the face that is). I'm not really that confused Holmes. I'm just concerned that perhaps you should seek some professional help to deal with this duel personality you seem to have.
Holmes writes:
If that's what you got out of Gore's movie, then my point is made.
Yes...I completely formulated my opinion based solely on the Al Gore movie. I have never read anything in my life in any way related to global warming. I have never seen any data at all that in any way supports the concept(s) of global warming except what I saw in the movie. Hell, for that matter, I had never even heard of global warming until I saw the Al Gore movie. So your point is made...which is, as far as I can tell, that we should reduce greenhouse gas emissions so that we, as a species, can go extinct by NATURAL CAUSES, as God intended.
If nothing else, you sure are a hoot to deal with. You accuse me if taking things out of context and then you say this:
Holmes writes:
You sure ought to.
Well, again, let's look at the entire exchange shall we"
FliesOnly from message 43 writes:
You are, if nothing else, simply amazing with your ability to turn anything into a pile of shit. I really could not care less about natural fluctuations. They're natural Holmes...meaning we can do nothing about them because once we do, then they are no longer natural now are they? Why do you repeatedly (and quite annoyingly I might add) insist with your "now you will demonstrate" line of reasoning. We're not talking about natural fluctuations. We're talking about the Al Gore movie and the implications of global warming as a result of MANMADE contributions to the system Those are things we CAN DO something about.
And your reply to just a portion of my response:
Holmes writes:
You sure ought to.
Again, do you see the part where I mention how, since they are natural fluctuations, then there's really nothing we can do about them. Now, granted, I did say that I could not care less about them. But, when taken in context, I think your average fifth grader could have understood the meaning behind that sentence. Since, however, you seem incapable, let me explain what I meant.
I was addressing the idea that we could do something to alter these natural fluctuations by adding "stuff" to their composition (you know...like we are currently doing). Of course, once we do that, then they are, by definition, no longer natural, so I don’t really concern myself with them (i.e. I could not care less).
I was NOT implying that we should not react to these fluctuations. Who knows, maybe we will need to do some "coastal engineering". I'm ok with that, if that's where the climate takes us. They will be what they will be.
Moving on:
Here is the entire quote from message 41
Holmes from message 41 writes:
Uh... I didn't say we're fucked. I said we are going to face the same challenges anyway. You said that claim was pathetic? You will now demonstrate how ending human factors will alter the change the nature of our climate so that it does not fluctuate as it has in the past. Or is it that natural fluctuations have no effects, only manmade ones do because we are bad?
And my reply:
FliesOnly writes:
Who said natural fluctuations have no effect. Not me, that's for sure.
And here is you current reply to that quote:
Holmes from message 46 writes:
Maybe if you could read my posts more than one sentence at a time you would understand what I am saying. The sentence you quoted was out of context. But that's okay since you didn't get the other part in context either.
First, let me point out that the only way to read a post is one sentence at a time. Well, at least for us mere mortals. Perhaps you have some amazing ability to read multiple sentences at once that the rest of us can only envy.
And second, how did I take your sentence out of context?
™ Version 4.2
