-
Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password. If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter 129654
- Start date
C
callmethebreeze
Guest
Strawman
I think that preponderence of evidence works for most of us.....(11 words)
Breeze
I think that preponderence of evidence works for most of us.....(11 words)
Breeze
MOTOR31
New member
There is a big difference between contributing to a situation and causing it.
Example:
Silverware contributes to obesity because fat people use it when they eat.
vs.
Poor choices in food and over eating is a cause of obesity.
Another example:
Automakers contribute to vehicle theft because they make the autombiles that are stolen.
Contributing may in fact make the situation worse but doesn't necessarily follow that it is the primary cause.
bob_m
Active member
Geo Metro?
The Hollywood rich would no more drive in a Geo Metro than a Pinto. The Prius however is one of the "IN" cars in So. Cal. (along with the Porsche Cayman) Of course there is hypocracy in the attention craving media capital of the world, but the rich have time to read, listen and get informed, These are the people with the bully pulpit from which to preach the topics of their passion. Clearly the persons who affect global climate change the least, the desperatly poor, are not spending their time bragging about their carbon footprints.
Global warming is certianly happening. Hunters, bird watchers, cultural anthropologists (studying arctic indigenous people), gardeners, all have personal evidence, comparing conditions 15 years ago to today, that support the fact that the climate is changed. As far as hobbys go, even motorcycles are much hotter than they were 15 years ago.
The question as to whether global warming (at this rate) is caused by mankind could be viewed through the lens of an ecologist. The natural systems that have been the most successful ie. that are the most complex or that have evolved the most narrowly specialized species, have deveoped during long periods of environmental stability. Plant blooms and insect hatches and Bird migrations are occuring weeks earlier than they were just 20 years ago. That is just one example of an instability outside of the natural system. I suppose the relationship is still not causal, but the evidence points to humanity as the reason.
I have a hard time understanding the refusal of so many (not just on this forum) to admit that humankind may be causing global warming. The earth shots from space confirm that the planet is finite. We all work with humans and in human contrived systems that are flawed, shortsighted and self serving. How is it such a leap to expand that model to the global scale?
Back to the hypocracy of being a motorcycle addict and an environmentalist. I for one am willing to pay the premium of a carbon tax on fuel to enjoy my hobby. The majority of motor vehicle users consider their vehicles mere appliances and they don't care it they are run on gasoline or flux capacitors so long as they get to Krispy Kreem before work. The majority of energy users will move away from fossil fuels sooner, and gas powered vehicles will be like airheads: quaint anachronisms used by quirky luddites.
IMHO
It's funny that all the Hollywood types and politicians who are yelling the loudest about this ride around in Limo's that get worse mileage than my Quad cab, or hop from coast to coast in a jet airplane, (like they don't use fossil fuel) and live in 10.000 square foot homes, whose lights alone use more energy than my heating/cooling/lights combined. When I see Al, Bono, Opra and George Clooney riding around in Geo Metros, and down sizing to 1000 square foot homes, I'll know they must really believe what they are preaching!I wonder how much energy I burned letting my computer on while I wrote this........
john1691
2000 K1200RS
The Hollywood rich would no more drive in a Geo Metro than a Pinto. The Prius however is one of the "IN" cars in So. Cal. (along with the Porsche Cayman) Of course there is hypocracy in the attention craving media capital of the world, but the rich have time to read, listen and get informed, These are the people with the bully pulpit from which to preach the topics of their passion. Clearly the persons who affect global climate change the least, the desperatly poor, are not spending their time bragging about their carbon footprints.
Global warming is certianly happening. Hunters, bird watchers, cultural anthropologists (studying arctic indigenous people), gardeners, all have personal evidence, comparing conditions 15 years ago to today, that support the fact that the climate is changed. As far as hobbys go, even motorcycles are much hotter than they were 15 years ago.
The question as to whether global warming (at this rate) is caused by mankind could be viewed through the lens of an ecologist. The natural systems that have been the most successful ie. that are the most complex or that have evolved the most narrowly specialized species, have deveoped during long periods of environmental stability. Plant blooms and insect hatches and Bird migrations are occuring weeks earlier than they were just 20 years ago. That is just one example of an instability outside of the natural system. I suppose the relationship is still not causal, but the evidence points to humanity as the reason.
I have a hard time understanding the refusal of so many (not just on this forum) to admit that humankind may be causing global warming. The earth shots from space confirm that the planet is finite. We all work with humans and in human contrived systems that are flawed, shortsighted and self serving. How is it such a leap to expand that model to the global scale?
Back to the hypocracy of being a motorcycle addict and an environmentalist. I for one am willing to pay the premium of a carbon tax on fuel to enjoy my hobby. The majority of motor vehicle users consider their vehicles mere appliances and they don't care it they are run on gasoline or flux capacitors so long as they get to Krispy Kreem before work. The majority of energy users will move away from fossil fuels sooner, and gas powered vehicles will be like airheads: quaint anachronisms used by quirky luddites.
IMHO
C
CO_G30
Guest
the world is not ending....
IMHO, in spite of the the hype from the administration-hating media, the world is not coming to an end and global warming is not what its cracked up to be....
Instead of just drinking the koolaid served up by the mainstream media, why not read this report on the media's alarmist actions:
Senate Report
IMHO, in spite of the the hype from the administration-hating media, the world is not coming to an end and global warming is not what its cracked up to be....
Instead of just drinking the koolaid served up by the mainstream media, why not read this report on the media's alarmist actions:
Senate Report
MOTOR31
New member
oh all right, IÔÇÖll be more specific.
which i interpret (please correct me if i'm wrong) to mean that you do not support the theory that man is causing, or at least accelerating, the warming trend the planet is experiencing. your reluctance to do so seems to stem from the lack of 100% proof positive that man is the root cause. from this i extrapolate that you do not support efforts on the part of man to modify his behavior, use of resources, and emissions, as a potentially remedy or mitigation to the global temperature increase. (i need you to nitpick and correct any incorrect assumptions.)
First off you are partially correct. I have not been convinced that humans are the root cause of global warming. In fact I do not believe that humans are responsible for global warming or cooling exclusively.
Secondly I do not think that 100% proof exists, nor did I state in any of my posts that I required or asked for 100% proof.
Thirdly I do not believe that humans are required in any way for global climate change to occur. There is ample evidence that the earth has gone through more than one of each cycle prior to human industrial society development.
You assume correctly that if proof existed that humans are the root cause, only cause, primary cause of climate change I could accept it. Please note that that is your scenario. It is not one that I have specified. I do have to state that I do not believe you will find any post I made that said I didnÔÇÖt believe that humans could not exacerbate a naturally occurring climate change.
ItÔÇÖs not my job to present a definition to a proof. What I object to is a simplification that man is the only cause of global climate change, of either direction. Contributor, quite probably, possibly definitely, but sole cause, nope. That type of theory totally denies that there is any planetary dynamic at all outside of human presence. That theory is baseless just on the face of it since there were climate changes before humans even arrived on the planet. I donÔÇÖt have that high of an opinion of mans capabilities that at this level of development he can disrupt a planets heat cycle short of widespread nuclear exchange.
While I appreciate your statement of opinion of my intelligence or even educational background, your opinion of my opinion is yours to deal with. ItÔÇÖs not my responsibility to influence it. I do have to tell you that numerous folks have said I was not reasonable simply because I didnÔÇÖt see things their way.
You may weight it any way you want. You will anyhow particularly if it doesnÔÇÖt fit your opinion of the subject.
As far as doing something to reduce my impact on the planet, thatÔÇÖs been done. I live on far less ground, less housing square footage, use 50 amps or less draw of electricity maximum and far less in the way of fossil fuels to maintain my home in the comfort level. Heck I even walk to the corner store for things like bread and milk.
Until self avowed tree huggers limit themselves to a 400 Sq. Ft or less home like I do they will have a hard time stating they are living in a more ecologically friendly.
C
Crow18
Guest
Hopefully I'm not pouring gas on this fire here, but hey, why not check in on what actual climatologists are saying about global warming (or, as they call it, anthropogenic climate change):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...warming-and-anomalous-winter-warmth/#more-388
It has now become all too common. Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can't possibly be to blame. The reality, as we've often remarked here before, is that absolute statements of neither sort are scientifically defensible. Meteorological anomalies cannot be purely attributed to deterministic factors, let alone any one specific such factor (e.g. either global warming or a hypothetical long-term climate oscillation).
...and it sort of goes from there.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...warming-and-anomalous-winter-warmth/#more-388
It has now become all too common. Peculiar weather precipitates immediate blame on global warming by some, and equally immediate pronouncements by others (curiously, quite often the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in recent years) that global warming can't possibly be to blame. The reality, as we've often remarked here before, is that absolute statements of neither sort are scientifically defensible. Meteorological anomalies cannot be purely attributed to deterministic factors, let alone any one specific such factor (e.g. either global warming or a hypothetical long-term climate oscillation).
...and it sort of goes from there.
darrylri
Cannonball Rider #52
I think you are not using the word the way it is commonly defined. If you check www.dictionary.com, you will find that the only relevant definitions for "contribute" in this context are:
contribute to, to be an important factor in; help to cause: A sudden downpour contributed to the traffic jam.
To help bring about a result; act as a factor: Exercise contributes to better health.
You will note that contribute does not mean some oblique, non-causal link. It means that the result comes directly from the action, at least in part.
And this is the way that NOAA meant it when they said "A contributing factor to the unusually warm temperatures throughout 2006 also is the long-term warming trend, which has been linked to increases in greenhouse gases". That increase is due to man's influence.
kreinke
New member
I agree that someone needs to do something about global warming. Problem is the people who are making all the rules are is a position where it won't cause them any hardship.
You never see Pelosi, Gore, or Hillary in anything smaller than a Park Avenue. They aren't the most eco-friendly cars....unless, of couse, Buick makes one pedal powered.......
Alec Baldwin and George Clooney? Lots of trees cut down to build their fancy mansions and it's probably a safe bet their groundskeepers use the very best fertilizers made from petroleum products rather than Milorganite.
So I untill I see one of the above people drive up to the red carpet or The Hill in a vehicle labeled "TREK", or Civic, or Zuma I'm not taking any of them seriously.
You never see Pelosi, Gore, or Hillary in anything smaller than a Park Avenue. They aren't the most eco-friendly cars....unless, of couse, Buick makes one pedal powered.......
Alec Baldwin and George Clooney? Lots of trees cut down to build their fancy mansions and it's probably a safe bet their groundskeepers use the very best fertilizers made from petroleum products rather than Milorganite.
So I untill I see one of the above people drive up to the red carpet or The Hill in a vehicle labeled "TREK", or Civic, or Zuma I'm not taking any of them seriously.
darrylri
Cannonball Rider #52
IMHO, it's a huge mistake to focus on the personalities and whether they walk the walk.
* We are stuck in a war where we have lost more than 3,000 of our soldiers and tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention spending hundreds of billions of dollars so far (and more to make up for the destruction to our equipment) by mortgaging our country's future, which can only be justified because we are trying to secure more dead dinosaur juice.
* The average American has NO CHOICE but to drive an internal combustion engine every day. Most people have no real alternative to their personal car in the form of convenient, fast public transport.
* Burning fossil fuels is unquestionably raising the CO2 levels to their highest point since before we emerged as a species, and it is doing it faster than the blink of an eye on the geologic time scale.
* So far as science can show, the temperature rise we are seeing is happening faster, much faster, than it has in previous episodes after ice ages. Past episodes occurred over centuries, but we are raising the temperature in decades. We can actually see temperate plants and animals migrating northwards (in the northern hemisphere) to stay in their zone. (This is why the polar bear may go on the endangered list; where can it migrate to?) And it's happening too fast for gradual evolution to work.
* Predicting the future is an imperfect science; we can only reconcile our models against what we know of the past. You will never get an ironclad report that says 100% guaranteed that we are doing all the damage, and just what that damage means to us and the planet. However, the number of reports that find causal linkages of one sort or another provides a nearly insurmountable level of evidence.
To my mind, because of our security issues and because of the environmental issues, we need to have more energy choices, especially choices where the production of energy is under our own control and does not harm (or at least reduces the harm to) the environment.
We can do that in a number of ways. One is by demanding it with rules, regulations and laws on energy production and usage. The CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) restrictions on auto production are an example of this. California's requirement that utilities must get 20% of the energy they resell from renewable power by 2012 is another.
Another is to invoke the market forces by requiring everyone to cap and trade the right to pollute. The Kyoto Protocols are a halting first step in this direction.
Another is to attempt to add in the "external" costs to us and the environment, costs that are necessary to mitigate the effects of using different types of fuels and energy sources. Right now, for example, the nuclear energy proponents complain that, because they must pay to clean up nuclear plants after they close, they are more expensive than coil or gas energy plants that don't have similar requirements.
But doing nothing, in the mounting face of evidence that we are ruining the planet's environment on a grand scale, is a dangerous bet to take. As has been pointed out, if we take steps to reduce CO2 generation, and we're wrong about the environmental damage, it costs us much less than what we're paying for a war in Iraq. But if, as seems more certain all the time, we're right, then it can help to keep the planet much as we found it.
* We are stuck in a war where we have lost more than 3,000 of our soldiers and tens or perhaps even hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, not to mention spending hundreds of billions of dollars so far (and more to make up for the destruction to our equipment) by mortgaging our country's future, which can only be justified because we are trying to secure more dead dinosaur juice.
* The average American has NO CHOICE but to drive an internal combustion engine every day. Most people have no real alternative to their personal car in the form of convenient, fast public transport.
* Burning fossil fuels is unquestionably raising the CO2 levels to their highest point since before we emerged as a species, and it is doing it faster than the blink of an eye on the geologic time scale.
* So far as science can show, the temperature rise we are seeing is happening faster, much faster, than it has in previous episodes after ice ages. Past episodes occurred over centuries, but we are raising the temperature in decades. We can actually see temperate plants and animals migrating northwards (in the northern hemisphere) to stay in their zone. (This is why the polar bear may go on the endangered list; where can it migrate to?) And it's happening too fast for gradual evolution to work.
* Predicting the future is an imperfect science; we can only reconcile our models against what we know of the past. You will never get an ironclad report that says 100% guaranteed that we are doing all the damage, and just what that damage means to us and the planet. However, the number of reports that find causal linkages of one sort or another provides a nearly insurmountable level of evidence.
To my mind, because of our security issues and because of the environmental issues, we need to have more energy choices, especially choices where the production of energy is under our own control and does not harm (or at least reduces the harm to) the environment.
We can do that in a number of ways. One is by demanding it with rules, regulations and laws on energy production and usage. The CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) restrictions on auto production are an example of this. California's requirement that utilities must get 20% of the energy they resell from renewable power by 2012 is another.
Another is to invoke the market forces by requiring everyone to cap and trade the right to pollute. The Kyoto Protocols are a halting first step in this direction.
Another is to attempt to add in the "external" costs to us and the environment, costs that are necessary to mitigate the effects of using different types of fuels and energy sources. Right now, for example, the nuclear energy proponents complain that, because they must pay to clean up nuclear plants after they close, they are more expensive than coil or gas energy plants that don't have similar requirements.
But doing nothing, in the mounting face of evidence that we are ruining the planet's environment on a grand scale, is a dangerous bet to take. As has been pointed out, if we take steps to reduce CO2 generation, and we're wrong about the environmental damage, it costs us much less than what we're paying for a war in Iraq. But if, as seems more certain all the time, we're right, then it can help to keep the planet much as we found it.
tessler
univers zero
What is this, the Matt Stone & Trey Parker Libertarian Variety Hour? Why is it the same 3-8 pols and/or actors always get singled out for their $$ lifestyles based on their political beliefs? What does ex-Home Depot CEO Jack Nardelli drive? What does Diddy drive? Bill Frist? What do NBA superstars drive? They've all got plenty of coin. I wonder what Energy Secretary Sam Bodman drives... A Prius probably! Who cares what they drive or where or how they live? It seems to me what they stand for is a tad more important.
Now, if you want a fella who drives a nice, responsible vehicle...
kreinke
New member
Actually I'm a social liberal (leaning toward progressive) fiscal conservative. Regardless, leaders should lead by example.
Because they're friggin' hypocrites. They are all for shoving higher taxes and such down the little guy's throat as long as it doesn't cause any harm to them.
What do these people have to do with anything? Oh yeah, the Home Depot dude sells energy efficient appliances and insulation to make people's homes more "green".
What you are and what you do is the personification of what you stand for. Tessler, most respectfully, following that logic I'd have to believe Saddam Hussein is "pro life" if he said he was against abortion.
Now, if you want a fella who drives a nice, responsible vehicle...
Gotta agree with you there. Ed's one of the nicest guys around.
MOTOR31
New member
Here is another take on that same word from your own quoted source.
adjective
tending to bring about; being partly responsible for; "working conditions are not conducive to productivity"; "the seaport was a contributing factor in the growth of the city"; "a contributory factor" [syn: conducive]
All of these examples are helping to define yet do not set specific limits for the actual finite context of the word. In other words they are all general not specific. How much weight is the definition of cointribute to be given in the context that you want to use it? Is 50% contributing or is it causative? How about 25%? If the factor is, say 1% of the impact that drives a decision, factor, impact point, is it still contributing? If yes then do we say it is the root cause of the situation because it was a 1% contribution?
Going back to my example. Since over 90% of obese people in the US use silverware we can definitely say that silverwear is the root cause of obesity in this country. This has to be true. You cannot say this is incorrect since the silverware is a mode for the transport of food into the obese person and therefor is a major contributing factor in obesity in this country. After all at least 90% of the entire population of obese people use it, it has to be a major contributing factor just on the basis of the statistics of use.
In short, the term contributing, neither defines the amount of contribution nor the relationship, be it causative or correlational. It's imprecise.
adjective
tending to bring about; being partly responsible for; "working conditions are not conducive to productivity"; "the seaport was a contributing factor in the growth of the city"; "a contributory factor" [syn: conducive]
All of these examples are helping to define yet do not set specific limits for the actual finite context of the word. In other words they are all general not specific. How much weight is the definition of cointribute to be given in the context that you want to use it? Is 50% contributing or is it causative? How about 25%? If the factor is, say 1% of the impact that drives a decision, factor, impact point, is it still contributing? If yes then do we say it is the root cause of the situation because it was a 1% contribution?
Going back to my example. Since over 90% of obese people in the US use silverware we can definitely say that silverwear is the root cause of obesity in this country. This has to be true. You cannot say this is incorrect since the silverware is a mode for the transport of food into the obese person and therefor is a major contributing factor in obesity in this country. After all at least 90% of the entire population of obese people use it, it has to be a major contributing factor just on the basis of the statistics of use.
In short, the term contributing, neither defines the amount of contribution nor the relationship, be it causative or correlational. It's imprecise.
darrylri
Cannonball Rider #52
If you read the report, you'll see that NOAA begs off defining how much the greenhouse gases contribute. But the mere fact that a pro-development administration is forced to admit that we are making the world hotter because we are producing lots more CO2, means to me that it can't be your trivial 1% contribution, but is something much higher.
So, people don't kill people; guns kill people? What you are missing in your hypothetical example is that we have lots of data that show that this trend didn't occur until we started producing excess CO2 in vast quantities. We had a "mini-ice age" a couple centuries ago, for example. It's only since mass industrialization that the trend has been up, way up. It's not people that are creating the greenhouse, but people in industrialized societies. Silverware was around long before mass obesity; it's not the silverware's fault, but the abundance of food and lack of exercise.
Good thing this debate is electronic or it would be two degrees warmer, globally, by now.
darrylri
Cannonball Rider #52
tessler
univers zero
Hi! I'm back!
) I was thinking about suggesting we invite Ed as a special guest for the next West Coast Rally. He's be quite an interesting person to talk to. 
This thread has been very entertaining! I can't keep up with Darryl and MikeÔÇöthose guys are smoking meÔÇöbut it's been a really cool ride.
I'm diggin that progressive part (that's my insurance company!). So, wai.. .wai.. Shouldn't that apply to all leaders and not the few mentioned above?
Interesting... so that's who's been shoving taxes down my throat!
Now you get me!
I agree with that.
eh... uhm... well... Shouldn't that be "...Saddam Hussein was "pro life..."
Yay! Common grounds (like my daily coffee
) I was thinking about suggesting we invite Ed as a special guest for the next West Coast Rally. He's be quite an interesting person to talk to. This thread has been very entertaining! I can't keep up with Darryl and MikeÔÇöthose guys are smoking meÔÇöbut it's been a really cool ride.
MOTOR31
New member
Once again you are missing the point. You clamor that since the term "contribute" was used it means a definitive causative situation. I merely used an example to show that reliance on a non precise, ill defined term like "contribute" is a poor way to determine how to fix something or to even show a causative relationship. "Contribute", without further definition such as percentage covers a spectrum that is rather vast. If the scientists that draft the report are either unwilling or (possibly / probably ?) unable to determine HOW MUCH the factor is contributing to the situation then you cannot claim that that factor is the root cause of the global climate change. The term "contributing" does not quantify the contribution and it's direct relational effect.
I really can't explain it any clearer.
Your explanation that the administration is agreeing with the premise that green house gasses are a factor again does not prove the relational aspect of the contribution. Your premise that it must be more than 1% is unsupported and is just your opinion. We are talking political statements from a political entity (administration) here in answer to political power being brought to bear by other political influences.
I don't disagree that there is a contributory situation. I do disagee on the premise that we are the root cause of climate change. That begs the situation that why were there climate changes, rather significant ones in fact, before industrialized society ever existed.
I really can't explain it any clearer.
Your explanation that the administration is agreeing with the premise that green house gasses are a factor again does not prove the relational aspect of the contribution. Your premise that it must be more than 1% is unsupported and is just your opinion. We are talking political statements from a political entity (administration) here in answer to political power being brought to bear by other political influences.
I don't disagree that there is a contributory situation. I do disagee on the premise that we are the root cause of climate change. That begs the situation that why were there climate changes, rather significant ones in fact, before industrialized society ever existed.
U
USERNAME
Guest
Now, if you want a fella who drives a nice, responsible vehicle...
is there a bicycle somewhere amidst all those autos?
bob_m
Active member
Should it matter?
If climate change is happening and it will result in a rise in sea level significant enough to drown low lying cities should it matter what is the cause? I would love to blame Bush but the problems were building long before he chose to ignore them. We should stop trying to place blame and parse the syntax and put our combined energies together to devise solutions.
If climate change is happening and it will result in a rise in sea level significant enough to drown low lying cities should it matter what is the cause? I would love to blame Bush but the problems were building long before he chose to ignore them. We should stop trying to place blame and parse the syntax and put our combined energies together to devise solutions.
