Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

But let's be clear: Simply because there isn't anyone who's willing to argue Global Warmism with you does not mean that you've "won" the argument. (Whatever "winning" means in this context.) It simply means that people don't want to argue with you.

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy , all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Tifone

@ Max... are you auto-quoting yourself as a source??

Looks like I should have explained better after all. krpeters said, "Why does no one talk about benefits of warming to agriculture in Russia and Canada?" I intended to say, "Here's some numbers I cranked earlier this year, and a source I found useful." Looks like I was overly terse, even though I did also include a link directly to the source.

Of course, if you don't know who Thomas Barnett is, you may not have found the source useful either.

-Max

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Isn't the only way to win an argument to convince the other guy of your points? This never really happens on the internet sadly. Especially regarding certain touchy subjects (Global warming, religion, vegetarianism, terrorism, windows vs linux, piracy , all ages mod vs no all ages mod, etc). It is a waste of time, sadly. Because people don't really want listen to each other.

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

The functioning of Maverni inside a closed system that is very easy to grasp and which has a significant effect on the way people play a game.

vs.

The functioning of climate change in an open system that career scientists spend their entire lives attempting to grasp and which guides policy decisions that have significant effects on culture, capital, and lifestyles.


Ok I see your point now. perfectly analogous.

consequently, I should mention the major salience of the debate has nothing to do with whether their is actually global warming, but rather it cleaves along lines of "americans need to change their lifestyles" vs. "the rest of the world needs to change theres, or no one need change at all." As evidence, I offer only the rhetoric in this thread. Notice the consistency of those who insist GW is a problem, versus the the movement between several arguments of those who do not think it is a problem. From the latter, we see everything from there is no GW, to the sun is causing GW (thus we can't stop it with our actions) to GW is happening but is a good thing. In all of these cases, also notice that the consequence of the "truth" about GW, or lack thereof, is always to allow _americans_ to retain their lifestyles and consumption patters; on top of that sometimes the rest of the world will be required to make a large change (such as Bangledesh farmers moving to Siberia). Whatever the argument chosen and its ultimate effect on policy, it is never the americans that need to make a change.

Think about it. or just think at least. I see very little of that actually happening.

[Ylvali]

The bottom line for me is this.

Regardless of discussions like this, regardless of who is right. There is NO valid argument to further delay a switch to ecologically sustainable way of life.

We don´t need to agree on the scientific details about how severe a threat global warming is, why can´t we just agree to stop destroying the planet anyhow? There is an abundance of arguments for that besides global warming and few against.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by SlipperyJim

Since you seem to be curious, I don't bother to debate certain issues on Teh Internetz unless some circumstance forces my hand. Global Warmism (and environmentalism, generally) belongs on that list. Religion and politics are the other topics I don't usually discuss online.

Well I made that post specifically, because others were still arguing amongst themselves, but something odd had happened - my last few posts got no response whatsoever. Usually the "opposition" hops in to say I am wrong, but no one was doing so, and I wanted to know why.

I like discussing and debating. The curious thing, is that most forums are organized for a certain segment of the population, and either most agree with eachother to a great degree, or everything that is strictly off topic is completely out of bounds, period.

If anyone knows of a place where people debate such things in a healthy manner, I'd check it out. Though it seems silly if the point is debating such issues, as I would get told off for starting a "new" GW thread instead of searching for the old one, and my first post would be on page 312.

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

It does happen sometimes on the Internet. Look at Baalz' guide to Marverni, and how many people changed their minds about the horribleness of Marverni after that. The trick is recognizing when you're not getting anywhere. (Monkey PD!)

-Max

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.

Regardless of discussions like this, regardless of who is right. There is NO valid argument to further delay a switch to ecologically sustainable way of life.

Actually there is. Economic costs. Switching to ecologically sustainable way of life now, with our current technology, could be more expensive than waiting a few years for better research and retooling the entire world then. Say if we wait for fusion technology, or the next generation solar cells, it will all be better.

(I don't agree with it, but it is an argument).

Also, we don't know the effects of certain 'sustainable' technologies. Wind energy for example. We don't know what all these windmills have for effect. First law of thermodynamics, the energy must come from somewhere. So it will have some effect. (Recent research has shown that it will influence weather patterns).

(I agree with this one, so while I'm a total longhaired smelly hippy. I'm pro nuclear energy).

There you have it. To arguments against.

[Executor]

Now see, this all happened because Tifone gave beer to everyone, and not everyone handles alcohol good.
I suggest candy next time, it improves the mood.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

Yep, but Marveri is not a touchy subject.

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they strongly disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Edited

[Soyweiser]

Originally Posted by MaxWilson

Even touchy subjects can be profitably discussed, if you discuss them with the right people. Or are you really saying you've never seen anyone acknowledge a valid point by someone with whom they disagree, on the Internet? That would be a sad thing.

-Max

Not often on these subjects, at least not on boards not about these subjects (of course I'm exaggerating a bit). Discussing global warming at the dom3 forum? Bad idea. Discussing it on a forum about global warming, great idea.