Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Whatever, besides we were talking about the weather and global warming. Which has gak to do with quantum physics so lets get back on topic.

 BryllCream wrote:
Making something bigger than it is would be like...ohh I don't know, imposing a huge financial burdon on your citizens because of the vague promise that you're helping the environment.

Indeed, China isn't worried about "the environment", and they're doing just fine.

 Ouze wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Making something bigger than it is would be like...ohh I don't know, imposing a huge financial burdon on your citizens because of the vague promise that you're helping the environment.

Indeed, China isn't worried about "the environment", and they're doing just fine.

Another fallacy of the global warming movement is the ability to lump together completely unrelated stories. Introducing pollution controlls to make the air breathable (as it is currently not in many Chiense cities) is completely different to the notion of human-caused climate change.

You used the phrase "helping the environment". If you don't like someone pointing out the gaping holes in your arguments, don't be so over-vague.

 Ouze wrote:
You used the phrase "helping the environment". If you don't like someone pointing out the gaping holes in your arguments, don't be so over-vague.

"helping the environment" can mean anything from protecting the habitat of a specific species of mallard duck, to not igniting the atmosphere and destroying the earth.

Yes, I agree that you were over-vague with your wording, which is why you can't really argue with the rebuttals to any possible reasonable interpretation of what you meant.

No but I can point out what I *did* mean, at which point going on and on about me being wrong or flawed just looks a little rude, no?

BryllCream wrote:Another fallacy of the global warming movement is the ability to lump together completely unrelated stories. Introducing pollution controlls to make the air breathable (as it is currently not in many Chiense cities) is completely different to the notion of human-caused climate change.

BryllCream wrote:["helping the environment" can mean anything from protecting the habitat of a specific species of mallard duck, to not igniting the atmosphere and destroying the earth.

Where did you say what you meant, exactly? In the first, you contrasted 2 different views, in the second you did the same, in neither did you endorse anything.

I give up, you've trolled me out of the thread. Good going.

ITT, "trolling" is redefined to including asking someone what exactly they meant in order to continue a discussion.

See my above post -

Introducing pollution controlls to make the air breathable (as it is currently not in many Chiense cities) is completely different to the notion of human-caused climate change.

Sorry if that notion is too complex for you.

It's not complex, you still haven't stated a position. I'm going to assume that what you mean is you consider introducing pollution controls to make air breathable to be reasonable. I'd agree with that sentiment, as would I imagine most reasonable people.

The point being that is (and bringing this back in line with the OP a little) trying to "help the environment" doesn't necessarily make one a granola crunching hippie. At some point you have to impose a burden on your citizens (either directly via taxes or indirectly via corporate regulation, which gets passed on) in order to keep them from even larger burdens (i.e widespread cancer, economic consequences of businesses not wishing to operate inside a city-sized bbq smoker). I know in these parts "government environmental regulation" is painted as a mustache-twirling Snidely Whiplash villain, but it's also the reason you're not eating fish totally contaminated with mercury*.

I think climate change is happening. I don't know if we influenced it, and I don't know if we can change it even if we wanted to. I think it's pretty unlikely that there is some cabal of scientists working in concert to push an agenda, but I do know science can often be a profitable prostitute - how many scientists churned out studies finding no link between cancer and smoking for Phillip Morris? All those things said and done, I don't really have a huge problem with reasonable regulation to make sure we try and lessen our impact.

*just partially contaminated