Global Warming

[knapplc]

Yo:

 

Waterworld lied and a part of us died

but what if despite all this crap we just tried

to clean this world for our kids

and fix the things that we did

so they get off of our case

about letting it all go to waste

and even though we didn't plan it

this stupid way that we ran it

we don't have heads made of granite

be smart like Interplanet Janet

and let your "green" flag unfurl

like that galaxy girl.

 

That's all.

 

[carlfense]

1987 was a powerful year, but I was in Kindergarten and the Ozone was a huge topic well into High School for me. My example more illustrated the 'flavor of the month' mentality around global warming.

You're attempting to illustrate a "flavor of the month" mentality by using an example where humans successfully took action to mitigate our environmental impact?

 

I guess that's a flavor of the month that I'd like to try.

 

This is a so called science where we are trying base everything upon a snapshot.

It's not so called science. It is science. It's the best explanation that we have available. If you'd prefer to cling to the thread of uncertainty that's fine. I hope that you're right.

 

You can't paint a picture for a planet that has been around forever and a day with a 50 year brush. 2011 was one of the coldest winters in recorded history for all of Eastern Europe, but no one cares.

 

The Eastern Europe example is one of many reasons the name has shifted from global warming to 'Climate Change'. These racketeers can now claim everything from no snow in Chicago for 250+ days to a tornado hitting Joplin, MO.

And you can't use a regional example to disprove global climate change. In fact, much like your ozone example, you're actively working to disprove your own assertions.

[Conga3]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Eh? I think the solution would be to try to reduce our adverse environmental impact.

 

Oblivion shouldn't be the goal. Similarly, the problem is a lot bigger than worrying about who is going to earn the biggest profits.

Unless their quest for bigger profits influences their version of the facts they convince people of.

That's why I'll side with science over politicians/businesses.

Who pays the scientists?

[carlfense]

Who pays the scientists?

Which scientists?

[BigRedBuster]

BUT, the opposite seems to be the mantra of some people Some people want to say that humans are THE cause of global warming and are willing to go to great extremes to "fix" the problem.

Your assumptions are . . . strange. I think that literally everyone agrees that many things in nature emit C02. I'd happily examine any example of someone who denies this that you can provide.

 

The strange part is the conclusions that you're drawing. You admit that human activity and other things in nature emit C02. Which do you think is more likely to reduce atmospheric C02?

 

a. Asking and/or requiring a factory to reduce C02 emissions.

b. Asking and/or requiring a volcano to reduce C02 emissions.

 

Short version: We can control our emissions. We can't really control natural emissions.

 

They claim that the non-human global warming crowd is the only side playing politics.

One side is backed by facts and the scientific community . . . the other is backed by industries that emit enormous quantities of C02.

 

I don't give a damn about the politics of the issue. Any person or party who is willing to mitigate the problem has my support.

 

Who benefits if the movement is successful and are the claims that the extreme of the movement really believable?

Similarly, do you care about who benefits (short-term financially, anyways) if the scientific consensus is ignored?

 

So, once again, I'm not totally dissing the idea that humans play a roll in this and I'm all for doing reasonably what we can to reduce emmissions.

What do you consider reasonable?

 

Let's just say I am extremely skeptical of anyone in this discussion. Everyone has a motive. Companies have a motive for their profits. I believe there are motives behind environmental movements that are not the purest of pure either.

 

I simply don't trust environmental groups or movements that take things to the extreme. I have been in industries before that have been attacked by environmental groups and so often it is totally based on lies and false information. Let me give an example.

 

I am in the plastics industry. Several years ago there was a move to eliminate PVC pipe from being used in municipalities because of health scares. Literal, this group wanted every foot of PVC pipe ripped out of the ground and replaced because they claimed it was killing all of us. What was in it that was killing all of us? Phthalates. Hmmm....that's interesting and it sure has a scary name. Problem??? There isn't Phthalates in municipal plumbing pipes. You see, Phthalates is used in PVC to make it flexible. PVC pipe underground is not flexible. BUT, this group thought it was going to be able to scare enough people to get it done. There continues to be an attack specifically on PVC that is almost totally based on lies and falsehoods. Why? Well, that is very difficult to answer. I personally believe somewhere there is someone that can benefit profit wise from the elimination of PVC. Possibly people in the oil industry or the polyolefins industry. Who knows? But, some one is behind it.

 

This is just an example of why I don't just trust environmental groups or movements. The public can be buffaloed so easily when it comes down to complex technical data. I'm not wanting to get into a debate about plastics. I'm simply using it as a personal example of why I don't trust these people.

 

What would I call reasonable? There are ways of doing this that doesn't destroy industries and people's jobs.

[BigRedBuster]

And the solution is to tax American business into oblivion? The only person making money on this deal is Al Gore.

Eh? I think the solution would be to try to reduce our adverse environmental impact. Oblivion shouldn't be the goal. Similarly, the problem is a lot bigger than worrying about who is going to earn the biggest profits.

Unless their quest for bigger profits influences their version of the facts they convince people of.

That's why I'll side with science over politicians/businesses.

 

You assume there is no profit motive behind people pushing the science.

[Conga3]

Who pays the scientists?

Which scientists?

The "Global Warming" is going to kill you scientists.

[carlfense]

The "Global Warming" is going to kill you scientists.

I don't know them. Names?

[carlfense]

Let's just say I am extremely skeptical of anyone in this discussion. Everyone has a motive. Companies have a motive for their profits. I believe there are motives behind environmental movements that are not the purest of pure either.

 

I simply don't trust environmental groups or movements that take things to the extreme. I have been in industries before that have been attacked by environmental groups and so often it is totally based on lies and false information. Let me give an example.

 

I am in the plastics industry. Several years ago there was a move to eliminate PVC pipe from being used in municipalities because of health scares. Literal, this group wanted every foot of PVC pipe ripped out of the ground and replaced because they claimed it was killing all of us. What was in it that was killing all of us? Phthalates. Hmmm....that's interesting and it sure has a scary name. Problem??? There isn't Phthalates in municipal plumbing pipes. You see, Phthalates is used in PVC to make it flexible. PVC pipe underground is not flexible. BUT, this group thought it was going to be able to scare enough people to get it done. There continues to be an attack specifically on PVC that is almost totally based on lies and falsehoods. Why? Well, that is very difficult to answer. I personally believe somewhere there is someone that can benefit profit wise from the elimination of PVC. Possibly people in the oil industry or the polyolefins industry. Who knows? But, some one is behind it.

Don't let a few crazies make you ignore scientific consensus. People think that vaccines are government tracking implants but I don't let that change my beliefs about plate tectonics. Similarly, crazy people who don't want PVC pipe used shouldn't alter your thinking about global warming. They aren't related.

 

This is just an example of why I don't just trust environmental groups or movements. The public can be buffaloed so easily when it comes down to complex technical data. I'm not wanting to get into a debate about plastics. I'm simply using it as a personal example of why I don't trust these people.

I sense a lot of distrust about environmental groups. That's fair and reasonable. Now what about the scientific evidence? And why do you seem to distrust the environmental groups more than say . . . the coal industry? Hmmm.

 

What would I call reasonable? There are ways of doing this that doesn't destroy industries and people's jobs.

That's . . . vague. What would you propose?

[carlfense]

You assume there is no profit motive behind people pushing the science.

Do you know what is profitable for a scientist? Conclusively disproving a prevailing scientific theory.

 

He/she would be a celebrity overnight. I can think of a few industries and at least one political party that would literally bury that person in wealth.

[Conga3]

The "Global Warming" is going to kill you scientists.

I don't know them. Names?

In general, who do you think pays the scientists that are represented by the big black 99.99% section of the pie chart you posted in OP?

 

I'll answer for you, because maybe you don't know.

 

Special interest groups and governments pay for those studies.

 

You are quick to assume that a study funded by a private industry is flawed because of bias right?

 

Why are you not making the same assumption when a special interest group pays for a study that ends up supporting their particular slant on the issue?

 

I'm not sure if you know any scientists who are paid by grants...but I do.

 

There is very much a "profit" motive for scientists similar to private industry except it's based on securing funds through grants and getting published instead of landing contracts with clients and meeting sales goals.

 

Guess what happens if a scientist applies for a grant to study global climate change and ends up publishing a paper that contradicts the "consensus"? It's likely that scientist won't receive anymore grants..meaning they have to layoff staff and researchers and can lose access to facilities. Scientists therefore have a motive to structure their studies and publish papers that fall within the scope that the grant givers want to see.

 

Also, "peer-reviewed" sounds good... but it means nothing.

 

Scientist "A" conducts a study that takes 5 staff and 6 months to complete.

Scientist "A" publishes a paper on the study.

Scientist "B" conducts a "peer-review" of the published paper in 2 weeks.

 

This sounds good right? But Scientist "B" 99/100 times will not devote the time, staff and resources it would take to actually "review" the study. There simply isn't enough time/money...unless they specifically get funding to do the exact same study.

 

Instead the review is only cursory - or possibly done by staff/associates using the head researcher's name.

 

What you end up with is an "economy" of scientific research that is motivated to do what is necessary to keep the lights on - not necessarily produce good science.

[knapplc]

Isn't the vast majority of climate data gathered by universities across the globe?

[Conga3]

Isn't the vast majority of climate data gathered by universities across the globe?

Sounds right. A lot of data is collected by NASA too cause they have the spaceships.

[BigRedBuster]

Let's just say I am extremely skeptical of anyone in this discussion. Everyone has a motive. Companies have a motive for their profits. I believe there are motives behind environmental movements that are not the purest of pure either.

 

I simply don't trust environmental groups or movements that take things to the extreme. I have been in industries before that have been attacked by environmental groups and so often it is totally based on lies and false information. Let me give an example.

 

I am in the plastics industry. Several years ago there was a move to eliminate PVC pipe from being used in municipalities because of health scares. Literal, this group wanted every foot of PVC pipe ripped out of the ground and replaced because they claimed it was killing all of us. What was in it that was killing all of us? Phthalates. Hmmm....that's interesting and it sure has a scary name. Problem??? There isn't Phthalates in municipal plumbing pipes. You see, Phthalates is used in PVC to make it flexible. PVC pipe underground is not flexible. BUT, this group thought it was going to be able to scare enough people to get it done. There continues to be an attack specifically on PVC that is almost totally based on lies and falsehoods. Why? Well, that is very difficult to answer. I personally believe somewhere there is someone that can benefit profit wise from the elimination of PVC. Possibly people in the oil industry or the polyolefins industry. Who knows? But, some one is behind it.

Don't let a few crazies make you ignore scientific consensus. People think that vaccines are government tracking implants but I don't let that change my beliefs about plate tectonics. Similarly, crazy people who don't want PVC pipe used shouldn't alter your thinking about global warming. They aren't related.I said this is just one example. If I even cared to (for which I don't so no use asking) I could literally write a book of activist groups or movements that are based on lies and falsehoods. So....sorry....it's not just people who don't want PVC. These things usually start off with good intentions but then are over ran by people with hidden motives. How???? Those people with good intentions need money to go be activists. Hmmmmmm.......money.

 

This is just an example of why I don't just trust environmental groups or movements. The public can be buffaloed so easily when it comes down to complex technical data. I'm not wanting to get into a debate about plastics. I'm simply using it as a personal example of why I don't trust these people.

I sense a lot of distrust about environmental groups. That's fair and reasonable. Now what about the scientific evidence?That's the problem. How do I know I can trust the "scientific data" being put out by people who may be motivated by money? And why do you seem to distrust the environmental groups more than say . . . the coal industry? Hmmm. Where did I say I did?

 

What would I call reasonable? There are ways of doing this that doesn't destroy industries and people's jobs.

That's . . . vague. What would you propose?I'm not a scientists..... But, many environmental groups have attacked industry only to find out years later that it is bogus. The Alar scare from the 80s is the poster child of this.

 

The global warming scare has been put out there as such a horrible catastrophe that is going to kill us all that....sorry....I'm not buying everything they are selling. Yes, we need to do sensible things like continue to try to reduce emissions. But....sorry....not buying that the world is going to be destroyed and we are all going to be extinct.

[carlfense]

Special interest groups and governments pay for those studies.

Care to back that up?

 

You are quick to assume that a study funded by a private industry is flawed because of bias right?

Not necessarily but if an asbestos mine told me that their product is good for you . . . I'd probably like to look at their reasoning. You?

 

Why are you not making the same assumption when a special interest group pays for a study that ends up supporting their particular slant on the issue?

You'll have to provide some evidence before we can assume that 99.99% of scientists are paid for by "special interest groups." After that I'll happily discuss what potential impact that might have.

 

I'm not sure if you know any scientists who are paid by grants...but I do.

I do but I'm not sure why that's relevant.