Global Warming

[JJ Husker]

strig- I am not against enforcing sensible regulations and taking care of the planet. My point is it cannot be the US or Europe alone trying to solve a global problem. We need to get places like China acting responsibly also. It seems that too many of the "solutions" dreamt up in Washington, while maybe small steps in the right direction, will place our business and industry at a global disadvantage. I think we can curtail treating it like an imminent emergency and have some hope that the natural progression towards lower emissions and better technology will begin to win the day. I don't think we have a big enough impact to make a significant difference timewise on the planet. Maybe ten or fifty years difference but certainly nothing noticeable compared to the timeline of people on the earth.

[sd'sker]

seriously, who benefits from a global warming hoax? leo dicaprio?

who is rooting for global warming?

who benefits from ignoring global warming?

what is the harm in providing a healthier ecosystem for future generations?

we did not inherit this land from our ancestors, we are borrowing it from our children.

[carlfense]

The environmental movement needs to stop crying wolf. I am very well served by being skeptical.

Skepticism is an excellent thing if it’s consistently applied. No offense intended . . . but your skepticism seems to run in only one direction.

 

Really???? Al Gore isn't asking me to trust him that his movie was all true? Oh....did someone say profit???

This is the problem. You think that you can just claim that Al Gore made money from this movie and then you discount all of the science. A tip: Al Gore didn’t conduct the ~20,000 some studies referenced above. You can’t ignore them all by just saying that Al Gore made money. That kind of reasoning reeks of ignorance.

 

This thread is about the Global warming movement. That is why that is what I'm talking about it. You might be better served not putting words in my mouth or trying to read into my posts what isn't there.

Again, you are only focusing on the environmental groups half of the equation. Hmmm. Apparently my inference was more accurate than I expected. (FYI: I’m not putting any words in your mouth. I’m inferring bias from the available information. That means that it’s subject to change.)

[carlfense]

Hmmm...an existential crisis (according to wiki) is a moment in which someone questions the very foundation of their life. Hmmm....where did I say I was? I'm simply taking personal experience (for which I have quite a bit in this area) and applying it to what to believe.

 

You said this:

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.

I’d settle for making the world a better place. I don’t think that this desire requires an existential crisis.

 

Think about it instead of just going to wikipedia.

[carlfense]

strig- I am not against enforcing sensible regulations and taking care of the planet. My point is it cannot be the US or Europe alone trying to solve a global problem. We need to get places like China acting responsibly also. It seems that too many of the "solutions" dreamt up in Washington, while maybe small steps in the right direction, will place our business and industry at a global disadvantage. I think we can curtail treating it like an imminent emergency and have some hope that the natural progression towards lower emissions and better technology will begin to win the day. I don't think we have a big enough impact to make a significant difference timewise on the planet. Maybe ten or fifty years difference but certainly nothing noticeable compared to the timeline of people on the earth.

Sounds like a lengthy excuse for inaction.

 

We can control our own behavior. Simply saying that others also pollute is not an excuse to do nothing.

[carlfense]

The Koch brothers did hire a guy to disprove global warming. The problem? After he did the research he came the the conclusion that it was real.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,7372823.story

It's rather telling when a person is hired with the express purpose of disproving a theory . . . and instead ended up agreeing with the theory.

 

Oops.

[sd'sker]

The Koch brothers did hire a guy to disprove global warming. The problem? After he did the research he came the the conclusion that it was real.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,7372823.story

It's rather telling when a person is hired with the express purpose of disproving a theory . . . and instead ended up agreeing with the theory.

 

Oops.

and he believes it is almost entirely human's fault.

[sd'sker]

Really???? Al Gore isn't asking me to trust him that his movie was all true? Oh....did someone say profit???

you really think al gore has perpetrated this huge hoax only to make some money on a documentary and a book?

[carlfense]

Really???? Al Gore isn't asking me to trust him that his movie was all true? Oh....did someone say profit???

you really think al gore has perpetrated this huge hoax only to make some money on a documentary and a book?

I don't think that he believes that . . . it's just easier to single out a relatively easy target like Gore's profits than it is to confront the mountain of scientific evidence.

 

When facts and beliefs collide it's natural to want to find a way to cling to beliefs.

[BigRedBuster]

The environmental movement needs to stop crying wolf. I am very well served by being skeptical.

Skepticism is an excellent thing if it’s consistently applied. No offense intended . . . but your skepticism seems to run in only one direction.So does yours.

 

Really???? Al Gore isn't asking me to trust him that his movie was all true? Oh....did someone say profit???

This is the problem. You think that you can just claim that Al Gore made money from this movie and then you discount all of the science. A tip: Al Gore didn’t conduct the ~20,000 some studies referenced above. You can’t ignore them all by just saying that Al Gore made money. That kind of reasoning reeks of ignorance.

 

This thread is about the Global warming movement. That is why that is what I'm talking about it. You might be better served not putting words in my mouth or trying to read into my posts what isn't there.

Again, you are only focusing on the environmental groups half of the equation. Hmmm. Apparently my inference was more accurate than I expected. (FYI: I’m not putting any words in your mouth. I’m inferring bias from the available information. That means that it’s subject to change.)

 

Your bias to one side is extremely glaring and you can't even see it. You are skeptical of only one side. You claim that one side is wrong because they have a financial stake but don't care about the other side's financial stake in their beliefs.

 

Just admit your bias and see the world from one side.

[carlfense]

Your bias to one side is extremely glaring and you can't even see it. You are skeptical of only one side.

Not true. I don't believe the extremists or listen to their agenda . . . if I have a bias it is in favor of science.

 

You claim that one side is wrong because they have a financial stake but don't care about the other side's financial stake in their beliefs.

No. The environmental groups probably do have a financial stake in the outcome. The biggest emitters probably do have a financial stake in the outcome.

 

The true scientists have a financial stake in the facts. I'll repeat because it doesn't seem to be sinking in: If a scientist could conclusively disprove prevailing wisdom about global warming he would be absolutely showered with wealth overnight. Can you guess why no one has claimed that prize?

 

If you're attempting to conflate those groups you need to think a little more carefully about the issue.

[zoogs]

There is a big difference between promoting skepticism and adamantly refusing to believe what science says on the grounds that you don't want to, and then further making arguments on 'scientific' grounds that there should be good reason to consider it not settled, despite a lack of background or working knowledge in the field, when those that do have this knowledge overwhelmingly disagree.

 

It isn't shouting down detractors. It's letting you know how it is. I keep bringing up evolution in these threads but the counter-science movement is so similar in both these cases.

 

Hey, the "how much regulation", stuff, etc, that's a debate I think you could have all day and it's fair game. But on a few topics there are large, motivated movements to challenge the science, and these efforts are so concerted precisely because there isn't any legitimate scientific movement to do so.

 

Lastly, Al Gore isn't a scientist and I haven't watched his documentary so I dunno, let's not exactly ascribe to 'scientific consensus' a public awareness film from a politician.

[strigori]

strig- I am not against enforcing sensible regulations and taking care of the planet. My point is it cannot be the US or Europe alone trying to solve a global problem. We need to get places like China acting responsibly also. It seems that too many of the "solutions" dreamt up in Washington, while maybe small steps in the right direction, will place our business and industry at a global disadvantage. I think we can curtail treating it like an imminent emergency and have some hope that the natural progression towards lower emissions and better technology will begin to win the day. I don't think we have a big enough impact to make a significant difference timewise on the planet. Maybe ten or fifty years difference but certainly nothing noticeable compared to the timeline of people on the earth.

If the US and Europe don't lead, who will? You can't push change if you are unwilling to do what you are preaching. If we want China to improve then we need to be the standard that they aim for. It would be like a fat guy eating a plate of cheeseburgers while leading a discussion on weight loss and exercise.

 

Comparing any of our businesses to China's are pointless. As long as the people over there are willing to work long days for pocket change in conditions that have been illegal in the west for the better part of a century, Its apples to oranges.

[sd'sker]

strig- I am not against enforcing sensible regulations and taking care of the planet. My point is it cannot be the US or Europe alone trying to solve a global problem. We need to get places like China acting responsibly also. It seems that too many of the "solutions" dreamt up in Washington, while maybe small steps in the right direction, will place our business and industry at a global disadvantage. I think we can curtail treating it like an imminent emergency and have some hope that the natural progression towards lower emissions and better technology will begin to win the day. I don't think we have a big enough impact to make a significant difference timewise on the planet. Maybe ten or fifty years difference but certainly nothing noticeable compared to the timeline of people on the earth.

If the US and Europe don't lead, who will? You can't push change if you are unwilling to do what you are preaching. If we want China to improve then we need to be the standard that they aim for. It would be like a fat guy eating a plate of cheeseburgers while leading a discussion on weight loss and exercise.

 

Comparing any of our businesses to China's are pointless. As long as the people over there are willing to work long days for pocket change in conditions that have been illegal in the west for the better part of a century, Its apples to oranges.

also, we are america. what happened to american exceptionalism? to the US being leaders of the world? now we are children who say, 'if china does not have to, why should we?'

 

not to mention the future economic benefits of being leaders in this area.

[strigori]

strig- I am not against enforcing sensible regulations and taking care of the planet. My point is it cannot be the US or Europe alone trying to solve a global problem. We need to get places like China acting responsibly also. It seems that too many of the "solutions" dreamt up in Washington, while maybe small steps in the right direction, will place our business and industry at a global disadvantage. I think we can curtail treating it like an imminent emergency and have some hope that the natural progression towards lower emissions and better technology will begin to win the day. I don't think we have a big enough impact to make a significant difference timewise on the planet. Maybe ten or fifty years difference but certainly nothing noticeable compared to the timeline of people on the earth.

If the US and Europe don't lead, who will? You can't push change if you are unwilling to do what you are preaching. If we want China to improve then we need to be the standard that they aim for. It would be like a fat guy eating a plate of cheeseburgers while leading a discussion on weight loss and exercise.

 

Comparing any of our businesses to China's are pointless. As long as the people over there are willing to work long days for pocket change in conditions that have been illegal in the west for the better part of a century, Its apples to oranges.

also, we are america. what happened to american exceptionalism? to the US being leaders of the world? now we are children who say, 'if china does not have to, why should we?'

 

not to mention the future economic benefits of being leaders in this area.

Its a root cause of having business men becoming leaders, and a thinking that permeates everything that making the most money is the only thing that matters. Prior to, about the 80's, that was not the way we thought as a country. It was doing what is best for the whole, not just "I need to get mine, and F everyone else" Which is where we are now.