I get annoyed by people that disbelieve global warming because of the political ramifications. I'm equally annoyed by people that think we are going to stop it.
Right now, there is no solution. Alternative energy is nothing more than supplemental energy. The world isn't going to start conserving energy until we are literally running out. Everyone has seen those, decrease energy use by 20%, increase alternatives by 40% graphs and we would be completely off fossil fuels. It is all crap, and it will never happen. Did you just buy an electric car? Great, but you just plugged it into part of the 70% of the country's energy grid that still comes from hydrocarbons.
The truth of the matter is only a small small percentage of the country actually cares. People love to complain about big oil, but wouldn't dare to actually give up using gasoline(or plastic for that matter).
Our country needs to stop pouring money into technology that has no future(like wind mills) and get serious about solving our energy needs. Our world isn't sustainable off current so called "renewable energy". Once we can all stop pretending it is, we might be able to find a fix. Let's stop wasting money on companies like Solyandra and give the money to NREL or one of the universities for research.
--I honestly don't think we can stop global warming either but I'm fairly certain we can slow it down.
--I think much of the world is starting to conserve energy- I have been making efforts to do so for years. I'm sorry you take such a bleak view that way though I can understand the temptation to do so.
--I agree that electic cars are not the ultimate solution. I have posted many times elsewhere ideas about local economy, walkable communities, improving and expanding rail service (the most efficient means of moving good and people about) and, of course, limiting our driving.
--It absolutely true! Not enough people care! That's why I put together this post. What are you doing about it? We need your help!
What am i doing? I consume less and recycle more! I also teach others that consumption should be paid attn to! There own consumption with eveything from water usage to lights out...to recycling!
I however think the left and the liberals use this issue for more political expedience in the way they pervert it and use it to divide our nation! The world seeks to slow down the USA and this is the biggest method in doing so!
--Actually my question was for bgivens33, but I'm glad you're doing your part.
--Personally I don't know anybody trying to raise awareness and seek solutions to global warming who "pervert" this issue or use it to "divide our nation" or "slow down the USA". Where do you guys get this stuff?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
For those of us interested in helping reduce global warming, it's a frustrating, uphill battle. Here's an example of why that is:
With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it.
It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does.
Even in places like Western Europe, where belief in climate science tends to be much stronger, it's hard to build support for the actual steps to reduce carbon emissions. Human beings have a hard time dealing not just with pain, but also with long-term problems, especially ones that don't necessarily show immediate effects. Whether it's planning for retirement or losing weight, we find it too easy to disregard very clear science — and disregard our long-term health — in order to satiate our immediate desires. There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.
The whole article:
"Why Climate-Change Denial Is So Powerful
Not too long ago, belief in climate science wasn't a political issue. Honestly! As recently as the 2008 U.S. presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates professed belief in the threat of global warming, and each advanced policies designed to curb U.S. carbon emissions. Senator John McCain had even co-sponsored one of the first congressional bills to create a carbon cap-and-trade system. And it wasn't just McCain; Mitt Romney, runner-up for the GOP nomination last time around, supported a regional cap-and-trade program while he was governor of Massachusetts. There was still a wide gap between Democrats and Republicans on the severity of the climate-change threat and on how ambitious carbon-cutting policy should be, but at least there was a general agreement that global warming was a real thing.
Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more.(See pictures of the effects of global warming.)
That's deeply troubling. It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does. One of America's major political parties has, in effect, adopted denial as policy. How did we get here?
As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That's the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. "Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades," Dunlap and McCright write. "The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine."
For those who've followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there's not much new in Dunlap and McCright's chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable TV. (See TIME's special report about Copenhagen's climate-change conference.)
All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don't straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are "unsettled" and that "more research" is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change. That's made all the easier because whether you're quitting smoking or oil, the job is painful — and voters don't like pain.
"It's reasonable to conclude that climate-change-denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking," write Dunlap and McCright.
It's certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama's election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans "look like a joke," Clinton said from the stage of his foundation's annual meeting last month. "If you're an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial." That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore's recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.
Of course, the fact that the message is coming from two political figures who are — to say the least — highly associated with the Democratic Party is part of the problem. Over time, belief in climate science has become less about the science than about establishing a cultural identity — you're a denier or a believer depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, just like you're a Yankees or a Red Sox fan depending on whether you're from New York City or Boston. Of course, polarization is harmless in sports — and indeed, it can be essential to the fun. It's insanity as a basis for complex public policy.
So would it make a difference if the conservative denial machine were to collapse tomorrow? Sadly, I'm not sure. Even in places like Western Europe, where belief in climate science tends to be much stronger, it's hard to build support for the actual steps to reduce carbon emissions. Human beings have a hard time dealing not just with pain, but also with long-term problems, especially ones that don't necessarily show immediate effects. Whether it's planning for retirement or losing weight, we find it too easy to disregard very clear science — and disregard our long-term health — in order to satiate our immediate desires. There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
pretty much every country accepts the science of global warming including the US ... we have conferences around the world trying to figure it out ... but everyone involved is pimping some agenda!? ... :roll:
good grief man ... the science is not that hard to understand ... take 20 mins and learn about it ...
I’ll try my best to stay on track in addressing you points:
1. Yes, this is a rock band message board but AMT is a place where (hopefully) intelligent people come to share ideas. Also, you tell me to “chillax”. I’m not so sure I’m the one who sounds up tight here.
Yes, you should chillax. You sound unbelievably uptight to me. This issue won't kill us any time soon, so no worries... relax.
2. I read all sources of information on global warming pro and con. In well thought out expository writing, an essay usually begins with a general premise. If you would read past the first few sentences of what I post you might learn something.
Most of the sources of information on global warming is instilled with bias. Thanks for proving my point. You're seeking for what could be propaganda, which is easily found when you're looking for it. Great way to learn.
3. I’ll accept that you believe there are people who try to “derail threads” by talking about global warming but I don’t agree- I think that is a matter of opinion so let’s move on.
4. I’m not alone nor do I feel alone and you will have no success bating me with name-calling (“loon”- I’m not insane and I have no feathers). I don’t believe that’s necessary here. By your own words you imply that I am not a “normal human”. What is that about? At the very least this verges on more name-calling.
I did not call you a loon directly, re-read. I'll repeat, I said normal humans believe the economy is more important issue than global warming. Although rough, it's true. You're in the minority here. You just don't like that fact.
5. You say, “…there are some who are abusing the topic to promote social welfare policies, and in doing, are purposefully limiting economic growth because they are so mind-warped [more name-calling] that they really believe a growing economy is bad.”
I’ve read and studied global warming since around 1989 when first book (that I know of) that addressed this issue was published - Bill McKibben’s THE END OF NATURE- and in all that reading and research have never come across anyone “abusing the topic to promote social welfare policies”. There is a vast amount of information (some has already been provided for you in this thread) that shows how fighting global warming can be beneficial to a healthy economy and that defining a healthy economy as endless growth is, indeed, harmful. (For example, do you really believe the earth contains a limitless ability to absorb CO2 or that out planet contains an endless supply of resources?) And as Yvon Chounard so aptly put it, in collapsed ecosystems there are no political, social or economic issues to deal with.
I could not care less what propaganda you read. Dude, just read the name of that book. Seriously? You don't think that's a bit ridiculous of a source for unbias info? Nah, I'm sure THE END OF NATURE will present both sides... hahahaha.
5. [You wrote “fifth” twice] I won’t argue 100% certainty about anything and I won’t start here. I do personally believe beyond a doubt that global warming is real and anthropogenic and I respect your right to disagree but I do not respect name-calling. If you’re not interest in a civil conversation and if you continue to bate or label me, from here on out I will ignore your posts.
You have your beliefs are are entitled to them. Those who have their own aren't "deniers". Thanks for changing the thread title.
If you want to ignore posts, feel free. That's also your right. Would be reflective of your source of reading.
If you want to ignore posts, feel free. That's also your right. Would be reflective of your source of reading.
The thread title was not changed.
I've already categorically stated that I've read widely on this subject, pro and con. Seen from that perspective, your post appears to make little sense besides being typically bating. I don't get the feeling you're interested in having an intelligent discussion- I get the feeling you just want to argue. I see no point in you and I discussing matters any further on this thread. Feel free to respond. I'm movin on.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"The planet will be fine, it's the PEOPLE WHO ARE FUCKED!!!'
No truer words...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
Obviously inlet13 and I don't agree on a lot of things but one thing I will agree with is that the title I gave for this thread was a poor choice of words so I've changed it.
I apologize to anyone who was offended by the word "denial". It's a term that is used generally to describe people who do not believe in global warming and though I do not share that opinion, I do acknowledge that the term can be seen as derogatory. I didn't mean it that way but I appologize for the use of it anyway.
Looking back on this thread I would also say I'm guilty of trying to hard to make a point that I consider essential. You can say I'm guilty of being too eager, ardent, fervant, or even too impassioned. Sometime it's true: the harder you try, the less you succeed. I certainly didn't come here just to rant or one-up anybody or any of the other things I've been accused of. I have not at all meant to come across as condescending. I try to be educated and think intelligently but I would not call myself an intellectual. I think there is a big difference between being intellligent and being an intellectual. Also, I don't wear tweed coats with patches on the elbows. I write as acurately as possible and I suppose at times that comes ascross as being pedantic. Sorry if my writing style sucks.
The information I have on global warming comes from a lot of reading, studying and a lot of time talking with specialists in various sciences fields. These people are not politically motivated. They are far too cerebral, meticulous and precise in their mothods for that. I hate what they tell me. Maybe I should keep it to myself.
I'm mostly sorry I started this thread. A few of you quoted George Carlin my favorite comedian: "The planet will be fine, it's the people who are fucked!" I imagine some of you think I'm fucked. Probably, I mean after all, we're all people. But maybe I'm more fucked for trying too hard here. I really don't care about global warming, peak oil or any of that shit- not for myself anyway. The worst won't affect me, I'll be dead by then. Dead as fucking door nail as George once said. This is no ego trip for me- it's just an effort that's gone sour and I say that because it's just become another battle zone. I don't really know any of you so I have no quarrel with any of you and I'm sorry I let this thread turn bitter. You know what the people I respect the most would say about that? They'd say, "Fuck that".
I'm sorry for this thread. I'll just go away for awhile and maybe when I came back we can be nice to each other.
Peace, all. Later
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
hey ... brian ... don't let the ignorant send you away ... i know it's disheartening when people refuse to accept the science (btw there is no proof that global warming is not anthropogenic) ... what is even sadder is that all it takes is a little reading and an open mind to realize that global warming is real ... is caused by man and has already resulted in the loss of many lives ... denial was an operative word because that is what it is ... the science IS overwhelming ... all they have are links to articles that when traced and dissected are fraudulent ...
hey ... brian ... don't let the ignorant send you away ... i know it's disheartening when people refuse to accept the science (btw there is no proof that global warming is not anthropogenic) ... what is even sadder is that all it takes is a little reading and an open mind to realize that global warming is real ... is caused by man and has already resulted in the loss of many lives ... denial was an operative word because that is what it is ... the science IS overwhelming ... all they have are links to articles that when traced and dissected are fraudulent ...
I Agree here polaris...I honestly havent read enough to judge if global warming is man-made or not, but i've seen enough environmental destruction to know that we better do something about it. I think its lazy to sit back and say "it won't kill us now, chillax!"
The amount of automobiles (exhaust), smog, deforestation, litter in our oceans, and release of too much CO2 CANNOT BE GOOD, and its pretty fucking unnatural if you ask me.
hey ... brian ... don't let the ignorant send you away ... i know it's disheartening when people refuse to accept the science (btw there is no proof that global warming is not anthropogenic) ... what is even sadder is that all it takes is a little reading and an open mind to realize that global warming is real ... is caused by man and has already resulted in the loss of many lives ... denial was an operative word because that is what it is ... the science IS overwhelming ... all they have are links to articles that when traced and dissected are fraudulent ...
I Agree here polaris...I honestly havent read enough to judge if global warming is man-made or not, but i've seen enough environmental destruction to know that we better do something about it. I think its lazy to sit back and say "it won't kill us now, chillax!"
The amount of automobiles (exhaust), smog, deforestation, litter in our oceans, and release of too much CO2 CANNOT BE GOOD, and its pretty fucking unnatural if you ask me.
2 things:
1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite (the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).
2) Yes, the things you list are clearly detrimental to the environment. I don't think anyone has argued that. It is not natural to be spewing so much CO2 into our atmosphere. So, focus on that instead of trying to convince people of your religion - global warming. Religious discussions are never productive.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite (the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).
2) Yes, the things you list are clearly detrimental to the environment. I don't think anyone has argued that. It is not natural to be spewing so much CO2 into our atmosphere. So, focus on that instead of trying to convince people of your religion - global warming. Religious discussions are never productive.
1. it is overwhelming ... al gore aside ...
2. this is not religious ... your attempts to make it some cult/secret agenda is an indication that is how you perceive the issue and without anything else - that is how you choose to frame it ...
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isnt there overwhelming evidence that we fucked up the ozone layer and a hole resulted in more than normal amounts solar radiation coming to earth?
2) Yes, the things you list are clearly detrimental to the environment. I don't think anyone has argued that. It is not natural to be spewing so much CO2 into our atmosphere. So, focus on that instead of trying to convince people of your religion - global warming. Religious discussions are never productive.
Not sure if this was directed at me or just to the general thread, but I'm not using it as religion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. But as long as there isnt undeniable proof disproving global warming, we better bet the opposite way to protect our planet...its the least we can do.. that's my point.
hey ... brian ... don't let the ignorant send you away ... i know it's disheartening when people refuse to accept the science (btw there is no proof that global warming is not anthropogenic) ... what is even sadder is that all it takes is a little reading and an open mind to realize that global warming is real ... is caused by man and has already resulted in the loss of many lives ... denial was an operative word because that is what it is ... the science IS overwhelming ... all they have are links to articles that when traced and dissected are fraudulent ...
yeah don't let the ignorant make you leave. jut realize that you aren't going to open their eyes because they are not receptive to what it is you have to say.
the motto of this place should be "everyone is right and no one is sorry. that's the start and the end of the story."
i think the only reason that huntsman is the only gop candidate that acknowledges that climate change is a problem speaks volumes. the rest of them are bought and paid for by oil lobbyists, so of course they are going to deny that man is contributing to climate change.....all you have to do is follow the money.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I think we can all agree that spewing carbon monoxide, dioxide and other chemicals into the air is a bad idea. It's what you do with it.
Nobody is convincing anyone in the Global Warming debate. BUT, you can still get your desired outcomes by sticking to the points that there is very little disagreement on.
But, I think we also need to consider the financial and other real world ramifications of these changes. As someone pointed out, they were actually able to prove that their changes were not only environmentally friendly, but made sense business wise.
This is not to say there are not greater goods that should be served regardless of the financial impact. But, we also have to recognize those real world impacts to choose the best way to attack these issues.
For example - I'm not giving up my gas guzzler until a hybrid equivalent is financial viable for me. Maybe, that means the hybrids become more financially available in the kind of car I need (yes, need - not easy to cart around a family of 6 with sports equipment in a Volt). Maybe, it means gas prices reach a level that makes it unaffordable the other way (I don't spend nearly as much in gas as folks would make it seem). My guess is it's a combination of both.
But, putting certain restrictions on stuff makes it unaffordable to the masses. And that's the bigger problem with all this. Companies will do anything you want - if you'll pay for it. You can't expect GM to convert to all Eletric cars and not have someone (the consumer) foot the bill.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
I don't want to make this an us vs them thread but I do want to take a moment to say thank you polaris_x, gimmesometruth27 and JonnyPistachio for encouraging me not to abandon ship (again) on the global warming issue.
I'm not going to argue the fact of global warming being human caused. The fact (yes, damn it, fact) is that global warming is being exacerbated by human activity. We have changed the climate and we need to stop hiding behind our selfish unfounded doubts and do something. When the shit really hits the fan, no whining from those who deny our foolishness!
Finances and economy be damned! I'll say it again, without an environment fit for human habitat there will be no social, political or economic issues to deal with. In a world that is heating up at the rate it is, most of your children and grandchildren will DIE. Yeah, maybe anyone 35 or older will squeak by but how selfish are we!
One last bit of encouragement- if you aren't well read on this subject, please become so. The evidence is clear, it's there to read and understand and our responsibility is to do something and don't tell me I don't. Don't tell me I just come here and rant. I make conscious efforts to do something everyday to help slow global warming so your kids (and my extended family- I have not reproduced) will have an inkling of a chance.
Please, HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
So, if we don't agree with you, we aren't well read.
in this particular case ... yes ... see my earlier post ...
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
i am pretty sure that if i press you for proof that global warming isn't anthropogenic ... you will link me either tk an op/ed or a "scientific" article that was published by some geologist or physicist funded by oil and/or conservative think tanks ... we've been discussing this topic for years on this board and this has held true for every person who shares your view ...
So, if we don't agree with you, we aren't well read.
in this particular case ... yes ... see my earlier post ...
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
i am pretty sure that if i press you for proof that global warming isn't anthropogenic ... you will link me either tk an op/ed or a "scientific" article that was published by some geologist or physicist funded by oil and/or conservative think tanks ... we've been discussing this topic for years on this board and this has held true for every person who shares your view ...
Thank you for helping my point.
I do agree - the Earth is in it's warming phase. If I cared to, I could dig up articles from 30 years ago saying we were heading for an ice age. That's why the proper terminology you should be using is Climate Change. That way, you're correct in either direction.
Today was warmer than yesterday.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I do agree - the Earth is in it's warming phase. If I cared to, I could dig up articles from 30 years ago saying we were heading for an ice age. That's why the proper terminology you should be using is Climate Change. That way, you're correct in either direction.
Today was warmer than yesterday.
seriously, this global cooling thing from 30 years ago was by a few scientists ... there was nowhere close to the scientific consensus we are at now ... it's unfortunate you would use such a ploy ...
i see you choose to not discuss the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community ...
also, global warming is the correct terminology ... if you were better read on the subject, you would know that ...
climate change is the consequence of global warming ... climate change is the biggest impact of global warming but not the only one ...
You need a better argument then "the source of funding was bias to begin with" to discredit science that calls the theory you believe in into question.
Last I checked in on this topic it was not Exxon,Koch or some right wing nut jobs that made Hockeystick Temperature Graphs, fudged temperature data to hide the decline (Climategate) or forced prominent Nobel winning scientists to resign posts over differences with the pro-AGW community.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isnt there overwhelming evidence that we fucked up the ozone layer and a hole resulted in more than normal amounts solar radiation coming to earth?
still curious about this^^. I honestly just don't know.. Is this considered a factor in theories on global warming?
still curious about this^^. I honestly just don't know.. Is this considered a factor in theories on global warming?
we did fuck up the ozone layer ... a corresponding ban on cfc's helped in that regard however, it has just been reported that there is a big hole in the ozone layer over the arctic ...
I checked when you asked earlier, it seems in the late 90's the trend of the thinning of the ozone layer at the poles actually reversed itself for a short time (no accepted explination available), but then I also found an article just this week claiming that polar ice was going to be significantly greater this year due to loss of heat out of the holes in the ozone layer. So yeah um I don't really know either way.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
You need a better argument then "the source of funding was bias to begin with" to discredit science that calls the theory you believe in into question.
Last I checked in on this topic it was not Exxon,Koch or some right wing nut jobs that made Hockeystick Temperature Graphs, fudged temperature data to hide the decline (Climategate) or forced prominent Nobel winning scientists to resign posts over differences with the pro-AGW community.
i do? ... why? ... those "articles" are not peer reviewed and have been labeled by the community as junk science ...
all your talking points have been addressed - you need to stop accepting everything the right wing PR machine feeds you as truth and think critically ... and i say that with anything you read ... even stuff from what you call a leftist source ...
as for the nobel scientist - you do know he did not get his nobel prize for climate research!? ... and that he does get a majority of his funding from oil companies ... i know you've already indicated that doesn't bother you ... but it's still a factor ...
learn to think critically people ... focus on the facts and decide for yourself ...
i do? ... why? ... those "articles" are not peer reviewed and have been labeled by the community as junk science ...
all your talking points have been addressed - you need to stop accepting everything the right wing PR machine feeds you as truth and think critically ... and i say that with anything you read ... even stuff from what you call a leftist source ...
as for the nobel scientist - you do know he did not get his nobel prize for climate research!? ... and that he does get a majority of his funding from oil companies ... i know you've already indicated that doesn't bother you ... but it's still a factor ...
learn to think critically people ... focus on the facts and decide for yourself ...
Okay well discuss it then, there are scientists (not sponsored by right wing PR machine) that rail against the peer review process in the Climate Science journals that claim any science no matter how benign the results are gets spiked if the preception is that it hurts the public image of AGW. You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Okay well discuss it then, there are scientists (not sponsored by right wing PR machine) that rail against the peer review process in the Climate Science journals that claim any science no matter how benign the results are gets spiked if the preception is that it hurts the public image of AGW. You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?
this is the thing ... if you are a scientist and you don't believe in AGW ... you basically have a finite amount of resources ... so, funding won't be an issue for you ... secondly, if you produce a legitimate piece of science - there are many journals that will peer review it objectively ... the list of associations i posted earlier are tied to numerous facets of science not just climate research ... getting it peer-reviewed objectively is not going to be a problem ...
you don't need to be a phd nor a scientist to understand global warming ... the scientists are really now just trying to sort out the impacts ... the foundation/science is pretty straight forward ... all you have to do is read the basic pieces of information and think for yourself ...
oh I understand the theory, and I understand its acceptance but that does not make any contest to it junk science and does not justify the majority of publications that currently disallow evidence that would blow shotgun sized holes in the tenets of the AGW foundation. At this point we only get drips and draps around the peer review process by those frustrated with the process that sell their science to corporations and political interests. If the science is a solid as it seems to be, then let all questions be asked, answered and analyzed fairly.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
oh I understand the theory, and I understand its acceptance but that does not make any contest to it junk science and does not justify the majority of publications that currently disallow evidence that would blow shotgun sized holes in the tenets of the AGW foundation. At this point we only get drips and draps around the peer review process by those frustrated with the process that sell their science to corporations and political interests. If the science is a solid as it seems to be, then let all questions be asked, answered and analyzed fairly.
if you understand the theory - then what is your concern? what don't you agree with?
please point me to someone who has legit science that is getting disallowed ...
edit: i find it hard to believe there are scientists who can disprove AGW who aren't being heard ... right now, the only thing that is preventing AGW from becoming a widely accepted fact is the actions of PR firms and special interest lobbyists who have waged a PR campaign ... knowing this, any scientist who can blow a hole in AGW is gonna basically have access to millions of dollars and all the lawyers he/she could dream of to get his/her science out there ... the reason why the PR campaign has been dotted with the same rhetoric over the years is simply because the counter-argument just isn't there ...
have you read the book "trust us, we're experts" ... great insight into PR firms and how corporate agendas are achieved ...
actually have not read it, but are you saying that there has been no PR for AGW, no money, no lobbying, no fraudlent half science politicalization of the facts?
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Comments
--Actually my question was for bgivens33, but I'm glad you're doing your part.
--Personally I don't know anybody trying to raise awareness and seek solutions to global warming who "pervert" this issue or use it to "divide our nation" or "slow down the USA". Where do you guys get this stuff?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://news.yahoo.com/why-climate-chang ... 04995.html
With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it.
It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does.
Even in places like Western Europe, where belief in climate science tends to be much stronger, it's hard to build support for the actual steps to reduce carbon emissions. Human beings have a hard time dealing not just with pain, but also with long-term problems, especially ones that don't necessarily show immediate effects. Whether it's planning for retirement or losing weight, we find it too easy to disregard very clear science — and disregard our long-term health — in order to satiate our immediate desires. There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.
The whole article:
"Why Climate-Change Denial Is So Powerful
Not too long ago, belief in climate science wasn't a political issue. Honestly! As recently as the 2008 U.S. presidential election, both the Democratic and Republican candidates professed belief in the threat of global warming, and each advanced policies designed to curb U.S. carbon emissions. Senator John McCain had even co-sponsored one of the first congressional bills to create a carbon cap-and-trade system. And it wasn't just McCain; Mitt Romney, runner-up for the GOP nomination last time around, supported a regional cap-and-trade program while he was governor of Massachusetts. There was still a wide gap between Democrats and Republicans on the severity of the climate-change threat and on how ambitious carbon-cutting policy should be, but at least there was a general agreement that global warming was a real thing.
Not anymore. With the exception of Jon Huntsman — who barely registers in polls — you can't find a Republican presidential candidate who unequivocally believes in climate science, let alone one who wants to do anything about it. Instead of McCain — who has walked back his own climate-policy realism since the 2008 elections — we have Texas Governor Rick Perry, who told voters in New Hampshire over the weekend that "I don't believe manmade global warming is settled in science enough." And many Republicans agree with him: the percentage of self-identified Republicans or conservatives answering yes to the question of whether the effects of global warming were already being felt fell to 30% or less in 2010, down from 50% in 2007-08. Meanwhile, liberals and Democrats remained around 70% or more.(See pictures of the effects of global warming.)
That's deeply troubling. It's one thing when people disagree on the effectiveness of different approaches to fix a problem; it's worse when they refuse even to believe that a problem exists — despite an overwhelming scientific consensus that says it does. One of America's major political parties has, in effect, adopted denial as policy. How did we get here?
As the sociologists Riley Dunlap of Oklahoma State University and Aaron McCright of Michigan State University suggest, climate denialism exists in part because there has been a long-term, well-financed effort on the part of conservative groups and corporations to distort global-warming science. That's the conclusion of a chapter the two researchers recently wrote for The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. "Contrarian scientists, fossil-fuel corporations, conservative think tanks and various front groups have assaulted mainstream climate science and scientists for over two decades," Dunlap and McCright write. "The blows have been struck by a well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine."
For those who've followed the seesaw of the climate debate in the U.S., there's not much new in Dunlap and McCright's chapter, but they do lay out just how long and how intensively some conservatives have been fighting mainstream climate science. Fossil-fuel companies like Exxon and Peabody Energy — which obviously have a business interest in slowing any attempt to reduce carbon emissions — have combined with traditionally conservative corporate groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and conservative foundations like the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity, to raise doubts about the basic validity of what is, essentially, a settled scientific truth. That message gets amplified by conservative think tanks — like the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute — and then picked up by conservative media outlets on the Internet and cable TV. (See TIME's special report about Copenhagen's climate-change conference.)
All of the naysayers seem to be following the playbook written by the tobacco industry in its long, ongoing war against medical findings about the dangers of smoking. For both Big Oil and Big Smoke, that playbook is lethally simple: don't straight-up refute the science, just raise skepticism and insist that the findings are "unsettled" and that "more research" is necessary. Repeat that again and again regardless of the latest research, and you help block the formation of the solid majority needed to create any real political change. That's made all the easier because whether you're quitting smoking or oil, the job is painful — and voters don't like pain.
"It's reasonable to conclude that climate-change-denial campaigns in the U.S. have played a crucial role in blocking domestic legislation and contributing to the U.S. becoming an impediment to international policymaking," write Dunlap and McCright.
It's certainly true that the U.S., even after President Obama's election, remains an international outlier when it comes to belief in climate science, as former President Bill Clinton noted recently. Climate denial makes Americans "look like a joke," Clinton said from the stage of his foundation's annual meeting last month. "If you're an American, the best thing you can do is make it politically unacceptable for people to engage in denial." That was also the main message behind former Vice President Al Gore's recent Climate Reality project, which was broadcast around the world on Sept. 14.
Of course, the fact that the message is coming from two political figures who are — to say the least — highly associated with the Democratic Party is part of the problem. Over time, belief in climate science has become less about the science than about establishing a cultural identity — you're a denier or a believer depending on whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, just like you're a Yankees or a Red Sox fan depending on whether you're from New York City or Boston. Of course, polarization is harmless in sports — and indeed, it can be essential to the fun. It's insanity as a basis for complex public policy.
So would it make a difference if the conservative denial machine were to collapse tomorrow? Sadly, I'm not sure. Even in places like Western Europe, where belief in climate science tends to be much stronger, it's hard to build support for the actual steps to reduce carbon emissions. Human beings have a hard time dealing not just with pain, but also with long-term problems, especially ones that don't necessarily show immediate effects. Whether it's planning for retirement or losing weight, we find it too easy to disregard very clear science — and disregard our long-term health — in order to satiate our immediate desires. There's no excuse for the sort of half-fictions and outright lies that too often make up the climate-change-denial machine, but it's human psychology — as much as politics — that's preventing us from dealing with one of the greatest threats the species faces. The most powerful denial machine of all may be the one inside our heads.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
You so proved his point with this post. ha ha.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Yes, you should chillax. You sound unbelievably uptight to me. This issue won't kill us any time soon, so no worries... relax.
Most of the sources of information on global warming is instilled with bias. Thanks for proving my point. You're seeking for what could be propaganda, which is easily found when you're looking for it. Great way to learn.
There are people who do that. So, it's a fact.
I did not call you a loon directly, re-read. I'll repeat, I said normal humans believe the economy is more important issue than global warming. Although rough, it's true. You're in the minority here. You just don't like that fact.
I could not care less what propaganda you read. Dude, just read the name of that book. Seriously? You don't think that's a bit ridiculous of a source for unbias info? Nah, I'm sure THE END OF NATURE will present both sides... hahahaha.
You have your beliefs are are entitled to them. Those who have their own aren't "deniers". Thanks for changing the thread title.
If you want to ignore posts, feel free. That's also your right. Would be reflective of your source of reading.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
The thread title was not changed.
I've already categorically stated that I've read widely on this subject, pro and con. Seen from that perspective, your post appears to make little sense besides being typically bating. I don't get the feeling you're interested in having an intelligent discussion- I get the feeling you just want to argue. I see no point in you and I discussing matters any further on this thread. Feel free to respond. I'm movin on.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
No truer words...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I apologize to anyone who was offended by the word "denial". It's a term that is used generally to describe people who do not believe in global warming and though I do not share that opinion, I do acknowledge that the term can be seen as derogatory. I didn't mean it that way but I appologize for the use of it anyway.
Looking back on this thread I would also say I'm guilty of trying to hard to make a point that I consider essential. You can say I'm guilty of being too eager, ardent, fervant, or even too impassioned. Sometime it's true: the harder you try, the less you succeed. I certainly didn't come here just to rant or one-up anybody or any of the other things I've been accused of. I have not at all meant to come across as condescending. I try to be educated and think intelligently but I would not call myself an intellectual. I think there is a big difference between being intellligent and being an intellectual. Also, I don't wear tweed coats with patches on the elbows.
The information I have on global warming comes from a lot of reading, studying and a lot of time talking with specialists in various sciences fields. These people are not politically motivated. They are far too cerebral, meticulous and precise in their mothods for that. I hate what they tell me. Maybe I should keep it to myself.
I'm mostly sorry I started this thread. A few of you quoted George Carlin my favorite comedian: "The planet will be fine, it's the people who are fucked!" I imagine some of you think I'm fucked. Probably, I mean after all, we're all people. But maybe I'm more fucked for trying too hard here. I really don't care about global warming, peak oil or any of that shit- not for myself anyway. The worst won't affect me, I'll be dead by then. Dead as fucking door nail as George once said. This is no ego trip for me- it's just an effort that's gone sour and I say that because it's just become another battle zone. I don't really know any of you so I have no quarrel with any of you and I'm sorry I let this thread turn bitter. You know what the people I respect the most would say about that? They'd say, "Fuck that".
I'm sorry for this thread. I'll just go away for awhile and maybe when I came back we can be nice to each other.
Peace, all. Later
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I Agree here polaris...I honestly havent read enough to judge if global warming is man-made or not, but i've seen enough environmental destruction to know that we better do something about it. I think its lazy to sit back and say "it won't kill us now, chillax!"
The amount of automobiles (exhaust), smog, deforestation, litter in our oceans, and release of too much CO2 CANNOT BE GOOD, and its pretty fucking unnatural if you ask me.
2 things:
1) The scientific evidence is not overwhelming in the global warming direction. In fact, it's quite the opposite (the internet inventor's propaganda film aside).
2) Yes, the things you list are clearly detrimental to the environment. I don't think anyone has argued that. It is not natural to be spewing so much CO2 into our atmosphere. So, focus on that instead of trying to convince people of your religion - global warming. Religious discussions are never productive.
1. it is overwhelming ... al gore aside ...
2. this is not religious ... your attempts to make it some cult/secret agenda is an indication that is how you perceive the issue and without anything else - that is how you choose to frame it ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ate_change
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isnt there overwhelming evidence that we fucked up the ozone layer and a hole resulted in more than normal amounts solar radiation coming to earth?
Not sure if this was directed at me or just to the general thread, but I'm not using it as religion, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. But as long as there isnt undeniable proof disproving global warming, we better bet the opposite way to protect our planet...its the least we can do.. that's my point.
the motto of this place should be "everyone is right and no one is sorry. that's the start and the end of the story."
i think the only reason that huntsman is the only gop candidate that acknowledges that climate change is a problem speaks volumes. the rest of them are bought and paid for by oil lobbyists, so of course they are going to deny that man is contributing to climate change.....all you have to do is follow the money.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I think we can all agree that spewing carbon monoxide, dioxide and other chemicals into the air is a bad idea. It's what you do with it.
Nobody is convincing anyone in the Global Warming debate. BUT, you can still get your desired outcomes by sticking to the points that there is very little disagreement on.
But, I think we also need to consider the financial and other real world ramifications of these changes. As someone pointed out, they were actually able to prove that their changes were not only environmentally friendly, but made sense business wise.
This is not to say there are not greater goods that should be served regardless of the financial impact. But, we also have to recognize those real world impacts to choose the best way to attack these issues.
For example - I'm not giving up my gas guzzler until a hybrid equivalent is financial viable for me. Maybe, that means the hybrids become more financially available in the kind of car I need (yes, need - not easy to cart around a family of 6 with sports equipment in a Volt). Maybe, it means gas prices reach a level that makes it unaffordable the other way (I don't spend nearly as much in gas as folks would make it seem). My guess is it's a combination of both.
But, putting certain restrictions on stuff makes it unaffordable to the masses. And that's the bigger problem with all this. Companies will do anything you want - if you'll pay for it. You can't expect GM to convert to all Eletric cars and not have someone (the consumer) foot the bill.
I'm not going to argue the fact of global warming being human caused. The fact (yes, damn it, fact) is that global warming is being exacerbated by human activity. We have changed the climate and we need to stop hiding behind our selfish unfounded doubts and do something. When the shit really hits the fan, no whining from those who deny our foolishness!
Finances and economy be damned! I'll say it again, without an environment fit for human habitat there will be no social, political or economic issues to deal with. In a world that is heating up at the rate it is, most of your children and grandchildren will DIE. Yeah, maybe anyone 35 or older will squeak by but how selfish are we!
One last bit of encouragement- if you aren't well read on this subject, please become so. The evidence is clear, it's there to read and understand and our responsibility is to do something and don't tell me I don't. Don't tell me I just come here and rant. I make conscious efforts to do something everyday to help slow global warming so your kids (and my extended family- I have not reproduced) will have an inkling of a chance.
Please, HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
in this particular case ... yes ... see my earlier post ...
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.
i am pretty sure that if i press you for proof that global warming isn't anthropogenic ... you will link me either tk an op/ed or a "scientific" article that was published by some geologist or physicist funded by oil and/or conservative think tanks ... we've been discussing this topic for years on this board and this has held true for every person who shares your view ...
Thank you for helping my point.
I do agree - the Earth is in it's warming phase. If I cared to, I could dig up articles from 30 years ago saying we were heading for an ice age. That's why the proper terminology you should be using is Climate Change. That way, you're correct in either direction.
Today was warmer than yesterday.
seriously, this global cooling thing from 30 years ago was by a few scientists ... there was nowhere close to the scientific consensus we are at now ... it's unfortunate you would use such a ploy ...
i see you choose to not discuss the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community ...
also, global warming is the correct terminology ... if you were better read on the subject, you would know that ...
climate change is the consequence of global warming ... climate change is the biggest impact of global warming but not the only one ...
Last I checked in on this topic it was not Exxon,Koch or some right wing nut jobs that made Hockeystick Temperature Graphs, fudged temperature data to hide the decline (Climategate) or forced prominent Nobel winning scientists to resign posts over differences with the pro-AGW community.
— Socrates
still curious about this^^. I honestly just don't know.. Is this considered a factor in theories on global warming?
we did fuck up the ozone layer ... a corresponding ban on cfc's helped in that regard however, it has just been reported that there is a big hole in the ozone layer over the arctic ...
I checked when you asked earlier, it seems in the late 90's the trend of the thinning of the ozone layer at the poles actually reversed itself for a short time (no accepted explination available), but then I also found an article just this week claiming that polar ice was going to be significantly greater this year due to loss of heat out of the holes in the ozone layer. So yeah um I don't really know either way.
— Socrates
i do? ... why? ... those "articles" are not peer reviewed and have been labeled by the community as junk science ...
all your talking points have been addressed - you need to stop accepting everything the right wing PR machine feeds you as truth and think critically ... and i say that with anything you read ... even stuff from what you call a leftist source ...
as for the nobel scientist - you do know he did not get his nobel prize for climate research!? ... and that he does get a majority of his funding from oil companies ... i know you've already indicated that doesn't bother you ... but it's still a factor ...
learn to think critically people ... focus on the facts and decide for yourself ...
Okay well discuss it then, there are scientists (not sponsored by right wing PR machine) that rail against the peer review process in the Climate Science journals that claim any science no matter how benign the results are gets spiked if the preception is that it hurts the public image of AGW. You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?
— Socrates
this is the thing ... if you are a scientist and you don't believe in AGW ... you basically have a finite amount of resources ... so, funding won't be an issue for you ... secondly, if you produce a legitimate piece of science - there are many journals that will peer review it objectively ... the list of associations i posted earlier are tied to numerous facets of science not just climate research ... getting it peer-reviewed objectively is not going to be a problem ...
you don't need to be a phd nor a scientist to understand global warming ... the scientists are really now just trying to sort out the impacts ... the foundation/science is pretty straight forward ... all you have to do is read the basic pieces of information and think for yourself ...
— Socrates
if you understand the theory - then what is your concern? what don't you agree with?
please point me to someone who has legit science that is getting disallowed ...
edit: i find it hard to believe there are scientists who can disprove AGW who aren't being heard ... right now, the only thing that is preventing AGW from becoming a widely accepted fact is the actions of PR firms and special interest lobbyists who have waged a PR campaign ... knowing this, any scientist who can blow a hole in AGW is gonna basically have access to millions of dollars and all the lawyers he/she could dream of to get his/her science out there ... the reason why the PR campaign has been dotted with the same rhetoric over the years is simply because the counter-argument just isn't there ...
have you read the book "trust us, we're experts" ... great insight into PR firms and how corporate agendas are achieved ...
— Socrates