Global Warming Discussion

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

as for going to renewables ... the cost is obviously dependent on how you calculate it ... but first and foremost, we can't continue to subsidize dirty energy like coal and oil ... if you factor in wars associated with oil ... there is a significant amount of dollars put in to keep us on this archaic fuel system ...

wind is the cheapest form of new energy right now with the lowest amount of risk ... the only thing preventing us from moving in that direction is a corporately driven gov't that is beholden to big oil ...

Just to be up front - I am purposely ignoring the first part. That isn't getting us anywhere. We'll agree I'm stupid.

This is the part that intrests me. I know it's not easily calculable, and I don't expect you to do that. But, I think the question of cost is a critical one with all this. I mean, renewable energy is clearly the way to go (regardless of our opinion of global warming). But, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves - what it the economic impact? I think that's where you'll get people moving. I believe even if it's not cost neutral, most reasonable folks would move in this direction. And obviously, doing nothing is easier than change.

And, obviously, safety is another concern. On Long Island, we're still paying for the nuclear plant they built but never put into operation (which I'm fine with. There's not exactly a lot of escape routes should something go wrong). I don't think the area could sustain another boondoggle like that without clear proof of safety and cost.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

This is the part that intrests me. I know it's not easily calculable, and I don't expect you to do that. But, I think the question of cost is a critical one with all this. I mean, renewable energy is clearly the way to go (regardless of our opinion of global warming). But, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves - what it the economic impact? I think that's where you'll get people moving. I believe even if it's not cost neutral, most reasonable folks would move in this direction. And obviously, doing nothing is easier than change.

And, obviously, safety is another concern. On Long Island, we're still paying for the nuclear plant they built but never put into operation (which I'm fine with. There's not exactly a lot of escape routes should something go wrong). I don't think the area could sustain another boondoggle like that without clear proof of safety and cost.

for sure ... but two things i want to point out:

1. we have to look at the cost with a holistic approach ... we never factor in the health costs of the pollution, nor the impacts global warming will cause ... nor the cost of waging foreign wars ...

2. we currently subsidize the shit out of oil and gas ... if it was a level playing field, this would be a no brainer even discounting the impacts of global warming ...

the primary issue is demand ... we, especially, in north america waste energy because it's been considered limitless and cheap for far too long ... i don't buy into the theory that people can't conserve ... here in ontario, we've exceeded all our conservation targets ... it just has to be in the social conscience ... similar to not littering, there has to be an engagement of society ... we can't expect the gov't to mandate and force it ... it has to come from within the populace ...

Jeanwah

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?

You realize that you sound like an idiot when you write things like this, right?

ig·no·rance
   [ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

EdsonNascimento

Jeanwah wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?

You realize that you sound like an idiot when you write things like this, right?

ig·no·rance
   [ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

So, it's only people that don't agree with you that are ignorant? Perhaps it's the people agreeing with you. :shock:

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

for sure ... but two things i want to point out:

1. we have to look at the cost with a holistic approach ... we never factor in the health costs of the pollution, nor the impacts global warming will cause ... nor the cost of waging foreign wars ...

2. we currently subsidize the shit out of oil and gas ... if it was a level playing field, this would be a no brainer even discounting the impacts of global warming ...

the primary issue is demand ... we, especially, in north america waste energy because it's been considered limitless and cheap for far too long ... i don't buy into the theory that people can't conserve ... here in ontario, we've exceeded all our conservation targets ... it just has to be in the social conscience ... similar to not littering, there has to be an engagement of society ... we can't expect the gov't to mandate and force it ... it has to come from within the populace ...

#1 is spot on. We can disagree on the foreign wars thing (while I agree part of it is about the oil, part of it is not, but I don't want to derail this).

#2 is a fair point. However, we also have to weigh that against jobs created. I'm not saying the other way can't create jobs. But, I think it's a bit narrow to not realize that there are social benefits reaped from the subsidies. Now, we can say those benefits don't outweigh the damage. But, you can't ignore it in the equation.

I do think we can do better on conservation. But, that's also part of the issue. I'll openly admit I have a gas guzzler. But, quite frankly, I have 4 sons that play sports, and I can't cart that all around (not to mention the wife) in a Volt. If they made an affordable hybrid that fit my lifestyle, I'd adjust. That doesn't exist. I'm not cramming my kids into a smaller car just so I can feel better about the environment. So, you can say I'm part of the problem. I'm fine with that.

And I am very happy to agree with your not forcing gov't mandates. You're final conclusion is also spot on. When this stuff is accepted at large, the free market will adjust to fill that demand. Pumping tax dollars into it is not the way to go.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

#1 is spot on. We can disagree on the foreign wars thing (while I agree part of it is about the oil, part of it is not, but I don't want to derail this).

#2 is a fair point. However, we also have to weigh that against jobs created. I'm not saying the other way can't create jobs. But, I think it's a bit narrow to not realize that there are social benefits reaped from the subsidies. Now, we can say those benefits don't outweigh the damage. But, you can't ignore it in the equation.

I do think we can do better on conservation. But, that's also part of the issue. I'll openly admit I have a gas guzzler. But, quite frankly, I have 4 sons that play sports, and I can't cart that all around (not to mention the wife) in a Volt. If they made an affordable hybrid that fit my lifestyle, I'd adjust. That doesn't exist. I'm not cramming my kids into a smaller car just so I can feel better about the environment. So, you can say I'm part of the problem. I'm fine with that.

And I am very happy to agree with your not forcing gov't mandates. You're final conclusion is also spot on. When this stuff is accepted at large, the free market will adjust to fill that demand. Pumping tax dollars into it is not the way to go.

2. we create jobs by making people sick as well ... so, again ... we have to look at it holistically ... i think it's a bit narrow to believe incorporating sustainability into the equation is always going to have a negative impact ... and really, the job market sucks now ... it's not like these subsidies have done anything except keep these corporations super wealthy ...

you base your consumer decisions as you see fit ... as will everyone else ... the issue is that we need people to understand that global warming and environmental concerns are indeed a problem and that it will take everyone doing their part to foster positive change ... sure, your large vehicle is needed for practical reasons ... but there are many areas one can make changes that do not pose significant impacts to lifestyle ... in fact, sometimes those changes have added benefits ... like say walking or commuting using bike or transit more ... it can be less stressful and offer up exercise to promote better health ... etc...

i just also want to make it clear that i don't believe in the free market ... what i mean by non gov't mandate is simply that the desire of that change comes from the populace ... so, the populace is the ones that demand that air quality should be respected and water quality, etc ... until we live in a world where corporations don't prioritize profits above everything else ... only the gov't can lead change ...

EdsonNascimento

polaris_x wrote:

2. we create jobs by making people sick as well ... so, again ... we have to look at it holistically ... i think it's a bit narrow to believe incorporating sustainability into the equation is always going to have a negative impact ... and really, the job market sucks now ... it's not like these subsidies have done anything except keep these corporations super wealthy ...

you base your consumer decisions as you see fit ... as will everyone else ... the issue is that we need people to understand that global warming and environmental concerns are indeed a problem and that it will take everyone doing their part to foster positive change ... sure, your large vehicle is needed for practical reasons ... but there are many areas one can make changes that do not pose significant impacts to lifestyle ... in fact, sometimes those changes have added benefits ... like say walking or commuting using bike or transit more ... it can be less stressful and offer up exercise to promote better health ... etc...

i just also want to make it clear that i don't believe in the free market ... what i mean by non gov't mandate is simply that the desire of that change comes from the populace ... so, the populace is the ones that demand that air quality should be respected and water quality, etc ... until we live in a world where corporations don't prioritize profits above everything else ... only the gov't can lead change ...

I agree with a lot of what you are saying (and continuing to ignore the global warming theory, as we've agreed that I'm stupid). But, why can't the change be win-win? Again, the best engine of innovation is the free market. We didn't get to where we are today with technology because of regulation. Most people carry around computers in their pockets because of the profit motive. Ford invented the production line BECAUSE of the profit motive. It's not a dirty word. How much of the world's innovation is centered on the free market economies? So, why not try to create a situation where you use that engine to create the change you want rather than fighting it?

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I agree with a lot of what you are saying (and continuing to ignore the global warming theory, as we've agreed that I'm stupid). But, why can't the change be win-win? Again, the best engine of innovation is the free market. We didn't get to where we are today with technology because of regulation. Most people carry around computers in their pockets because of the profit motive. Ford invented the production line BECAUSE of the profit motive. It's not a dirty word. How much of the world's innovation is centered on the free market economies? So, why not try to create a situation where you use that engine to create the change you want rather than fighting it?

who says it isn't win-win!?? ... the profit motive does not mean the free market ... the profit motive by itself fosters greed ... which to me is the cause of all our ills in this world ...

have you heard of the the triple p approach!? ... people planet profit ... it can be done ... it is being done ...

despite what many want to believe about me - i don't begrudge any corporation or individual making absurd amount of money ... but when that money comes from exploitation and does not factor in the social consequences ... it's problematic for all ...

if we didn't regulate things ... we'd still have lead in gasoline and ddt sprayed everywhere ... the free market doesn't account for sustainability nor social consequences ... it assumes or hopes that people would be the check and balance to the corporation which we've seen it is not ...

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

brianlux wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

]

I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.

Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way . But the class room- oh how I miss it sometimes! Let us know how it goes, what you learn.

Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!

Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?

Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?

Get out in the real world- you're kidding, right? You have no idea.
Ok, back to trying to make a POSITIVE difference.

mikepegg44

brianlux wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

]

I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.

Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way . But the class room- oh how I miss it sometimes! Let us know how it goes, what you learn.

Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!

Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?

I totally agree. Education is key to anything in life. I am disappointed in our education system to no end.

But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.

but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.

inlet13

I think those who believe in climate change should develop technologies that are actually superior (in a cost /benefit sense) to existing technologies. The problem is when the climate change community tries to force the public away from a cheaper product (in a cost/benefit sense) to a more expensive ( in a cost benefit sense) alternative, in the name of climate change. As I think threads like this point out, not everyone believes or cares much about climate change, and I'm willing to bet that won't change. No amount of saying "I'm right on climate change and you're wrong" will change that. Instead, the way to get "EVERYONE" on board is to make the green products more cost-effective. Make even people who don't agree that climate change exists want to buy the green change products due to market forces (prices).

If this is done effectively, the government should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE here. Why? Because the government would only get involved if the product WOULD NOT be the cheaper product (in the cost/benefit sense). Government gets involved to try to alter market forces (subsidies, price controls, taxes, etc), this shouldn't happen with this. Instead, climate change supporters take up making green products more costs effective as their life's mission. That's the only way to get everyone on board.

In my opinion, if you're really passionate about this, you could read book after book on the subject (that will pretty much give you the same perspective you already have) and tout your opinion on a rock band's message board. Alternatively, you could actually start trying to think about how you could play a part in what I mentioned above and do it.... thereby, actually make a difference.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.

but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.

i used to agree with you on the terminology however, we don't do this anywhere else ... if you have the flu and you die from an infection ... yeah, the infection is what killed you but the flu was the cause ... same thing here ... we've tried to dumb it down so much to appeal to the masses - all we did was make it easier for the spin doctors to confuse ...example: they took our change from global warming to climate change as an indication of our lack of knowledge on the subject and people ate it up ...

i don't think it's so much talking down to as frustration that people continue to believe and post things that have been addressed years ago ... just follow this thread for example ... the consensus is overwhelming and it is obviously frustrating that we are even having this debate ...

yes, we should focus as well on how we can address this which brianlux has pushed but at the same time, if we can't get everyone to agree that there is indeed a problem ... we won't be able to make any progress ...

EdsonNascimento

inlet13 wrote:

I think those who believe in climate change should develop technologies that are actually superior (in a cost /benefit sense) to existing technologies. The problem is when the climate change community tries to force the public away from a cheaper product (in a cost/benefit sense) to a more expensive ( in a cost benefit sense) alternative, in the name of climate change. As I think threads like this point out, not everyone believes or cares much about climate change, and I'm willing to bet that won't change. No amount of saying "I'm right on climate change and you're wrong" will change that. Instead, the way to get "EVERYONE" on board is to make the green products more cost-effective. Make even people who don't agree that climate change exists want to buy the green change products due to market forces (prices).

If this is done effectively, the government should have ABSOLUTELY NO ROLE here. Why? Because the government would only get involved if the product WOULD NOT be the cheaper product (in the cost/benefit sense). Government gets involved to try to alter market forces (subsidies, price controls, taxes, etc), this shouldn't happen with this. Instead, climate change supporters take up making green products more costs effective as their life's mission. That's the only way to get everyone on board.

In my opinion, if you're really passionate about this, you could read book after book on the subject (that will pretty much give you the same perspective you already have) and tout your opinion on a rock band's message board. Alternatively, you could actually start trying to think about how you could play a part in what I mentioned above and do it.... thereby, actually make a difference.

Well said.

polaris_x

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Well said.

how is this remotely well said!??

it's like you guys say that because its what you want to hear ...

how the heck are we supposed to offer up products if we can't even agree there is a problem ...

i can say right now ... product a costs 3% more than product b but product a will reduce carbon emissions by 25% ... well, if you don't believe in global warming - you're not going to enter that into your equation ...

we need to first have everyone agree there is a problem before there can be meaningful solutions ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Well said.

how is this remotely well said!??

it's like you guys say that because its what you want to hear ...

how the heck are we supposed to offer up products if we can't even agree there is a problem ...

i can say right now ... product a costs 3% more than product b but product a will reduce carbon emissions by 25% ... well, if you don't believe in global warming - you're not going to enter that into your equation ...

we need to first have everyone agree there is a problem before there can be meaningful solutions ...

No, in fact, we don't have to have everyone agree for YOU to find meaningful solutions if you think it's a problem...


YOU could stop posting here and YOU could go out and try to make a green product cheaper. YOU can make it into a product that's more cost/effective than the non-green alternative. I'm saying stop blaming everyone else for not 100% seeing the world exactly like you do (because, truth be told they never will). Instead, go make it so their market incentives are to purchase the products you want them to.

That's lasting change... that's what you SHOULD want.

polaris_x

inlet13 wrote:

No, in fact, we don't have to have everyone agree for YOU to find meaningful solutions if you think it's a problem...

YOU could stop posting here and YOU could go out and try to make a green product cheaper. YOU can make it into a product that's more cost/effective than the non-green alternative. I'm saying stop blaming everyone else for not 100% seeing the world exactly like you do (because, truth be told they never will). Instead, go make it so their market incentives are to purchase the products you want them to.

That's lasting change... that's what you SHOULD want.

i'm not asking anyone to see it 100% the way I do ... you think keynesian economics is causing all the problems - shouldn't your goal to be trying to convince everyone? ... that way people can be on the same page with solutions??

again - which you've ignored ... if part of my cost / benefit formula includes something you don't concern yourself with ... how am i gonna get anywhere? ...

you want us to come up with products/solutions that are more cost effective than conventional ones but won't allow us to factor the reason why we need to come up with it in the first place ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

i'm not asking anyone to see it 100% the way I do ... you think keynesian economics is causing all the problems - shouldn't your goal to be trying to convince everyone? ... that way people can be on the same page with solutions??

I respectfully disagree. I think you are trying to get them to see it the way you do.

As for your point on economics, I don't agree there. Here's why: I can't do squat about Keynesian economics, even if I got a lot of people to agree with me. I don't work for the FED and I'm not a politician. I can't practice Keynesian economics, myself. I play no role in it. It's 100% practiced by government.

You, on the other hand, can do something to change what you consider to be Climate Change. I explained how.

polaris_x wrote:

again - which you've ignored ... if part of my cost / benefit formula includes something you don't concern yourself with ... how am i gonna get anywhere? ...

I'm saying that that's all well and good, but I think if you're honest, you'd admit not everyone has your cost benefit formula. Hence, my point. The most credible way to get everyone on board is market mechanisms. If your products work well and are cheaper, people will buy it. Simply get your green products cheaper and effective (or maybe even a bit more expensive, but show they are more effective)... I'll buy them from you.

polaris_x wrote:

you want us to come up with products/solutions that are more cost effective than conventional ones but won't allow us to factor the reason why we need to come up with it in the first place ...

I don't agree. I want those of your ilk to use market based approaches to solve your own issues. Stop forcing your exact views down everyone's throats by demanding government sponsor your products; a lot of folks don't agree on every iota of Climate Change. Instead, improve your products so they are more competitive and don't need government assistance. If the product is good and there's a purpose for it, and it's not too pricey.... people/companies will buy it. Then the world will be greener. If the goal was a greener world, that's where your energy should be placed.

brianlux

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.

but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.

i used to agree with you on the terminology however, we don't do this anywhere else ... if you have the flu and you die from an infection ... yeah, the infection is what killed you but the flu was the cause ... same thing here ... we've tried to dumb it down so much to appeal to the masses - all we did was make it easier for the spin doctors to confuse ...example: they took our change from global warming to climate change as an indication of our lack of knowledge on the subject and people ate it up ...

i don't think it's so much talking down to as frustration that people continue to believe and post things that have been addressed years ago ... just follow this thread for example ... the consensus is overwhelming and it is obviously frustrating that we are even having this debate ...

yes, we should focus as well on how we can address this which brianlux has pushed but at the same time, if we can't get everyone to agree that there is indeed a problem ... we won't be able to make any progress ...

I mean no offense to those who are skeptical about global warming but it is true- the vast consensus by well studied, well respected scientists is that global warming is real and it is mostly being human generated. You can argue this... but why? It's a fact, not something polaris_x or me or anyone else here made up. Unless it's just about winning an argument, why resist seeing the facts AND why not help do something positive to clean up out world? It's the only planet any of us are going to get to live on.

polaris_x

ok ... agree to disagree here ... it's a catch-22 and two sides of a different coin ...

i think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions within that context but in the end they aren't solutions ... because to you - there isn't a problem ...

how can you help an alcoholic if they don't know they've got a problem!??

until we recognize global warming as a problem ... your market based approach makes no sense because the value in green products is irrelevant ...

inlet13

polaris_x wrote:

ok ... agree to disagree here ... it's a catch-22 and two sides of a different coin ...

i think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions within that context but in the end they aren't solutions ... because to you - there isn't a problem ...

how can you help an alcoholic if they don't know they've got a problem!??

until we recognize global warming as a problem ... your market based approach makes no sense because the value in green products is irrelevant ...

Fair enough, but just to elaborate my points here...

Part of this post is exactly it in a nutshell and why someone, such as myself who's skeptical about global climate change, has such issues with the whole discussion. To me, this shows why climate change supporters and socialism seem inherently linked. Some "green" people are so anti-market that they would rally against market-based solutions, even if they could help address the very "green" problem that they are screaming about.

You said "I think the market based approach is what got us here and yet you want me to come up with solutions in that context". To reiterate, yes, I wanted to you to come up with your GREEN solutions in that context. That would be better for CC and economic growth. In other words, in that context, there would be more jobs, and more prosperity, yet a cleaner environment.

Yet, you don't want that. I just find that ironic.