Climate Change Skeptics

polaris

surferdude wrote:

I'm fully on board with this. I often fall into the trap of defending proper science and critical thinking against the fear mongers. Then I'm perceived to think that global climate change is not occurring or that I want nothing done about it.

uhh ... maybe if you didn't keep posting industry funded articles about man's effect on climate change - some of us wouldn't have that perception ...

surferdude

polaris wrote:

uhh ... maybe if you didn't keep posting industry funded articles about man's effect on climate change - some of us wouldn't have that perception ...

Maybe if fear mongers took a class in critical thinking there wouldn't be a need. If the science is good it doesn't matter who funds it. Somehow this is lost on some. When they can't attack the science they attack the funding.

And stubborn people liek you and I always feel the need for the last word on the subject.

breakmarysfall

polaris wrote:

because acknowledging climate change comes with a personal price ... one that would require people to consider how their actions affect others and maybe asking people to make changes ...

for many - they don't want to face that situation - so, it is much much easier to deny the existence ...

that answer I take ... good one so to say.

I started to blame the oil industry and their lobby and spokesmen,
but your conclusion is so much more convincing.

thanks for the great explanation, that just makes sense.
...and I was already assuming that it won't be easy to fix.....

polaris

surferdude wrote:

Maybe if fear mongers took a class in critical thinking there wouldn't be a need. If the science is good it doesn't matter who funds it. Somehow this is lost on some. When they can't attack the science they attack the funding.

i apologize if that hit a nerve ...

but, the reality is that most of those articles posted are bad science ... it's been proven in courts and they aren't peer-reviewed ... so, really - in one sense you are absolutely correct ... if the science is sound - it shouldn't matter who funded it ... but the problem is that the science in many of those articles u posted is horrible ...

RockinInCanada

breakmarysfall wrote:

that answer I take ... good one so to say.

I started to blame the oil industry and their lobby and spokesmen,
but your conclusion is so much more convincing.

thanks for the great explanation, that just makes sense.
...and I was already assuming that it won't be easy to fix.....

My company I work for acknowledges environmental integrity and committment....by not meeting regulations are motto is too exceed them and we have on every aspect......

sonicreducer

hey polaris, why don't you read my post EDIT: (new thread) and hit it up with some knowledge

thanks

polaris

reborncareerist wrote:

A 50 percent reduction should be attainable, and does seem like a small price to pay.

and i want to say that this is the attitude that will foster change ... also, although it probably didn't need to be said ... greenhouse gas emissions is the obvious reduction to anyone really paying attention ...

polaris

sonicreducer wrote:

hey polaris, why don't you read my post EDIT: (new thread) and hit it up with some knowledge

thanks

getting around to it ... just fyi - obi once posted a thread when the ipcc report came out and i had the exact same sentiments ... time for debate is over ... action is what we should be discussing ...

breakmarysfall

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

My company I work for acknowledges environmental integrity and committment....by not meeting regulations are motto is too exceed them and we have on every aspect......

I know that many companies and especially companies that work for and with energy do already alot good things for the environment.
There is an awareness amongst many, even most and actions are done.

My saying was more or less ironic.
when saying: I started to blame the oil industry.
that meant: i do not do it already.
I just couldn't find a better answer myself.
But polaris gave it to me.

but p.s.
I saw the movie "the corporation", so I am a bit against our system and the big companies cause they are only guided and ruled by the thought of profit. So there is no humanity or other important value to be found anymore.
...all this I think is a development to the extreme, with no middle anymore.
So of course I would blame them first... but I do agree that they DO good things and try to make also profit out of this subject... and that is why I still have hope.

sonicreducer

onelongsong wrote:

i posted it in another thread last week i believe but if you're asking i will post again.
i went 100% solar a year ago. i am not hooked to the grid. i bought a newer diesel that burns biodiesel. in the us; the government gives great tax breaks for solar conversion. so the costs are up there at first; but my system paid for itself already. now i'm making money by not having to pay for electricity.
i planted 21 trees last year (i just went and counted) but i think 3 died.

i remember reading that recently, so ill look it up b/c im pretty sure you posted links, right?

also, post it 100 times, that way more people will read it and maybe make a decision

surferdude

breakmarysfall wrote:

I saw the movie "the corporation", so I am a bit against our system and the big companies cause they are only guided and ruled by the thought of profit. So there is no humanity or other important value to be found anymore.

Humanity is supposed to be found in the individual and reflected as a consumer. People just seem to find it so much easier to point the finger (blame big business) than look inside.

Commy

surferdude wrote:

Humanity is supposed to be found in the individual and reflected as a consumer. People just seem to find it so much easier to point the finger (blame big business) than look inside.

a flawed concept from the beginning tho...


big corporations like walmart can role into small towns, sell everything for less than the local stores, then drive them all out of business. with no competition they can jack up their prices again. And it happens in every industry.

The consumer has no say in the matter really, especially in small towns....

But this is about the environment, so....

Some guy, John Dewey I think, said politics is the shadow cast on society by big business. And he was right. State power functions to serve big business, as has always been the case. Pick an empire and you'll notice they all function basically the same way. State power primarily serves itself, but ultimately serves big business.

Which allows businiess to get away with all kinds of things, degradation of the environment for one, especially in the third world, where environmental restraints are basically non-existent.

bubbamackdaddy69

I'm still a skeptic..easy as that...

surferdude

Commy wrote:

big corporations like walmart can role into small towns, sell everything for less than the local stores, then drive them all out of business. with no competition they can jack up their prices again. And it happens in every industry.

The consumer has no say in the matter really, especially in small towns....

The consumer has every say in the matter. The consumer has 100% of the power.

Wal-Mart cannot sell anything for a lower price. It can only offer things for sale. If the consumer opts out of caring for humanity and decides that the bottom line is all they care about this is not Wal-Mart's fault. Wal-Mart will exploit it but only because the average individual doesn't care. Business will care about what we as individuals tell them to care about via our purchasing patterns.

sonicreducer

surferdude wrote:

The consumer has every say in the matter. The consumer has 100% of the power.

Wal-Mart cannot sell anything for a lower price. It can only offer things for sale. If the consumer opts out of caring for humanity and decides that the bottom line is all they care about this is not Wal-Mart's fault. Wal-Mart will exploit it but only because the average individual doesn't care. Business will care about what we as individuals tell them to care about via our purchasing patterns.

the problem is that the average joe isn't educated about this,... and sometimes it's not necessarily their fault,...

farfromglorified

polaris wrote:

i assumed your hypothetical was the emissions related to industry and vehicles and what not ...

Are they outside of that "natural cycle"?

you would see an decrease in the warming trend ... at which point glaciers may not melt and sea levels not rise ...

How much of a decrease?

surferdude

sonicreducer wrote:

the problem is that the average joe isn't educated about this,... and sometimes it's not necessarily their fault,...

An individual abdicating responsibility for his/her education is always at fault.

rebornFixer

farfromglorified wrote:

Are they outside of that "natural cycle"?

Hmm ... Honestly, its a bit hard to say. Perhaps anything we do should count as part of the natural cycle. Perhaps even if we do reduce emissions of methane, carbon dioxide, etc., the globe will still get warmer. Most current evidence suggests that we can slow the warming process by cleaning up our acts a bit, and to me, its worth a try. I dunno. Maybe Al Gore scared me more than he should have. IMHO, reducing emissions won't likely hurt us, and will quite likely help us, assuming that we do so in an economically sensible way. Anyhow, I don't want to be preachy. You raise good questions ... Not sure they can really be answered at this stage.

polaris

farfromglorified wrote:

Are they outside of that "natural cycle"?



How much of a decrease?

for the most part - yes

as for decrease - i'm not exactly sure ... they have models ..

Commy

surferdude wrote:

The consumer has every say in the matter. The consumer has 100% of the power.

Wal-Mart cannot sell anything for a lower price. It can only offer things for sale. If the consumer opts out of caring for humanity and decides that the bottom line is all they care about this is not Wal-Mart's fault. Wal-Mart will exploit it but only because the average individual doesn't care. Business will care about what we as individuals tell them to care about via our purchasing patterns.

sounds great in theory, but in practice the example i mentioned earlier happens to be the reality. The reason i mentioned small towns is people tend to make less money, and therefore go to places where the product is cheapest, places like wal-mart. Even if that means their buddies' store wil go out of business, simply because they can't afford to spend the extra buck buying from local businesses. So wal-mart or whatever steps in, creates the monopoly, and people end up paying more anyway. And dozens of local businesses dry up.

And that also assumes the market is controlled by the consumer, that products are a reflection of what the consumer wants, which may not be entirely accurate. Wants are often determined by industry, via advertising and so on...