In 1912 the discovery of the "Missing Link" was announced. However, in 1953, as all the world now knows, the famous Piltdown skull was conclusively determined to be a fraud. To modern science, it may seem incredible that the Piltdown "Ape Man" was accepted in 1912 by people who should have seen at once that such an evolutionary freak was impossible - but at that time the evolutionists were expecting the discovery of just such an apparent link between man and ape. Charles Darwin had forecast in 1871 that the missing Link would one day be found. The acceptance of Piltdown Man was largely wishful thinking in 1912. The scientists accepted him as genuine because they wished to believe. They were too credulous.
The Piltdown fraud which consumed science for 41 years should remind us that Global Warming hypothesis must be based on sound science - not on incomplete computer models and the rantings of a a modern-day Piltdown man, Al Gore.
The thing I don`t like about global warming theory is that any, and I mean any, environmental scenario can be explained as a result of global warming.
While this doesn`t automatically disprove global warming. This does prove that most of the people that are crying "GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!" are full of shit and don`t give a damn about the environment. They care about money and power and using global warming to advance there socialist agenda.
i knew global warming was a fraud when it was winter and it was 3 degrees here in nashville. so tell me al gore how the globe can be "warmed" when im freezing my butt off. thats like saying your oven is warmed when theres icycles hanging in there. al gore is a complete liar and just like obama recieved the Nobel liar prize. hes telling us to be green and conserve energy and all that and it was exposed hes running up 20 thousand dollar electric bills in his house in cookeville tennesse. what a piece of trash. he is a slick slick liar thats why he is effective
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
Yeah this whole global warming thing is pretty clearly bullshit, but I'm not seeing this ClimateGate very much in the news. Just on Drudge and I bet Fox News if I watched that.
The media wants no part of it, and the average American is only as smart as the media lets him be (a shame), so I sincerely doubt this is going to end the BS global warming fiasco.
Registered: 2003-03-25 Location: Syracuse, NY Posts: 225
you people are so scarily ignorant, its beyond frightening. you had a predetermined desire for global warming to be a farce and now that you have just one scrap, its enough to make you go even more haywire. why cant you just admit that your views have been proven wrong repeatedly from about 2001-2009 and let the smart people handle the future of the planet?
youre killing this planet with your idiocy and its severely dangerous to the good people
Registered: 2004-10-08 Location: O'Fallon Missouri USA Posts: 709
Global warming is nothing but a joke. I cannot stand all these be green assholes. I am cool if you want to be all "enviroment friendly" but dont get all self righteous on me about it and point your finger.
I like the hippies that tell you all this enviroment stuff then light up a cigarette.
That piltdown man comparison is kind of funny. It seems to be trying to disparage global warming by comparing the current science to piltdown man. But the thing is, even if piltdown man was a fraud, evolution is still true and since piltdown man there has been such massive amounts of evidence for it that it`s one of the most robust theories in science today. The further evidence discovered after piltdown man is what helped discover the fraud since as time went by piltdown man became a larger and larger anomoly in the every increasing body of evidence forcing a re-examination.
Registered: 2003-03-28 Location: Reddest of the Red States Posts: 2235
I don't buy global warming (at least not as a valid reason to expand government regulation of industry), but I don't buy that this "Climategate" thing is the silver bullet that will destroy the monster. There'll be some announcement from climate change alarmists about how this doesn't mean as much as we thought.
It's good news, but it's not the end of the story.
While this doesn`t automatically disprove global warming. This does prove that most of the people that are crying "GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!" are full of shit and don`t give a damn about the environment. They care about money and power and using global warming to advance there socialist agenda.
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 131
I think many of you are missing the point. There is little debate that climate change exists. So all your anecdotal evidence of "wahhhhh, it`s cold where I live" doesn`t really apply here. I think the most controversial part is whether or not climate change is caused by humans.
quote I like the hippies that tell you all this enviroment stuff then light up a cigarette.
Just like all the religious wack-jobs that tell you all this "10 commandments" stuff then support war? Humans contradict themselves all the time. Get over it.
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 131
@RowdyRoddyPiper & HappySmurf: It`s called "Global warming" because certain parts of the Earth (i.e. much of the arctic) does indeed get warmer. However, it`s not actual warming everywhere on Earth. The data (and peer-reviewed scientific literature) speaks for itself:
I still personally am not done believing in the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s. I'm telling you man, we're headed for an Ice Age because all the models proved it back then. Of course some jackass probably forgot to change the integer to negative in the programming of those computer models and here we are today.
I just hope to live long enough to see Al Gore's name smeared as the hoaxter former politician of all time.
I still personally am not done believing in the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s.
The difference between then and now is that global cooling never had any significant widespread scientific backing where as you'd be hard pressed to name even one single nationally or internationally recognized scientific body that doesn't back Climate Change.
The skeptics are largely limited to individual scientists, many of whom aren't even climatologists. That's not to say their criticism is without merit, only that their objections are few and very far between.
Gashad has it right. For all intents and purpose the debate on climate change is non-existent. What remains is how much of an impact can be traced back to human activities and what we should be doing about it.
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
The issue I have is that if the 'scientific community' in question here had nothing to gain, I would be more inclined to believe them. Unfortunately many of the individuals forwarding this "global warming is caused by humans in like the past 50 years, somehow!" have major investments in green technology and/or have based their entire careers on the idea. Or they're scared of what will happen to them if they disagree.
When the 'science' starts being tainted with personal agendas, well, it stops being science. There are credible scientists out there that disagree with the idea that human beings are responsible for climate change, and rather than encouraging the scientific method and publishing thorough and logical studies, scientific journals are rejecting submissions and ostracizing people with differing views.
And of course you have Al Gore, who won't even take questions unless its a plant. And he won't debate anyone on the subject of climate change because, like, it's totally already proven man! Cuz he won a Nobel Peace Prize for it! And I think we all know they're pretty much giving those away in boxes of Cracker Jacks lately.
So what side do I take? Well, in this instance, the side that has nothing to lose and is still fighting for the truth to come out. Not the guys making a living off of junk science and stonewalling academic discourse.
I have no idea if global warming is real or not, but too much pollution definitely is bad. I've been in China and the pollution is terrible there. I'm all for cutting emissions so the whole populated world doesn't end up like that some day.
I am all for cutting pollutions. It is a great thing to live in a clean earth. Unfortunately people confuse the value of cleaning pollutions with the idealism behind it. It might be cost effective and beneficial to clean up pollution by 50%. It might health advantageous to clean up by 75%. It might cost alot but be 'worth it' to some to clean up 95% of pollution. And prohibitively expensive to do a Full 100% cleanup.
The point I want to make though is that the PEOPLE should be making that choice via their representatives in terms of finance, health, and ecological well being. Each country should have it's own initiative to clean up, not a world wide overarching mandate. It is financially more realistic for us to clean up more of our pollution than some country like Somalia. It just doesn't make sense to have broad international mandates.
Yes you could make the argument that one countries pollution can affect other countries, but that can be dealt with via foreign policy ( I mean look how much pressure the world puts on N.Korea/Iran over Nukes). Countries have leverage so extreme cases could also be handled.
Finally Carbon Dioxide is Not A pollutant in any sense of the word we think of it. Both based on chemical composition and natural products and in concentration. It is a TINY fraction of the air we breath (there is far more argon in the air you breath than CO2). Even if we doubled or tripled our (buzzword) anthropogenic CO2 emissions you would notice ZERO difference in the air you breath, and it would have little or NO effect on almost any ecological systems (Yes I have read the studies of increased Poison Ivy growth in CO2 enhanced environments, and that study has so many problems it is laughable).
While support for global "warming" may be sketchy, climate change is something real which is already happening. Wider swings in seasonal temperatures, more dangerous tropical storm seasons, longer droughts, etc.
Whether this is a result of human industrialization, I`m not 100% sure. But you can`t deny we`ve really been on a consumption rampage these last hundred years. So the global warming people have one thing right: we only have one planet with limited resources, and it might be a good idea to get more efficient at using them before it`s too late.
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: Boulder, CO Posts: 131
Quote: Unfortunately many of the individuals forwarding this "global warming is caused by humans in like the past 50 years, somehow!" have major investments in green technology and/or have based their entire careers on the idea.
Sure. Just like many people opposed to anthropogenic climate change have major investments in non-green tech and/or have based their entire careers on the idea.
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: your mom's house Posts: 802
Sure. Just like many people opposed to anthropogenic climate change have major investments in non-green tech and/or have based their entire careers on the idea.
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
"Sure. Just like many people opposed to anthropogenic climate change have major investments in non-green tech and/or have based their entire careers on the idea."
Right, and when ExxonMobil tries to tell me that green technology sucks and oil is the way to go, I won't take them at their word.
But when genuine scientists - with little to gain (other than upholding the integrity of the scientific community) - risk it all by raising questions against the "consensus" of scientists basing their careers on what looks more and more like a collusive front, again, I'm inclined to listen.
It's not like climate change critics are getting massive grants to do research and are being published in tons of journals. Quite the opposite. But write or research some BS that already assumes a human link with global warming, however, and the grant cash comes rolling in.
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: your mom's house Posts: 802
But when genuine scientists - with little to gain (other than upholding the integrity of the scientific community) - risk it all by raising questions against the "consensus" of scientists basing their careers on what looks more and more like a collusive front, again, I'm inclined to listen.
There is no such thing as 100% consensus in science. A big part of what scientists do is interpret results, and there is room for different interpretations when reading climate change data.
That said, it's weird that you think that scientists critical of climate change don't have much to gain. There are HUGE industry resources involved with climate change opposition, and I'm sure that oil companies are more than happy to send some of these scientists Christmas hams for their cooperation. The point is that there is a ton of money on both sides and I'm sure there are scientists on both sides who have been bought in some fashion.
I don't think that anyone can definitely predict what is going to happen with climate in the next hundred years, but I also don't think it makes sense to bet the farm on the conclusion that climate is definitely not changing because of a few dissenting scientists, which seems to be what you're doing.
Basically, I don't think it's unreasonable to take some measures to reduce our environmental footprint regardless of what is happening with climate. If the government wants to invest a bunch of money to develop cleaner cars or factories or power plants, then that's fine with me. Basically, addressing climate change is the new space program, and if government investment can make some real advances in efficiency, then everybody will benefit.
It would be nice that the people in charge in trying to change everyone's way of using this planet would resort to truthful measures as opposed to manipulative means where data is manipulated to fit their agenda, to make it appear the world will end if things do not get addressed. It sounds like just a normal day at work all the way around.
rrp....global warming doesn`t exsist because you`re cold atm, thanks bud
hjparcins....you seem to be level headed except for the point you make where you say "the average american is only as smart as the media lets him be" if the average american only gets his info from 1-4 30 minute sources at 6pm every day, than the average american is an idiot
also you need world wide mandates otherwise it will destroy our economies*read western civilization*if china can pollute as much as it wants without reprimand, then things will continue to be cheaper from there, do you think everything you buy from walmart is made in china because it`s the best quality? or is it because 8 year old jin can make 30 television sets in an hour for 14 cents?
do i think global warming is man made? i dunno, i know the earth goes through cycles of freezing and warming and right now we`re in a move from an ice age to a warm age, but even still...lets use less polluting things in our lives, when 30 days out of 120 days in the summer old people and people with respitory problems are told to stay inside because of smog, there`s no debate there, it`s cut and dry smog is man made and these people have the choice of staying inside and breathing or going outside and dying....
but then again, rrp might be able to go outside and breath fine so smog in the summer in big cities might be government brainwashing too
THIS video is the only one I've ever come across that tries to discuss climate change from a risk management point of view. What's more, if you click on the "More Info" of the video details, the author has created dozens of additional videos essentially playing devil's advocate with himself to address criticisms of his presentation and conclusion.
It's a 10 minute video that eloquently discusses the subject without injecting politics or bombards you with science/technical jargon.
Addendum: Actually THIS link is better. Start with the video "How It All Ends" and if you like it, try the other videos.
Registered: 2006-06-10 Location: The Land of Chocolate Posts: 2245
RRP your whole post goes to show how little you understand 'global warming.'
it's not about the literal meaning of 'global warming.'
it's that weather patterns can potentially get fux0red, so if it's typically 34 degrees at winter, it'll be 12 degrees. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, but this forced ignorance kind of stunts any kind of conversation.
smokin joe come back when you see the new carbon tax thats going to be taken from your paycheck that will be paid directly to al gores private company. Its called sun activity remember el nino in the 90`s? when the sun has huge solar flares that affects temps here on the earth not your breathing or cow farts which is what this Bulls%%$# science is of al gore and ken lay. The enron gang. enjoy getting scammed sucker! drink more fluoride watch more football and pay up sucker!
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
"There is no such thing as 100% consensus in science. A big part of what scientists do is interpret results, and there is room for different interpretations when reading climate change data."
I know this. This is the basis of one of my posts. My point, however, was that though what you wrote is the way science is SUPPOSED to work, it is not currently living up to that lofty goal. Unfortunately, things like THIS tend to show that if you disagree with the "consensus", ain't shit gonna come of it.
Also, I'm sure the bad guys at Big Oil (TM) are tossing a few bucks to their handful of shill scientists, but all you have to do is compare the kind of political attention supporters of anthropogenic climate change receive (such as countless international conventions and summits presupposing the veracity of your argument) to see that there is a pretty major difference. You can't honestly be suggesting that there is any equality in the money and career-making opportunities here, can you?
"I don't think that anyone can definitely predict what is going to happen with climate in the next hundred years, but I also don't think it makes sense to bet the farm on the conclusion that climate is definitely not changing because of a few dissenting scientists, which seems to be what you're doing."
I think the climate is always changing - look at the history of the planet for evidence of that. We've had ice ages, little ice ages, ages of relative warmth, the whole shebang. From everything I've read it seems very cyclical to me. Is it caused by human beings in the last 50 or so years? THAT I find a bit hard to believe. The planet has recovered from massive meteor collisions, enormous volcanic eruptions and erratic solar activity. And 50-100 years of putting out, what is the number, an extra 1-2% or so C02 is supposed to screw everything up?
"hjparcins....you seem to be level headed except for the point you make where you say "the average american is only as smart as the media lets him be" if the average american only gets his info from 1-4 30 minute sources at 6pm every day, than the average american is an idiot"
That is exactly what I'm saying - the average American IS an idiot. I think the average American doesn't even get his info from those "1-4 40 minute sources at 6 pm every day" that you mention. That would be fantastic. I think currently the average American gets his info from opinionated blogs, entertainment TV and his personal friends who got THEIR opinions from opinionated blogs and entertainment TV.
You wouldn't believe how many times I've gotten into a discussion about X or Y issue (at a law school and later in a masters program) only to have the person note that they heard about it on Perez Hilton, the Daily Show, Facebook or Twitter as if it was a credible source of information.
I`m curious about the people who don`t believe global warming is real, either that it`s happening at all or that it is man made.
What evidence would convince you that it is occurring and that it is man made? It seems that most are dismissing current scientific consensus based on some conspiracy type ideas that it`s all a bunch of scientists being paid off, or if not exactly paid off are at least reaping benefits from the idea and therefore the science is `tained.`
I personally subscribe to the condom theory when it comes to global warming: Everyone hates wearing condoms, and most of the time, you are probably okay not wearing one, but the potential consequences of not wearing one are so dire, that you wear one anyway.
With global warming there are only 4 possible options:
1) Global warming is a total fraud ... we act to counteract global warming ... we waste a lot of money and effort ... life goes on.
2) Global warming is a total fraud ... we do nothing ... we save a bunch of money and effort ... life goes on.
3) Global warming is real ... we act to counteract global warming ... a lot of money and effort is spent wisely ... life goes on.
4) Global warming is real ... we do nothing ... human beings are fucked.
...Whether or not global warming is real, it doesn't matter, it might be, and the consequence could be horrible, so you have to act.
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
Gabe, first, as soon as I saw you were from Boston, I knew what your post was going to contain. But to get to the problem of your options: if it is a total fraud and we spend a lot of money and effort in THIS economy, when we don't have spare money OR effort to go around, life, at least as we know it in the US, might NOT go on. Things could change quite a bit, and all for nothing. Now is not the time to play fast and loose with our energy infrastructure and agriculture.
And the problem with your fourth option - you're assuming what they say is true, that we have 'LESS THAN 10 YEARS ZOMG' to do something or the world asplode. Something tells me that prediction is a bit far-fetched.
Oh, and finally, all you guys who are up in arms about global warming - what would you propose we do if Russia and China and India and Australia and the Middle Eastern nations and South America all decide 'f global warming' and just keep on' keepin' on? Which seems like a very likely turn of events. I mean, the US, France, UK, Germany and a few other uselessly small nations in Europe can hold their farts until their faces turn red, but if the REAL producers (mainly China) keep pumping shit into the atmosphere, what good is it going to do?
Should we go to war to save the planet then? Diplomacy is cool and all, but places like Russia and China just don't give a shit when we ask them politely to do something that only serves to harm their economies. And they shouldn't; they're powerful and they don't need to give in to bullying from the UN or the EU.
Wow, the answers got so strewn after a while I quit reading.
Global warming only at the poles is a bunch of BS.
Why don't you check the research and see that not only did a bunch of ice melt at the pole this last year, but more formed during the cold season than was there the previous year.
Global warming is just another cry for political power over us.
If you read the studies, if we are to stay current on what we do, it amounts to something like a .1 degree increase in the global average in the next 25 years.
So quit all your himhawing and go read all the sources and stay away from lieing politicians and government sights.
There are only a handful of scientists who actually think there is global warming, compared to the thousands that are out there.
Gore's mentor in science is the head guy for this global warming deal.
Look at it like this. And go read the history.
The world average temperature fluctuates. It's as simple as that. If we are in the upswing of it being warm, you should coulda fooled me.
Remember, most recycling actually takes more energy to reuse the resource than it does to just go cut down another tree, the worlds most renewable resource besides air.
So take your green mentality and wipe your ass with leaves. Cause that is about as green as you'll have to get to save a tree!
It's very telling that on this particular issue there are those who equate the value of a few independent professionals and a handful of think-tanks at or above that of dozens of nationally and internationally recognized professional science organizations.
Organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) which are arguably the most prestigious of all scientific bodies and consequently the least biased.
Forget the politicians, the media, the bloggers, and the average joes who think they know what they are talking about when odds are they don't. When you see a list like THIS and then you realize that there's not even one single science body offering a dissenting opinion, *that* ought to tell you something as to which side of the debate has more merit.
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: your mom's house Posts: 802
Unfortunately, things like THIS tend to show that if you disagree with the "consensus", ain't shit gonna come of it.
The hacked emails do nothing to change the science, and if anyone responsible for legislating based on science doesn't understand that, then they should be drummed out. Again, the data, methods and interpretations that have lead to these conclusions HAVE ALL BEEN PUBLISHED. If anyone disagrees with any aspect of these published findings, then they can go through the proper scientific channels to dispute them. If dissenting scientists aren't able to make a compelling arguments using established scientific channels, then they suck and deserve to be ignored. It sounds like everything is working just fine.
You can't honestly be suggesting that there is any equality in the money and career-making opportunities here, can you?
According to Forbes, Exxon-Mobil and Chevron are two of America's biggest (#1 and #8 respectively), most profitable (#1 and #2 respectively) companies. Exxon alone is sitting on $31 billion in cash. I am curious to hear why you think that Al Gore and friends have resources that are anywhere close to that. Exxon could literally hire all of the climate scientists themselves if they wanted to - the problem is that still wouldn't change the science.
Frankly, I think the fact that players like Exxon and Chevron haven't been able to use their huge resources to get better press speaks pretty well for the scientific process.
And 50-100 years of putting out, what is the number, an extra 1-2% or so C02 is supposed to screw everything up?
Beats me, I don't know the science. I am not a scientist. I'd wager to guess that you are not a scientist either, though, so I don't feel too bad about that. Maybe we could start a webcast or something called "Two Guys Who Don't Understand Science Discuss Science"?
All I can tell you is what I've already said, which is that I'm more than happy to invest my tax dollars to push American innovation, since I want a car that runs forever on a nuclear fuel cell the size of a 9-volt battery instead of gasoline. Let's make it happen America!
Oh, and finally, all you guys who are up in arms about global warming - what would you propose we do if Russia and China and India and Australia and the Middle Eastern nations and South America all decide 'f global warming' and just keep on' keepin' on?
1. America invests a buttload of money in developing viable energy alternatives. Other countries laugh at us. hjparcins is sad.
2. Google develops a nuclear fuel cell the size of a 9-volt battery that can power a car forever.
3. Nuclear fuel cells and the infrastructure to support them becomes a major part of the US economy. Old systems are refurbished to use the new technology, creating jobs and opportunities and indirectly spurring more innovation.
4. Foreign countries now have the choice to keep buying stupid oil from scary Middle Eastern regimes or to buy clean nuclear fuel cells the size of 9-volt batteries from their friends in America. Those who decide to keep using oil because of creepy allegiances to scary Middle Eastern regimes are overthrown by their citizens, because everyone knows that oil is stupid.
6. Americans switch to flying cars and space frisbees since we have so much extra money and it seems like a fun thing to do. hjparcins writes Al Gore a love letter with hearts on it.
Also, the environment happens to improve as a result of our renewed economic superiority. I mean, if you're into that sort of thing. I suspect that most people will be having too much fun in their flying cars to think about it much, really.
Edit: BTW, if it's okay with you hjparcins, I think we should let Wibin be on our webcast too. At least in a guest role. Think about it...
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
"The hacked emails . . ."
I'm not really talking about the hacked emails. I knew nothing would come of those. I'm talking about Ban Ki-moon saying that THERE IS NO DOUBT that humans are the cause of global warming. Clearly the UN won't even listen to conflicting data. THAT is a pretty big problem, in my opinion; kind of undermines the whole scientific method. I would be utterly shocked if Mr. Ki-moon even looked at those emails, or read the briefing they handed him beyond 'Deny There Is Anything Wrong'. He had already made up his mind.
"they can go through the proper scientific channels to dispute them"
Except for that little problem that anyone who disagrees with the causes of climate change is summarily dismissed as a crackpot. I mean, we pretty much skipped the part where we speculated as to the cause of climate change. It went from global cooling in the 1970s to suddenly 'global warming right now no questions!'. There wasn't much of a discussion, it was just 'ITS HAPPENING NOW IT IS ALMOST TOO LATE' right away. I remain skeptical.
Anyway, your fantasy about nuclear everything is great. Really, it is. I've been behind the idea of nuclear energy since I've had the ability to comprehend it. Maybe if we went full on nuclear when we had the chance everything would be cool now, but the hippies saw fit to nix that idea. But the solution isn't to destroy oil and coal with astronomical taxes and restrictions so that the government can fund pet research with our gouged energy bills.
The process has to be MUCH more gradual. It is frankly ridiculous for these global climate summits to scream at each other '80% reduction of greenhouse gases within the next 15 MINUTES GOGOGO!' and then pat each other on the back while eating their Kobe beef and flying around the world in their private jets.
I wouldn't have a problem at all with a 'clean energy' movement if it was instead a 'nuclear energy' movement (definitely drop the bicycles and recycling into 20 bins shit, please) and the Climate Change Crew didn't have a hard-on for getting it done LIKE YESTERDAY.
I really don't see how we can go from global cooling 30 years ago to global warming so fast we will all be charred to a crisp within 10 years. It is, quite obviously, bullshit.
Oh, and in response to: "I am curious to hear why you think that Al Gore and friends have resources that are anywhere close to that."
"As well 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles."
In apparently 1,200 limos and 140 private jets, that is a pretty powerful group if you ask me.
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
Also GroverDill, I'll only do the webshow if we can get Al Gore to join us. Then we can call it "Three Guys Who Don't Understand Science Discuss Science".
Registered: 2003-04-09 Location: your mom's house Posts: 802
Clearly the UN won't even listen to conflicting data. THAT is a pretty big problem, in my opinion; kind of undermines the whole scientific method. I would be utterly shocked if Mr. Ki-moon even looked at those emails, or read the briefing they handed him beyond 'Deny There Is Anything Wrong'. He had already made up his mind.
And I will say again that it's not his job to look at those emails. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is a (weak) politician, not a scientist. He is not a part of the scientific community and should have no personal role in reaching scientific conclusions. He can either choose to act on the findings of the scientific community or to ignore them, but nobody expects him to roll up his sleeves and get all Mr. Wizard with the data himself.
Again, if dissenting scientists want to make actual headway with policymakers, they should probably double down on convincing others in the scientific community and not waste time sending a bunch of e-mails to the head of the U.N.
But the solution isn't to destroy oil and coal with astronomical taxes and restrictions so that the government can fund pet research with our gouged energy bills.
I'm not sure I would characterize what I'm suggesting as destroying oil and coal with astronomical taxes and restrictions. The car "destroyed" the horse and buggy as a viable means of transportation, and nobody saw the need to tax and restrict the horse and buggy industry to make that happen. That said, I'm all for destroying the oil and coal industries should we develop a better alternative.
I wouldn't have a problem at all with a 'clean energy' movement if it was instead a 'nuclear energy' movement (definitely drop the bicycles and recycling into 20 bins shit, please) and the Climate Change Crew didn't have a hard-on for getting it done LIKE YESTERDAY.
I don't care about the specific technologies involved - let's pursue all of them, nuclear and petroleum-based included. If the future technology that ends up being adopted is a gasoline powered engine that gets 500 mpg, then the environment will still be saved and the oil industry will basically collapse.
As for the urgency, think about the nuclear bomb and the space race. Those two initiatives, sponsored by the U.S. government, have basically defined our scientific dominance in the world for the last 50 years. My personal belief is that whatever country can develop a viable alternative to oil dependence first will be calling the shots for the NEXT 50 years. Trust me, if we learned tomorrow that India or China had developed technology along these lines, our diplomatic phone lines would stop ringing overnight and we'd find ourselves having to start calling out for some favors.
In apparently 1,200 limos and 140 private jets, that is a pretty powerful group if you ask me.
The Copenhagen energy summit is a photo op - like the Cannes film festival only without the actual movies (unless Al Gore has a new one, I don't know). Do you really expect that anything of substance will get done there? I sure don't. If I was pushing a specific energy policy and I had to choose between the Copenhagen energy summit and 31 billion dollars, I think I'm still taking the money.
Also GroverDill, I'll only do the webshow if we can get Al Gore to join us. Then we can call it "Three Guys Who Don't Understand Science Discuss Science".
I'm down with that. I've got his people on speed dial - I'll let you know.
Gabe, first, as soon as I saw you were from Boston, I knew what your post was going to contain. But to get to the problem of your options: if it is a total fraud and we spend a lot of money and effort in THIS economy, when we don't have spare money OR effort to go around, life, at least as we know it in the US, might NOT go on. Things could change quite a bit, and all for nothing. Now is not the time to play fast and loose with our energy infrastructure and agriculture.
hj, this is incredibly short sighted and misinformed. I see you're from Miami, which is ground zero of the housing bubble, and so right away, I knew you were going to have a very misguided view of economic issues and think only about the short term.
Let me give you an example of what spending money to solve global warming means, since you obviously don't seem to have the slighest idea.
Right now, SCANA, which is a regulated electric utility in South Carolina, is the first company in the US in 3 decades to be building a new nuclear power plant. It will not be done until ~2025. That power plant is required to sustain the projected business growth in the state of South Carolina for the next century (read: they need the power anyway). The investors in the company will be earning a 10% return on their investment as it is done. Nuclear by the way, is the cheapest option for them coming in at 76 dollars per megawatt which is substantially cheaper than ANY other option.
The only reason why that plant is possible and the reason why they can generate such great returns is because the state, local, and federal government got serious about CO2 legislation and are backing the loans, allowing them to get favorable financing. The 104 nuclear power plants currently operating in the US offset more CO2 than all the cars in the US generate every single year.
Why mention this?
1. These changes are changes that are measured in decades, not years.
2. This plant being built, which would never happen if people didn't really crunch the numbers behind CO2 is going to be a huge benefit to the local area, the statewide businesses, and the investors (read the utility stocks your 401k could be holding)
3. The local rate base will actually see decreased electricity costs over the long term as a result of the plant. Which actually HELPS the average joe, who is struggling (but wont be in a decade anyway).
This is just one example of hundreds that are on the table right now of things that we can do help this problem AND earn money AND move forward.
I say put solar panels on buildings. You say I am a hippy. And you are an idiot, because over a 30 year time period the people who live in that building will SAVE money on electricty, and pollution is being offset. Why do you think WALMART is exploring huge solar inititives? Do you think its because they are hippies? No its because over the long term it will save money.
Businesses, and global organizations think about the long term, because they are smart and they get there information from smart people. They are not kneejerk reactionaries who get there info from blogs and tv.
The vast majority of CO2 emission in this world, the ones that could potentially really cause problems, are generated by coal fired electricity generation. After that it is heavy industry.
Yes, I live in Boston, but before I lived in Boston I lived in Shanghai for over a year, and let me tell you something, whether global warming is a problem or not, pollution is. If you walk down the street in Shanghai or Beijing your hands feel dirty after a few minutes of just walking because of the muck in the air. It is never sunny there, ever...even on the clearest day their is always a haze hanging over the air.
The global demand for electricity is going to increase 50% between now and 2030. Most of that increase is going to come from developing markets.
China adds the equivalent of one new coal power plant every single week. They are also building 100 nuclear plants as well, and investing in hydro electric power, and wind, and solar generation. They are doing this because the RECOGNIZE that if they dont, they ARE fucked...because ALREADY its hard to breathe there and it is only getting worse.
Anyway, I am sure you are one of those "don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up" people so I will stop here. But maybe, just maybe, you should challenge yourself to learn about what you are complaining about actually means before you complain about it.
Registered: 2008-10-27 Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida Posts: 980
First, I'm not from Miami, so I'm sorry to mislead you. I'm from Ohio, and I hate Miami. I'm just here for a year then I'm moving on. Ohio kind of sucks too, so who knows where I'll be when I'm done here. Wherever I can find a better job in this shitty economy, I reckon.
At any rate, let me reiterate, because it apparently didn't take hold the first time - I am totally for clean energy. I am COMPLETELY for nuclear energy, and if not for the same hippies wanting to put solar panels on every building and build geothermal hobbit homes, we would have fully embraced nuclear energy back in the 60s.
And while I'm on the subject of solar panels - I have NO problem with what you suggested; but instead of taxing me out the ass to do it, why not offer large tax breaks to those who DO choose to install solar panels on commercial buildings? Oh, that's right, because the government is SO much better at spending our money for us.
Unfortunately, the is my major problem with this anthropogenic global warming business. If the whole point, as you seem to suggest, is to pursue cleaner and more efficient energy options, then why not just frame it that way? Why do they have to scare us with this "10 years we're all dead!" bullshit?
And why does encouraging clean energy have to come at the expense of what we depend on now? I'm for clean energy, but not when it means we cut oil and gas and coal off at the knees before we have any viable alternatives. The best way to promote new energy technologies is TAX BREAKS. Huge ones. Not new cap and trade taxes on our current energy sources (meaning, ultimately, that we all pay more for our energy as the loss is passed on to us). Not new and crippling restrictions on the same plants that provide me with the electricity to power up my computer and debate these issues with you on expectnothing.com.
To be honest this whole Global Warming/Cooling/Climate change or whatever you want to call it is completely ripped out of context a million times already. Yes earths climate is changing, no this isn't a harm to us, no we can't do anything about it. Initially scientists were just making an indication that the climate is changing on earth, nothing special. Then suddenly some smart people thought "let's make some money out of this". All sorts of pie, column, bar, line charts were published which showed the increase the last 50 years or so. The rest of the chart would display the temperature from the year 0 onwards. Now this for example is a complete fake, something that Mr. Gore uses as well. Take a small piece of data which supports your claim and you can scare people. If you look back much longer then you will see that earths climate has always been changing.
Now of course it's always a good idea to pollute less. The ignorance that man can influence the climate is complete bullshit if you ask me.
Liberals try to destroy us "Deniers" by setting up a strawman argument with us denying that humans have an impact on the climate.
The science is 100% solid irrefutable....humans have an impact on the environment. Only an uneducated fool denies that and denies that we have not been in a general "warming" cycle.
The key piece of science that has NOT been scientifically proven is that our climate has positive feedback. It is only with positive feedback that minor warming induced by extra CO2 in the atomosphere has a domino effect on the climate causing "catastrophic" climate change.
The real problem is if the Earth were so climate sensitive (positive feedback) the oceans would have been vaporized and the earth cooked like an egg years ago.
People focus on the wrong argument (the warming) instead of the actual impact. If the end result of us dumping heinous amounts of CO2 into the atomosphere every year is a fraction of a farenheit in warming....who gives a shit.
Did you guys see the newest propoganda about global warming? they are really getting desperate now. saying aliens will kill us if we dont hand over money from our paychecks to al gore and his private company. Oh those liars at nasa
