BBC: What Happened to Global Warming? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-11-2009, 04:22 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:45 AM
I've basically said that conservative goals of energy independence and liberal goals in favour of environmentalism share the same solutions. I'd also argue that, even if pollution wasn't leading to global warming, nobody wants to live in a filthy world.

We are fortunate to be living in a time where we are capable of solving the conflict between progress and the environment--e.g., the philosophical contradiction between Locke and Rousseau that has longed defined the American national consciousness. It would be a shame if the usual political bickering ruined this opportunity in favour of inaction. That inaction, as we see, led to $147/bbl oil not so long ago, and we'll see it again and again until we do something about it.
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-11-2009, 08:01 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 08:45 AM
2009 marks the 4th consecutive year of a mild or nonexistent Atlantic hurricane season.

Not exactly matching up with Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' predictions of "more frequent and severe hurricanes."
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 10-11-2009, 08:35 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 03:45 AM
this thread was more fun when we were all joking.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 10-12-2009, 10:57 AM   #19
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
I've basically said that conservative goals of energy independence and liberal goals in favour of environmentalism share the same solutions. I'd also argue that, even if pollution wasn't leading to global warming, nobody wants to live in a filthy world.
But but but there's sooooooooooo much money to be made by maintaining the status quo! Just think of all that poor coal and oil still trapped helplessly in the ground. Think of it as if it's a huge pile dollar bills down there.


Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
It would be a shame if the usual political bickering ruined this opportunity in favour of inaction. That inaction, as we see, led to $147/bbl oil not so long ago, and we'll see it again and again until we do something about it.
But inaction is the whole point. As long as there's coal and oil in the ground, there will be "evidence" against climate change. It's not a coincidence that those arguing the most strongly against climate change are those who have a vested interest in preventing any steps from being taken to combat it.

Think about it. You sell something that everyone needs, and that is not going to last forever, and for which the demand is increasing. Someday it's going to run out, so your options are 1) find a replacement for said product NOW, and smoothly transition to it, or 2) wait until there is almost none left so that the prices go through the roof and make a bazillion dollars and be in a position of power because you control said product.

What savvy corporate type is going to choose door #1?

As long as there is money to be made off the status quo, expect these arguments to continue indefinitely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
this thread was more fun when we were all joking.
That much is certain
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 10-12-2009, 11:12 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
I've basically said that conservative goals of energy independence and liberal goals in favour of environmentalism share the same solutions. I'd also argue that, even if pollution wasn't leading to global warming, nobody wants to live in a filthy world.

We are fortunate to be living in a time where we are capable of solving the conflict between progress and the environment--e.g., the philosophical contradiction between Locke and Rousseau that has longed defined the American national consciousness. It would be a shame if the usual political bickering ruined this opportunity in favour of inaction. That inaction, as we see, led to $147/bbl oil not so long ago, and we'll see it again and again until we do something about it.
$147/bbl oil had more to do with futures traders (I know some who day traded as a job) and low interest rates for easy borrowing allowed the price to increase too high. Not all oil purchases are for usage. That's why regulation to prevent stupid day traders from gambling with cheap debt on the market would make the market much more efficient. Also because of an oil cartel we won't have a free market with oil until a replacement comes along. The prices are heavily manipulated.

C02 hasn't been proven to be "filthy". Yet government bureaucrats are saying it is. Nobody wants to live in a poor world and we are not close to solving the difference between Locke and Rousseau. The only technology I've seen that consumes C02 and creates octane is only in the lab and Craig Venter hasn't been able to take this bacteria to a level that can produce enough octane commercially. Cap and trade has been abandoned elsewhere because higher energy prices slows growth which is needed for new generations to get jobs. If you want to see change we will need further research into renewable energy which exists without cap and trade. Even government funding in research would be less costly than putting coal workers out of work and then giving them a tax credit.

It's fun for tenured and pensioned intellectuals to play God with the economy and come up with unrealistic overly abstract ideas that hurt people. But wait isn't the history of distant bureaucrats hurting people for a great abstract cause typical in the 20th century? It's easy to hurt people when you are far away from them. I can't say it better than this guy:

YouTube - Feel-Good Fantasies of Fighting Global Warming

All these "green" projects look like religious rituals to me. They are just there to make people feel less guilty and some people actually get so egotistical (especially indoctrinated school kids) they think after screwing in a light bulb that they can be Hitler youth telling adults what to do even if they haven't paid a bill in their lives. I already remember having a discussion with an uber-left-wing anthropology teacher who was into the Kyoto protocol when it was new and she was talking about how we would have to have emissions like Africa to stop C02 increases. Who want's Africa's economy? Even Africans are tired of enviros tell them they can't develop like us. The only technology we could have adopted to even come close would have been to build lots of nuclear powerplants and politicians in the west have been going in the opposite direction and closing plants and trying to prevent more from being built. And this is all based on the premise that the climate is very sensitive to C02 when it hasn't been proven yet. The deniers aren't just in blogs they have peer-reviewed research. We shouldn't smash jobs in a recession only for the hope of a new technology to save the day. Humans are a part of nature and have always tried to make their lives better by using the resources of the planet for ourselves because deep down we know that there is no "mother earth" and the planet is totally indifferent to our existence and we have to adapt. To conservatives, those guys like in the book "Into the wild" and the documentary "Grizzly Man", look incredibly stupid. They are just a bunch of Homo sapiens sapiens walking in the wild with mental projections of a paradise and finally meeting REAL nature raw tooth and claw. You make a mistake and eat the wrong plant, you die. You hang around Grizzly bears, you get eaten. It's not a mistake that when the west started getting wealthy, the nature romantics started waxing eloquently about returning to nature. It's easy to be a romantic philosopher when you have modern technologies to ease the burden.

I can't believe my Anthropology teacher actually believes that a hunter and gatherer lifestyle yields more food variety than modern supermarkets. These people are Ph. Ds.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-12-2009, 11:32 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
But but but there's sooooooooooo much money to be made by maintaining the status quo! Just think of all that poor coal and oil still trapped helplessly in the ground. Think of it as if it's a huge pile dollar bills down there.
So we should increase energy prices on people so there is a hope that we find a replacement?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
But inaction is the whole point. As long as there's coal and oil in the ground, there will be "evidence" against climate change. It's not a coincidence that those arguing the most strongly against climate change are those who have a vested interest in preventing any steps from being taken to combat it.
YouTube - Climate Crisis Comfort Zone

The reason why the argument will continue on is because the science isn't there yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
Think about it. You sell something that everyone needs, and that is not going to last forever, and for which the demand is increasing. Someday it's going to run out, so your options are 1) find a replacement for said product NOW, and smoothly transition to it, or 2) wait until there is almost none left so that the prices go through the roof and make a bazillion dollars and be in a position of power because you control said product.
Or you can run in without enough evidence and regulate c02 (in other words life) and be in a position of power and control. If this new technology doesn't show up well maybe then more government intervention is needed and etc. It's easy for Prince Charles to tell others to stop consuming when he has no intention of doing that himself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
What savvy corporate type is going to choose door #1?

As long as there is money to be made off the status quo, expect these arguments to continue indefinitely.
There's money to be made either way. What do you think taxpayer subsidized "green jobs" are? Doesn't the U.N. have self-interest? If someone developed a replacement for oil don't you think that person or persons wouldn't want to make money on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
this thread was more fun when we were all joking.
Disagreement is always unpleasant but it's necessary.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-12-2009, 01:01 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Disagreement is always unpleasant but it's necessary.
But junk science and socialist fearing propaganda isn't.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-12-2009, 04:36 PM   #23
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
So we should increase energy prices on people so there is a hope that we find a replacement?
No, that's actually one of your worst ideas yet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
The reason why the argument will continue on is because the science isn't there yet.
According you your sources it isn't. Some say it is. It all depends on who you choose to listen to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Or you can run in without enough evidence and regulate c02 (in other words life) and be in a position of power and control.
The fact that a sentence like that can be typed and not be satire really frightens me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
There's money to be made either way. What do you think taxpayer subsidized "green jobs" are? Doesn't the U.N. have self-interest? If someone developed a replacement for oil don't you think that person or persons wouldn't want to make money on that?
If you had a warehouse full of widgets, and one of your engineers came up with a vastly improved widget, wouldn't you want to sell all your old ones first, or would you release the new ones right away and make your warehouse full of old ones worthless?
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 10-13-2009, 08:11 AM   #24
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Disagreement is always unpleasant but it's necessary.
that was condescending.
__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 10-13-2009, 09:46 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But junk science and socialist fearing propaganda isn't.
Okay so because YOU think that peer reviewed science on my side is junk science and that all we have is propaganda I'm supposed to believe that your peer-reviewed science isn't wrong and that there is no fearful propaganda about the end of the world on your side? Please tell Prince Charles to look me up when he abandons his palace and rides a bicycle and chooses to communicate with his sycophants on computers instead of flying in planes. The hypocrisy on the aristocrats and bureaucrats knows no bounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
No, that's actually one of your worst ideas yet.
I'm not sure what you mean by my idea? So do you except cap and trade? It raises prices and it's not my idea. I'm against cap and trade. People are trying to get jobs and subsidized green jobs will not solve our problems and will just make the economy have more challenges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
According you your sources it isn't. Some say it is. It all depends on who you choose to listen to.
Yes but as the scientist I quoted pointed out, we are not scientists and it's easier to believe but we non-scientists don't have the time to become scientists ourselves but we have to make the political and economic decisions in democracies on which way to go and it's pretty clear to me government wants a huge power grab. If changing lightbulbs and driving different cars doesn't do enough to reduce C02 worldwide how are you going to "save the planet" under the man-made global warming premise? Why do you have to wait for regulators? Just do it yourself. Some people already are. When people worried about nuclear war some took it into their hands to build bunkers. It's not what I would do but why do you need regulation to do what you want done? Plugging an electric car requires conventional energy so C02 will still be emitted. Electricity is not being supported by nuclear and politicians in the west aren't doing like in France and having the majority of electricity come from nuclear so the only solution is to close coal plants and make the energy prices sky-rocket and we will emit less C02. But don't complain when energy prices increase. After we do this we are supposed to hope that a new technology will appear to replace oil. Doesn't this Washington plan require some criticism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
The fact that a sentence like that can be typed and not be satire really frightens me.
Yes because you believe in the premise that man-made C02 is going to destroy the planet. Some people don't believe that premise including some scientists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
If you had a warehouse full of widgets, and one of your engineers came up with a vastly improved widget, wouldn't you want to sell all your old ones first, or would you release the new ones right away and make your warehouse full of old ones worthless?
Nobody has done that yet. The closest I've seen was Craig Venter who wants to engineer enough bacteria to eat C02 and produce gas to replace the current system. He believes in Al Gore and that's why he's taking action on his own. He doesn't know how to make enough octane in capacity to replace our needs but he's working on it. If he succeeds down the road I'll be for it . Studies like this need funding and hammering the economy with higher energy bills looks to me to be something that won't speed up the process but slow it down. Since European countries and Australia are starting to pull back on it (because it hurts the economy to not produce C02) I can guess what ever the U.S. passes will also be abandoned or just be pro forma when enough of the public "cry uncle".

Quote:
Originally Posted by coolian2 View Post
that was condescending.
Yeah because that's more important. I've bruised an ego. What do you think happens on this board everyday to conservative points of view? People are even more condescending or insulting to conservative opinions but if I can get over it so can you.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-13-2009, 09:59 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:45 AM
I don't have much time to argue about this but this can probably help those who are interested:

Climate Debate Daily
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 10-13-2009, 10:15 AM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,656
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Okay so because YOU think that peer reviewed science on my side is junk science and that all we have is propaganda I'm supposed to believe that your peer-reviewed science isn't wrong and that there is no fearful propaganda about the end of the world on your side?
I've yet to see any legitimate peer reviewed science on your side. I've seen you post things that were labeled "peer reviewed" and then with a little investigation they were reviewed by a biologist that had no climate background, or the one you posted that was just a review of a review of a paper. You have to admit the real science on your side is hard to find.

And since day one you've been spouting the "socialist" word any chance you get when it comes to the environment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Please tell Prince Charles to look me up when he abandons his palace and rides a bicycle and chooses to communicate with his sycophants on computers instead of flying in planes. The hypocrisy on the aristocrats and bureaucrats knows no bounds.
Well, since the Prince won't change his lifestyle then it must be a hoax.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 10-13-2009, 02:36 PM   #28
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by my idea?
Well I certainly didn't suggest it!


The thing is, as far as the scientists go, it just seems that every time I read something that tries to dispel climate change, it ends up more times than not being funded by a group whose goal is to dispel climate change.

I believe that necessity is the mother of invention, and humans are really good at inventing things. I think that if we really, really wanted to, we could, in time, come up with a clean source(s) of energy. Unfortunately, that's not happening because the issue has been politicized, and that has instantaneously created an "us vs them" situation which means that nothing is going to get done.

Its my opinion, right or wrong, that big corporations who have a vested interest in the status quo are the ones responsible for politicizing the issue, because they have so much money yet to be made by doing "business as usual". It's unfortunate that the lives and well being of potentially billions of people are being put in jeopardy to protect profits, but like one of the guys in my office says, "I'll be dead by the time it comes to that, so why should I care?"

Even if the climate is fine, I think it's a matter of national security. I don't think it's a bad idea to work toward a goal of not having to buy our fuel from people who are flying planes into our buildings and blowing up our soldiers. The benefits of alternative energy really outweigh the negatives. It's too bad it's become so political.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 10-13-2009, 03:09 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 09:45 AM
no. i like my Hummer. i need to keep my house at 75 degrees in the dead of January. fuck off.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-13-2009, 06:08 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 07:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cydewaze View Post
It's too bad it's become so political.
As long as taxes and government power grabs are possible politics will always be involved in the green movement.

That's fine you believe what you believe but it's important you understand why others disagree. After reading Bjorn Lomborg's book on past erroneous environmental alarmist claims I'm at the point of hearing the boy crying wolf and just feeling skeptical. He may be a statistician but statistics are used to influence public policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I've yet to see any legitimate peer reviewed science on your side. I've seen you post things that were labeled "peer reviewed" and then with a little investigation they were reviewed by a biologist that had no climate background, or the one you posted that was just a review of a review of a paper. You have to admit the real science on your side is hard to find.
Well I'm on the internet and I'm sure that's not the same as getting some subscription to peer reviewed journals. John Christy, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer are the more notable ones who are studying cloud feedback and others are studying sunspots. There are also astronomers and geologists and statisticians (who look at how the data is interpreted) that all add to the dicussion. It's not only climatologists who study climate. Geologists also have a benefit in that they look at what climate was like in different periods before industrialization.

Here's a small list of deniers. Some of them are open to the idea but they don't feel there's enough evidence and others just plain don't like most of the science.

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW you can't call U.N. "reviewers" climatologists either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
And since day one you've been spouting the "socialist" word any chance you get when it comes to the environment.
Well since it's well known that people who support green ideas tend to vote for socialist parties I don't see what's so controversial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Well, since the Prince won't change his lifestyle then it must be a hoax.
I see this as a problem why don't you?

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles - Green Living, Environment - The Independent

If we have only 96 months left wouldn't you start changing your lifestyle ASAP? If you want people to follow it helps to lead. In a war if the ranking officer on the front line just sits there and asks everyone else to go over the trenches you'll get less results than if the ranking officer goes first. "There's too many people on the earth" some people say but those critics never look at themselves as too many.

Quote:
And in a searing indictment on capitalist society, Charles said we can no longer afford consumerism and that the "age of convenience" was over.
Oh no a Prince doesn't like Capitalism because of the consumerism. His entire family lives in an age of consumerism. These kind of statements should get criticized. If I was a believer I would tell Charles to shut his silver spoon hole.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2008 International Conference on Climate Change purpleoscar Free Your Mind 19 04-17-2009 07:56 PM
New York Times: Cool the Hype MaxFisher Free Your Mind Archive 17 03-18-2007 06:09 PM
If You Wear A ONE White Band.... Jamila Free Your Mind Archive 18 05-27-2005 07:46 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com