| EPA Supresses Global Warming Report |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pat
Level 4
Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 6703
|
|
The report seems to say the same things we anti-man-made-global-warming folks have already called bullshit on. The are suppressing it because it does not line up with their agenda and this Sen. Inhofe is trying to make it public as possible. Good for him.
http://www.foxnews.com/...-change-report/ |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
 |
|
|
Schlenkatank
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location: Vermont, USA
Posts: 497
|
|
Dude, it's fox news... Cmon.
This article covers a SINGLE finding of a POTENTIAL incident, thats fairly weak even for FOX.
Anyone with knowledge on this subject knows that almost 100% of the comprehensive reviewed studies confirm the trend of Global Warming. Even my crazy republican english teacher knew that the earth is warming, he just disagreed on WHY its warming. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
FightinIrish26
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 11044
|
|
I have done much work in dealing with the NJ Department of Environmental Protection, which Lisa Jackson used to head until this year. I know the agency has gone in the past few years.
I'm not impressed by ANYTHING the DEP has done. I expect that the EPA will consequentially be as fucked up, if not worse, than the DEP. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
|
This sounds like the same sort of conspiracy theory crap that creationists claim goes on in Biology. From reading Fox's seemingly fair and balanced report (and yes, I say that seriously) what seems to be really going on here is that someone with an agenda to push in the EPA overstepped their bounds and area of expertise and where according shot down after review.
Now other people with agendas to push will latch onto this story as evidence of cover up and conspiracy while further trusting the unoriginal research of an unqualified man over more qualified experts.
Now, I'm not fan of the "OMG, the sky-is-falling, man-made global climate change" crowd, but this whole thing smells of evidence grabbing from the "OMG, there is absolutely no evidence for man-made climate change, climatologists are all liberal wackos" crowd.
EDIT: By my remark about Fox, I merely meant that HOW they are covering this seems fair and balanced--giving both sides, etc. Whether this is news worthy at all is another question... |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
FightinIrish26
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 11044
|
|
I'm as liberal as they come, but I don't really believe in man made climate change.
I will be truly surprised if, in 2,000 years, we aren't in another ice age. This planet is far more powerful then we think. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Just_Jamie
Level 0
Join date: Dec 2008
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 63
|
|
I heard about this Pat...sad that people would dismiss any report because it came 'from Fox'... |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
FightinIrish26
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 11044
|
|
Just_Jamie wrote:
I heard about this Pat...sad that people would dismiss any report because it came 'from Fox'...
Well. They don't exactly have the best track record. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
hedo wrote:
Here's the entire report. Read the executive summary it's pretty damaging.
http://cei.org/...C062509-004.pdf
Pretty damaging? I don't have the time nor the expertise to really go through this in detail, but just from looking at the executive summary, table of contents, and references, I'll say this. First, what the executive summary calls "inconsistencies" are not inconsistencies, they are gaps in the data. Second, any report that feels the need to have a section called "what is science" smells of propaganda. When I actually read this cute little section I found it was basically that--confused justification for why the lack of definitive theory means we should do nothing. Third, the sparse reference section seems dubious at best. While there are some references from what look like peer reviewed journals, many of the references come from non-peer reviewed sources.
My impression of the report from the little I read is that the report is a bunch of fallacious reasoning mixed in with some good science. The argument seems to be something like "we have evidence that things like solar activity have a large impact on the climate, therefore we can't tell what sort of effect man-made emission of GHG have, therefore we shouldn't do anything to limit our emission of GHG". This is a stupid argument. No scientist would deny that natural processes like solar activity, vulcanism, etc. can have a far bigger impact on the climate then man-made GHG emissions. This though does not mean that man-made GHG gas emissions do not have an effect on the climate, nor does the fact that it is very hard to gauge their effect relative to our natural processes mean that either.
I do not know whether human emission of GHG has any real effect on the climate. I certainly wouldn't buy this sort of fallacious reasoning though. It seems clear that human emission of GHG could have a major impact on the climate, while other things like solar activity have a greater impact. Hence seeing a decrease in global temperatures doesn't mean that human activity doesn't have an impact on the climate.
In any case, there is enough bullshit argument grabbing and agenda pushing in this thing that I'm glad no one besides the conspiracy theory nuts have taken it seriously. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
|
Just_Jamie wrote:
I heard about this Pat...sad that people would dismiss any report because it came 'from Fox'...
Who here is dismissing it because it came from Fox? I even praised Fox for providing what seemed like fair coverage of the issue. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
hedo
Level 4
Join date: Feb 2003
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 4795
|
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Here's the entire report. Read the executive summary it's pretty damaging.
http://cei.org/...C062509-004.pdf
Pretty damaging? I don't have the time nor the expertise to really go through this in detail, but just from looking at the executive summary, table of contents, and references, I'll say this. First, what the executive summary calls "inconsistencies" are not inconsistencies, they are gaps in the data. Second, any report that feels the need to have a section called "what is science" smells of propaganda. When I actually read this cute little section I found it was basically that--confused justification for why the lack of definitive theory means we should do nothing. Third, the sparse reference section seems dubious at best. While there are some references from what look like peer reviewed journals, many of the references come from non-peer reviewed sources.
My impression of the report from the little I read is that the report is a bunch of fallacious reasoning mixed in with some good science. The argument seems to be something like "we have evidence that things like solar activity have a large impact on the climate, therefore we can't tell what sort of effect man-made emission of GHG have, therefore we shouldn't do anything to limit our emission of GHG". This is a stupid argument. No scientist would deny that natural processes like solar activity, vulcanism, etc. can have a far bigger impact on the climate then man-made GHG emissions. This though does not mean that man-made GHG gas emissions do not have an effect on the climate, nor does the fact that it is very hard to gauge their effect relative to our natural processes mean that either.
I do not know whether human emission of GHG has any real effect on the climate. I certainly wouldn't buy this sort of fallacious reasoning though. It seems clear that human emission of GHG could have a major impact on the climate, while other things like solar activity have a greater impact. Hence seeing a decrease in global temperatures doesn't mean that human activity doesn't have an impact on the climate.
In any case, there is enough bullshit argument grabbing and agenda pushing in this thing that I'm glad no one besides the conspiracy theory nuts have taken it seriously.
Pretty damaging if you read the parts that are the focus of the executive summary:
1. Global temeratures have been declining for 11 years while CO2 has increased.
2. The sun is the most important determinant of temperature and the sun goes in cycles
which we can't control, even Obama.
3. The changes in temperature are not significant enough to matter.
4. The model ignores water vapor (clouds) which greatly influence temperature.
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
It's a perfect issue for the Republicans to hammer the Democrats with in 2010 and beyond.
Bottom line why suppress it if it isn't true? If the "believers" were confident in their argument why not debate it in the open and actually back up the belief with facts. The EPA scientists who wrote it aren't naive fools, they have looked at the data and come to a different conclusion. Would you want your doctor making a diagnosis on you with test results that are three plus years old and based on a flawed process?
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
FightinIrish26
Level 0
Join date: Feb 2005
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 11044
|
|
hedo wrote:
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
Not true. Global warming is, at this moment, a fact. The only question is whether humans affect it and how long it will last.
At the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was much, much warmer than it was now. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
DoubleDuce
Level 4
Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Tennessee, USA
Posts: 3502
|
|
I didnâ??t think the issue was really about the report at all. There were internal emails made public, that showed political pressure not to use the report. Politics dictating the science, thatâ??s where the problem is. Not about whoâ??s right or wrong.
â??"I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote. â??
In other words, no science while we wait on the politics.
There is also a contradiction from the EPA as to whether they included the report in their findings. The email the sent Carlin said they wouldnâ??t, their official statement said they did.
There is nothing new in the report itâ??s rehashed information that has been available.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
|
hedo wrote:
Pretty damaging if you read the parts that are the focus of the executive summary:
1. Global temeratures have been declining for 11 years while CO2 has increased.
2. The sun is the most important determinant of temperature and the sun goes in cycles
which we can't control, even Obama.
3. The changes in temperature are not significant enough to matter.
4. The model ignores water vapor (clouds) which greatly influence temperature.
Umm... Did you ever read what I wrote? I addressed exactly these issues, and how they aren't damaging. All of these things could be true, and yet it could still be true--and does seem to be true--that human emission of GHG has a significant effect on the environment, and hence that we should be more responsible in controlling GHG emissions.
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
Of course there are "moonbats" who will believe in global warming no matter what, just like there are moonbats who will believe in a Judeo-Christian god no matter no. Nevertheless, just because there are some idiots who hold a belief out of irrational ideology does not mean that the belief is necessarily false. "Global warming" as you describe it is indeed a politicized issue with moonbat followers, but there is certainly sufficient theory and data to make human caused climate change a real issue, worthy of the title "science" if you like.
It's a perfect issue for the Republicans to hammer the Democrats with in 2010 and beyond.
Don't you mean another good issue for anti-intellectuals like Palin to make themselves look like fools?
Bottom line why suppress it if it isn't true? If the "believers" were confident in their argument why not debate it in the open and actually back up the belief with facts. The EPA scientists who wrote it aren't naive fools, they have looked at the data and come to a different conclusion. Would you want your doctor making a diagnosis on you with test results that are three plus years old and based on a flawed process?
This is just conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Why "suppress" it? No one "suppressed" it... it just wasn't used or reported because it's a silly report that offers no original research and builds fallacious claims off credible science.
"Believers" do debate this in the open, among their peers. That's what things like conferences and peer reviewed journals are for. Further, EPA "scientists" didn't write this report, some economist working for the EPA did, and after skimming this thing I would say he IS a naive fool. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Schlenkatank
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location: Vermont, USA
Posts: 497
|
|
FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
Not true. Global warming is, at this moment, a fact. The only question is whether humans affect it and how long it will last.
At the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was much, much warmer than it was now.
Absolutely. If you believe global warming is a joke you're either uneducated in the matter or you're not logical. The earth has been warming slowly from 1900-1950 and rapidly from 1950-present. The facts clearly show this, however we have to ask why? |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
snipeout
Level 3
Join date: Jun 2003
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1076
|
|
I'm pretty sure I have read more than one article claiming anywhere from an 8-12 year DECLINE in temperatures. I'm also quite sure it's been very mild the last 2 summers I can remember here. I also thought we went from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" because of the decreasing temperatures. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
streamline
Level 0
Join date: Jan 2008
Location: British Columbia, CAN
Posts: 2366
|
|
Maybe we are the cause of climate change and maybe we're not. What we are doing is polluting this planet and there will be consequences. Personally I would like to breath clean fresh air and drink chemical free water. Fertile soil would be a good idea as well. Unfortunately greed will continue to prevail over common sense.
It's not that we don't know what to do, we're just to lazy to do it. Even where curbside recycling is available there are those who are simply to lazy to do it. To me it's simple, think globally and act locally. One doesn't have to be a tree hugger, just do their part. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Schlenkatank
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location: Vermont, USA
Posts: 497
|
|
snipeout wrote:
I'm pretty sure I have read more than one article claiming anywhere from an 8-12 year DECLINE in temperatures. I'm also quite sure it's been very mild the last 2 summers I can remember here. I also thought we went from calling it "global warming" to "climate change" because of the decreasing temperatures.
The difference between a peer reviewed article and something we read about online is substantial. Sorry, but If thats what you read then it wasn't peer reviewed or correct.
The ten hottest years in the past 100,000 years or so have all occurred in the last 20, the very hottest being recent. I can't speak for the last two years, but I have heard from several people this summer could be " the year without a summer" for people in the northern parts of America. I guess it happens every decade or so when the jet stream shifts and blows cold air down from Canada. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
Schlenkatank
Level 3
Join date: Mar 2008
Location: Vermont, USA
Posts: 497
|
|
streamline wrote:
Maybe we are the cause of climate change and maybe we're not. What we are doing is polluting this planet and there will be consequences. Personally I would like to breath clean fresh air and drink chemical free water. Fertile soil would be a good idea as well. Unfortunately greed will continue to prevail over common sense.
It's not that we don't know what to do, we're just to lazy to do it. Even where curbside recycling is available there are those who are simply to lazy to do it. To me it's simple, think globally and act locally. One doesn't have to be a tree hugger, just do their part.
Hi Five! Yes, that felt good to hear! And even better you live in..... oh. Well at least the Canucks are smart!
Nobody today wants to hear about sustainable living or environmentally sound practices. At least as a culture those ideas fall on deaf ears. We say that we want a better future so we buy hybrids and eat organic corn, but the reality is we just consume too much for our nation or this world to survive. As an example, Americans consume many times the volume of fuel, food, and worthless crap like ipods and big screen t.v.'s than any other nation. If the whole world consumed like America, this planet would run out of resources within fifty years.
So, we eat tons of food, buy lot's of clothes, and ride everywhere in our inefficient vehicles that guzzle gas and we have a nation of overweight, self indulgent people that destroy the environment. Big surprise....
The conservative movement is trying to come up with anything and everything to debunk global warming because it's connected with our nations economy, lifestlye, and even spiritual nature. Because these things are so hard to change, most of us would rather not see how all of our problems are connected. If we localize food, decrease fuel consumption, decrease consumer indulgence and eat greener food we will be healthier, have a better environment and be more self aware.
So in short, global warming might not be caused by CO2 emissions, but then again it might be too. At least it gives us an excuse to adjust our lifestyles and become more aware of what's happening to us. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
|
Schlenkatank wrote:
streamline wrote:
Maybe we are the cause of climate change and maybe we're not. What we are doing is polluting this planet and there will be consequences. Personally I would like to breath clean fresh air and drink chemical free water. Fertile soil would be a good idea as well. Unfortunately greed will continue to prevail over common sense.
It's not that we don't know what to do, we're just to lazy to do it. Even where curbside recycling is available there are those who are simply to lazy to do it. To me it's simple, think globally and act locally. One doesn't have to be a tree hugger, just do their part.
Hi Five! Yes, that felt good to hear! And even better you live in..... oh. Well at least the Canucks are smart!
Nobody today wants to hear about sustainable living or environmentally sound practices. At least as a culture those ideas fall on deaf ears. We say that we want a better future so we buy hybrids and eat organic corn, but the reality is we just consume too much for our nation or this world to survive. As an example, Americans consume many times the volume of fuel, food, and worthless crap like ipods and big screen t.v.'s than any other nation. If the whole world consumed like America, this planet would run out of resources within fifty years.
So, we eat tons of food, buy lot's of clothes, and ride everywhere in our inefficient vehicles that guzzle gas and we have a nation of overweight, self indulgent people that destroy the environment. Big surprise....
The conservative movement is trying to come up with anything and everything to debunk global warming because it's connected with our nations economy, lifestlye, and even spiritual nature. Because these things are so hard to change, most of us would rather not see how all of our problems are connected. If we localize food, decrease fuel consumption, decrease consumer indulgence and eat greener food we will be healthier, have a better environment and be more self aware.
So in short, global warming might not be caused by CO2 emissions, but then again it might be too. At least it gives us an excuse to adjust our lifestyles and become more aware of what's happening to us.
Hi Five! Yes! lol...
Anyway, I basically agree. I would only add this: this is a no-win, can't make everyone happy, situation. There are two choices here, either keep the cost of goods low in the short term, or enact the changes needed for an environmentally sustainable economy. As far as I can tell you cannot have both. Will cap and trade and all these other environmentally based laws increase prices? yup. Will cap and trade or other current environmental laws have an effect? Who knows. I'm not for cap and trade or any of the other current environmental laws simply because I honestly don't know what difference they will make. I do know though that the sort of laws we need in order to sustain our economy environmentally will had the same sort of advise prices that cap and trade will.
On a side note, this is general problem with our economy as a whole... it's not sustainable. What is funny is that the same republicans and conservatives that cry about spending more then we earn see no problem spending more environmental capital then can be sustained. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
hedo
Level 4
Join date: Feb 2003
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 4795
|
|
FightinIrish26 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
Not true. Global warming is, at this moment, a fact. The only question is whether humans affect it and how long it will last.
At the time of the dinosaurs, the Earth was much, much warmer than it was now.
It's been cooling for the last 11 but that doesn't fit the model which predicts it should be rising based on carbon emissions. Since it doesn't fit the model which was flawed from the start it is discarded. Only data that fits the model is included. That's why it is a belief not a theory. It can't be proven so in order to convince people the party in power simply says the matter has been settled and nothing is left to discuss. Kind of like saying the earth is flat and that's it. Matter settled. By the way the peers who review this for the politicians are carefully selected from a narrow segment. It's self policing. If you disagree you are considered out of the mainstream and funding is limited.
The solution is not a pre-industrial economy in the US while the rest of the world moves on. We shouldn't be buying foreign oil and gas while our own sits undisturbed off our coast for some naive misguided reason supported by special industry groups.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
hedo
Level 4
Join date: Feb 2003
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 4795
|
|
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Pretty damaging if you read the parts that are the focus of the executive summary:
1. Global temeratures have been declining for 11 years while CO2 has increased.
2. The sun is the most important determinant of temperature and the sun goes in cycles
which we can't control, even Obama.
3. The changes in temperature are not significant enough to matter.
4. The model ignores water vapor (clouds) which greatly influence temperature.
Umm... Did you ever read what I wrote? I addressed exactly these issues, and how they aren't damaging. All of these things could be true, and yet it could still be true--and does seem to be true--that human emission of GHG has a significant effect on the environment, and hence that we should be more responsible in controlling GHG emissions.
Actually the moonbats who bought into the Global Warming myth will never change their mind and it's pointless to argue with them. Global Warming is a belief, not a theory. The science can't be changed and the data simply doesn't back it up. However the country is being forced to jump off a cliff because the naive have already committed too much to change their mind.
Of course there are "moonbats" who will believe in global warming no matter what, just like there are moonbats who will believe in a Judeo-Christian god no matter no. Nevertheless, just because there are some idiots who hold a belief out of irrational ideology does not mean that the belief is necessarily false. "Global warming" as you describe it is indeed a politicized issue with moonbat followers, but there is certainly sufficient theory and data to make human caused climate change a real issue, worthy of the title "science" if you like.
It's a perfect issue for the Republicans to hammer the Democrats with in 2010 and beyond.
Don't you mean another good issue for anti-intellectuals like Palin to make themselves look like fools?
Bottom line why suppress it if it isn't true? If the "believers" were confident in their argument why not debate it in the open and actually back up the belief with facts. The EPA scientists who wrote it aren't naive fools, they have looked at the data and come to a different conclusion. Would you want your doctor making a diagnosis on you with test results that are three plus years old and based on a flawed process?
This is just conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Why "suppress" it? No one "suppressed" it... it just wasn't used or reported because it's a silly report that offers no original research and builds fallacious claims off credible science.
"Believers" do debate this in the open, among their peers. That's what things like conferences and peer reviewed journals are for. Further, EPA "scientists" didn't write this report, some economist working for the EPA did, and after skimming this thing I would say he IS a naive fool.
Anti-intellectuals....you mean anyone who disagrees with your belief don't you. Like a heretic who said the earth was round despite the fact the intellectuals said the earth was flat.
The majority of Americans rate global warming far down on the list of issues of importance. The rest of the world couldn't give a flying fuck, preferring to let the naive Americans commit economic suicide first. Ask the Chines what they are doing to save the planet. The Europeans barely give it lip service if that.
Unfortunately ignoring fact and data that doesn't fit the outcome that has been foretold by the oracle of Gore is not science, it's belief. Ask yourself why the Global warming model doesn't work when programmed with real data from actual measurements?
The question is why move the economy in the wrong direction based on speculation? It's foolish and naive. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
orion
Level 4
Join date: Jun 2005
Location: Austria
Posts: 10451
|
|
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Schlenkatank wrote:
streamline wrote:
Maybe we are the cause of climate change and maybe we're not. What we are doing is polluting this planet and there will be consequences. Personally I would like to breath clean fresh air and drink chemical free water. Fertile soil would be a good idea as well. Unfortunately greed will continue to prevail over common sense.
It's not that we don't know what to do, we're just to lazy to do it. Even where curbside recycling is available there are those who are simply to lazy to do it. To me it's simple, think globally and act locally. One doesn't have to be a tree hugger, just do their part.
Hi Five! Yes, that felt good to hear! And even better you live in..... oh. Well at least the Canucks are smart!
Nobody today wants to hear about sustainable living or environmentally sound practices. At least as a culture those ideas fall on deaf ears. We say that we want a better future so we buy hybrids and eat organic corn, but the reality is we just consume too much for our nation or this world to survive. As an example, Americans consume many times the volume of fuel, food, and worthless crap like ipods and big screen t.v.'s than any other nation. If the whole world consumed like America, this planet would run out of resources within fifty years.
So, we eat tons of food, buy lot's of clothes, and ride everywhere in our inefficient vehicles that guzzle gas and we have a nation of overweight, self indulgent people that destroy the environment. Big surprise....
The conservative movement is trying to come up with anything and everything to debunk global warming because it's connected with our nations economy, lifestlye, and even spiritual nature. Because these things are so hard to change, most of us would rather not see how all of our problems are connected. If we localize food, decrease fuel consumption, decrease consumer indulgence and eat greener food we will be healthier, have a better environment and be more self aware.
So in short, global warming might not be caused by CO2 emissions, but then again it might be too. At least it gives us an excuse to adjust our lifestyles and become more aware of what's happening to us.
Hi Five! Yes! lol...
Anyway, I basically agree. I would only add this: this is a no-win, can't make everyone happy, situation. There are two choices here, either keep the cost of goods low in the short term, or enact the changes needed for an environmentally sustainable economy. As far as I can tell you cannot have both. Will cap and trade and all these other environmentally based laws increase prices? yup. Will cap and trade or other current environmental laws have an effect? Who knows. I'm not for cap and trade or any of the other current environmental laws simply because I honestly don't know what difference they will make. I do know though that the sort of laws we need in order to sustain our economy environmentally will had the same sort of advise prices that cap and trade will.
On a side note, this is general problem with our economy as a whole... it's not sustainable. What is funny is that the same republicans and conservatives that cry about spending more then we earn see no problem spending more environmental capital then can be sustained.
It is not as simple as that.
We can have no "sustainable economy". Yes, we are using "fossile" fuels and yes, sooner or later we will run out of them.
This is also true for copper, zinc, etc.
Maybe we will mine the asteroid belt afterwards.
Anyway- If we not used them, what good would they be in the first place?
A "sustainable" economy is an agricultural economy on a subsistence level.
That is not an option.
We either grow and innovate or die.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
|
hedo wrote:
It's been cooling for the last 11 but that doesn't fit the model which predicts it should be rising based on carbon emissions. Since it doesn't fit the model which was flawed from the start it is discarded. Only data that fits the model is included. That's why it is a belief not a theory. It can't be proven so in order to convince people the party in power simply says the matter has been settled and nothing is left to discuss. Kind of like saying the earth is flat and that's it. Matter settled. By the way the peers who review this for the politicians are carefully selected from a narrow segment. It's self policing. If you disagree you are considered out of the mainstream and funding is limited.
So wait a minute, that's what you think modern climatology is about? Some single model? You think the entire human-caused climate change issue is about some single model that predicts the Earth should be heating up, and now that we have evidence that it's not the model is bunk and we can all stop worrying about it? If this is what you think you are vastly more ignorant then I thought.
As for your comments about peer review, please. Do you even know how peer-reviewed journals work? Politicians have nothing to do with peer reviewed journals. Of course the peer-review system we have isn't perfect (Hell, I've been fucked by peer reviewers myself), but it's the best option we have for sorting through research. Who should I trust, some random guy possibly with a PhD that says he thinks this, or something that has been reviewed by known experts in the field? Of course in an ideal world I'd read the literature myself and come to my own conclusion, but given that I'm not a climatologist this is impossible. I neither have the expertise nor the background required to look at original climate research and make informed decisions.
The solution is not a pre-industrial economy in the US while the rest of the world moves on. We shouldn't be buying foreign oil and gas while our own sits undisturbed off our coast for some naive misguided reason supported by special industry groups.
Another clear straw man... You talk as if our only options are either to indiscriminately tear down all of our industry or burn in a hellfire of global warming. The real answer as always lies somewhere in between. We must make a shift from depending on unsustainable fossil fuels to more sustainable energy sources. I've argued elsewhere that in the short-term this means raising efficiency standards on cars/appliances/homes, in the mid-term this amounts to building far more nuclear plants. As as been pointed out in this thread though, a fundamental change in our perception of ourselves as consumers needs to happen. |
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
stokedporcupine8
Level 0
Join date: May 2009
Location:
Posts: 661
|
|
Good to see we've moved from rational discussion about why this report is junk to name calling. Let that all begin.
hedo wrote:
Anti-intellectuals....you mean anyone who disagrees with your belief don't you. Like a heretic who said the earth was round despite the fact the intellectuals said the earth was flat.
First of all, people like Palin and the new crop of republicans call themselves anti-intellectuals... Anyone who publicly scorns all that "higher learning stuff" while accusing those with it of being out of touch is an anti-intellectual. So I haven't given them that title, they gave it to yourself.
Second, do you purposefully pick bad examples? Do you really think that whether the earth was round or flat was an issue someone could be called a heretic over? I've got news for you, that fairy tale they tell you about people thinking Columbus would fall off the earth is just that, a fairy tale. As far as we can tell people have known the earth was round since at least ancient Greece, and probably farther back too... I can point to the references in Aristotle too.
The majority of Americans rate global warming far down on the list of issues of importance. The rest of the world couldn't give a flying fuck, preferring to let the naive Americans commit economic suicide first. Ask the Chines what they are doing to save the planet. The Europeans barely give it lip service if that.
So when did matters of truth and science become decided by public opinion? Besides, economic suicide? How would switching over to sustainable energy sources like nuclear or solar--the sort of stuff I've advocated--by economic suicide? "Oh no, we no longer have to import billions of gallons of crude from the middle east, oh no, we no longer have to strip mine our own land for coal! They sky is falling! Economic suicide! oh no!"
Unfortunately ignoring fact and data that doesn't fit the outcome that has been foretold by the oracle of Gore is not science, it's belief. Ask yourself why the Global warming model doesn't work when programmed with real data from actual measurements?
Unfortunately you continuing to ignore the real facts and argue against the pseudo-science, politicized version of "global warming" doesn't change them.
You keep talking like there's some single all powerful model that all of climatology rides on, and that once it's falisified we all have to go home and start over. Whatever.
The question is why move the economy in the wrong direction based on speculation? It's foolish and naive.
Again, I'm against things like cap and trade. That doesn't mean though that I think the notion of man-made climate change is just some sham... Your ideas about science and climatology are foolish and naive. Further your failure to see that moving our economy in more sustainable and environmentally friendly directions is worth the short term economy downside (higher prices) is foolish and naive.
|
|
| Report Post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article Discussions
