Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
So you mean taking advantage of market conditions in order to increase personal income is bad Al? That sounds almost...well...anticapitalist, dare I say socialist.
Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
:lol:I think Al is pointing out the hypocrisy involved, but I am sure he will answer for himself.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I am fully aware of the hypocrisy Al claims is involved, I've seen it 1000 times on the net....I'm just asking him to recognize the same in his post.
That is all!
That is all!
No, I think creating conditions through false information to advance ones financial status is wrong. All of the East Anglia guys have been caught manipulating information to advance Global Warming hysteria. The graphs and info that Gore uses from Anglia are all BS. The polar bears are not an endangered species or falling from the sky, or forlornly adrift on an ice cube. I am all for capitalism, and where do you find anything in what I said that suggests that I am a socialist. I am a bit to the right of that!
I think they call that FRAUD!!
I have said it before and I will say it again, Man is causing POLUTION of the planet, and I think there are few among us that don't want this cleaned up. It will affect us far more than any climate change ever will. All of the sicientist that put out the data have been shown for who they are and what they have done. The scientific comunity will deal with them in due time.
They seem to be working on the assumption that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Many followers regurgitate the mantra without knowing the facts.
Most of you know that I do my research before jumping in on MOST subjects. Opinions are like a..holes, every body has one. If you want to find out what or who is behind the movement, do your research and see who is running the evnvironmental movement, Greenpeace, and almost any of the out front environmental groups. If you do, I think you will find they are anti capitalist and most are anti American.
All of the third world countries seeing free money come their way are more than glad to jump on the band wagon. Ask yourself this question. Since these countrys are being given the cash because they don't have the industry or technology in order for them to "catch up",,,, how is this going to get them the industry or technology. Are they going to throw money at industry to lure them to a country that has no skilled labor? Technology takes education to use it and time to get it. I don't see many tribesmen with Masters or PhDs. Where are they going to get the infrastructure to support the industries, power stations, healthcare workers blue collar workers, white collar workers, engineers, doctors,and the like. It is a farce and a con on the entire industrialized world.
Bill
I have said it before and I will say it again, Man is causing POLUTION of the planet, and I think there are few among us that don't want this cleaned up. It will affect us far more than any climate change ever will. All of the sicientist that put out the data have been shown for who they are and what they have done. The scientific comunity will deal with them in due time.
They seem to be working on the assumption that if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. Many followers regurgitate the mantra without knowing the facts.
Most of you know that I do my research before jumping in on MOST subjects. Opinions are like a..holes, every body has one. If you want to find out what or who is behind the movement, do your research and see who is running the evnvironmental movement, Greenpeace, and almost any of the out front environmental groups. If you do, I think you will find they are anti capitalist and most are anti American.
All of the third world countries seeing free money come their way are more than glad to jump on the band wagon. Ask yourself this question. Since these countrys are being given the cash because they don't have the industry or technology in order for them to "catch up",,,, how is this going to get them the industry or technology. Are they going to throw money at industry to lure them to a country that has no skilled labor? Technology takes education to use it and time to get it. I don't see many tribesmen with Masters or PhDs. Where are they going to get the infrastructure to support the industries, power stations, healthcare workers blue collar workers, white collar workers, engineers, doctors,and the like. It is a farce and a con on the entire industrialized world.
Bill
Exactly!
OK, so there seems to be some consensus on these points:
1. There are a lot of crooked politicians who use the GCC argument for political and economic gain,
2. Many in the "green crowd" are similarly motivated (despite appearances),
3. We're doing a pretty good job of polluting our planet,
4. There seems to be some crazy weather patterns kicking in (perhaps this is less "agreed")
So, given all that, and assuming the above is fact, then, how do we move in the right direction here towards:
1. reducing the rate of pollution globally?, and
2. identifying and understanding the shifting weather patterns to determine if there is a possible cataclysmic outcome in the near/medium term? Say, the next two or three generations.
Do we:
1. use taxes as a mechanism to try to change bad (polluting) behavior?
2. leave things as-is and hope it all just goes away?
3. pass laws to change bad (polluting) behavior?
4. wait and see how bad things get?
5. assume there's nothing we can do.
6. jump on the bandwagon and try to profit somehow from all the hysteria? (not recommended)
Personally, I think the shifting weather patterns will continue to get more dramatic, causing widespread (in some countries/areas) civil unrest and war due to food shortages and economic upheaval. Some crazies will get in power in some starving and war torn areas, secure nuke capabilities and start making threats to the civilized world. If you're a student of human history, then you already know this is a repeating pattern of behavior (nuke capability aside).
I also think that in the not-so-distant future, one's ability to have clean water and air, non-toxic food, and a non-toxic environment will become a matter of luxury. Rich people will have it, poor people won't. Same for security and protection against those less fortunate.
Even if you don't buy the argument that man's polluting behavior is causing some GCC, these are both (GCC and pollution) phenomenon worthy of global concern.
Given all of the above, if our outlook on the world extends past the end of our own noses, then it doesn't seem to me that we can take a passive role in how things unfold here. I have a bunch of children and I'd like them to have a civilized and (relatively) peaceful existence, just as I have done in my 42 years so far. Peace is worth "fighting" for in all its forms.
1. There are a lot of crooked politicians who use the GCC argument for political and economic gain,
2. Many in the "green crowd" are similarly motivated (despite appearances),
3. We're doing a pretty good job of polluting our planet,
4. There seems to be some crazy weather patterns kicking in (perhaps this is less "agreed")
So, given all that, and assuming the above is fact, then, how do we move in the right direction here towards:
1. reducing the rate of pollution globally?, and
2. identifying and understanding the shifting weather patterns to determine if there is a possible cataclysmic outcome in the near/medium term? Say, the next two or three generations.
Do we:
1. use taxes as a mechanism to try to change bad (polluting) behavior?
2. leave things as-is and hope it all just goes away?
3. pass laws to change bad (polluting) behavior?
4. wait and see how bad things get?
5. assume there's nothing we can do.
6. jump on the bandwagon and try to profit somehow from all the hysteria? (not recommended)
Personally, I think the shifting weather patterns will continue to get more dramatic, causing widespread (in some countries/areas) civil unrest and war due to food shortages and economic upheaval. Some crazies will get in power in some starving and war torn areas, secure nuke capabilities and start making threats to the civilized world. If you're a student of human history, then you already know this is a repeating pattern of behavior (nuke capability aside).
I also think that in the not-so-distant future, one's ability to have clean water and air, non-toxic food, and a non-toxic environment will become a matter of luxury. Rich people will have it, poor people won't. Same for security and protection against those less fortunate.
Even if you don't buy the argument that man's polluting behavior is causing some GCC, these are both (GCC and pollution) phenomenon worthy of global concern.
Given all of the above, if our outlook on the world extends past the end of our own noses, then it doesn't seem to me that we can take a passive role in how things unfold here. I have a bunch of children and I'd like them to have a civilized and (relatively) peaceful existence, just as I have done in my 42 years so far. Peace is worth "fighting" for in all its forms.
Last edited:
Very interesting article in the Mail.
Also, Saul Alinski notes in Rules for Radicals that "Pollution" could be a good rallying cry to move masses against the establishment.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
Also, Saul Alinski notes in Rules for Radicals that "Pollution" could be a good rallying cry to move masses against the establishment.
Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online
If you stretch out both your arms wide, the distance from your finger tips to your wrist on the other hand represents the age of earth, 4.5 billion years and the Pre-Cambrian period. From that wrist to the start of your fingernail represents the Cambrian period when most of the Earth's species exploded into life.
From the base of your fingernail to the tip of your finger represents Homo Sapiens total existence on Earth till the present day.
So, what do we know? Put another way, what CAN we know?
The answer is: Almost nothing about the way the Earth functions.
What we DO know is that at one time ice covered the Earth to a depth of 3kms, and for many millions of years there was NO ice on earth at all plus, it is quite possible that a warming event can tip the delicate balance into a new Ice Age so we shouldn't totally rule out "Global Warming"
Man has already damaged the atmosphere beyond repair with their use of destructive elements. Not Co2 which is vital for the maintenance of Earth's atmosphere, but with Lead which has a half life of thousands of years if ever. This was the stuff pumped into the atmosphere by a conglomerate of Oil, Motor and Chemical Companies with their "miracle" lead additive to aid the longevity of the humble IC valve.
Despite empirical evidence that this was an extremely dangerous and nasty substance, they continued to market it as the ultimate panacea for the extended life of IC engines.
Guess what? ALL the lead that was ever burned up in gasoline engines over a 100 year period, is still in the atmosphere.
There is no doubt that we have squandered our legacy on earth, and the way forward would seem to be (as in politics and science) to find a Few Good Men that will cut the crap and give us the proper guidance.. But I am in total agreement that we should all do our bit by taking a more pro active stance on the protection of natural resources, our general attitude to food growing and consumption, consumerism, and all the other wasteful stuff that goes on. Not a communist, not a socialist, not even a Capitalist. Just a concerned human being, so don't pigeonhole me..
As the Native American would say: "Take Nothing. Leave only Footprints"
Amen...
From the base of your fingernail to the tip of your finger represents Homo Sapiens total existence on Earth till the present day.
So, what do we know? Put another way, what CAN we know?
The answer is: Almost nothing about the way the Earth functions.
What we DO know is that at one time ice covered the Earth to a depth of 3kms, and for many millions of years there was NO ice on earth at all plus, it is quite possible that a warming event can tip the delicate balance into a new Ice Age so we shouldn't totally rule out "Global Warming"
Man has already damaged the atmosphere beyond repair with their use of destructive elements. Not Co2 which is vital for the maintenance of Earth's atmosphere, but with Lead which has a half life of thousands of years if ever. This was the stuff pumped into the atmosphere by a conglomerate of Oil, Motor and Chemical Companies with their "miracle" lead additive to aid the longevity of the humble IC valve.
Despite empirical evidence that this was an extremely dangerous and nasty substance, they continued to market it as the ultimate panacea for the extended life of IC engines.
Guess what? ALL the lead that was ever burned up in gasoline engines over a 100 year period, is still in the atmosphere.
There is no doubt that we have squandered our legacy on earth, and the way forward would seem to be (as in politics and science) to find a Few Good Men that will cut the crap and give us the proper guidance.. But I am in total agreement that we should all do our bit by taking a more pro active stance on the protection of natural resources, our general attitude to food growing and consumption, consumerism, and all the other wasteful stuff that goes on. Not a communist, not a socialist, not even a Capitalist. Just a concerned human being, so don't pigeonhole me..
As the Native American would say: "Take Nothing. Leave only Footprints"
Amen...
Kieth,
You are not wrong in looking at the big picture regarding pollution. Mankind has and always will pollute the environment. If the American Indians had grouped together into one massive colony, the polluting byproduct of that mass of humanity in one place without the benefit of modern hygene facilities would have caused diseases to erupt and would have killed off half of the group. The sad fact is there are a lot of people in the world today and the pressures for housing, food, water, and clean air will continue to build up. So what's the solution? Kill off a few hundred million? There are some radical envionmentalists that would see that as the proper course of action to protect "Mother Earth".
While I think everyone agrees that we (humans) need to work hard to conserve our resources and not squander our heritage, we cannot loose sight of the advancements made to prolong life and health in the developed world. There are still millions of people living in such poverty, corruption, and filth that to ignore their needs at the expense of some idealized "perfect environment" is akin to genocide in my mind.
I would rather live with some polluton than to see these poor souls suffer another year. I have a more optimistic outlook toward the future. i believe that as technology advances, humans will adopt more efficient and less polluting ways of generating economies. That is already happening in developed countries from economic pressures to lower costs of energy to heat, transport, feed and house our populations. We don't need another round of public tarriffs that attempt to correct the "problem" as these so-called climate experts have proposed in the Kyoto Protocols. What we need is more economic activity, not less, so that the undeveloped nations can grow and provide the basic essentials for their people. If that causes more pollution, so be it.
Sorry for the rant if I am off topic. I'll sit back and let the flamers have their day.
Garry
You are not wrong in looking at the big picture regarding pollution. Mankind has and always will pollute the environment. If the American Indians had grouped together into one massive colony, the polluting byproduct of that mass of humanity in one place without the benefit of modern hygene facilities would have caused diseases to erupt and would have killed off half of the group. The sad fact is there are a lot of people in the world today and the pressures for housing, food, water, and clean air will continue to build up. So what's the solution? Kill off a few hundred million? There are some radical envionmentalists that would see that as the proper course of action to protect "Mother Earth".
While I think everyone agrees that we (humans) need to work hard to conserve our resources and not squander our heritage, we cannot loose sight of the advancements made to prolong life and health in the developed world. There are still millions of people living in such poverty, corruption, and filth that to ignore their needs at the expense of some idealized "perfect environment" is akin to genocide in my mind.
I would rather live with some polluton than to see these poor souls suffer another year. I have a more optimistic outlook toward the future. i believe that as technology advances, humans will adopt more efficient and less polluting ways of generating economies. That is already happening in developed countries from economic pressures to lower costs of energy to heat, transport, feed and house our populations. We don't need another round of public tarriffs that attempt to correct the "problem" as these so-called climate experts have proposed in the Kyoto Protocols. What we need is more economic activity, not less, so that the undeveloped nations can grow and provide the basic essentials for their people. If that causes more pollution, so be it.
Sorry for the rant if I am off topic. I'll sit back and let the flamers have their day.
Garry
Certainly, there are quite a few but this is a good source to start off with:
Prometheans in the Lab: Chemistry and the Making of the Modern World Chemistry and the Making of the Modern World. Auth: Sharon Bertsch McGrayne..
Let me know if you need more.... 
Some good points Garry. I have a passion for History and it would certainly seem that as a race, we are not destined to love our neighbours, rather we have a predilection for killing them usually in extremely brutal ways in both small and huge numbers. Such blood letting would also include women, children and babies in an obvious attempt to relieve the gene pool of their enemies.
The two World wars accounted for over 70 million, but as long as China and India continue unabated population expansion, these numbers would seem pitifully small so war could not possibly be intended as a "leveller" unless a nuclear strike was deployed.
It is left to Pathogens in the form of Pandemics to level the world population. It has done so before, and doubtless it will do so again - it seems hard to contemplate that Asian (or Swine Flu) killed more than the WWI with which it was contemporary, and the Black Death reduced the population of Europe to a few hundred at best.
All of our deliberations re: climate change may well turn out to be a tad academic given the rise of antibiotic resistant superbugs.
David Morton
Lifetime Supporter
Malthus?
I don't ever recall anyone proposing to save the environment at the expense of ourselves... what's the point of that? What's wrong with doing both? Problem is, you can't leave it up to individuals to do it, capitalism will nip that right in the bud.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[82]
[edit] Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[83]. A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[84]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
[edit] STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[85] [86]
[edit] Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[82]
[edit] Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[83]. A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[84]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
[edit] STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[85] [86]
[edit] Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
It's little wonder that peoples eyes glaze over when trying to make sense of the climate issue. Hands up everyone that read every word, understood all the implications and has gained enough knowledge to make an informed opinion about the subjects raised in Jeff's post?
There is no argument that climate change is happening. It's been going on for 4.5 billion years. There is also no doubt that such change could be catastrophic (for human existence). This has also been going on for millions of years and has, in the past been variously caused by volcanic action, collisions with extra terrestial bodies, and climate change due to slight "wobble" hiccups.
Fuck me but the earth is a dangerous place and we've enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative calm. What I don't subscribe to is the CERTAINTY that man is causing damaging change although obviously our ways and practices haven't helped much, but if people haven't got their heads around the fact that we live on a volatile complex, inexplicable world that might go boom at any moment, then they're not understanding the life they have been given, nor their (very) precarious hold they have on it.
Nero comes to mind here..
Only the nihilists should be really happy with the world we've built for ourselves...
There is no argument that climate change is happening. It's been going on for 4.5 billion years. There is also no doubt that such change could be catastrophic (for human existence). This has also been going on for millions of years and has, in the past been variously caused by volcanic action, collisions with extra terrestial bodies, and climate change due to slight "wobble" hiccups.
Fuck me but the earth is a dangerous place and we've enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative calm. What I don't subscribe to is the CERTAINTY that man is causing damaging change although obviously our ways and practices haven't helped much, but if people haven't got their heads around the fact that we live on a volatile complex, inexplicable world that might go boom at any moment, then they're not understanding the life they have been given, nor their (very) precarious hold they have on it.
Nero comes to mind here..
Only the nihilists should be really happy with the world we've built for ourselves...
