|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Nov 29, 2009 17:25:46 GMT -8
I don't intend to dredge all this up again, but I think mention needs to be made about the now-admitted data dump and mis-direction undertaken by the group who was feeding the IPCC their climate change data: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.eceAlso, this is an interesting look into the "consensus" that everyone refers to in the IPCC document: www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968I bring this up not to say that I'm right, but to simply point out that trusting politicians and people who have a seriously vested (and hugely monetary) stake in this issue will only lead to disaster. Politicians and special interests, through their wild power-grabbing and money-lusting, have officially crapped all over the issue of Climate Change. Any "truth" that was out there to be found is now covered in a giant, steaming pile of in-fighting, deception, dirty politics and conflicts of interest. Even if I completely agreed with you, Craig (et al), that human-generated carbon emissions were damaging the planet, there is no way in this political climate for anything at all constructive to come of such information now. I cringe at the thought of the backroom debauchery that is set to take place in Copenhagen next week. The world cannot trust scientists who abuse their power.
-Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Christian K on Nov 29, 2009 20:53:07 GMT -8
Scientists and power? As in "power to influencing politicians/industry/the populace"? I have to chuckle at that thought... And, Brendan, my response to one of your earlier posts is still forthcoming. However, I am totally agreed that Copenhagen is going to be a colossal waste of time, money, efforts and good hotel beds. Politicians...I despise the lot of them. CK
|
|
|
Post by Craig Richard Lysy on Dec 1, 2009 8:32:03 GMT -8
Brendan, and Kuhni, I understand your perspectives regarding Copenhagen. I retain hope that some good will come out. If I accept the premise that nothing constructive can be achieved by governments meeting, then all seems lost, including hope.
There is common ground, small steps that can be achieved if humanity can transcend tribalism.
Thank you for engaging in discourse, you have indeed changed aspects of my perspective.
All the best.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Dec 2, 2009 9:51:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jens Dietrich on Dec 2, 2009 10:28:15 GMT -8
This is incredibly upsetting. You DO NOT MESS WITH OUR TVS!!!
|
|
cheno
Conductor
Posts: 1,012
|
Post by cheno on Dec 2, 2009 15:41:37 GMT -8
This is AMERICA! Next thing you know McDonald's pressured to get rid of the Super Size! Oh wait.. At least we still have the THE DOUBLE DOWN!!!
|
|
|
Post by Hook on Dec 2, 2009 17:55:38 GMT -8
Ugh, this whole green movement is such a sham. While I agree there desperately needs to be government intervention, it should be in the form of 1. prioritizing the issue in its agenda and 2. giving incentives to the private sector to develop new industries, new technologies, and new information gathering and interpretation methods (i.e., not telling oil and coal companies to leave the mess under the rug) while working with local governments and communities so they can be accommodated with this plan to their current and future needs. The realization that new forms of energy use (or any other basic need) come with a change in community organizations (cities will simply not be the same, as was the case with the sewage system, road carpeting, electricity, the internet, etc.) must be dealt with a positive, constructive attitude. Yes, the future will change, but it need not be horrible. This, on the other hand, is not the future changing. This is creative accounting mixed with poor resource planning and, in the end, meaningless politics. This is the same as the other story I read of an office building going "green" and using "green only" technology. Which means the lighting was switched to fluorescent, but the luminosity was greatly diminished (the limited availability of light is "hidden" by the "switch to green"), many bits and pieces from more complex systems went from electrically powered to be handled mechanically (in the case of a urinal, replacing the motion-sensing mechanism that automatically flushes it) at the expense of systems not working correctly because the alternative was not tested thoroughly, not to mention unworkable or useless faucets and the like due to restrictions from management on water consumption and supply. Going green in this era means either prohibition or ludicrous alternative suggestions (why waste water when you can drink your own urine? buy a car that may be discontinued by the time you pay for it and have a hard time maintaining that sucker; make speeches and more speeches, spread the message, be friends with Bono, and let all your fans in the liberal arts, those who can help the least, feel good about themselves, etc.). It pains me to know that corn gets more help from the government to make people fat (and keep in mind the Free Trade Agreements America has to undermine foreign producers in competition) than workable solutions. Dean Kamen does his water thing and genetics researcher Craig Venter's undeterred attitude towards his goal of using miroorganisms to generate fuel. One way I'll agree with the current wave of paranoia in American politics, is that the government is acting repressive, in a way. Tyrants get rid of poverty by getting rid of poor people. The U.S. is getting rid of its energy expenditure problem by getting rid of the spending. The irony here is that part of the reason the executive branch of American government must hesitate before acting is out of fear of validating people's worries of that very oppression they're already being inflicted because of the viral misinformation originating from the richest industries affected by those policy changes and disseminated by media outlets they own or can influence greatly, not to mention the congressmen they practically own (kinda off-topic, but funny how John McCain, the person who publicly admitted had no idea how to work a computer, introduces a bill against net-neutrality, promoted by telecom companies?). Want your government to stop doing stupid things with your life? Then stop hindering it to act on climate change And that's only the tip of the iceberg (which at this point probably looks more like the mashed potato mountain Richard Dreyfuss made because it's been melted away, hur, hur, hurr). What we really should be addressing, seriously (as in: write your congressman, assist where you can those who are working on this) are the consequences of climate change. Our environment is gradually changing, moving on to longer stretches of naturally occurring shifts in climate than humans are accustomed to, at a faster pace than at any other point in our civilization's written history. Man made or not, these will happen, unevenly and over several generations, and they will affect the entire globe and its political and economic machinery. Drought and flooding, decreased ability of the environment to absorb carbon dioxide, for example. Think how these will affect crops, soil composition and reliability, the rate of growth, concentration and rapid mutability of the parasites and other organisms dependent on the system as is, as well as the displacement of communities that will eat up the also volatile resources of other countries, propagation of new strains of viruses or bacteria that might affect human health either directly (haha your white cells are no match for me) or indirectly (haha your food's immune system is my bitch). And that's just a couple. Take out the "global warming" and "climate change" phrases from this thought experiment: radically change the pressures put on water resources, agricultural resources, electricity demand, air and human health quality, and urban infrastructure all over the world today at random degrees of impact. What happens? I propose one thing, to Brendan, Chris T, TJ, Jocko, and... wow, we're a small community. ;D To stop addressing, no matter how wrong or misguided the argument being discussed, in this top-down manner: counter with different data interpretations or critiques, rebuke scientific authority, engage in historical or political comparisons (valid or not), and, at the very end, admit that "something is wrong, we don't know the extend of it, but we should act cautiously". Because discourse works like it does, 80% of the criticisms and snide remarks from your opening will overshadow the very real need to redefine and rebuild our present sustainability model you talk about in the end (which I always see coming down to "something must be done about something and its unknown consequences which might be unknowably deleterious to someone and someone should take care of that something". The three quarters of what you say successfully limit credence to the very same reasons why you then call for action, vague, generalized action. The entire thing becomes about its discussion. tl;dr version WWI happened because a lot of empires harbored resentment against one another because they all wanted a lot of territories, but shit hit the fan because of a sandwich. By 1917, I doubt president Wilson was thinking what kind of sandwich it was, if it had lettuce, was there any mustard in it, what kind of meat did it pack, was it rye or white bread, made on the spot or had it been shelved for a while, on-the-go or table sitting, what was the condition of the assassin's Subway sub club card, if any... ?! ?! ?! ?! ?! Where is the consensus? I think not. This is AMERICA! Next thing you know McDonald's pressured to get rid of the Super Size! Oh wait.. People here laugh at America's rise in obesity and how all they do is eat burgers. From a place where McDonald's has express delivery. You read that right.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Tilton on Dec 2, 2009 19:41:06 GMT -8
I bet the sandwich had spicy mustard.
|
|
|
Post by Bregt on Dec 8, 2009 11:51:13 GMT -8
I'm a lurker, but now I felt I had to jump in. For all who are sceptic and don't believe the (in the mean time generally accepted) climate change due to human influence, but are jumping and shouting all loud about the climategate thingy: Why do you believe this so easy? Sure, the e-mails are real. But they were obviously taken out of context, this undermining the total picture. Regardless of that, the emails just prove what every scientist should do: reflect upon their findings/theories/facts and never take them for granted. The emails are personal comments, not scientific facts. The behaviour of a scientist is unlike that of the 'believers' of Climategate. What a stupid word anyway, sounds like The Great Global Warming Swindle (or what was it again), that sceptic documentary just trying to undermine what scientists have been researching for decades, by using old data and taking quotes out of context. But yes, it's cooler to believe something like that since it has no impact for us whatsoever. Unbelievable how this news seem to have spread so easily in the USA, and not much here in Europe (where I live). I had to research the issue a bit to find out about what is was (when it was mentioned here above). I now know why. For example, FoxNews apparently jumped on the 'news' like ... yeah .. well, like they often do I guess? I'm sure my narrowminded view of US television is going to be focused on now in the next reply, but over here we only had such news in less trustworthy magazines or websites. The fact that some journalists in the 'articles' about Climategate seem to claim themselves as scientists, doesn't make it believable. Valuable sources are hard to find on the internet, but they certainly do not come from blogs. This whole debate reminds me of the funny creationist/ID vs darwinists/evolutonists discussions on the internet. The former claim to have the truth, with the most futile and bizarre theories, presenting it as science, and they sometimes even open the conspiracy hole again. Wow, scientists must be the most evil people in the world. Vaccinations: Evil! Atheists: Evil! What I find baffling is that some have no problem believing the claim of the people who hacked the CRU (with the intention to harm not only their work, but the other climatologists as well!), but don't believe what scientists have been researching for decades now, independently from each other. Those people claim that it's one big hoax, one big conspiracy, all to spend money on ... euhm ... ow, euhm ... wow, positive initiatives (not on billion dollars wars, not to save banks and the salaries of some crazy corporate bosses, ... but with the goal of a better planet for everyone (how corny indeed, but that is to vent against the silly conspiracy bwabble)). Even when it is all one big swindle (you have to give it them though, 1000s of scientists, all spanning together to create the biggest cover-up in human kind (eat that Dan Brown)), is doing nothing to the problems that coincide with the climate change (socially, economically, internationally) that much of a good solution then? Phew.
|
|
|
Post by Jockolantern on Dec 9, 2009 2:26:32 GMT -8
Those people claim that it's one big hoax, one big conspiracy It is. And you didn't even bother to reference the absolute hypocrisy of these lunatics who want us to change our ways while refusing to sacrifice a carbon-spewing lifestyle that I couldn't hope to match in a dozen lifetimes: www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.htmlUtterly fallacious. It has nothing to do with a "better planet." It has everything to do with money, power, and control over the lives of the common man by those who think they know better about what is well and good for your lifestyle. End of story. For further analysis on the hoax that is man-made global warming, please see this excellent essay by Michael Crichton. Myself and men/women like Crichton saw this for the lie that it was long before this recent Climategate scandal pulled back the curtain. www.crichton-official.com/speech-ourenvironmentalfuture.htmlThat is one incoherent, poorly structured sentence.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 9, 2009 8:12:33 GMT -8
No need to be rude, Jocko. Bregt has a good point. Why would 1000s of scientists have an incentive to lie about this? Let's say the government is evil and out to control us all. What part do scientists have in that control? For what reason would independently employed professionals put their careers and reputations on the line if it were all a lie?
None of this means that I buy into all the hype (I think the man-made global warming thing has been subject to a serious bandwagon effect), but I really have a hard time believing that so many well-regarded scientists have colluded together to pull the wool over the world's eyes. Certainly we could take better care of our planet than we do.
|
|
|
Post by Bregt on Dec 9, 2009 12:28:38 GMT -8
What does that prove? Nothing. Only the fact that we lost too much time since Kyoto and now need to act as a global system, not as separated units. Kopenhagen is the most eco-friendly city of Europe and did everything it could to make the summit CO2 neutral. It IS indeed hypocritical, but that doesn't diminish the goal of the gathering. And certainly doesn't explain a conspiracy, wtf? For once, almost the whole world is represented (not only politicians). It's indeed sad that the leaders only join to 'popular' events in the media and not the recent UN Food Summit in Rome (what a disgrace for all members), but the Kopenhagen summit involves more than 'just' environment. Also famine, crop failure, diseases, wars, climate refugees, ... and how to solve/prevent those. Ouch. Now I'm upset. Michael Crichton. Wasn't he the one who believed spoons could be bend by using your mind? But seriously, Michael Crichton. You feel supported by a science-fiction writer? I have heard of his views on climate change, and he can have that opinion, but using that as a fact to support the idea of a huge hoax or conspiracy is just ridiculous. He's not even a scientist. So, I read the text you linked to. Quite an interesting read. Except for the fact that he just takes out samples again (= we don't get the whole picture). He also assumes things and sometimes talk about "some studies" or "certain scientists". But well, he makes a point by transforming the issue into the idea that we should not look much into the future, and just think on short term: like bank CEOs, like oil company owners, like politicians (not the green ones mind you). That really made his point? His statement ends with the general blabla when talking about (or loosing time on) world problems; that during his essay xx many people died of this and someone over there died of that. It's not that we have been helping Africa the past 20 years that much, or the Middle-East, or South-East Asia, ... I believe with the current situation, if the Summit succeeds on social and ecomonic levels, it will be good for everyone. I don't think my last sentence was that badly written, but since you didn't help me putting it right, and not written not my native language, I try to explain again. It hopefully made my point clear, that in any case, in what is discussed now, and the plans and actions that need to be taken, are the best solution, even if it turns out the scientists were wrong. Because if we don't do anything (and that is not just the Western world), that when it becomes true, we're off worse. This video, which I saw a few years ago, made by a regular guy like your or me, comes close to my thought on the whole issue. It addresses the problem, its worst case scenario, the money, investments, costs ... It's for the most sceptic anti-person and the most panicking climatologist. (it took me a while to find it again!) www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Anderson on Dec 9, 2009 13:00:07 GMT -8
Why would 1000s of scientists have an incentive to lie about this? Answer: The almighty dollar. "Climate Change" is the new media wave sweeping the world over the last 5 years - scientists who can 'research' the issue and create disaster-predicting computer models and grab a couple headlines can see thousands (perhaps millions) in grant money coming their way to "further" their research. I'm not saying all scientists are sellouts or doing dishonest research, but our current society is creating the perfect environment and incentive for scientists to reach certain 'profitable' conclusions. The result is that now no one can see the truth from underneath all the B.S. I linked this article earlier, but I'll do so again - it talks about the 'consensus' and what all these scientists actually signed off on. It's certainly not as clear-cut as the media and climate-change proponents would have you think. Check it out here. Bregt, you might take a look at the bibliography contained in Crichton's "State of Fear" and reassess your insinuation that he doesn't know anything. Not to mention the fact that he graduated from Harvard as an M.D. and went on to participate in a post-doctoral fellowship study in biological studies... -Brendan
|
|
|
Post by Bregt on Dec 9, 2009 14:22:55 GMT -8
Ah. He did biological studies. That's not the same as an environmental or climate expert. Very different subjects. But then he should know how climate acts on biology. Anyhow, I didn't meant to say he knew nothing, or was just a writer. State of Fear I haven't read. Can you tell me about it more? What does it conclude?
Anyway, that Canadian Free Press release is again just one man's opinion. Also, the site tags itself with "Because without America there's no Free World". No offence, but that's cringe worthy and I have no doubt this site has an agenda, and is probably conservative and is against abortion, same-sex, Obama's health care system, pro-war and other pure logic. Then I visited the homepage, and I knew enough. Not a very objective source.
Again, these are all separate cases, that have not much value.
|
|
|
Post by Bregt on Dec 9, 2009 14:37:44 GMT -8
I found out the author of this article is member of the International Climate Science Coalition, 'an organization which espouses global warming skepticism' according to Wikipedia. And after that it doesn't take long to find out the author of this article is just an ex-lobbyist, funded by oil company and a gas deliverer: www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Harris_%28Canadian_engineer/PR_specialist%29News value of the article is virtually zero. Now THIS is a 'scientist' who abuses his power. Just like any of the creationists who try to fool good people with their videos. Bah!
|
|