Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Well - maybe some day the planet will start paying attention to experts « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8

buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #60 : September 14, 2013, 10:13:05 PM »

No Need to Panic About Global Warming

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Corbis
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don't believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Geez, here we go again - scientists v scientists....

Well, I am willing to look into these opinions... but that's 16... And I've seen some of these opposition points before and seen them easily debunked. Nevertheless, I am interested to know more about what the non-politicized and non-industrial opposition research has to say. Believe me, I would LOVE to stop being concerned about global warming. It would be a happy day if the people who study this came out and said, "We were wrong, carry on. Go about your business".

For instance, the point about no warming for over a decade has been debunked I believe. If you take a graph that behaves very erratically, but with an overall increasing trend, it's not difficult to pick a high point in the past and compare it to a low point in the relatively recent time and find no increase. That doesn't mean the trend of the graph still isn't on an upward trajectory. It's just convenient selection of 2 points on the graph in order to report something misleading.

Also, if the 10 year thing is true, how is it that 9 out of 10 of the hottest years on record have occurred since 1998. http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/01/16/nasa-2012-was-9th-warmest-year-on-record-the-9-warmest-years-have-all-occurred-since-1998/

Just saying... I would love it not to be true... but I also see too many anomalous weather events occurring every year... like 100 year storms, or 100 year floods, or monster tornadoes in places that ordinarily don't even see tornadoes... Again, the individual cases don't "prove" anything, but the fact that these things are occurring with greater frequency ought to make you wonder.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #61 : September 14, 2013, 10:22:36 PM »

The "settled science" was more akin to an incestuous relationship with one person citing a source, which in turn cites another and you follow a path that eventually leads you back to the original source, The "settled science" was also a means to shut up dissent. From the get go there were questions about the so called evidence until eventually the data used to prove the "settled science" turned out to be not only flawed, but almost conjured up. Then the goal posts started moving. Sea levels rising, to drought, to extreme weather conditions, cold, blizzards! etc etc etc

The whole global warming thing was driven by socio-political idealogues who saw as a means to achieve goals they knew they would never achieve via the normal ballot box. Notice the solutions always seemed to be a massive transfer of wealth? Just saying.

That is over-the-top paranoia.

Not really. If you look back, the leading lights of socialist politics became leading lights in the environment movement. Not only from a political perspective but fin the corridors or academia as well. The founder of Green Peace left because it swamped with socialist activists after the wall came down.

You can call them socialists, whatever you want... That is separate from the people who research and study the subject for a living. And really, the term "socialism" is really just a fear-mongering word used by the right wing most of the time. If wanting a government that actually acts in the interest of improving public health, public safety, food security, and some economic stability at the cost of a few less dollars in the pockets of the corporations and the richest 1% of individuals, then sign me up. Call me a socialist. I believe socialism and capitalism can and do co-exist and we could use a little more socialism to establish some balance... because the corporations that control this country are driving us into the ground. I don't trust any of 'em.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31560
Offline
« #62 : September 14, 2013, 11:10:41 PM »

The science is settled, people:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html


buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #63 : September 14, 2013, 11:19:11 PM »

The science is settled, people:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

The whole email thing was also debunked... The fact that you can find examples of somebody, or even a small group of people, who are may not be operating with the highest standards of integrity does not invalidate the entire body of scientific work... not by a long stretch... This was the fallacy used by FauxNooz, WSJ, and other obviously right-leaning infotainment sources to paint global warming as a giant liberal hoax.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7028
Offline
« #64 : September 14, 2013, 11:24:53 PM »

The "settled science" was more akin to an incestuous relationship with one person citing a source, which in turn cites another and you follow a path that eventually leads you back to the original source, The "settled science" was also a means to shut up dissent. From the get go there were questions about the so called evidence until eventually the data used to prove the "settled science" turned out to be not only flawed, but almost conjured up. Then the goal posts started moving. Sea levels rising, to drought, to extreme weather conditions, cold, blizzards! etc etc etc

The whole global warming thing was driven by socio-political idealogues who saw as a means to achieve goals they knew they would never achieve via the normal ballot box. Notice the solutions always seemed to be a massive transfer of wealth? Just saying.

That is over-the-top paranoia.

Not really. If you look back, the leading lights of socialist politics became leading lights in the environment movement. Not only from a political perspective but fin the corridors or academia as well. The founder of Green Peace left because it swamped with socialist activists after the wall came down.

You can call them socialists, whatever you want... That is separate from the people who research and study the subject for a living. And really, the term "socialism" is really just a fear-mongering word used by the right wing most of the time. If wanting a government that actually acts in the interest of improving public health, public safety, food security, and some economic stability at the cost of a few less dollars in the pockets of the corporations and the richest 1% of individuals, then sign me up. Call me a socialist. I believe socialism and capitalism can and do co-exist and we could use a little more socialism to establish some balance... because the corporations that control this country are driving us into the ground. I don't trust any of 'em.

Na, na, na,na, I know what socialism is and when I say socialism I mean socialism. I have had personal experience of it. Socialists do not believe that "socialism" and capitalism can co-exist.

buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #65 : September 14, 2013, 11:25:06 PM »

Look, I give up. I'm not going to convince anyone on this right-leaning board, and it's a waste of time to try. The subject of global warming is so hyper-politicized that the argument quickly dissolves into a pissing match. It was a mistake for me to waste my time here. Good night gentlemen... Maybe we can agree on Go Bucs!

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #66 : September 14, 2013, 11:30:50 PM »

The "settled science" was more akin to an incestuous relationship with one person citing a source, which in turn cites another and you follow a path that eventually leads you back to the original source, The "settled science" was also a means to shut up dissent. From the get go there were questions about the so called evidence until eventually the data used to prove the "settled science" turned out to be not only flawed, but almost conjured up. Then the goal posts started moving. Sea levels rising, to drought, to extreme weather conditions, cold, blizzards! etc etc etc

The whole global warming thing was driven by socio-political idealogues who saw as a means to achieve goals they knew they would never achieve via the normal ballot box. Notice the solutions always seemed to be a massive transfer of wealth? Just saying.

That is over-the-top paranoia.

Not really. If you look back, the leading lights of socialist politics became leading lights in the environment movement. Not only from a political perspective but fin the corridors or academia as well. The founder of Green Peace left because it swamped with socialist activists after the wall came down.

You can call them socialists, whatever you want... That is separate from the people who research and study the subject for a living. And really, the term "socialism" is really just a fear-mongering word used by the right wing most of the time. If wanting a government that actually acts in the interest of improving public health, public safety, food security, and some economic stability at the cost of a few less dollars in the pockets of the corporations and the richest 1% of individuals, then sign me up. Call me a socialist. I believe socialism and capitalism can and do co-exist and we could use a little more socialism to establish some balance... because the corporations that control this country are driving us into the ground. I don't trust any of 'em.

Na, na, na,na, I know what socialism is and when I say socialism I mean socialism. I have had personal experience of it. Socialists do not believe that "socialism" and capitalism can co-exist.
Then you should be more careful about who you call socialists. Just sayin'... What I hear most of the time is anybody who's not "Rah, rah, capitalism! Rah, rah, corporations!" is a socialist. ANybody who thinks government can act in the public good must be a socialist. Hell, anybody who believes in the concept of the public good is called a socialist these days.

But I'm out. This board is not a welcoming place for a liberal like me. I bid you a good evening.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31560
Offline
« #67 : September 14, 2013, 11:34:22 PM »

The science is settled, people:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

The whole email thing was also debunked... The fact that you can find examples of somebody, or even a small group of people, who are may not be operating with the highest standards of integrity does not invalidate the entire body of scientific work... not by a long stretch... This was the fallacy used by FauxNooz, WSJ, and other obviously right-leaning infotainment sources to paint global warming as a giant liberal hoax.

Wait - I thought the email hoax was debunked?  Yet you are agreeing the email hoax happened in fact.

I realize you'd prefer to have your cake and eat it too, but that isn't reality.  The "settled science" line is a joke.


buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #68 : September 14, 2013, 11:45:32 PM »

The science is settled, people:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

The whole email thing was also debunked... The fact that you can find examples of somebody, or even a small group of people, who are may not be operating with the highest standards of integrity does not invalidate the entire body of scientific work... not by a long stretch... This was the fallacy used by FauxNooz, WSJ, and other obviously right-leaning infotainment sources to paint global warming as a giant liberal hoax.

Wait - I thought the email hoax was debunked?  Yet you are agreeing the email hoax happened in fact.

I realize you'd prefer to have your cake and eat it too, but that isn't reality.  The "settled science" line is a joke.

Not engaging any further. Waste of my time. Have a good evening. Go Bucs!

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46174
Offline
« #69 : September 15, 2013, 10:59:57 AM »

Sacrifice to the Climate Change Altar

Pennsylvania is coal country
And we cannot afford to be misled by talk of how 'dirty' it's supposed to be
September 15, 2013 12:15 am
 
By Rep. Tim Murphy
This fall, 380 workers at the Hatfield's Ferry and Mitchell Power Stations in southwestern Pennsylvania will lose their jobs when the two coal-fueled plants are permanently shut down. FirstEnergy, after just having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in environmental upgrades to the facilities, announced the decision was based in part on "the cost of compliance with current and future environmental regulations."

Since most of these new regulations weren't adopted by Congress, how did we get here?

The author of these regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency, is mired in the outdated view that virtually any use of fossil energy in power generation poses an imminent threat to public health. Not true. What has been lost in today's energy debate is the incredible technological advancements that have led to cleaner air and water.

Those opposed to fossil energy still present the false narrative of "dirty coal," which is an insult to the thousands of southwestern Pennsylvanians who work in the mines and throughout the coal industry supply chain.

These workers live in our communities, send their kids to local schools and reside in the towns where these plants are located. None of them wants to return to the old days of contaminated rivers and open smokestacks. Yet from the Aug. 6 editorial in the Post-Gazette titled "Coal Barons: GOP Lawmakers Try to Turn Back the Hands of Time," one would think Downtown Pittsburgh workers are still changing their dress shirts at mid-day because of soot in the air, when, in fact, over the last 50 years Pittsburgh rebuilt and redefined itself largely by environmental reform and progress.
Take, for example, U.S. Steel. The company, which relies on affordable Pennsylvania coal, just spent $500 million making the Clairton Coke Works one the most environmentally safe facilities in the world. The plant even recycles gases to generate power needed for its Mon Valley mills. Innovative conservation projects of this kind have cut energy waste by close to 30 percent nationwide since 2000.

Pittsburgh-based Calgon Carbon has developed powdered activated carbon to help to cut in half the amount of mercury in the air. Today, most trace mercury found in the air in Western Pennsylvania isn't even from domestic sources; it's from countries without any regulation, such as China.

Three-quarters of the country's coal plants are now equipped with technologies developed by the National Technology Energy Laboratory, a federal research facility located in South Park. NETL perfected scrubbers, such as those installed by local boilermakers at Hatfield's Ferry just three years ago, to remove from the air sulfur dioxide gases that can cause acid rain. NETL's ground-breaking achievements helped to reduce emissions by 75 percent even as coal usage tripled over the last 30 years.

Instead of shutting down coal to make even greater environmental gains, the right way forward is to harness the creativity and innovation of local businesses, researchers and universities. But that's made exceedingly difficult under President Barack Obama's budget, which cut $230 million out of NETL and clean-coal research and instead directs billions in taxpayer subsidies for unproven renewable energy projects similar to Solyndra.

As our region's workers, engineers and scientists have demonstrated, we don't have to choose between a healthy economy and clean air. We can have both, but not if we allow the debate to be hijacked by propaganda and overzealous government regulators.

Local workers are enduring not just the scorn of disinformation campaigns that ignore the true story of Pittsburgh's environmental renaissance, but they also are having to fight regulators in Washington who are destroying their way of life. Current EPA regulations eventually would eliminate coal as a fuel source without public input or even a vote in Congress.

That's why I authored legislation, adopted on a bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives, to halt the EPA's newest "social cost of carbon" regulation so Congress has an opportunity to review it. A regulation of this magnitude -- with such sweeping impact on the economy and the American workforce -- cannot be left to regulators alone, because as blue-collar moms and dads in southwestern Pennsylvania know well, the true impact of overregulation is concentrated unemployment and poverty.
If we give up on coal, we will lose more than the manufacturing and energy jobs that are the lifeblood of our region's economy. We'll also lose the chance to invest in building our future because we'll remain reliant on buying foreign energy.

The U.S. trade deficit with OPEC nations exceeded $1 trillion in the last decade. Some of those dollars are funneled to terrorist groups fighting against us in the War on Terror, which has cost us more than $1 trillion to wage. Since 1976, we've also spent more than $8 trillion protecting the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. That's money unavailable for investing in infrastructure, education or job creation. An even higher cost has been the tragic number of soldiers lost in defense of our country.

The fact remains that we will need coal, oil and natural gas for transportation, electricity generation and chemical production well into the future. The question is whether we will use domestically available resources or allow our destiny to be determined by other nations and OPEC members.
I choose American energy.

Tim Murphy, R-Upper St. Clair, represents Pennsylvania's 18th District in Congress.
First Published September 15, 2013 12:00 am


Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/pennsylvania-is-coal-country-703442/#ixzz2eyQ19upg

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

Bucfucious

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3797
Offline
« #70 : September 15, 2013, 11:15:49 AM »

  "Call me a socialist. I believe socialism and capitalism can and do co-exist and we could use a little more socialism to establish some balance... because the corporations that control this country are driving us into the ground. I don't trust any of 'em."

And that's what your little crusade is really all about. That's why you're willing to only look at the evidence that supports your predetermined goals of striking at the capitalists. That's why you don't even want to acknowledge the real underlying issue of Earth's carbon capturing system being devastated by the poor. You are the 'useful idiot' socialism requires.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46174
Offline
« #71 : September 15, 2013, 11:53:37 AM »

And this - http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/business/wall-st-exploits-ethanol-credits-and-prices-spike.html?hp&_r=1&

is the kind of crap seeking to be set up for the benefit of whom... you're being used

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #72 : September 15, 2013, 01:00:47 PM »

Well, at minimum, I now know that the basis for conservative hostility towards global warming is largely based in paranoia, though I am certainly sensitive to concerns regarding the cost of dealing with the problem. At least I can say I've learned something about the opposition during this conversation.

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.


dbucfan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 46174
Offline
« #73 : September 15, 2013, 01:18:49 PM »

So you see the need for the "marketplaces" to be put up so credits can be bought and sold - on Wall Street.  You saw Gore & Co. prepare a similar plan which fell apart.  So if you pay enough for it then you can pollute to your hearts content.  Look around and follow the money - you are the one that started labeling and insulting - I just showed you why others might not find the financials you proposed not too convincing.  At least show you can read and see there are other viable thoughts - as opposed to "the opposition, paranoids.."  and you can find the other labels you threw at the wall.

No one wants the planet to become more of a mess, naturally they would like to get at least a feeling the "truth" wasn't established in a marketplace.  So at a minimum why not check out who is pushing this and who is setting up to benefit - including the precious scientists you for whom you have such an affinity, or the leader of the pack, Mr. Internet. 

\"A Great Coach has to have a Patient Wife, A Loyal Dog, and a Great Quarterback. . . . but not necessarily in that order\" ~ Coach Bud Grant

buccaneerNW

*
Pro Bowler
*****
Posts : 1010
Offline
« #74 : September 15, 2013, 02:20:49 PM »

So you see the need for the "marketplaces" to be put up so credits can be bought and sold - on Wall Street.  You saw Gore & Co. prepare a similar plan which fell apart.  So if you pay enough for it then you can pollute to your hearts content.  Look around and follow the money - you are the one that started labeling and insulting - I just showed you why others might not find the financials you proposed not too convincing.  At least show you can read and see there are other viable thoughts - as opposed to "the opposition, paranoids.."  and you can find the other labels you threw at the wall.

No one wants the planet to become more of a mess, naturally they would like to get at least a feeling the "truth" wasn't established in a marketplace.  So at a minimum why not check out who is pushing this and who is setting up to benefit - including the precious scientists you for whom you have such an affinity, or the leader of the pack, Mr. Internet.

Well, I do think there's a lot of paranoia. Some of it may be justified, much of it probably not.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Al Gore. I never mentioned him, and he's really not even relevant to the discussions of global warming anymore. Maybe 10-15 years ago he was. I guess he's sorta like the punching bag for climate deniers and liberal-haters.

I regret using any language that was insulting... but if you read the thread, I received it in return tenfold, including from you, including above were you say "At least show you can read"... It's not like you guys are above dishing out the derision.

And I am totally open to reading and hearing opposing opinions. As I said, I would love to not believe in global warming... but all this stuff about some evil cabal manipulating science for some evil purposes is a bit of a stretch... I certainly think it's more likely that the fossil fuel industry engages in lies and propaganda to protect its own financial interests, given that we know how these organizations work. I say it's at least as likely that the fossil fuel industry is the evil cabal in this discussion.

And I honestly want to be respectful in this conversation. I'll make an effort to read more opposition opinion on this topic, as long as it isn't based on the premise of a socialist conspiracy. All the political aspects aside, I'm interested in what the science actually says. What I know is that my own brother has done extensive research as a PhD candidate in oceanographic and atmospheric science, and he is not an unquestioning rube who would just bow to the status quo. He's an honest scientist. His own research is consistent with global warming. I suspect that most of the scientists working in the field are more like my brother and less like the Dr. Evils imagined by some on this thread. Nevertheless, I will look more at the opposition science.

Well, as I indicated before, this discussion has been educational in that I now understand a lot more about the "chief beefs" of climate change doubters. Can we suspend the hostilities now? I'm done. This stuff isn't good for my blood pressure. :)

- Dont bee kritisyzun gramer end punktushun on dis baored becuz its for talkn uhbowtt the Bukx.

  Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Well - maybe some day the planet will start paying attention to experts « previous next »
:  

Hide Tools Show Tools