Being Green is for Losers [Archive]

TravelGal

08-08-08, 04:21 PM

I agree with the overall thrust (can I use that word in a thread on the environment? I'm thinking airline terms here not........oh nevermind.).

The British really were nutters on this subject. It's long been discussed in the travel business how the Brits were leading the "reduce the carbon footprint" charge to the logical conclusion that everyone would stay home and weed their backyard garden, thereby destroying the economy of untold numbers of third world countries that depend upon tourism to survive.

gjc2

08-10-08, 06:28 PM

Yeah it's like reading a foreign language or something.

I had a shop manual for an MG I owned that had an English/American translation page, bonnet/hood, etc.

Stu

08-11-08, 08:51 AM

more evidence:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange

this is a great article, because it basically says:

- be prepared for a 4C increase in global temps
- and states, "The truth is that to prevent runaway greenhouse warming, we will have to leave most of the world's fossil fuels in the ground, especially carbon-heavy coal, oil shales and tar sands. The fossil fuel and power companies must be faced down."

but the article never actually gives any evidence as to why we might see a 4C increase.

nothing more than scare tactics and further ******** from these green nazi's.

SurfaceUnits

08-11-08, 09:19 AM

china spent 18 billion dollars to clear the smog in beijing,,,,,

ChampcarShark

08-12-08, 01:19 PM

china spent 18 billion dollars to clear the smog in beijing,,,,,

They are building an even bigger wall??

Napoleon

08-13-08, 03:34 PM

nothing more than scare tactics and further ******** from these green nazi's.

You really are clueless.

Stu

08-13-08, 03:37 PM

You really are clueless.

did you read the article? could you please point out the facts that it lists which explain why we should expect a 4C increase in global temps? i couldn't find any. then again I'm clueless so my dumb brain must have missed all the facts presented.

Ankf00

08-13-08, 03:50 PM

to find the acutal science behind it, picking up a science journal will be infinitely more informative than a newspaper piece

Stu

08-13-08, 03:53 PM

to find the acutal science behind it, picking up a science journal will be infinitely more informative than a newspaper piece

perhaps the article should have cited one to legitimize the potential of a 4C increase in temps.

Ankf00

08-13-08, 04:39 PM

Stu

08-13-08, 04:56 PM

perhaps, then again I don't see where a couple of scientists offering their view which is published in a newspaper equates to them being green nazis

then again I'm not all militant about this whole business on either side

the article title is:

On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction
There's no 'adaptation' to such steep warming. We must stop pandering to special interests, and try a new, post-Kyoto strategy

and this is their solution:

The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries.

their solution is a global tax on anyone that emits greenhouse gas emissions, and then that money being used to develop renewable energy and to "save the world" while the total amount of the tax is not disclosed, they would like to commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance the adaption to climate change. i can only imagine how much they want to spend on renewable energy, efficiency, protecting forests, etc.

so technically i suppose you are right, they aren't nazis. :\

i guess a more accurate term would be Global Socialists with a Green Agenda.

cameraman

08-13-08, 04:57 PM

did you read the article? could you please point out the facts that it lists which explain why we should expect a 4C increase in global temps? i couldn't find any. then again I'm clueless so my dumb brain must have missed all the facts presented.

Try reading a report or four before shooting off your mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Wiki provides a good digest of the report, the original weighs in at several pounds.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Edit: This is where the 4°C number comes from. It is a generally accepted planning value.

Ankf00

08-13-08, 05:08 PM

the article title is:

it's an op-ed based on another article which the guardian ran. what's some random columnist's opinion have to do with anything worth a damn?

and this is their solution: proposed by the columnist, not the scientists quoted in the original article

so technically i suppose you are right, they aren't nazis. :\

i guess a more accurate term would be Global Socialists with a Green Agenda.

all b/c of a columnist...

B3RACER1a

08-13-08, 05:14 PM

:rofl:

Stu

08-13-08, 05:14 PM

Stu

08-13-08, 05:19 PM

it's an op-ed based on another article which the guardian ran. what's some random columnist's opinion have to do with anything worth a damn?

proposed by the columnist, not the scientists quoted in the original article

all b/c of a columnist...

he's not just a columnist, he's the author of the book Kyoto2, and one of the campaigners for environmental issues.

is he important? not really. but he is being published and there are others like him who believe that a global tax is the answer to fixing global warming.

cameraman

08-13-08, 05:32 PM

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=544

I like this guy better. ;)

Of course you do, Joseph D’Aleo is one of the leading opponents of all things global warming and he makes his living acting like he is being evenhanded while he slags all things related to CO2-based global warming. He is what is more commonly known as a shill and he happens to be damn good at what he does.

Ankf00

08-13-08, 05:41 PM

he's not just a columnist, he's the author of the book Kyoto2, and one of the campaigners for environmental issues.

is he important? not really. but he is being published and there are others like him who believe that a global tax is the answer to fixing global warming.

al gore wrote a book and campaigns for global warming issues too, wgaf?

Stu

08-13-08, 05:43 PM

al gore wrote a book and campaigns for global warming issues too, wgaf?

lots of people. im assuming cameraman is one of them.

Stu

08-13-08, 05:44 PM

Of course you do, Joseph D’Aleo is one of the leading opponents of all things global warming and he makes his living acting like he is being evenhanded while he slags all things related to CO2-based global warming. He is what is more commonly known as a shill and he happens to be damn good at what he does.

whats factually wrong with his side of the story?

cameraman

08-13-08, 05:50 PM

He cherry picks the data. He and he friends at ICECAP present what supports their view and conveniently minimize data that does not support their view. They are every bit as biased as Al Gore, they are just coming in from the other side.

Stu

08-13-08, 06:11 PM

Ankf00

08-13-08, 06:24 PM

lots of people. im assuming cameraman is one of them.

if you think cameraman or myself base our views off of people like gore you truly are clueless

cameraman

08-13-08, 06:25 PM

A committee chaired by Al gore biased?:rolleyes:

Despite Al friggin' Gore's name on the masthead the report is pretty even handed and that is why there are so many "if"s and "maybe"s in it that people like D'Aleo love to point out. The report is a very large review article of the current research and the current general opinion is all that CO2 must change the climate above and beyond the climate's natural variations.

Stu

08-13-08, 06:38 PM

if you think cameraman or myself base our views off of people like gore you truly are clueless

you're right, i should remember everyone's opinions, even if i never recall reading them, rather than just looking at the reports thats he posted. :\

and i never said anything about you.

datachicane

08-13-08, 09:41 PM

whats factually wrong with his side of the story?

Back in the late 80's there was a developer who wanted to build a beachfront hotel on a lot about 50 miles from where I live. Most of the Oregon coastline is pretty unstable, and, of course, he had to have a geologist's report before he could get the permits to start construction. I was in college at the time, and my geology prof happened to be the fifth :eek: geologist the developer consulted. My prof's report, like the previous four, clearly stated that the site was full of active slides and was unsuitable for construction. The developer kept shopping around until he was able to find a geologist who gave him the answer he wanted to hear, and the hotel was built.

Four years later the hotel split in two, and stopgap repairs were made. A couple of years more and it was condemned and torn down, and when questions were made about how the hotel came to be built in the first place, the developer trotted out his geologist's report stating the site was just peachy.

Was there anything 'factually wrong' with the developer's side of the story?

TrueBrit

08-14-08, 12:18 AM

Stu

08-14-08, 07:58 AM

Back in the late 80's there was a developer who wanted to build a beachfront hotel on a lot about 50 miles from where I live. Most of the Oregon coastline is pretty unstable, and, of course, he had to have a geologist's report before he could get the permits to start construction. I was in college at the time, and my geology prof happened to be the fifth :eek: geologist the developer consulted. My prof's report, like the previous four, clearly stated that the site was full of active slides and was unsuitable for construction. The developer kept shopping around until he was able to find a geologist who gave him the answer he wanted to hear, and the hotel was built.

Four years later the hotel split in two, and stopgap repairs were made. A couple of years more and it was condemned and torn down, and when questions were made about how the hotel came to be built in the first place, the developer trotted out his geologist's report stating the site was just peachy.

Was there anything 'factually wrong' with the developer's side of the story?

nice story.

without seeing the report and comparing it to the others, you dont know if anything was factually wrong with it.

doesnt detail whats actually wrong with D'Aleo's side of the story.

Andrew Longman

08-14-08, 08:14 AM

Careful folks. If we want nasty we can just trot over to the current events forum at TF

We have a reputation to uphold ;)

Stu

08-14-08, 08:35 AM

Global warming deniers are funny...

The same way people that thought the earth was flat were funny...

Only difference being in that case the worst thing that happened was you looked like an idiot when proven wrong.

When the deniers get proven wrong it will be at the cost of possibly tens of millions of lives...

Is taxing the snot out of everything 'un-green' the solution? No. But we need to get serious about changing the way we treat this planet or we will not be on it for too much longer...

BTW The London Times = Murdoch Rag for people with money. (Think NY Post with proper punctuation and posh accents)

as far as the London Times is concerned, what's wrong with the substance of the article? Its main point is based on a study that shows that most people don't consider the environment as high of a priority as they used to. It then goes on to say that people are in fact becoming "more green", not because they care about the environment but because they care about saving money.

Other than ripping on me, ripping on the London Times, and throwing out a random number that tens of millions of people could die, do you have any actual substance to say about the topic?

Stu

08-14-08, 08:41 AM

Try reading a report or four before shooting off your mouth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

Wiki provides a good digest of the report, the original weighs in at several pounds.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

Edit: This is where the 4°C number comes from. It is a generally accepted planning value.

I see you edited this to add thats where the 4 degree number comes from.

Thats the best estimate for the high scenario of surface air warming in the 21st century. It also has a range of 2.4 to 6.4C.

They could have easily thrown in the number for the low scenario of 1.8 (range of 1.1 to 1.9). Or one of the 6 SRES scenarios.

With so many different numbers being available, I don't think its unreasonable for the author to indicate which study he is using as a basis for this 4C increase in global temps.

Napoleon

08-14-08, 08:51 AM

When the deniers get proven wrong it will be at the cost of possibly tens of millions of lives...

Actually maybe billions of lives.

Stu

08-14-08, 08:54 AM

Actually maybe billions of lives.

actually maybe 0 lives.

see, i can randomly throw out numbers too!

sadams

08-14-08, 12:12 PM

I've never quite understood why the deniers can't get it.

1) Earth temps 65 million years ago - warmer than today due to higher atmospheric CO2.
2) Swamps sequester carbon as coal and oil.
3) Earth cools
4) Man mines said coal and oil and burns it combining ancient carbon with oxygen.
5) Sequestered carbon reenters atmosphere.
6) Ergo temperature will go back to 65 million years ago.

We can argue the minutia all we want but overall theory is fact.

TrueBrit

08-14-08, 12:15 PM

Stu, just to be clear, you think that global warming is a myth? Is that correct?

KLang

08-14-08, 12:22 PM

Fact: Global Climate is always changing.
Fact: The global tempurature has been increasing since the end of the last ice age.

Mans influence on the above facts? Open for discussion. Civil discussion hopefully.

JLMannin

08-14-08, 12:22 PM

From the Weitzman paper abstract:
With climate change as prototype example, this paper analyzes the implications
of structural uncertainty for the economics of low-probability high-impact catastro-
phes.

I'm having a hard time remaining interested in reading the rest of the 37 pages after reading that first sentense.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how the last ice age ended, or for that matter, how it started. I'm guessing it had something to do with either the sun, earth's rotation, cosmic rays, or the like. Once we thouroughly understand all these effects and can model past data with high accuracy, we can project these models forward and have meaningful discussions about whether anthropologic global warming exists or not.

datachicane

08-14-08, 12:33 PM

nice story.

without seeing the report and comparing it to the others, you dont know if anything was factually wrong with it.

doesnt detail whats actually wrong with D'Aleo's side of the story.

That's just the point. The developer ignored the nearly unanimous opinion amongst the geologists he contracted until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear. That last geologist's report didn't somehow make the site safe.

Shop around long enough, and you'll eventually find someone who'll tell you exactly want you want to hear, but first you'll have to convince yourself that ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of scientific opinion is somehow justifiable.
Caveat emptor.

Stu

08-14-08, 12:37 PM

Stu, just to be clear, you think that global warming is a myth? Is that correct?

Depends on the definition of Global Warming, so I will clarify.

I believe what KLang posted, that the Climate has changed throughout history and that temps have increased since the last ice age (wouldn't they have to? :D )

I do not believe that there is 100% factual evidence that states man has made an impact on global climate change. If there is an impact, how much is due to man and how much is due to nature.

I also do not believe that there is enough evidence to show that if it is created by man, that we can fix it.

I absolutely believe that programs like Kyoto, Carbon Taxes, Carbon Credits, Cap and Trade, etc, are more focused on redistributing wealth throughout the world, rather than preventing changes in our climate.

Lastly, I believe people like Al Gore, who are buying Carbon Credits to become Carbon Neutral are hypocrites. If this is such a big deal, why not have an efficient home and lifestyle, while also buying carbon offsets. Rather than just being Carbon Neutral, they could have a negative carbon footprint, making up for all the non carbon neutral humans. Carbon Neutral, sounds better for marketing though. :shakehead

Stu

08-14-08, 12:40 PM

That's just the point. The developer ignored the nearly unanimous opinion amongst the geologists he contracted until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear. That last geologist's report didn't somehow make the site safe.

Shop around long enough, and you'll eventually find someone who'll tell you exactly want you want to hear, but first you'll have to convince yourself that ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of scientific opinion is somehow justifiable.
Caveat emptor.

i got your point. it was not difficult to understand. but this still doesnt disprove D'Aleo and the scientists that agree with him.

you could also apply the same logic to the people who believe that man is responsible for global climate change. reports of biases in the IPCC report go right along with your story as well.

TrueBrit

08-14-08, 12:51 PM

Thanks for answering my question Stu.

Ankf00

08-14-08, 01:09 PM

so is this about perceived wealth redistribution, fraudulent science, smug yuppies, green nazis, or something else?

I can't keep all the faux outrage straight.

Stu

08-14-08, 01:24 PM

so is this about perceived wealth redistribution, fraudulent science, smug yuppies, green nazis, or something else?

I can't keep all the faux outrage straight.

OP was about smug yuppies. like our globe, the climate of this thread has changed.

cameraman

08-14-08, 01:28 PM

Oddly enough people such as myself who do basic research for a living take offense at being called liars by people with political axes to grind.

Stu

08-14-08, 01:34 PM

Oddly enough people such as myself who do basic research for a living take offense at being called liars by people with political axes to grind.

who called you a liar?

datachicane

08-14-08, 01:40 PM

i got your point. it was not difficult to understand. but this still doesnt disprove D'Aleo and the scientists that agree with him.

you could also apply the same logic to the people who believe that man is responsible for global climate change. reports of biases in the IPCC report go right along with your story as well.

Respectfully, you're still missing the point.

It's very rare in any complex area of scientific endeavor for anything to be proven 100% true or false, which seems to be the standard of proof that you're requiring. It simply doesn't happen.

In those instances, the (overwhelming, in this case) preponderance of qualified scientific opinion is not only a valuable indicator of the most probable model, it's often the only indicator. We ignore it at an empirically clear increased probability of being wrong.

That said, if you're invested in a particular outcome first and must shop your answers in order to support that outcome, you'll need to find a way to justify ignoring that indicator, no matter how far-fetched that justification has to be. Humans are really good at that sort of thing.

Stu

08-14-08, 02:06 PM

Respectfully, you're still missing the point.

It's very rare in any complex area of scientific endeavor for anything to be proven 100% true or false, which seems to be the standard of proof that you're requiring. It simply doesn't happen.

In those instances, the (overwhelming, in this case) preponderance of qualified scientific opinion is not only a valuable indicator of the most probable model, it's often the only indicator. We ignore it at an empirically clear increased probability of being wrong.

That said, if you're invested in a particular outcome first and must shop your answers in order to support that outcome, you'll need to find a way to justify ignoring that indicator, no matter how far-fetched that justification has to be. Humans are really good at that sort of thing.

From Roger Pielke Sr, retired professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, and senior research scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

EcoWorld: What is your criticism of the IPCC?

Pielke: Mainly the fact that the same individuals who are doing primary research into humans’ impact on the climate system are being permitted to lead the assessment of that research. Suppose a group of scientists introduced a drug they claimed could save many lives: There were side effects, of course, but the scientists claimed the drug’s benefits far outweighed its risks. If the government then asked these same scientists to form an assessment committee to evaluate their claim (and the committee consisted of colleagues of the scientists who made the original claim as well as the drug’s developers), an uproar would occur, and there would be protests. It would represent a clear conflict of interest. Yet this is what has happened with the IPCC process. To date, either few people recognize this conflict, or those that do choose to ignore it because the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.

There are also numerous scientists who do not believe in the "consensus". Enough that the theories still need to be challenged before making significant changes to our lives to fix a potentially non fixable or non existent problem.

furthermore, finding data to fit your policy seems like the IPCC's way of doing things:

Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.

STD

08-14-08, 02:42 PM

I just love the use of Bold type. :laugh:

datachicane

08-14-08, 02:46 PM

From Roger Pielke Sr, retired professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, and senior research scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Even Pielke disagrees with your conclusion, though, in favor of the preponderance of qualified opinion:

The evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).

There are also numerous scientists who do not believe in the "consensus". Enough that the theories still need to be challenged before making significant changes to our lives to fix a potentially non fixable or non existent problem.

In all honesty, Stu, we both understand that the vast preponderance of qualified scientific opinion (even the one you quoted!) is on the side of anthropogenic warming. You make clear that the relatively small number of dissenting opinions is adequate to persuade you to discount that preponderance. I submit that if the number of dissenting opinions were half what they are, you'd still find that minority compelling. Further, I submit that if even a single dissenting voice existed, you'd find that sufficient justification. That doesn't mean that that lone voice (or you, for that matter) would necessarily be wrong, but there is a clear empirical connection between the preponderance of qualified opinion and the truth.

Pointing to how undesirable the ramifications of that model are, displaying one's political baggage, or really, really wanting something to work out in a specific way, however, has no clear empirical connection to the truth.

Methanolandbrats

08-14-08, 02:46 PM

There are numerous scientists who not believe in the "consensus". Enough that the theories still need to be challenged before making significant changes to our lives to fix a potentially non fixable or non existent problem.
They are'nt "numerous". The main point is Earth Atmosphere systems do not change gradually. They change abruptly when variables reach a threshold. Think of a river channel suddenly snapping into a new configuration when a 200 year rainfall event occurs. Nobody knows for sure whether man's burning of fossil fuels will tip it to colder or warmer, could go either way. In any case once it's proven, it's too late. It's just stupid to go on pissing away fossil fuels in a wasteful manner and dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere.

cameraman

08-14-08, 02:49 PM

You go out and you measure the CO2 and note that it has been going up steadily for the last hundred+ years in lockstep with increasing human carbon usage. Suddenly you are an eco-Nazi who is out to destroy the economy. You get to be a called stone cold idiot because yesterday's high temp was two degrees below last year's high for the same day therefore global warming is a lie. It is an endless and constant you are wrong, you are making it up, you are horrible people who want to take away my Excursion.

I get the exact same crap for the biological research I'm doing now, programs canceled, money diverted and budgets decimated all to shut down any work that does not fit the current political view on how the planet & the life on it ought to function.

Basic scientific research in the country has been severely damaged over the last few years, research laboratories of all kinds are shutting down all across this country as a direct result of the constant political attacks on the basics of what science is, how science is done and, most of all, how science is interpreted.

You don't like the IPCC, carbon taxes, carbon credits, cap and trade and other political policies therefore the scientist measuring CO2 in some underfunded lab somewhere must be wrong. ********

The simple fact of the matter is this planet has a finely balanced carbon cycle that moves carbon between the air, the water, the biomass and the rocks. Humans are pumping carbon into the atmosphere at a high enough rate to tip that balance and no one can state with certainty what the end effect will be. The problem is the laws of physics demand that the climate system must react to that increase in carbon. We are blindly changing the chemistry of the atmosphere at a rate that is measurable on a daily basis. The axiom "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" fits this situation nicely. The people who are against reducing the human-generated carbon load are gambling that all the scientists' predictions are wrong and the steadily increasing carbon dioxide levels will somehow not adversely effect the climate. That is one hell of a gamble because if you lose the biosphere of this planet is screwed. Your hero D'Aleo does not have one iota of evidence that the steadily increasing CO2 level will not change the climate.

Stu

08-14-08, 03:03 PM

They are'nt "numerous". The main point is Earth Atmosphere systems do not change gradually. They change abruptly when variables reach a threshold. Think of a river channel suddenly snapping into a new configuration when a 200 year rainfall event occurs. Nobody knows for sure whether man's burning of fossil fuels will tip it to colder or warmer, could go either way. In any case once it's proven, it's too late. It's just stupid to go on pissing away fossil fuels in a wasteful manner and dumping all that carbon into the atmosphere.

never said it was smart to waste fossil fuels and dump excess carbon into the atmosphere.

programs that have been offered, like the one in the post that originally started this conversation, aren't going to solve that because other nations like china are just going to ignore it and continue to produce what they want. the market should eventually dictate cleaner energy, as clean energy produced on a mass scale will also be cheap energy.

Stu

08-14-08, 03:05 PM

Ankf00

08-14-08, 03:14 PM

no worse than your boogeyman whining

Stu

08-14-08, 03:18 PM

Even Pielke disagrees with your conclusion, though, in favor of the preponderance of qualified opinion:

In all honesty, Stu, we both understand that the vast preponderance of qualified scientific opinion (even the one you quoted!) is on the side of anthropogenic warming. You make clear that the relatively small number of dissenting opinions is adequate to persuade you to discount that preponderance. I submit that if the number of dissenting opinions were half what they are, you'd still find that minority compelling. Further, I submit that if even a single dissenting voice existed, you'd find that sufficient justification. That doesn't mean that that lone voice (or you, for that matter) would necessarily be wrong, but there is a clear empirical connection between the preponderance of qualified opinion and the truth.

Pointing to how undesirable the ramifications of that model are, displaying one's political baggage, or really, really wanting something to work out in a specific way, however, has no clear empirical connection to the truth.

i'm open to the fact that the climate could be changing in the future, im just not 100% sold on it.

but the reason this thread got kickstarted the other day wasn't because of a debate over whether global warming was real or not, it was because of an article about a policy for global taxes and global redistribution of wealth, all based upon the extreme high scenario for surface warming (ignoring all the other scenarios, some less, some more).

it just happened to take off from there, with only 1 real piece of evidence offered in the first half of the thread. the rest has been personal attacks, and random opinions

Stu

08-14-08, 03:26 PM

no worse than your boogeyman whining

yea the first post was a little whiny.

datachicane

08-14-08, 03:44 PM

i'm open to the fact that the climate could be changing in the future, im just not 100% sold on it.

You don't have to be 100% sold on it. As I stated previously, science rarely works in absolutes. You do, however, need to select the most likely alternative.

but the reason this thread got kickstarted the other day wasn't because of a debate over whether global warming was real or not, it was because of an article about a policy for global taxes and global redistribution of wealth, all based upon the extreme high scenario for surface warming (ignoring all the other scenarios, some less, some more).

Again, as I mentioned earlier, whether or not global taxes, redistribution of wealthy, global Socialism, the abolition of good beer, or any other personally abhorrent outcome is a logical consequence of a model has no bearing whatsoever on the probability of that model being true. If anything, bringing them up simply makes clear just how badly we want the truth to fall a particular way, which brings our own impartiality into question.

it just happened to take off from there, with only 1 real piece of evidence offered in the first half of the thread. the rest has been personal attacks, and random opinions If you're concerned about personal attacks, you may want to reconsider your use of terms like "green nazi", "Global Socialists with a Green Agenda", etc., etc., to characterize those who happen to agree with the preponderance of qualified opinion.

Stu

08-14-08, 03:54 PM

If you're concerned about personal attacks, you may want to reconsider your use of terms like "green nazi", "Global Socialists with a Green Agenda", etc., etc., to characterize those who happen to agree with the preponderance of qualified opinion.

I didn't think that there were people on this website that believe that global taxes were a good idea. I also did know that this socialist movement was considered the preponderance of qualified opinion. If it was, I wonder why these taxes, limits, etc, havent been passed yet?

If there are people here who believe that, then I apologize (although, if you do believe in global taxes to help the environment, wouldn't you be a global socialist with a green agenda)?

Ankf00

08-14-08, 04:01 PM

who here said anything about global taxes? what do proposed global taxes (which will be enforced by who exactly?) from people who don't matter have to do with the issue of anthropogenic warming?

when did datachicane ever address carbon caps, taxes, cap & trades or anything similar?

boogeymen almost always created by those whose interest lies primarily with the politics of it all.

Insomniac

08-14-08, 04:05 PM

So something simple like the greenhouse effect which can be easily proven in a lab in no way contributes to the warming of the earth?

Stu

08-14-08, 04:09 PM

nrc

08-14-08, 04:11 PM

I'm seeing too much politics and too many personal attacks in this thread. It won't remain open long at this pace.

datachicane

08-14-08, 04:21 PM

I didn't think that there were people on this website that believe that global taxes were a good idea. I also did know that this socialist movement was considered the preponderance of qualified opinion. If it was, I wonder why these taxes, limits, etc, havent been passed yet?

If there are people here who believe that, then I apologize (although, if you do believe in global taxes to help the environment, wouldn't you be a global socialist with a green agenda)?

I'm trying to be nice.

It doesn't matter if you believe anthropogenic global warming necessitates higher taxes, global taxation, worldwide Marxist domination, flat nasty beer, the killing of baby ducks and puppies, the abolition of all red meat and bacon in particular, ugly women, the ascendancy of Airbus, etc., etc.

It doesn't matter.

Not a bit.

Whether or not any of those things really are logical consequences (and that's an open question) has no bearing on whether or not anthropogenic global warming turns out to be real. They are significant only to the extent that our fear of them has the potential to cloud our judgment. Trotting them out displays our fears and biases, but has no impact whatsoever on the impartial analysis of the question at hand.

Personally, I think the idea of cap & trade is an ineffective and unmitigated bunch of market-fundamentalist crap promulgated only because it's relatively politically palatable and the right folks stand to make $$ from it, IMHO, of course. It, along with the other proposed political third-rail solutions you mentioned, are all preliminary attempts of varying worth to deal with the issue, but that doesn't mean they're inevitable, even if some of them happen to hit your particular political nerve.

Rather than vilify or ignore the messenger, better to find or develop a constructive response that would be palatable to you.

Stu

08-14-08, 04:32 PM

tried responding but can't do it without furthering political talk.

datachicane

08-14-08, 05:05 PM

Frankly, why this is a political topic at all escapes me, other than the fact that some folks inexplicably find it necessary to hitch their political wagon to it.

Stu

08-14-08, 05:14 PM

Frankly, why this is a political topic at all escapes me, other than the fact that some folks inexplicably find it necessary to hitch their political wagon to it.

cuz thats what the article was about. fixing the 4C increase in temps by having global taxes.

08-14-08, 09:00 PM

People that have doubts about the human effect on global warming are waiting for more info. And listening. And learning.

People that are convinced that humans have effed the planet are all done learning. There's no convincing to be done.

JMO.

Methanolandbrats

08-14-08, 09:29 PM

There is no doubt that releasing a massive amount of carbon in a few centuries when it took millions of years to trap it will have a huge impact on the oceanic and atmospheric circulations. What exactly the new regime will be once a threshold is crossed is unsure. That is why eliminating waste and mindless consumption while working on alternative energy is important.

08-14-08, 10:31 PM

nrc

08-15-08, 12:28 AM

cuz thats what the article was about. fixing the 4C increase in temps by having global taxes.
If you believed that it was a political topic to begin with then you never should have posted it.

Stu

08-15-08, 09:15 AM

That is why eliminating waste and mindless consumption while working on alternative energy is important.

i think everyone except the chinese would agree with you on that.

Methanolandbrats

08-15-08, 10:19 AM

i think everyone except the chinese would agree with you on that. How many people live in the United States and how much of the World's petroleum production do they use?

Stu

08-15-08, 11:32 AM

How many people live in the United States and how much of the World's petroleum production do they use?

what does the proportion of the world's petroleum production have to do with "eliminating waste and mindless consumption while working on alternative energy"

is it wasteful for diesel fuel to be used to transport food and goods across country?

is it wasteful for a person to drive his car to work, rather than taking slower options such as a bus, so he/she can get home earlier to spend time with their family? or to be able to spend more time at work, being productive, rather than sitting next to a bum on the bus.

so on and so on.

with prices the way they have been due to short supply over the last few years, working to eliminate mindless consumption is just common sense. working on alternative energy that can save people money is the smart thing to do.

just because we consume a lot of resources (because we are a large country with an infrastructure built on cheap energy), doesnt mean we are being wasteful. it doesnt mean that people here don't want to fix things.

cameraman

08-15-08, 12:37 PM

i think everyone except the chinese would agree with you on that.

What country is the largest producer of photovoltaic cells?

datachicane

08-15-08, 01:20 PM

i think everyone except the chinese would agree with you on that.

Are you arguing that we should model our policies on what the Chinese do?
:saywhat:

chop456

08-15-08, 01:28 PM

rather than sitting next to a bum on the bus.

Spoken like someone that's never actually ridden a bus.

Stu

08-16-08, 10:59 AM

Spoken like someone that's never actually ridden a bus.

1. I ride the bus. Take that or the rapid to work (mainly cuz its included in cost of tuition)

2. There are certain bus lines in Cleveland that you DO NOT want to ride. Im sure that goes for any major city.

Stu

08-16-08, 11:00 AM

Are you arguing that we should model our policies on what the Chinese do?
:saywhat:

no :confused:

Stu

08-16-08, 11:09 AM

i think everyone except the chinese would agree with you on that.

correction, china believes it too if it means they can make money off of it.

devilmaster

08-16-08, 11:55 AM

sheeesssssh. :shakehead

This is a cute little debate and all, but what gets lost in this thread of 'disproving the other guy' is the simple fact that most people out there won't change their habits until it truly hits them in the pocketbook and then only if it hits them hard enough....

A couple weeks back, I was sitting in a Costco (sam's club, same thing) cafeteria, unfortunately trying to digest what they offer for caf food. And I sat there and people watched - one of my all time favorite sports btw.

With gas at an all time record high, I watched people check out and i looked at what they walked out with. You wouldn't know there was any type of 'crisis' with some of the purchases I saw. Hell, some guy went to a costco to buy a couple bags of milk - and thats it.

Thats when it truly hit me. It doesn't matter that we may be destroying the planet. It doesn't matter what effect, if any, humans have on climate change. As long as the general population doesn't want to change - then debates like this thread are meaningless.

As long as guy can pay his 50 dollar annual membership fee so he can drive that extra few miles and waste a couple extra bucks on gas to a costco so he can run in at any time and save about 75 cents on milk, then everything is just hunky-dory thank you very much.

Stu

08-16-08, 12:49 PM

devilmaster, to take it a step farther. how about those people who drive an extra 10 miles to get to sams club or costco just to save 4 cents a gallon?

devilmaster

08-16-08, 01:21 PM

take it a step further than that (and i'm not telling anyone how to live their life, btw) - but how much useless gear is plugged into your own home?

When I wanted some extra cash i took a good hard look at what my power and utilities consumption was because I and I alone wanted to save money. I'm hardly home, so I unplugged everything I don't use on a regular basis. TV - i need to plug it in to watch it. Microwave, same deal. I can pretty much read off everything that is plugged in at my house at any one moment. i only use water when I truly need it - I 'pusser' shower (turn the water off while lathering - on ship you were forced to do that due to freshwater restraints - it means the water is on during a shower for about 45 seconds total.) I plan out all my shopping so i'm not making repeated trips.

Does that mean I have a smaller carbon footprint? I guess - but it isn't the reason why i'm doing it. I live this way because I have made a decision to save my money. And i submit most people out there would only change for the money they want to save. Its a personal choice.

The vast new organic Whole Foods Store on Kensington High Street in London is so quiet you can hear the cheese breathe in the specially designed glass room. Meanwhile the demand for takeaway pizzas and McDonald's has risen as people find the cheapest way to eat.

That paragraph in that article makes absolutely no sense - and so should I believe it to be gospel? Don't think so.

nrc

08-16-08, 01:43 PM

I'm hardly home, so I unplugged everything I don't use on a regular basis.

Thanks for spending a little of your time at home with your computer plugged in at Off Camber (assuming you're not on a wireless connection in the Costco cafeteria). We don't see enough of you around here these days.

Andrew Longman

08-16-08, 02:14 PM

Related link I read this morning while trainspotting with the T Man (Consistent with the article, trainspotting is free :gomer:)

Thought of you http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2008/08/08/the-end-of-credit-card-consumerism.html

And D master this article agrees with you, cooking at home it says has increased since 2001

cameraman

08-16-08, 03:09 PM

I'm hardly home, so I unplugged everything I don't use on a regular basis. TV - i need to plug it in to watch it.

I hate this about the new electronics. The satellite receivers that are like little toaster ovens even when they are turned "off". The AppleTV is one of the worst examples, you can fry an egg on the silly thing when it is "asleep":irked:

And they really react poorly to being unplugged.:shakehead

oddlycalm

08-16-08, 09:08 PM

Methanolandbrats

08-16-08, 10:19 PM

I hate this about the new electronics. The satellite receivers that are like little toaster ovens even when they are turned "off". The AppleTV is one of the worst examples, you can fry an egg on the silly thing when it is "asleep":irked:

And they really react poorly to being unplugged.:shakehead Ya, I've got three computers, three printers, a scanner, a film scanner, an external DVD burner, several external hard drives, a modem and a router that are on 24/7. They all go to "sleep", but I have no idea how much power they use when napping. I tried shutting it all down, but it's such a PIA to fire it back up again and one of the printers consumes expensive ink when turned on. I often work till 11:30 and get up at 5:30 and I have enough trouble sparking up a pot of coffee and getting my eyes open so I don't need the agravation of booting everything up again. Not very green, but at least I drive a diesel car, so that makes up for it, I guess. :confused:

devilmaster

08-17-08, 12:50 AM

Thanks for spending a little of your time at home with your computer plugged in at Off Camber (assuming you're not on a wireless connection in the Costco cafeteria). We don't see enough of you around here these days.

:laugh: I do admit that my computer setup is the achilles heel in my less power consumption plan....

As for not being around, I work about 70 hrs a week, not making alot of money for what I do, but with the belief that what i'm learning is more valuable than money... i think. :\

And thankfully for everyone involved - OC doesn't mobile for my cell very well. ;)

Stu

08-17-08, 08:19 AM

When I wanted some extra cash i took a good hard look at what my power and utilities consumption was because I and I alone wanted to save money.

have you calculated how much you have saved?

Insomniac

08-17-08, 10:26 AM

Ya, I've got three computers, three printers, a scanner, a film scanner, an external DVD burner, several external hard drives, a modem and a router that are on 24/7. They all go to "sleep", but I have no idea how much power they use when napping. I tried shutting it all down, but it's such a PIA to fire it back up again and one of the printers consumes expensive ink when turned on. I often work till 11:30 and get up at 5:30 and I have enough trouble sparking up a pot of coffee and getting my eyes open so I don't need the agravation of booting everything up again. Not very green, but at least I drive a diesel car, so that makes up for it, I guess. :confused:

Just think how much energy MS could help the world conserve if their OS didn't take a week to boot up. :)

Also, you can put your computer to use when you're not using it with things like:

Folding@home (http://folding.stanford.edu/)
SETI@home (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/)
Rosetta@home (http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/)

Edit 1: I should add that these things would likely add to your power consumption. I can't say how much, but a mostly idle CPU would become a mostly in use CPU. It would really depend on the model of your CPU.

Edit 2: Using some specifications, recent Intel CPUs would use 40-50 KWH/month more between Idle and 100% CPU utilization. But that is 24x7.

Methanolandbrats

08-17-08, 10:37 AM

Just think how much energy MS could help the world conserve if their OS didn't take a week to boot up. :)

Also, you can put your computer to use when you're not using it with things like:

Folding@home (http://folding.stanford.edu/)
SETI@home (http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/)
Rosetta@home (http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/)

I should add that these things would likely add to your power consumption. I can't say how much, but a mostly idle CPU would become a mostly in use CPU. It would really depend on the model of your CPU.
I have my virus sweeps, updates, backups and file conversions run while I'm asleep, so they at least do something.

Insomniac

08-17-08, 10:43 AM

I have my virus sweeps, updates, backups and file conversions run while I'm asleep, so they at least do something.

I do that as well. I also try and do video downloads over night as well.

Stu

09-25-08, 09:24 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/ethicalliving.recycling

People who believe they have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as some of the main culprits behind global warming, says a team of researchers, who claim that many ideas about sustainable living are a myth.

According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.

Only a very small number of citizens matched their eco-friendly behaviour at home by refusing to fly abroad, Barr told a climate change conference at Exeter University yesterday.

datachicane

09-25-08, 10:02 AM

According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

That has to be the single most bogus argument I've ever heard.
Consider this- would those same folks still fly even if they weren't recycling and saving energy at home? If so, doesn't their recycling and saving energy at home still result in a net reduction of emissions?

The authors (researchers? :saywhat:) have fallen victim to a pair of logical fallcies here, both false dilemma and false cause (*** hoc ergo propter hoc). The argument could only be compelling if folks who never save energy at home or recycle never flew, either, which would show that the correlation between flying and saving energy was more than circumstantial.
Correlation does not prove causation.

BTW, I can't believe the forum censored '*** hoc ergo propter hoc'. I therefore conclude that our erstwhile hosts are part of an anti-Latin conspiracy. Hey, that's *** hoc ergo propter hoc, too! :tony: