The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

If there's anything that has become sensationalist and market oriented nowadays, its the scientific community.

Right... It's not 'free market politics' that are sensationalist and market oriented; it's the people who dedicated their lives to knowledge about life on Earth who are out to get you. I mean, when I think of a smooth talker with a hidden agenda that can sell anything I think of a science professor. Come on. That is basically the same argument conservatives have been using to fight science throughout history. It's especially outrageous because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the nature of science and the intentions of scientists.

[LordKelvin]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Right... It's not 'free market politics' that are sensationalist and market oriented; it's the people who dedicated their lives to knowledge about life on Earth who are out to get you. I mean, when I think of a smooth talker with a hidden agenda that can sell anything I think of a science professor. Come on. That is basically the same argument conservatives have been using to fight science throughout history. It's especially outrageous because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the nature of science and the intentions of scientists.

Ok, first off, I never said that the media, or the free market politicians AREN'T sensationalist. Second, I wasn't referring to all scientists... there's just been several that have jumped on the global warming bandwagon because that's the politically correct thing to do. I have great respect for science and research. What I don't have respect for are those that take advantage of the authority this gives them. I hate being PC, and despise those that make it their policy to only say things that are PC.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

Second, I wasn't referring to all scientists... there's just been several that have jumped on the global warming bandwagon because that's the politically correct thing to do.

And why do you even know about those exceptional scientists? Who told you about them? Why don't you know about the hundreds or thousands of less sensational scientists and their view points?

[LordKelvin]

No one 'told' me about them. The language they use gives them away. When their findings are couched in language like "it may suggest", "there is a possible correlation", "the data suggests", "studies show", etc, they are really saying that they don't have conclusive evidence, but will assume it means that their hypothesis is correct. That's how I know about these 'scientists'.

I mean, there's a positive correlation between the number of control points I've captured over time in BF 2142 and the increase in price of gasoline over time. Does that make them related?

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Originally Posted by LordKelvin

No one 'told' me about them. The language they use gives them away. When their findings are couched in language like "it may suggest", "there is a possible correlation", "the data suggests", "studies show", etc, they are really saying that they don't have conclusive evidence, but will assume it means that their hypothesis is correct. That's how I know about these 'scientists'.

I mean, there's a positive correlation between the number of control points I've captured over time in BF 2142 and the increase in price of gasoline over time. Does that make them related?

Ok, can you name them? Tell me what their area of study is? Who they work for? What was you listening to, reading, watching when you heard the words of the scientists? Was you reading a scientific journal? Watching the evening news? Listening to a pod cast by a couple of kids?

That language of the scientists you find so offensive, do you really understand it? How many scientific papers have you actually, trustfully, read? You realize that that those types of phrases are very, very common. You realize that it is extremely, and I mean extremely, rare a scientific study can say anything conclusively?

[LordKelvin]

Well then, when you find conclusive proof of global warming, come tell me.

I will not argue with you over this. There are those that practice bad science. I do not like professionals that post inconclusive results. When they have found something of interest, then they should share it with us. Otherwise, they should spare the rest of us from inconclusive data that can be twisted one way or another.

[ScratchMonkey]

Assuming climate change is real, what's the real cost of mitigating it? Do we all need to give up our electricity-guzzling game computers? (Gamers drive the Hummers of home computers.)

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by ScratchMonkey

Assuming climate change is real, what's the real cost of mitigating it? Do we all need to give up our electricity-guzzling game computers? (Gamers drive the Hummers of home computers.)

The costs of mitigating C02 emissions are actually profits. Oh, and we might not actually destroy ourselves, which is a pretty good thing too. There's been a lot of big studies done recently about the financial costs of action/inaction. I'll post some later.

NY Times on Bush's handling of the EPA report on greenhouse gases as pollutants (from recent article):

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that [Supreme Court} order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. "That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work."

[ScratchMonkey]

So how do I get in on all that profit that's gonna come out of mitigation? Do I have to be like a smog inspection station that profits from only allowing a narrow bit of technology to solve the problem, while discouraging potentially better alternatives?

[leejo]

Originally Posted by bkelly

We can talk about your concern of the other when we get back to it.

bkelly

Just curious, who made you the boss of this thread? Still waiting on some numbers...

[leejo]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

Right... It's not 'free market politics' that are sensationalist and market oriented; it's the people who dedicated their lives to knowledge about life on Earth who are out to get you. I mean, when I think of a smooth talker with a hidden agenda that can sell anything I think of a science professor. Come on. That is basically the same argument conservatives have been using to fight science throughout history. It's especially outrageous because it shows a clear misunderstanding of the nature of science and the intentions of scientists.

Just because you're a "scientist" doesn't mean you aren't a fool. It doesn't even mean you're a good scientist. And there's a very old saying about the path to hell and good intentions. You can shove your intentions. Everyone but the most twisted have the same intentions. Creating a plan that will work and that achieves good intentions is a lot more tricky, Mr. Scientist.

[leejo]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

The costs of mitigating C02 emissions are actually profits. Oh, and we might not actually destroy ourselves, which is a pretty good thing too. There's been a lot of big studies done recently about the financial costs of action/inaction. I'll post some later.

NY Times on Bush's handling of the EPA report on greenhouse gases as pollutants (from recent article):

One of the "profits" of mitigating CO2 emissions is biofuels. Just an example, but one that makes it clear that yes there is a profit for some. A great cost for others. Try to convince the angry mob demanding food that this is really a good thing...for "us"!

[Kerostasis]

The line of logic in Global Warming hasn't changed much over the years, but you don't always hear all the parts. It sorta goes like this:

[1] The earth is warming
[2] Humans are the primary cause of this warming
[3] The inevitable result of continued warming is catastrophic climate change, which will destroy our civilization
[4] If you allow us to control your life, we can prevent [3].

And yes, there's a great deal of profit to be made for the "us" in [4], but the "you" people kinda get left out in the cold. Sometimes literally.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

The line of logic in Global Warming hasn't changed much over the years, but you don't always hear all the parts. It sorta goes like this:

[1] The earth is warming
[2] Humans are the primary cause of this warming
[3] The inevitable result of continued warming is catastrophic climate change, which will destroy our civilization
[4] If you allow us to control your life, we can prevent [3].

And yes, there's a great deal of profit to be made for the "us" in [4], but the "you" people kinda get left out in the cold. Sometimes literally.

You do realize that the "us" that "controls" life, i.e. the government, is the American people, right? You seem afraid of or completely opposed to our democracy--which by the way only truly is democracy if the public have honest and uncensored information to make decisions upon; which is certainty not the case with issues about science and the environment, thanks to your ideological masters on the right.

Science doesn't operate on logic by the way. Those are two rather different intellectual disciplines. There is not so much an argument for global warming, as there is an overwhelming amount of data to support the scientific theory. Arguments are for politics and philosophy, not science.

[Kerostasis]

And who exactly is opposed to democracy here? Try asking the people if they want to ban Incandescent lightbulbs. Try asking the people if they want to ban offshore oil drilling. Try asking the people if they want to pay extra to have ethanol added to their gas, and then pay extra again at the grocery store now that they're burning food. No, I've got no problem with democracy at all. What I have a problem with is politicians who use the threat of global cataclysm to browbeat people into standing by while the politicians enact more government controls on our lives.

As to your second point: Of course the Science doesn't make point 4. Science doesn't tell us how to live, it simply explains things. However, the people who try to sell that science to the public are quite frequently interested in point 4, often more so than the actual science involved.