This Is Horrible [Archive]

Tontoe

06-19-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by AR81
You bet hiding facts and studies about pollution must be part of the fight on terror. Terrorists might know that pollution is a weakness in USA and they would try to install factories that pollute and offer unsafe working conditions to make US citizens to live a hell, under the mask of generating employment... Terrorists might end up polluting so much that no one would trade in USA for no one likes to install a store or a tourism business near a polluted place... So it is better to enjoy national smog and US pollution. At least you'd feel a sense of patriotism in the poisoned waters and the big gray haze of US oil. At least it won't be terrorist or arab smog.:haha:

You've got it all wrong. If terrorists were to discover how to end US environmental problems, it would be a disaster. They could clean up our ecosystem. People would spend more time outside. If a terrorist attack came, we'd all be swimming in a pond and not prepared to hose down the fire. All our defenses would fail. Consider another thing, the smog around LA creates an opaque wall. Were the environement clean, evil men could see where they were driving their plane/ truckbomb. One can only imagine the horror caused by allowing such irresponsible people, like the EPA, to report accuratly on the planets ecological situation. Support Bush, for only he can protect us. Remember kids: If you recycle, the terrorists win.

Tontoe

06-19-2003, 12:09 PM

Uber_olafsun

06-19-2003, 12:21 PM

Wormboy

06-19-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by ductonius
There is little to no evidence that CO2 pollution or any other causes an increase in global temperature. Knowing that, it is irresponsible to spread scaremongering information about the effects of climate change caused by pollution.

Although the authors of the report in the EPA may beleive the two (climate change and pollution) are linked, it has not been proved in any sense of the word. Therefore, removing those paragraphs is not only not irresponsible, but prudent.

Wrong. The studies pretty clearly indicate that 1) climate change is clearly happening, and has been a very recent event (and is accelerating in recent decades) and 2) That far and away the most likely candidate is CO2 emissions. Thus, there is quite a bit of "evidence" (your word) supporting the model of climate change because of human industrial activity.

"Proved" (your word) is much harder. That there has been climate change over the last 100 years, and that it is accelerating exponentially over the last 20 years, has been proven. It's source is not proven, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports the model that it is human-based CO2 emissions. This goes far beyond parsimony--there are just no other plausible sources.

I've been following this issue in the top science journals in the world (Nature and Science) for several years, and the overwhelming majority of climatologists agree with this model. The controversy among them is not whether it is happening, but how fast and how bad it will get.

Mind you, I am not a climatologist, and don't understand the details of the actual articles (just like I don't understand the math in the cosmogony articles, and physicists and climatologists don't understand the jargon in the molecular bio articles I read). But I can certainly take the pulse of a field, and Nature and Science are both very good at having reviews and news articles that break the science and general opinion in the field down so that non-specialists can understand. My judgement is that the fact of global warming is as well established as HIV as the causative agent for AIDS. The actual source is not as well proven, but like I said, since there is no plausible contender to CO2 emissions, emissions wins by default. Plus, there's a lot of evidence that directly supports CO2

So unless you plan on invoking some sort of widespread conspiracy among climatologists and journal editors, global warming is a fact, and it's cause is pretty much unassailable. Please note the line in the NYT article where the Bush administration replaced references to convincing studies (not editorials mind you) with a "study" by an industry-funded group that finds no change. Funny eh? Well, the tobacco industry published such false studies for decades in the face of overwhelming evidence. Similarly, many people pointed to the tobacco industry funded studies as evidence that tobacco was non-carcinogenic and non-addictive. :rolleyes: Why have the best scientific research community in the world and then rely on researcher whose lifeblood is a specific industry with a huge agenda?

Denying global warming and its human cause is no more responsible and no more supportable than denying the effects tobacco. But hey, you are the guy who says that evolution is bogus, when there's more scientific evidence supporting evolution than any other concept in science. So we should believe your claim over the great science done by the world's experts? Riiiight

Wormboy

06-19-2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Phobas
How much did the oil companies contribute to his election campaign?

The energy industry (almost entirely petroleum) was the single largest contributing class to the Bush campaign. Also, the meetings drafting the Bush admin energy policy were attended only by the energy industry, and not by other vested groups. The vast wealth of the Bush family is primarily in petroleum. And finally, W himself ran an oil company (and ruined it, BTW), and Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the biggest petroleum infrastructure companies around. Many Bush admin appointees are former petroleum industry execs.

Well, if we had any doubt that Bush would readily lie to the public (i.e. about the Iraq war) those doubts have been dispelled. Let's see, Clinton lied about *******s, and he was impeached. BUsh lied about facts leading to war, and about Global Warming, which affects the well-being of every person in the world. What punishment would be appropriate for Bush? Conviction for treason?

Phobas

06-19-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Phobas - I think I misread your post. I thought you were saying something like you disagreed with climate change or whatever. I just reread your post and saw otherwise.

As far as campaign contributions are concerned, that's not the real motivation Bush has. His family and many close friends are knee deep in oil. Ditto for the vice president who used to be the CEO of an oil field equipment manufacturer (Haliburton (sp?)). He has a great big fat CONFLICT OF INTEREST when it comes to Environmental Policy.

Sorry should write more clearly,
I think its stupid to make a comprehensive review and then alter/downplay the bits you don't like or the bits your financers don't like.

A comprehensive review should be just that comprehensive

Uber_olafsun

06-19-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
The energy industry (almost entirely petroleum) was the single largest contributing class to the Bush campaign. Also, the meetings drafting the Bush admin energy policy were attended only by the energy industry, and not by other vested groups. The vast wealth of the Bush family is primarily in petroleum. And finally, W himself ran an oil company (and ruined it, BTW), and Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, the biggest petroleum infrastructure companies around. Many Bush admin appointees are former petroleum industry execs.

Well, if we had any doubt that Bush would readily lie to the public (i.e. about the Iraq war) those doubts have been dispelled. Let's see, Clinton lied about *******s, and he was impeached. BUsh lied about facts leading to war, and about Global Warming, which affects the well-being of every person in the world. What punishment would be appropriate for Bush? Conviction for treason?

You know according to some people on here you are now an Anti-American for questioning the President. From the rest of us Thank you, Thank you very much.

AR81

06-19-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Tontoe
You've got it all wrong. If terrorists were to discover how to end US environmental problems, it would be a disaster. They could clean up our ecosystem. People would spend more time outside. If a terrorist attack came, we'd all be swimming in a pond and not prepared to hose down the fire. All our defenses would fail. Consider another thing, the smog around LA creates an opaque wall. Were the environement clean, evil men could see where they were driving their plane/ truckbomb. One can only imagine the horror caused by allowing such irresponsible people, like the EPA, to report accuratly on the planets ecological situation. Support Bush, for only he can protect us. Remember kids: If you recycle, the terrorists win.
Oh! I see that now!!
A cloud of smog is a secret defense against terrorists hijacking planes. Since commercial planes don't have all-weather instruments to spot buildings, they would fail an attempt to crash into a building due to navigational problems.:eek:

May be they are learning from Mexico DF. That city already has the natural smog defense against terrorists.

Having a clean country means that US citizens would enjoy such a fresh air that they will forget about war on terror. Also, polluted air makes twilights to look more colorful, basically more intense orange color, a reminder of orange alert status.

A hole in the ozone is likely to turn US citizens into mutants, basically X-Men. Since X-Men are superheroes, not having that ozone hole would mean less superpowers to fight terror.

homercles

06-19-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
Wrong. The studies pretty clearly indicate that 1) climate change is clearly happening, and has been a very recent event (and is accelerating in recent decades) and 2) That far and away the most likely candidate is CO2 emissions. Thus, there is quite a bit of "evidence" (your word) supporting the model of climate change because of human industrial activity.

Quick chime in here, i read something recently that actually found that the earth was hotter in the past (within 3000 years, iirc) than it is now, or is projected to get based on greenhouse gasses. Totally contrary to current opinion. The source was certainly reliable and respected also. Made me question the claims that the climate is warming. *Ok, now im off to find the reference.....*

Chaloobi

06-19-2003, 02:33 PM

Still, whether or not Climate Change is caused by human activity is not the point. It is irresponsible and even criminal to take what is represtented as an objective best-science based report and secretly alter it to suit a political agenda.

The Holy One

06-19-2003, 03:14 PM

Just blaim Iran then invade them, one more problem solved. :rolleyes: :p

clokwerk1945

06-19-2003, 03:45 PM

This is exactly what bothers me about the government. They love to misrepresent the truth if not outright lie to us because we don't "need" to know better. It happens on both sides to, Clinton was a liar, so Is Bush, so are the Presidents from decades past. When are we going to get an honest man into office??? Or will we be like Diogenes? I support the truth.

http://home.mindspring.com/~clokwerk/attog

Invisible

06-19-2003, 04:05 PM

I'm amazed you can actually THINK about the government. I just wrote a second math exam for grade 11 and it's the only thing I'm thinking about right now. I'm just hoping I passed. :) Actually, I think I did. Now I only have grade 12 math to do. :) Yoohooo!!!!

(I have other courses to do but the math was what had me really worried.)

AR81

06-19-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Still, whether or not Climate Change is caused by human activity is not the point. It is irresponsible and even criminal to take what is represtented as an objective best-science based report and secretly alter it to suit a political agenda. Don't worry, if changing the document causes more tornados and pollution that would scare commerce and tourism, the economical effects of preserving agents of pollution will be noticeable.

It is not a matter of saving whales or bald eagles. It is not a matter of preserving health of the US citizens who are discardable for companies. Preserving environment is a matter of preserving trading, if you want it in hard numbers. I bet you would hate to install your store or tourism business near a garbage processor, let alone a source of pollution. Same happens in real world.

Preserve pollution and destroy economy, or preserve economy and reduce pollution1. It is a simple choice.

Chaloobi

06-19-2003, 04:47 PM

AR81 = Nuts :bulb:

boardjapan02

06-19-2003, 05:14 PM

ok ok ok you people have it ALL WRONG! if you look more in depth to the recent reports, then you'll see that he's ACTUALLY agreeing with them, in a roundabout sort of way, because if you look at the effects of subtleness in his words--- it makes perfect sense... take 9.11 for example! but then if he keeps trusting his advisors then maybe he should just take a closer look at those that-technically, cant be seen by the media that is,,, yeah you have to look deeper, stop being so damn shallow and looking at surface issues! also, for one thing, if you look at the recent wars you will see an impending pattern,
i'll leave it up to you to find the complicated pattern... if you can:rolleyes:

AR81

06-19-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
AR81 = Nuts :bulb:

Nuts?:eek:

If you pollute, you change weather. A heated atmosphere is likely to be more violent because there is more energy. It means more tornados, more hurricanes, more everything that means a natural disaster.

Let's guess you pollute a beach and tons of fish die due to oil leak... who cares. Fishers will have to fish elsewhere, increasing costs and risks to go there, if oil entered the bodies of fish and you eat this, you could get poisoned. Beach hotels will suffer, restaurants will suffer due to lack of people in the hotel, craftsmen will suffer, cab drivers will suffer, airlines will suffer due to lack of passegers, because no one would like to swim in a sea covered with oil.

Let's guess you install a factory that produces chlorine and suddenly you have a gas leak. Unless you are far away from it you'll beath poisonous gas. Let's imagine you have a store. Upon report of an emergency, no one will go to your store to buy during that day.

Let's guess you produce "smoke" with your factory. Vegetation in the nearby will die. You can't have your cows there. You can't have a house there if you want fresh air. The longer you life from the factory, the more fuel you'll have to spend, so there is more smog you will breath sooner or later.

Let's guess chemicals are thrown into the river. The other guy who offered a good swimming in the pond that is downstream will have to look for anotehr business. Else he would have people swimming with burned skin due to chemicals.

If you had many companies working in tourism around a waterfall, they wil have to look for another business. A stinking brown waterfall is not appealing.

If you throw organic garbage thrown instead of chemicals,you have a perfect field for bacteria to reproduce. Therefore you'd have plagues and diseases, so you better live far away.

If you cut trees, rain could bring inclined terrains unstable, because roots aren't keeping land very tight. If your house is there you better move. If terrains are in the mountain and your house is downhill, you better watch out for an avalanche could cover your house.

Also, if the avalanche goes using the river, all towns placed in the sides of the river will be flooded.

So if you pollute, you have better tornados, better floods and avalanches, better pollution to breath, no trading, no population around polluted areas, no tourism. So land value is expected to drop, so other industries that pollute might like to be installed there.

USA would become the harbor for the world pollution if other countries start to enforce environmental policies.

It looks more apocalyptic than anything else.

However, if the business is to be harbor of all pollution in the world, they are doing a good job.

ductonius

06-19-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
Wrong. The studies pretty clearly indicate that 1) climate change is clearly happening, and has been a very recent event(and is accelerating in recent decades) and

Wrong, climate change is not a recente event, it has been hapening for millions upon milions of years. Yes, even before you were born.

In fact, the world used to be alot colder, ice caps several kilometers thick and such.

And "accelerating"? You mean after it decelerated in the sixties and the world was concerned about global cooling?

Originally posted by Wormboy
(and is accelerating in recent decades) and 2) That far and away the most likely candidate is CO2 emissions. Thus, there is quite a bit of "evidence" (your word) supporting the model of climate change because of human industrial activity.

There is, of cource "evidence". But what qualifies for evidence is up to debate. Many environmentalists would like us have to believe that a graph, conveniently leaving out the dips in temperature that happened earlier in teh centurey, showing increasing temperature and one showing increasing CO2 are evidence enough.

But they arnt. Correlation does not equal causation.

Originally posted by Wormboy
"Proved" (your word) is much harder. That there has been climate change over the last 100 years, and that it is accelerating exponentially over the last 20 years, has been proven.

There has also been climate change over the previous 100 years 1700-1800. Napoleon failed to defeate Russia becasue of a decade long cold snap in the global climate.

And I enterly disagree that it has been proven that it has increased exponentially. From what I've seen, thats not the case. A bunch of graphs showing a line going off into the future is not what I call proven.

Originally posted by Wormboy
It's source is not proven, but the evidence overwhelmingly supports the model that it is human-based CO2 emissions. This goes far beyond parsimony--there are just no other plausible sources.

LMFAO. "No other plausable source" he says.

There are dozens of plausable sources available, its just that the greenies have latched onto CO2 and wont let it go, mostly becaue its one of the only things some poeple beleive we have control over.

Its the equivalent of the drunk looking under the lamp post for his keys becaue the light is brighter, even though he lost them in the bar.

Originally posted by Wormboy
I've been following this issue in the top science journals in the world

What a coincidence, so have I. And I see none of what you have.

Originally posted by Wormboy
The controversy among them is not whether it is happening, but how fast and how bad it will get.

Oh, climate change is happeneing, thats not the issue. Its whether we are casuing it that is the issue.

There may be debate over how fast its going to be, but the issue of whether we're the cause is far from decided.

Originally posted by Wormboy
My judgement is that the fact of global warming is as well established as HIV as the causative agent for AIDS.

Global warming is happenig, sure, you can have that.

But are we the cause? Having taken climatology (under geography in uni), I say "nay".

Originally posted by Wormboy

The actual source is not as well proven, but like I said, since there is no plausible contender to CO2 emissions, emissions wins by default. Plus, there's a lot of evidence that directly supports CO2

LMFAO again. "Emissions wins by default." Yeah, lets look under the streetlamp for our keys becuae none of the lights in the bar are contenders for finding them. Theres also a lot of evidence that shows that bright lights are easier to find keys under.

Really, the only reason people harp abot CO2 is because it comes out of cars.

Originally posted by Wormboy
Denying global warming and its human cause is no more responsible and no more supportable than denying the effects tobacco.

Man, you sure are a funny guy. First you call up some non-evidence. Argue like I dont think global warming is happening, and then yo conclude that global warming must be human caused. Actually, thats pretty much the same reasoning most of the environmentalists use.

Originally posted by Wormboy

But hey, you are the guy who says that evolution is bogus, when there's more scientific evidence supporting evolution than any other concept in science.

Never have I said that evolution was bogus.

You really need to stop trying to poision the well. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)

Dreadnaught

06-19-2003, 08:00 PM

The EPA seems to disagree with you, ductonius.

Wormboy

06-19-2003, 08:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ductonius
Wrong, climate change is not a recente event, it has been hapening for millions upon milions of years. Yes, even before you were born.

In fact, the world used to be alot colder, ice caps several kilometers thick and such.

And "accelerating"? You mean after it decelerated in the sixties and the world was concerned about global cooling?

Nice of you to intentionally distort my meaning that way. We both know that climate change is part of the natural cycle of the earth. It's just that we've had a radical upward swing recently, and far and away the best explanation is CO2 emissions. You can massage it however you want to fit what I suspect is your agenda. That won't change what it is.

You really need to stop trying to poision the well. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html)

Oh lookie! Ductonius has found something to toss at everybody who disagrees with him! Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Nobody listened to him when the real **** hit the fan, because he had been yelling about red herrings before. I recommend you think about that, and save your "poisoning the well" for when somebody actually does it.

Wormboy

06-19-2003, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
The EPA seems to disagree with you, ductonius.

They sure did, even though the EPA head is a Bush appointee and is slightly right of center. The president was the one who dictated to the EPA that they replace perfectly good studies with energy industry-backed "studies".

ductonius

06-19-2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
The EPA seems to disagree with you, ductonius.

Argument from authority = meaningless

boardjapan02

06-19-2003, 09:39 PM

im pretty sure someone already said this, but yeah, although weather change/climate change is a natural thing, our machines are speeding it on to an abnormal rate...???

ductonius

06-19-2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
Nice of you to intentionally distort my meaning that way.

Not at all. You said "climate change... is a very recent event".

Ummm....no, no it isnt. If by "climate change" you mean, "the earth getting temporaraly hotter", then, yes, that has happened recently, but that also hapened many times in teh past as well.

Its not an intentional distortion its sloppy useage of language on your part.

Originally posted by Wormboy
We both know that climate change is part of the natural cycle of the earth. It's just that we've had a radical upward swing recently, and far and away the best explanation is CO2 emissions.

You can massage it however you want to fit what I suspect is your agenda. That won't change what it is

Not at all. The best explanation is that the earth is natually getting hotter than it was before irrespective of our CO2 emmissions.

Oh, and in your words :"You can massage it however you want to fit what I suspect is your agenda. That won't change what it is."

Originally posted by Wormboy
Oh lookie! Ductonius has found something to toss at everybody who disagrees with him! Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf? Nobody listened to him when the real **** hit the fan, because he had been yelling about red herrings before. I recommend you think about that, and save your "poisoning the well" for when somebody actually does it.

Somebody has actually done it, you, namely.

You present unfavorable inforation, true or false - that I have an "agenda", might "invoke some sort of conspiracy" - to discredit me and my argument. You are attempting to cast a bad light on me personally in place of actually dealing with what I have to say.

That is the definitoin of "poisioning the well."

Also notice that the only person who I have said it to is you, not "everybody who disagrees with [me]". In fact, I have found most other responses to be quite civilized and formal, but the constant slander in your messages is simply intolerable.

Chaloobi

06-19-2003, 10:54 PM

Climate change climate change climate change - it is, it isn't, it's us, it's the cows, its some mysterious cycle, it'll cost too much to stop, blah, blah, blah....

This isn't about climate change. This is about suppressing objective scientific findings to promote a political agenda. This is about misleading the public - telling lies - to serve very narrow interests. It's about corruption and undermining democracy in America.

Why do you all insist on debating whether climate change is human driven or not? Even if it's NOT human driven, the Bush Administration is STILL LYING TO THE PUBLIC!

AR81

06-20-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by ductonius
Argument from authority = meaningless It's called phalacy of authority. A statement is not true because an authority says that. Else, earth should be flat.

Wormboy

06-20-2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by boardjapan02
im pretty sure someone already said this, but yeah, although weather change/climate change is a natural thing, our machines are speeding it on to an abnormal rate...???

Bingo. A metaphor for you: Climate change is a natural part of the planet's physiology, if you will. And, just like amphetamines don't directly speed up the whole body, but do so by acting through a natural component of the body, so does excessive CO2 emission feed into the planetary system to spur a change.

The amphetamines aren't natural in origin, nor is the CO2.

Wormboy

06-20-2003, 02:42 PM

Typical behavior for somebody who doesn't have a logical leg to stand on:
1) Attack chinks the the language they used. Bad punctuation, poor typing/spelling, lazy use of the language in a situation where everybody knows what we are talking about.
2) Attack on the intellectual legitimacy of the person. "You do this" "You flamed me" etc. "poisoning the well" is a nice one--you get points for originality! (and yes, you reserved it for me because I'm the one who implied you were a moron with an agenda.)
3) No substantive data or sources. Should we just take your word for it? No.

I don't need a source here. I have the official EPA report. And BTW, Bush actually signed off on THE SAME MATERIAL HE EDITED OUT THIS TIME two years ago (see in the NYT article). So not only is he white-washing it now, he is actually doing a 180 degree turn on his policy from 2 years ago--which tells you that one of those was a lie. Gee, guess which one?

IMO, there couldn't be greater legitimacy given to the EPA report than by Bush gutting it's science and insisting that it be replaced by industry funded crap. You can't have industry funded "science" in anything and expect any objectivity. Like I said, the tobacco industry is the perfect example of how well such "science" works. BTW, plenty of politicians used that tobacco industry "science" for a long time (while they were getting huge campaign contributions)

Chaloobi

06-20-2003, 02:52 PM

You're being too harsh. Misleading would be a better term.

Well, I DID use both. . . . . and in any case, mislead or lie, the intent is the same. The only difference is a savvy political machine will mislead rather than lie because an outright lie is easier for the sheeple to spot. I have no doubt we-the-people are mislead more or less continuously.

ductonius

06-20-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
1) Attack chinks the the language they used.

Sloppy use of language has no place in a discussion. I didnt attack the language you used, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You simply didnt use the term properly, or didnt define the term properly.

Then, when you attacked me for misunderstaning your undefined useage, I pointed out exactally what it was: Sloppy use of a term that apparently means more than one thing to more than one person.

Originally posted by Wormboy
lazy use of the language in a situation where everybody knows what we are talking about.

I'm sorry, but you cant claim that "everyone knows what we are talking about". When you say "climate change is a recent event." I cannot assume you mean anything other than what the words say. Thus, I responded to what you said.

If you menat something differnt, you should have used more precise language.

Originally posted by Wormboy
2) Attack on the intellectual legitimacy of the person.

The fact of the matter is that your labeling me with an "agenda" or suggesting I would invoke a "conspiracy thoery" does fit the definition of poisioning the well. Its an attempt to discredit me with superfluous information without dealing with my argument. So far, you have dealt with very little of what I have siad, choosing instead to continuiously repeat a variation of "CO2 has been proven to cause global warming" with innuendo and hostile language added in for good measure.

Indeed, even this latest post of your is a form of "poisionin the well". Instead of dealing with my arguments, you have instead elected to annouce that I "dont have a leg to stand on" in an attept to discredit me.

You are attemting to discredit the person instead of dealing with the arguments.

Originally posted by Wormboy
and yes, you reserved it for me because I'm the one who implied you were a moron with an agenda.

Wheras everyone else had the decency to reply in a respectful and dignified manner, you had to add insults and inuendo.

You have now expanded on your list of non-arguments with "argumentum ad hominim", or argument against the man, otherwise known as a personal attack or an insult. Calling me a "moron with an agenda" is again an attempt to discredit me without dealing with my argument.

Originally posted by Wormboy
3) No substantive data or sources. Should we just take your word for it? No.

Wheras you have provided long lists of origonal data and findings from non-biased sources. Oh, wait, you havent.....

Originally posted by Wormboy
I don't need a source here.

Oh, thats why you havent provided sources, its becaue we should "just take your word for it".

Originally posted by Wormboy
I have the official EPA report.

And I have an official report stating different.

Originally posted by Wormboy
And BTW, Bush actually signed off on THE SAME MATERIAL HE EDITED OUT THIS TIME two years ago (see in the NYT article). So not only is he white-washing it now, he is actually doing a 180 degree turn on his policy from 2 years ago--which tells you that one of those was a lie. Gee, guess which one?

If someone changes thier mind from A to B, it does not mean that they were lying when they said they thought A. Having reviewed the evidence it is enterly possible for someone to do a complet 180 degree turn in thier view, but that does not mean they were, or are lying about anything.

Originally posted by Wormboy
IMO, there couldn't be greater legitimacy given to the EPA report than by Bush gutting it's science and insisting that it be replaced by industry funded crap.

You base your conclution that the EPA's report is legitimate on the fact that someone you seem to dislike dosent think its legitimate.

This is in no way how a conclution should be reached.

Originally posted by Wormboy
You can't have industry funded "science" in anything and expect any objectivity.

Similarly, one could say that if the environment wasnt a concern, those at the EPA would be out of thier jobs. There is then very good reason for them to produce reports that raise concern about emissions etc.

Wormboy

06-20-2003, 03:24 PM

I'm not sure I see a great difference between mislead and lie. At least not if both are intentional (and this clearly is).

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: lie
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive senses : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble

Main Entry: mis·lead
transitive senses : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit
intransitive senses : to lead astray
synonym see DECEIVE

Chaloobi

06-20-2003, 03:29 PM

Man O man I do love Webster!

Nice work WormBoy. You are like a super-hero. Ever since I ran into that trouble with the Asparagus, wherever I look you've been right there fighting for truth and justice. YOU are the MAN!

Loki

06-20-2003, 03:31 PM

You realize that I can make love equal hate using only synonyms, right? Two words do not necessarily mean the same thing just because they have the same synonym.

Chaloobi

06-20-2003, 03:31 PM

Of course - you ARE an Uber Member. Properly translated: Super-Member. May as well be super hero, eh?

Chaloobi

06-20-2003, 03:32 PM

I dunno. I've seen a LOT of Love=Hate in my life.

Wormboy

06-20-2003, 03:54 PM

LOL Chaloobi you are making me uncomfortable :D

I AM NOT perfect or super. I have a harsh temper, and frequently apply it to people (usually just snide remarks if not provoked, but full flames in response to flames) This is a weakness, and I'm not proud of it.

Thanks for the praise, anyway. I try my hardest to be a fair person, though I'm sure the people who chronically disagree with me would disagree with that as well! :D

Loki, my ppoint was merely that "mislead" and "Lie" are close to each-other. I'm sure that in some dictionaries they would be listed as direct synonyms (tho perhaps not). My only point is that they are pretty close.

Yeah, you could probably do love-hate in 6 steps. So? lie and misleading are one or two steps. Thus, they are very close in meaning. Personally I think "misleading" is just a euphemism for lie, as long as both are intentional (no denying that Bush's "misleading" behavior was intentional.)

Loki

06-20-2003, 03:58 PM

The difference between misleading the lying, is that you don't give any false information when misleading. That is a very big difference. So when someone lies, you can point to some specific sentence, and say "that is not true", while you cannot do that to a misleading statement. In fact, a statement can be misleading without the person (who wrote it) wanting to mislead anyone. I do think that Bush is trying to mislead the public, but he is not lying. Presidents that very, very rarely.

Chaloobi

06-20-2003, 04:48 PM

The intent is the same, however. And so the level of integrity is the same. And the damage done is the same.

Loki

06-20-2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
The intent is the same, however. And so the level of integrity is the same. And the damage done is the same.

One person tries to hijack a plane to kill 1000 people fails.

Another person tries to do the same and succeeds.

Same intent. Do you consider the acts equivalent?

Chaloobi

06-20-2003, 05:11 PM

IMHO - Yes. They are both guilty of the same crime. Why should one be treated better because they were too incompetent to pull it off? I know the law would treat it differently - attempted murder and murder carry two different punishments, but they are in essence the same crime.

But your analogy doesn't hold true in this case anyway. When a politician misleads instead of lies it's because he knows he can achieve the same result with the first tactic while avoiding the risk of the second tactic. A better analogy might be hiring someone to commit a murder rather than taking the risk of committing it yourself. You get the same result, but the risk of doing it yourself is much greater.

Wormboy

06-20-2003, 11:22 PM

Loki, I see your distinction and agree with it. I also agree that politicians rarely lie. Smoke and mirrors is their preferred method.

IMO, Bush's intent is still dishonest.

How about that? "Dishonest" would encompass both misleading and lying I think.

Loki

06-20-2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
Loki, I see your distinction and agree with it. I also agree that politicians rarely lie. Smoke and mirrors is their preferred method.

IMO, Bush's intent is still dishonest.

How about that? "Dishonest" would encompass both misleading and lying I think.

Dictionary.com has a pretty good definition:

Synonyms: dishonest, lying, untruthful, deceitful, mendacious
These adjectives mean lacking honesty or truthfulness. Dishonest is the least specific: a dishonest business executive. Lying conveys a blunt accusation of untruth: a lying witness giving inconsistent testimony. Untruthful is a softer term and suggests lack of veracity and divergence from fact: made an untruthful statement. Deceitful implies misleading by falsehood or by concealment of the truth: deceitful advertising. Mendacious is more formal than lying, and suggests a chronic inclination toward untruth: a mendacious and troublesome employee.

So yeah, I'd agree that he's dishonest. But then again, so is almost every other politician. You just can't tell people the truth and expect to get elected/reelected.

The problems between Bush and Whitman have been well documented. I wonder if this is a cunning final blow from the former NJ governor.:)

bruinb77

06-21-2003, 05:02 PM

I read the article and didn't see anything that would suggest a cover up. What I did see was that some raw data was left out since it appears that there is a difference in opinion in the analysis of that data.

Although environmental issues isn't my specialty, I've noticed over the past 10 years how only data in support of the global warming theory has really made it into the news. Not much is heard of the evidence that is contrary to that position.

To me, it seems to be such an imprecise science to understand what is going on with the environment and the lack of any long term data (decades is not very long in relation to the amount of time the planet has been around) really makes it all guess work.

Personally, I agree with continuing the studies, but there needs to be more open debate about it, both pros and cons. Right now, you really only hear one side and if you are against that side, you are labeled anti-environment or only worried about business interests. And then the questions will be asked about how much the oil companies contributed (and they contribute to both parties). Still, the raw data being put out there would be much better than have it analyzed for me because I don't trust any of the analysis since data that is contrary is usually filtered out.

Wormboy

06-21-2003, 08:12 PM

I think I see where you are coming from Bruin. Probably nobody would disagree with you except for two things:

1) Bush is [u]replacing[/b] large, independent studies with studies FUNDED BY THE PETROLEUM INDUSTRY, which, not surprisingly, come to a different conclusion.

2) Furthermore, Bush is doing an about-face, because he actually admitted that the original studies were valid two years ago. Well, they didn't change validity in the last two years. My impression is that the position they sketch out is even more solid now. What has changed is the Bush admin's policy on what to do about global warming. Apparently the policy is now "deny that it exists.

The first is much more egregious though. You don't set the wolves to guard the henhouse. Having the petroleum industry do research on global warming is like having the gun industry research gun control, or the tobacco industry research carcinogenesis of tobacco.

The last is probably THE greatest case of scientific fraud in the history of science. For decades the tobacco industry published research that a) tobacco smoke was non-carcinogenic, and b) non-addictive. And because of this research, for decades after the medical establishment knew for a fact that tobacco was deadly, politicians could get away with not doing anything about it (while receiving huge political contributions from tobacco companies).

This is the main reason why there were successful lawsuits against the tobacco industry in recent years--because tobacco lied their booties off about it, and foisted fake science as real science to support there position. This is all very well documented.

So now we have the same thing going on. We have a lot of good science from government funded independent scientists (and this is KEY for objectivity in science). The science proves that there is a sharp and geologically very recent upswing in termperature, rules out other causes, and has a lot of evidence supporting CO2 emissions as the main culprit. In contrast, petroleum industry-sponsored research shows the opposite--that there are no conclusions that can be reached, and that there may even be no significant recent warming trend. Then you have a presidential administration where the Pres and VP are both former petroleum industry execs, and their single greatest campaign contributing class is petroleum.

And just like with Tobacco, the politicians with this background are pointing at the TOTALLY PARTISAN research, and saying" this is why we shouldn't do anything." And more than just saying something, they are cutting out the real science from government documents and replacing it with the partisan research.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED WITH SMOKING. Why should we sit around and gullibly nod our heads up and down?

bruinb77

06-22-2003, 07:28 AM

Since I'm not real familiar with environmental issues, I can't really comment on Bush's position on it in the past. It definatly is a bad thing if the oil industry is part of the study though.

However, considering the lack of attention this is getting in the mainstream media, both parties must be part of it. Otherwise, this would have been made well known.

As for the scientific fraud, I agree that anything dealing with environmental issues has been pretty sketchy at best. Both sides of the issue only put out information that supports them. Whenever I see environmental "conclusions" I get very skeptical. It's similar to the medical "conclusions" we hear about every so often (like the butter vs margerine issue or how oatmeal prevents heart attacks).

herknav

06-22-2003, 07:48 AM

A quick comment on the idea of global warming. I recently visited a Glacier here in Alaska. the Park Service has provided markers that tell where the galcier was at a certain time... Standing at the base of this monsterous ice machine, you cannot believe that it could be bigger.... but behind you, there are markers on the trail... 1972 on the way in... I was 2 years old... 1954... 1940... 1890.... 1850.... hmmm... what kind of green house gas was around in 1850? The park supe says that the galcier has been retreating for most of mankinds history... could this be a natural cycle? Could it? (BTW, the 1850 marker was before I got into the park proper... first time I visited, I had no idea what it meant...)...

bruinb77

06-22-2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by herknav
A quick comment on the idea of global warming. I recently visited a Glacier here in Alaska. the Park Service has provided markers that tell where the galcier was at a certain time... Standing at the base of this monsterous ice machine, you cannot believe that it could be bigger.... but behind you, there are markers on the trail... 1972 on the way in... I was 2 years old... 1954... 1940... 1890.... 1850.... hmmm... what kind of green house gas was around in 1850? The park supe says that the galcier has been retreating for most of mankinds history... could this be a natural cycle? Could it? (BTW, the 1850 marker was before I got into the park proper... first time I visited, I had no idea what it meant...)...

A similar thing is happening in Antartica although it isn't well publicized. One side (can't remember if it was the east or west), the ice was retreating. That part did make the news. But on the opposite side, the ice layer was growing and expanding (which was kept pretty quiet). The amount of time we have studied the environment is so short that no conclusions can be made. And that is the reason why there is so much debate on this issue.

termite

06-22-2003, 10:01 AM

Without going deep into the merits or lack of in the argument for/against global warming I just wish to say that anyone that does not see that humans have had a huge impact on the environment is deluded.

Look at the village/town/city/state that you live in and imagine it untouched by development, no streets, no houses, no powerline or water supply, no drainage, no landfill. That is tangible environmental impact.

Now look at the power consumption of people in your city/town, this includes electricity, gas, petroleum etc. All of these are pollutants, that is they either release toxic gases(including CO and CO2 and many many others) during their production or their use. All of them leave either residue or solid waste, most of it ends up in waste/land fill.

The fact is that everything manufactured by humanity is some sort of pollutant, even this computer I am typing away at is full of toxic substances including the molded plastic panels and housings for the keyboard, monitor and box, PCB's etc.

Now that you've seen all this, and accepted that it is true, imagine 6 billion+ people all doing/using the same thing, having the same impact.

Even if global warming is NOT the result of human intervention, pollution undeniably is and the effects may well be far worse than climate change - really.

Please note that I am not a greenie in the true sense - I have spent my career in the mining and petroleum industry as well as plastics and metal alloy manufacturing. I have seen first hand what we can and will do to enormous tracts of land and sea and the air that envelopes it which cannot and will not be undone.

Ultimately the question to ductonius would be. "In your defence of CO2 in relation to climate change have you come to believe that it is good for the environment?" If not, and it is bad for the environment in your opinion, then what is your position on CO2 emissions and whether they should be cut?

Perhaps it is necassary to admit something is bad, even if we cannot agree on which of the many bad things the most dire.

You do not have to BELIEVE in global warming being caused by pollution, but you do have to BELIEVE that pollution is real, and it is real bad.

As for the actual topic in question I really do not like to see inependant authorities having their research monitored/edited by government officials with no qualifications to determine the validity of said research. Unfortunately the corporate dollar is so heavily involved in modern science that it is becoming a blurred line between the benefactor and the beneficiary.

MEGACHIHUAHUA

06-22-2003, 03:47 PM

Did you hear about the guy who worked for the NYT who made up stories? I doubt he is the exeption to the rule. Wormboy, Evo is not scientific. Science has been defined as what happens without god, though it would make a lot more sense with him. If you want to talk science, e-mail me at Megachihuahua@aol.com

Crazy_Ivan80

06-22-2003, 04:08 PM

no, we're not interested in feeding a troll

bruinb77

06-22-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by termite
Without going deep into the merits or lack of in the argument for/against global warming I just wish to say that anyone that does not see that humans have had a huge impact on the environment is deluded.

Look at the village/town/city/state that you live in and imagine it untouched by development, no streets, no houses, no powerline or water supply, no drainage, no landfill. That is tangible environmental impact.

Now look at the power consumption of people in your city/town, this includes electricity, gas, petroleum etc. All of these are pollutants, that is they either release toxic gases(including CO and CO2 and many many others) during their production or their use. All of them leave either residue or solid waste, most of it ends up in waste/land fill.

The fact is that everything manufactured by humanity is some sort of pollutant, even this computer I am typing away at is full of toxic substances including the molded plastic panels and housings for the keyboard, monitor and box, PCB's etc.

Now that you've seen all this, and accepted that it is true, imagine 6 billion+ people all doing/using the same thing, having the same impact.

Even if global warming is NOT the result of human intervention, pollution undeniably is and the effects may well be far worse than climate change - really.

Please note that I am not a greenie in the true sense - I have spent my career in the mining and petroleum industry as well as plastics and metal alloy manufacturing. I have seen first hand what we can and will do to enormous tracts of land and sea and the air that envelopes it which cannot and will not be undone.

Ultimately the question to ductonius would be. "In your defence of CO2 in relation to climate change have you come to believe that it is good for the environment?" If not, and it is bad for the environment in your opinion, then what is your position on CO2 emissions and whether they should be cut?

Perhaps it is necassary to admit something is bad, even if we cannot agree on which of the many bad things the most dire.

You do not have to BELIEVE in global warming being caused by pollution, but you do have to BELIEVE that pollution is real, and it is real bad.

As for the actual topic in question I really do not like to see inependant authorities having their research monitored/edited by government officials with no qualifications to determine the validity of said research. Unfortunately the corporate dollar is so heavily involved in modern science that it is becoming a blurred line between the benefactor and the beneficiary.

That's all true, anything you do does affect the environment in its own way. Just existing impacts the environment. But does impacting the environment worse than living in the stone age? That's another debate.

I agree that independent research shouldn't be edited. However, I prefer the whole picture from the independent research. This particular article suggested that what was being brought out was conclusions made by people working on the research. And as I said earlier, if conclusions are made, I can almost guarantee there is conflicting data out there which is the heart of the problem.

Chaloobi

06-23-2003, 09:29 AM

<snip>But does impacting the environment worse than living in the stone age? That's another debate.
This isn't the choice we're given at all. The choice is more like this:

Adjust our economy and culture to something less destructive to the world environment OR do nothing and adjust as we are forced to as the destruction occurs.

In the first option we can change on our own terms and have a hope of preventing a lot of loss and suffering. But those with a vested interest in NOT changing have to take the risk of leaving their cash cows behind and build something new. Thus far the fossil fuel industry has not been willing to do this. The second option is likely to not be a good thing. I'd considered listing out all the bad things likely to result from climate change but I realize there is no point.

Besides the real problem isn't climate change anyway. There is only one environmental problem, everything else is just a symptom of that problem. And all we've been doing so far in all our environmental efforts is treating the symptoms. Overpopulation is the source of every environmental ill we have and until will take that bull by the horns, we'll not solve anything no matter what we do.

bruinb77

06-23-2003, 08:34 PM

Overpopulation is a big problem, but technology has helped that along. Farms are able to put much more food out than in the past due to technology which in turn is able to support a larger population. I'm not sure that will change anytime soon since the biggest problem with overpopulation occurs in third world countries where families need free labor to help out (in most cases).

As for adjusting the economy to be less destructive, that's pretty much what I was alluding to with my stone age comment (although I chose the most extreme end of the spectrum on that). Basically, what you were saying is a lesser version of that, but that is still the debate. How much do you trade off?

You are correct that we really havn't moved far beyond fossil fuels. There have been attempts, but as with everything, there are drawbacks. Nuclear power looked promising when it first came out, but there are great dangers with that too. Other types of energy also have good and bad sides to them which gets you back to the basic question. Where do you trade off between environment and how you live?

ThorsHammer2

06-23-2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by termite
Without going deep into the merits or lack of in the argument for/against global warming I just wish to say that anyone that does not see that humans have had a huge impact on the environment is deluded.

Look at the village/town/city/state that you live in and imagine it untouched by development, no streets, no houses, no powerline or water supply, no drainage, no landfill. That is tangible environmental impact.

Now look at the power consumption of people in your city/town, this includes electricity, gas, petroleum etc. All of these are pollutants, that is they either release toxic gases(including CO and CO2 and many many others) during their production or their use. All of them leave either residue or solid waste, most of it ends up in waste/land fill.

The fact is that everything manufactured by humanity is some sort of pollutant, even this computer I am typing away at is full of toxic substances including the molded plastic panels and housings for the keyboard, monitor and box, PCB's etc.

Now that you've seen all this, and accepted that it is true, imagine 6 billion+ people all doing/using the same thing, having the same impact.

Even if global warming is NOT the result of human intervention, pollution undeniably is and the effects may well be far worse than climate change - really.

Please note that I am not a greenie in the true sense - I have spent my career in the mining and petroleum industry as well as plastics and metal alloy manufacturing. I have seen first hand what we can and will do to enormous tracts of land and sea and the air that envelopes it which cannot and will not be undone.

Ultimately the question to ductonius would be. "In your defence of CO2 in relation to climate change have you come to believe that it is good for the environment?" If not, and it is bad for the environment in your opinion, then what is your position on CO2 emissions and whether they should be cut?

Perhaps it is necassary to admit something is bad, even if we cannot agree on which of the many bad things the most dire.

You do not have to BELIEVE in global warming being caused by pollution, but you do have to BELIEVE that pollution is real, and it is real bad.

As for the actual topic in question I really do not like to see inependant authorities having their research monitored/edited by government officials with no qualifications to determine the validity of said research. Unfortunately the corporate dollar is so heavily involved in modern science that it is becoming a blurred line between the benefactor and the beneficiary.

I was beginning to wodnder why he was defending it as well.:bulb: I can never understand the hostility towards environmentalists. Like trying to make the world less polluted is a bad thing:bulb: I seriously dont get it. :bulb:
I mean if you had the choice of living in a lush, green, clean world full of life as opposed to a polluted smoggy unhealthy planet what would most people choose. :weird:

bruinb77

06-24-2003, 10:02 PM

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by bruinb77
Many would choose jobs instead of starving. That's where the big fight lays with environmentalists.

I undertand that point , but succesful people are smart and will eventually find a way to make money and create industries around around environmentallly freindly products.There nothing that says that you cant make money and be environmentally freindly.

Loki

06-24-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
I undertand that point , but succesful people are smart and will eventually find a way to make money and create industries around around environmentallly freindly products.There nothing that says that you cant make money and be environmentally freindly.

Really? What if the unemployment level in the country is over 50%?

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Really? What if the unemployment level in the country is over 50%?

What hypothetical country are you speaking of?? The country of NOHOPE.:confused: SO you think we are doomed ,never be able to clean up the environment.Since it hasnt been done it its impossible. Im not sure what your point is.

Loki

06-24-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
What hypothetical country are you speaking of?? The country of NOHOPE.:confused: SO you think we are doomed ,never be able to clean up the environment.Since it hasnt been done it its impossible. Im not sure what your point is.

Most third world countries are stuck between two choices: employment or clean environment. Guess which one gets chosen 10 times out of 10?

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 10:26 PM

So what thats now, my point was someone will do it. Have a little more faith Loki. Surely you dont beleive that man is at its pinnacle. This is the same species that a little over one hundred years ago was still riding in horse and buggies, now we are going to Mars. Cheer up. ;)

Loki

06-24-2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
So what thats now, my point was someone will do it. Have a little more faith Loki. Surely you dont beleive that man is at its pinnacle. This is the same species that a little over one hundred years ago was still riding in horse and buggies, now we are going to Mars. Cheer up. ;)

I think most men realize that a fellow man's life is more important than the life of a rabbit or a tree. Any rational person will violate the environment if it means more people can get jobs, especially in countries where employment is hard to come by.

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Loki
I think most men realize that a fellow man's life is more important than the life of a rabbit or a tree. Any rational person will violate the environment if it means more people can get jobs, especially in countries where employment is hard to come by.

Why do you always have to go of on this silly subtlely attacking tangents in the middle of a perfectly good discussion.
Should I even bother to make any more points or are you going to continue to argue for the sake of argueing without even trying to see any merit in a perfectly reasonable position. Does it always have to be so black and white with you. :confused:

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Blah blah blah bait bait bait.

Whatever I'll play I have a few minutes to kill.
So when you here the term environmentalist you automaticlly assume its equals that. Tsk tsk.
What im defending is the idea that we can with time, desire and technology reduce the amount of pollution in the world, and still grow industries around those technologies.
Heres a an example. Cars in time change to less polluting vehicles. The mechanics instead of servicing internal combustion engines now are servicing XYZ engine. Or new homes start being built will solar panels or windmills. The industry simply changes or new industries pop up. The people to make install and service them. whatever
Im not saying its going to be easy or without its problems but impossible, I dont think so.

Edit: Did you here what they did in New ealand. They are taxing cow and sheep farts.:haha: I never imagined a day when a price would be put on farts. :haha:

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Yes, in the long term a clean environment is good for the economy and the health of people in general. In the short term, that is not true. In many countries, governments can't afford to suffer short term, because their country might fall apart or get torn apart by a civil war if the peoples' economic needs are not addressed.

I do like your definition of trolling though. Is that what a civil discussion is called now?

Well I was mistaken then, when I see an educated person saying something like "most environmentalists care more about tress or animals life than human life" it takes me by suprise. ;)
I saw it as trolling, I didnt think you would see it that way.

ThorsHammer2

06-24-2003, 11:23 PM

Goodnight Loki. :)

Dreadnaught

06-25-2003, 02:17 AM

These last few posts are quite funny :haha:

termite

06-25-2003, 04:45 AM

The definition of an environmentalist as Loki is representing it is true in extreme cases only.

By saying that "environmentalists, many of whom couldn't care less about human lives, and only care about animals and plants." it is no different to any other gross generalisation such as "Most christians are right-wing loonies.".

Neither of which is true. It is a habit of yours Loki to only emphasise the extremes of any given group when the reality in most cases is something far more moderate.

I am anything but an environmental extremist but I do recycle, I do use solar energy (helps when the sun shines 300 days per year) and I do buy appliances with high energy efficiency ratings. I am against the logging of old-growth forest, after centuries of cutting down ancient forests there is no excuse for not developing plantation timber.

I also, as I have already mentioned, work and have worked in industries that do not have great reputations for protecting the environment. But guess what, in the 15 years I've been involved we have made enormous progress and in most cases make more profit and have more employment despite having improved environmental protection and rehabilitation - 15 years is hardly a "long term" proposition.

Third world or "developing" nations are a different problem, however they will never achieve sustainable environmental outcomes unless developed countries set the standard - both economically and environmentally.

Chaloobi

06-25-2003, 09:12 AM

Here here Termite. Well said.

But what about the Bush Administration 'adjusting' the EPA's report to downplay their findings on climate change? Shouldn't this cause outrage? It's one thing to claim the jury is still out (which in every other country in the world, it is not) but quite another to KEEP the jury out in the face of objective studies that show otherwise.

Ziggy Stardust

06-25-2003, 09:36 AM

I think we will agree that extremists in any field is bad news

But where to draw the line between an extremism and devotion?

termite

06-25-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Loki
The fact is that mainly extremist environmentalists join environmentalist parties and organizations. The moderate ones try to help the environment by themselves.

That may be true, but to be honest I've never been to an environmentalist's political party or anything like that so I really wouldn't know.

Have you? Or are you basing this statement on some other info, perhaps that from the media? It is almost as popular to bash greenies as it is to bash Frenchies (or Yanks depending on where you're located;)) but how much genuine experience is involved in the opinions that people hold - I'm guessing that a hell of a lot of it is based on media and very little on first hand experience.

Years ago I thought people protesting against logging were f*cking nutcases. I had been visiting a beautiful part of the southwest of my home state since childhood and after not visiting for a few years I took my kids down there - it had been logged. I was devastated that this place where we had camped and partied as kids and teenagers was gone, levelled.

I changed my opinion of environmentalists after that, Luc Longley the former championship center for the Chicago Bulls lives in my hometown, he too was upset by this forest being destroyed and he joined the protest at a nearby logging operation. I went along on a couple of weekend stints and was amazed at the well educated, normal people - families- that were disgusted at the amount of logging in our south-west.

There were traditional "rent-a-crowd" feral protesters too, but the real push for change came from average people with real concerns. Now after a few years, almost all logging in old growth forests has stopped in the south-west - they are now pushing plantation timber very hard.

The irony is that land was being cleared at such an alarming rate for over 100 years, mostly for farming, now that land is being used for - you guessed it, growing trees.:haha:

Chaloobi

06-25-2003, 09:51 AM

I hold an Evironmental Science degree and had a number of classes that studied environmentalism and I rubbed elbows with a lot of hard-core environmentalists as a student. Never once did I come across someone who valued trees and animals more than human lives. Environmentalists are passionate and compassionate people. The ultimate goal in environmentalism is to save humanity from itself by preserving the environment we live in. By saving trees and whales they believe they are saving all of us.

I think joining an environmental party or going to rallies and protests is not by itself extreme. Here in Michigan we've had some activists burning down nearly-complete million dollar homes out in the suburbs of Detroit to protest urban sprawl. Although I agree urban sprawl is a big problem, this form of protest is extremism. But keep in mind, they're burning houses before anyone moves into them, not after.

termite

06-25-2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Loki
That might very well be true, but their beliefs happen to contradict those of economics. They don't think about the effects of not cutting down a forrest.

Aaah, the thought police?

When you can explain how you know what they are thinking, you'll be a very wealthy individual.

There was a time, not that long ago when the idea of recycling was considered expensive, a waste of time and money.

There are now multi-nationals making millions out of recycling, employing thousands - sometimes people have got to learn to think outside the box.

Does NYC still dump rubbish on Statten island at a cost of $500million+? Or has the island finally taken all it can hold?
Perhaps instead of spending millions on transferring waste and sending it to landfill or worse still dumping in the ocean or incinerating it - we could make money out of it.

Guess what people do!

People and industry also make money out of growing trees in plantations, you get better timber, at the size and strength you want with less waste. You can plant more trees in a hectare than nature ever would, and if done correctly through graduation it can be an almost constant yield.

Vision is what is required, not bean counting rationalisation, rather seed planting capitalisation.;)

Chaloobi

06-25-2003, 10:29 AM

Termite - if I may paraphrase the gist of your argument....

Just because we've always done it one way doesn't mean that's the ONLY way it can be done.

Polluting industries are only cheaper than non-polluting industries if you ignore the costs of the pollution. It's a lot cheaper to produce power with nuclear technology if you consider the cost of pollutants like CO2, mercury, and sulfur and nitrogen oxides from coal and oil burning plants. What costs? Well, there're huge health effects. There's acid rain which damages forrests, crops, and cities. There's also climate change, the true costs of which are likely to be astronomical. If you calculate ALL the costs of a particular industrial method, you get real economics.

Wormboy

06-25-2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by ThorsHammer2
I was beginning to wodnder why he was defending it as well.:bulb: I can never understand the hostility towards environmentalists. Like trying to make the world less polluted is a bad thing:bulb: I seriously dont get it. :bulb:
I mean if you had the choice of living in a lush, green, clean world full of life as opposed to a polluted smoggy unhealthy planet what would most people choose. :weird:

:up: agreed

Originally posted by bruinb77
Many would choose jobs instead of starving. That's where the big fight lays with environmentalists.

Or at least that is where monstrous international corporations would like you to think the fight lies. True, it does occasionally come down to jobs. For example, a thousand jobs lost when an old growth forest is closed to logging. But you ignore the fact that there's a big push amongst environmentalists to get all loggin done in farmed forsetry--hence, just as many jobs as old growth.

Besides, its ok to trash our remaining natural resources to preserve a few jobs, when big corporations routinely lay off tens of thousands for "downsizing", or better yet, relocating a plant to Mexico so they can pay non-union wages?

IMO, issues of the environment usually come down to two things:

1) greed
2) short-sightedness

Global warming is a perfect example. The mild economic costs of acting now are MUCH less than the traumatic economic dislocations that will come as the price for NOT acting. This is true in most environmentalist equations. Often, the full cost of something isn't even taken into account (for example, the severe healkth costs associated with pollution.) But the petroleum industry will do everything in their considerable power to block any action until it's too late.

bruinb77

06-25-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Wormboy
:up: agreed

Or at least that is where monstrous international corporations would like you to think the fight lies. True, it does occasionally come down to jobs. For example, a thousand jobs lost when an old growth forest is closed to logging. But you ignore the fact that there's a big push amongst environmentalists to get all loggin done in farmed forsetry--hence, just as many jobs as old growth.

Besides, its ok to trash our remaining natural resources to preserve a few jobs, when big corporations routinely lay off tens of thousands for "downsizing", or better yet, relocating a plant to Mexico so they can pay non-union wages?

IMO, issues of the environment usually come down to two things:

1) greed
2) short-sightedness

Global warming is a perfect example. The mild economic costs of acting now are MUCH less than the traumatic economic dislocations that will come as the price for NOT acting. This is true in most environmentalist equations. Often, the full cost of something isn't even taken into account (for example, the severe healkth costs associated with pollution.) But the petroleum industry will do everything in their considerable power to block any action until it's too late.

I agree with the greed ans short-sightedness, but that's a given that will never change no matter the amount of effort.

I also agree that acting early is always cheaper than acting later.

But I disagree with global warming as an example since there is really no way to tell if it's real or not. A small slice in time (which is the data we have) really is not definative proof of this.

But you are right about the oil industry being very powerful and able to block anything. That's why they contribute to both parties.

Dreadnaught

06-25-2003, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Do you:
A) Relax your envinromental laws to draw foreign corporations to your country or
B) Preserve your environment?

Both. :)

Relax tax laws and open stable banks to encourage the use of your country as a tax shelter. Also, preserve the environment (with the possible exception of resorts) and use it to attract tourism.

BTW I've got two friends working as one of those Greenpeace people who accost you on the street with "Do you have a moment for Greenpeace!?!?" :D They hate it and are just in it for the money. But I saw one of them that I knew on the street today when walking home from work, so I snuck up behind her, grabbed her, and hissed "Would you kiss me for the environment!?!?"

Yeah, she got freaked out for a sec. The other person she was soliciting with (who doesn't know me) also freaked out. Then everything was jolly. :haha:

Loki

06-25-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Dreadnaught
[B]Both. :)

Relax tax laws and open stable banks to encourage the use of your country as a tax shelter. Also, preserve the environment (with the possible exception of resorts) and use it to attract tourism.

There's room for only one Holed Cheese state in this world.:)

BTW I've got two friends working as one of those Greenpeace people who accost you on the street with "Do you have a moment for Greenpeace!?!?" :D They hate it and are just in it for the money. But I saw one of them that I knew on the street today when walking home from work, so I snuck up behind her, grabbed her, and hissed "Would you kiss me for the environment!?!?"

Yeah, she got freaked out for a sec. The other person she was soliciting with (who doesn't know me) also freaked out. Then everything was jolly. :haha:

:D :up: :haha:

Wormboy

06-26-2003, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Here here Termite. Well said.

But what about the Bush Administration 'adjusting' the EPA's report to downplay their findings on climate change? Shouldn't this cause outrage? It's one thing to claim the jury is still out (which in every other country in the world, it is not) but quite another to KEEP the jury out in the face of objective studies that show otherwise.

I think the appropriate metaphor is this: the jury had handed down it's verdict, but the verdict was suppressed and replaced by a verdict handed down from a hand-picked group of friends of the defendant :D

edit: excellent posts Chaloobi and termite.

Loki: I think IN GENERAL you are right about economics. But the point is that when you look at the history of environmentalism and the economic dislocation it has caused, the damage has been quite minimal compared to the gain.

I like to use the S Africa divestment analogy. When I was in college divestment was THE BIG ISSUE. Protests, yadda yadda. I remember our college president saying "we can't divest in south africa, we would lose too much money."

So I talked to my father, who was a financial vice president of a university. His response was NONSENSE. Sure, if you immediately yank all funds from companies in S Africa, you will lose a fair amnount of money. But if you stretch it over 5-10 years, there is minimal, or perhaps even NO economic loss.

The same is true for most environmental demands on industry. If you ask the US to radically cut emission in the next two years, there will be enormous economic dislocation. If you ask them to do it over the next 15-20 years, the impact will be minor. Contrast that to the economic impact of NOT acting, which will be monstrous even by conservative estimates.

Of course, companies will NEVER make ANY decision that will hurt their bottom line, because they are immediately accountable only for their profit margin. That's what governments are for--to look farther ahead and steer away from potential disasters that could take down whole economies. The irony is that our current politicians are effectively sticking their heads in the sand and hoping it will all go away. Every year that passes makes it that much more expensive to finally act.

Chaloobi

06-26-2003, 09:35 AM

Loki - instead of using your made-up scenarios that are loaded to prove your point, why not look at the scenario of the US? Can the US gradually change it's industrial economy to become far less polluting without widespread economic hardship? Of course - it ALREADY HAS.

Does anyone reading this thread remember the state of the environment in the 1970s? The EPA's regulation of water and air pollution have VASTLY improved the environment. The difference is amazing and the damage to the economy was nil. In fact, the economy has thrived since then.

I live in the Detroit area and water and air quality around here was amazingly bad.

- The Rouge river in Detroit was so polluted that it periodically caught on fire.

-Lake Erie was so polluted that when my family went to the local state park you had to be very careful on the beach to keep from stepping on the dead fish that were washed up everywhere.

-I remember as I grew up the first time I saw an egret return to the river that runs through my home town. And I remember watching the aquatic plants return to the river - over the years the patch of green in the shallows gradually expanded....

-I was in high school the first time I saw a hawk - and the town I grew up in is RURAL! It's because DDT had killed most of them off. Now there are bald eagles nesting along the river - completely unheard of when I was a child.

The improvement in the environment has been huge. But as population continues to grow, greater and greater pressure is put on the land, air and water. And further steps need to be taken to keep the environment healthy. The old argument that you have to choose between the environment and jobs is CRAP. It's always been CRAP and history in the US PROVES IT IS CRAP.

Loki - give me one REAL example in all of history where attempting to preserve the environment caused an economic collapse. I can give you many examplese where NOT preserving the environment caused economic collapse. Give me one of the opposite.

And don't give me the crap about reduced logging out west making the lumber jacks find other jobs. Loss of jobs in one segement of industry is NOT an economic collapse.

Loki

06-26-2003, 09:42 AM

That scenario is not loaded. I was specifically referring to Georgia, a former Soviet Republic that is located in Central Asia. If you do some research, you'll find similar situations in most of the world. You are falsely assuming that the entire world is like America. That is not true. There are only 20-30 first world countries out of 212.

Chaloobi

06-26-2003, 10:25 AM

This thread is about the United States and whether the US should bury objective environmental research in order to avoid having to do anything about climate change. You claim that burying this data is a good thing to do because doing something about climate change would impact the US economy too much. You are using the former Soviet country of Georgia to illustrate your point.

However, Georgia's industrial activity is too insignificant to affect climate change. The root of Georgia's problems are directly related to its being a former member of the Soviet Union, not the environment. As an example in this argument, Georgia is irrelevant.

EDIT: And BTW, I'm still looking for examples of how attempting to impact the environment less has caused an economic collapse.

Loki

06-26-2003, 10:41 AM

I don't think I defended what Bush did in this thread, nor do I recall ever defending him on domestic policy.

Anyway, you're missing my main point. When poor countries don't relax envinronmental laws, they suffer economically to such a degree, that a coup or a civil war is a real possibility. It doesn't matter what the long term benefits are if the country won't exist in the future. Most third world countries (India, China, and Indonesia included - countries that make up half the world's population) never had environment friendly laws. Don't you think there is a reason they were exempt from the Kyoto Protocol?

Chaloobi

06-26-2003, 11:31 AM

So you're admitting to hijacking my thread? ;)

Most poor countries like Georgia and it's neighbors, most African Countries, the smaller South American Countries, really are irrelevant to the industrial economy portion of the climate change issue. Even countries like India, China, Inodnesia, and Brazil - though they are absolutely huge geographically, do not generate anything close to the CO2 that the US does.

If you go across the board and say everyone must cut by 25% over x time frame, those countries with developing economies and little resilience to adjust to new technologies run a big destabilizing risk - which isn't good for anybody. So there I agree with you. But the US economy is vast and very resilient and in the end, if we develop these new, cleaner industrial technologies, we'll be the ones selling them to China and India in 20 years. It will definitely be good for the US, and for the world, to pursue this stuff.

But instead, our president HIDES the truth from the public because he has a vested interest in the old, dirty fossil fuel economy.

Loki

06-26-2003, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
But instead, our president HIDES the truth from the public because he has a vested interest in the old, dirty fossil fuel economy.

I don't think anyone would really disagree with that statement.

Dreadnaught

06-26-2003, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
[B]Even countries like India, China, Inodnesia, and Brazil - though they are absolutely huge geographically, do not generate anything close to the CO2 that the US does.

Geographic size isn't the matter-- it's the fact that more than a billion live in each of those countries with very little regulation that makes them major contributors to pollution.

bruinb77

06-26-2003, 08:27 PM

I wouldn't just say the report was just change due to this administration. It is both political parties that do this (change reports that is). It's all about the contributions and the oil industry does pay off both sides.

But like I said before, I wouldn't have been convinced of any of these "conclusions" anyhow. It's still pretty much speculation when it comes to global warming.

Wormboy

06-26-2003, 08:30 PM

Yes, but if you look at the CO2 and other pollution output of various countries, the US is far and away the leader. So really the US and Europe are the main concerns for now. I'll see if I can find some data on that--I think it's important for this discussion that we look at it.

But in terms of the future, I totally agree. Certain countries in the developing world (India, China and Indonesia are excellent examples) have the potential to turn into disastrously huge CO2 emitters and all-around air polluters. I think the US leading the way in responsible management of air quality will be a big plus. Not only will it change the emissions equation radically RIGHT NOW, but it will also set a global precedent, plus give the US some clout when trying to keep those emerging countries from trashing the air of the entire globe. Furthermore, the friendlier technologies developed by the US and Europe will trickle down to emerging countries like so many other technologies eventually do.

So the US should be embracing Kyoto not just because of our own profligate emissions, but to help prevent even huger problems in the future.

bruinb77

06-26-2003, 08:46 PM

I remember that I agreed with the US position against signing the Kyoto agreement, but for the life of me, I can't remember why (it's been a while since Kyoto has been brought up). I think there was some terminology or wording in that document that was objectionable (like the war crimes court that had poor wording).

Loki

06-26-2003, 08:48 PM

Perhaps because China and India were not subject to it? And the fact that most of Europe won't (and didn't) take it seriously?

Chaloobi

06-26-2003, 11:26 PM

Climate change due to CO2 build-up is not speculation, it's not 'up in the air', and the research - other than that funded by the petroleum industry - is not inconclusive. Every day, every month, every season, every year there is ample, overwhelming evidence in the real world that it is occuring and that the major cause is human activity.

All this BS about 'more study is needed' is just a stalling tactic by the US government and the fossil fuel industries that back it. They are taking a big gamble that the heretofor unknown effects of global climate change will not be more catastrophic than our country can handle. And the third world countries, which are at tremendous risk from said effects, can go get stuffed.

They are playing Russian Roulette with a gun they don't even know how many bullets are in or how many times they'll have to pull the trigger. If they win, they stay rich and powerful. If they lose, god only knows - likely their wealth will preserve their way of life while all of us worker bees get thrown out of the hive. And they choose this game over reductions in CO2 because it's easier and they don't want to risk losing the enormous financial and political power they now hold. It's ugly, it's selfish, and it is unbelievably irresponsible.

But they are SO good at this game that half of us have been duped into thinking they're doing the right thing. They point a gun to our heads and we cheer them on, pat them on the back, help them load it.

And if you're thinking 'how do we know they are the ones lying and not the other side?' Try simple logic. Why would most of the climatologists in the world get together and form a huge conspiracy to try and move the entire world economy away from fossil fuels? It makes no sense. Why would the petroleum industry buy a few climatologists willing to muddy the waters enough to keep the government from having to do anything about our CO2 emmissions? Do I really have to answer that?

Loki

06-26-2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Why would the petroleum industry buy a few climatologists willing to muddy the waters enough to keep the government from having to do anything about our CO2 emmissions? Do I really have to answer that?

Because whether or not global warming happens due to C02 emissions, the petroleum industry has a lot to lose if everyone stops using gas.

Chaloobi

06-27-2003, 08:17 AM

You would think they'd start investing in alternative energy technology - or at least higher efficiency technology. I think that's why the Bush Administration has been pushing fuel cell tech. It will still require fossil fuels to generate the hydrogen, but the efficiency and the ability to control the pollution will be far greater.

Wormboy

06-27-2003, 12:59 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chaloobi
Why would the petroleum industry buy a few climatologists willing to muddy the waters enough to keep the government from having to do anything about our CO2 emmissions? Do I really have to answer that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said, this is also the impression I get from readin Science and Nature (the top science journals). There doesn't seem to be any serious dissent amongst the climatologists, except those who are paid by the petroleum industry (a case of the wolves guarding the henhouse). The debate amongst the experts is primarily one of magnitude: how fast, how bad, etc. this is not to be mistaken as doubt in the real phenomenon.

It's an axiom in science--always look where the funding comes from. If there are no strings attached, you can trust it, especially if it has been corroborated many many times by similarly untainted researchers, using many different methodologies. But NEVER trust the wolves to guard the henhouse. The examples of bad science from those situations are legion.

This kind of thing has happened before, and just having a handful of naysayers (and especially if you conveniently ignore where their paychecks come from) is enough to convince those who want to be concinced that reality is actually something different than what it really is. Like I said before, we even have an example in the Tobacco story. Official recognition that tobacco was evil crap came about 30-40 years late because of the dilligent efforts of the Tobacco industry. The same thing is happening with warming and CO2 emissions.

As for any possible "conspiracy", I will say the same thing that I said to my cousin who thinks the Space Program and moon missions were all hoaxes: You don't know scientists if you think you can get more than a handful to agree on anything unless they think it's absolutely true. Why? Because scientists are human, and human engage in politics. Scientists are constantly trying to poke holes in each-others theories, because thereby is the path to fame and glory (and perhaps lots of money from books and the lecture circuit). So unless something is really solid, you will get scads of scientists tearing away at it. I've seen it happen plenty of times, at a small level as well as a big level. I've seen several laboratories fight for years simply about what to name some prominent gene (or more accurately, WHO gets to name it).

that, plus the other thing: you can't keep a secret amongst more than a few people. It just ain't possible, and is the most convincing argument in the end against most conspiracy theories (unless the theory relies on a conspiracy of only a few). Well the space program would have required thousands in collusion, and likewise with climate change and emissions you would require hundreds and perhaps thousands. Anybody who could poke a good-sized hole in it would do so, and would acquire instant professional fame for doing so. Ergo, somebody WOULD do it if they had the chance.

This is what I call taking the pulse of a field, and I've learned to do it for all different sizes of debate. If there is serious consensus amonst scientists, then you know you are onto something, because the freakin won't agree on anything unless it's really solid.

Obviously, it doesn't mean it is cast in stone--little science is, and many things require some tweaks to perfect (like Einstein tweaked Newton). Thus, I'm sure there is much to be learned about climate change, and there is even a certain miniscule chance that they are wrong about the CAUSE of this current rapid climate change (though the change itself is unassailable, in my judgement). But the risk is great enough, and the confidence level high enough, that we MUST do something. The possible fallout of ignoring it is just too great to accept.

Chaloobi

06-27-2003, 02:09 PM

The possible fallout of ignoring it is just too great to accept.

Unfortunately, this is an opinion the US government does not hold. They are taking the risk for us, as I type this note and they are misleading the public to head off criticism and cover their tracks. And furthermore, unless the effects of climate change are so bad it collapses all of civilization (not likely) these folks don't have to worry about how they affect the lives of their children and grandchildren. Those who are super-wealthy will be fine. It is clear evidence that the welfare of the average people of the US, and the people of the world for that matter, does not concern them.

bruinb77

06-27-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Unfortunately, this is an opinion the US government does not hold. They are taking the risk for us, as I type this note and they are misleading the public to head off criticism and cover their tracks. And furthermore, unless the effects of climate change are so bad it collapses all of civilization (not likely) these folks don't have to worry about how they affect the lives of their children and grandchildren. Those who are super-wealthy will be fine. It is clear evidence that the welfare of the average people of the US, and the people of the world for that matter, does not concern them.

And that is exactly the type of arguement that makes me even more skeptical. It seems if you have an opinion that does not believe in the global warming theory, you are considered anti-environment. And that in turn leads me to believe that there are scientists out there that will not say anything against the global warming theory for fear of ridicule and loss of their research grants (yep, the funding comes from somewhere). Which in turn leads to people who have differing theories to global warming (or the lack thereof) to have to get funding from somewhere which of course leads to the oil industry.

Now, I do believe that emissions should be reduced, but more for air quality in areas, not for global warming.

ThorsHammer2

06-27-2003, 09:01 PM

Hey wouldnt these thrid world countries like African countries be a great source of reneewable energy sources. I know in my city(Toronto) we have the first windmill in a magor North American city. That one windmill is supposed to power 250 homes. Now in magor dense cities this could be a space problem , but just think of the way underpopulated places in the world. THe places that are underpopulated due to them being generally unhospitable. Like the desert. Just think of all that unused potential energy. You could line up rows upon rows of windmills and solar panels and run power lines from these feilds to remote towns in Africa and other cities. At least for their basic needs like elctricity and heating/ cooking their needs could be met by all this empty space.
And have you eve been driving through your city and seen the skyscrapers made externally of all glass. I thought one day, what if each one of those windows was a solar panel. Right now that energy is there for the taking but isnt being used. In fact these office buildings have to use so much energy to keep the building comfortable due to the heat from all those windows.
These talll buildings could be self sufficient and use there own power. If they had an excess they could make money by selling the excess to lower buildings shaded by the taller ones.
Anyway just trying to illustrate that it is possible, in fact there are lots of opportunities for us to use these power sourcesthat are now really going almost to waste.
And with North America facing a natural gas shortage we need to start looking at other sources.

http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/Magazine/MJ01/solar_toronto.asp

bruinb77

06-28-2003, 03:56 PM

There are downsides though. Windmills take up alot of space (got to get those environmental impact studies done!), but do provide some modest energy.

The future will lie with solar energy. Right now it is cost prohibitive, but the future looks bright in that field. One day I do expect to see little solar panels just about everywhere.

But the natural gas shortage isn't bad yet. Since the price was so low a few years back, production capacity went down. It's your basic case of keeping the cost at a certain price level (especially since many power plants now require natural gas). If the price level stays high for a couple of years, new capacity will open. I basically compare it to OPEC. It's basically controlling the supply to keep prices up.

Chaloobi

06-30-2003, 08:52 AM

Why not put windmills on top of tall buildings in cities?

And that in turn leads me to believe that there are scientists out there that will not say anything against the global warming theory for fear of ridicule and loss of their research grants (yep, the funding comes from somewhere).
Oh, so THIS is the reason climatologists all over the world agree that the Earth is warming due to CO2 build-up! And all this time I thought it was scientific evidence. But it's really the natural inclination of all scientists to agree or else they'll be made fun of down at the gym. Peer pressure is a terrible thing in the scientific community. Well, thank God we've got the petroleum industry out there setting some of these climatologists free of their colleague's ridicule by funding some 'independent' studies! I feel a lot better knowing the petroleum industry is out there protecting us from those nasty, lying climatologists.
:haha: :haha: :haha:

termite

06-30-2003, 10:22 AM

:haha::up:LMFAO @ Chaloobi, your sarcasm know's no bounds.

bruinb77

06-30-2003, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Why not put windmills on top of tall buildings in cities?

Oh, so THIS is the reason climatologists all over the world agree that the Earth is warming due to CO2 build-up! And all this time I thought it was scientific evidence. But it's really the natural inclination of all scientists to agree or else they'll be made fun of down at the gym. Peer pressure is a terrible thing in the scientific community. Well, thank God we've got the petroleum industry out there setting some of these climatologists free of their colleague's ridicule by funding some 'independent' studies! I feel a lot better knowing the petroleum industry is out there protecting us from those nasty, lying climatologists.
:haha: :haha: :haha:

Let me see. About 4 months ago, no one spoke up when a piece of foam hit the shuttle. There was plenty of talk, but the info never got out to anyone. I'm not talking peer pressure. I'm talking about being discredited or possibly even job security or just plain ignored (you don't get published by saying there isn't a problem).

earthJoker

07-01-2003, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Loki
There's room for only one Holed Cheese state in this world.:)

:haha: :haha: :haha:
I actually almost had to laught in the middle of the class.

BTW we had the hottest month ever since systematic mesurents are done here in Switzerland http://chat-2.20min.ch/img/schwitz.gif
at least we have A\C in school.
I have the opinion that economy and envoerement aren't oposing thing, they can go well with eachother. It has been said before, pollution hurts the economy aswell, but it doesn't hurt that part of the economy that produces the pollution(in short term) thats why we need laws to enshure a successfull economy in long term.

Chaloobi

07-01-2003, 08:48 AM

Let me see. About 4 months ago, no one spoke up when a piece of foam hit the shuttle. There was plenty of talk, but the info never got out to anyone. I'm not talking peer pressure. I'm talking about being discredited or possibly even job security or just plain ignored (you don't get published by saying there isn't a problem).

Actually, plenty of people spoke up, requests for satellite data were made, emails were circulated throughout NASA questioning this and that, but the leaders at the top didn't think the risk was great enough to pursue the issue further. It's a LOT like the Bush Administration's climate change policy. Except at NASA they didn't lie to the public to cover decisions that they knew the public wouldn't support if they knew the truth.

termite

07-01-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by bruinb77
Let me see. About 4 months ago, no one spoke up when a piece of foam hit the shuttle. There was plenty of talk, but the info never got out to anyone. I'm not talking peer pressure. I'm talking about being discredited or possibly even job security or just plain ignored (you don't get published by saying there isn't a problem).

Um, your second and third sentences are a contradiction, but regardless of that they are also wrong IMO. I certainly heard plenty of reports regarding the foam and it's (possible)involvement in the crash, and while the official line from NASA was not exactly open book this is normal in such circumstances. Investigations(preliminary at least) had to take place before any confirmation about the cause of such an event could occur.

But the fact that data and info, even quite clear images were supplied to media outlets by NASA means that they were not being cowed or restricted any more than would be normal for such a tragic occurance.

It is normal in an event like this for someone to make claims in the media while others criticise NASA openly(or any other company/govt. dept), while knowing NASA can make only limited statements to media until the data is analysed and investigations are complete.

Wormboy

07-01-2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by bruinb77
And that is exactly the type of arguement that makes me even more skeptical. It seems if you have an opinion that does not believe in the global warming theory, you are considered anti-environment. And that in turn leads me to believe that there are scientists out there that will not say anything against the global warming theory for fear of ridicule and loss of their research grants (yep, the funding comes from somewhere). Which in turn leads to people who have differing theories to global warming (or the lack thereof) to have to get funding from somewhere which of course leads to the oil industry.

Theoretically this could be true. There are certainly many other examples in science where a researcher has gbucked the system and spoken up. WHile they do sometimes get their funding cut (depending on the makeup of the grant study sections), they almost always become more famous than they would have been otherwise. More importantly, the major journals like Science and Nature ALWAYS give them lots of coverage, and usually pretty darned objective coverage too (ie they don't automatically rake them over the coals)

I think the best current example is AIDS. There are a handful of scientists, led by Peter Duesberg at UC Berkeley, who have very vocally said that AIDS isn't caused by HIV. Needless to say, this is a very controversial stetment, given that there is better evidence for HIV connected to its disease than there is for MOST infectious agents. Duesberg was the one who claims he could inject himself with HIV and not develop AIDS.

The result? Duesberg is far more famous than he would have been otherwise (he was a successful but not famous virologist before the HIV thing). Man, even I had head of him before I started my postdoc at Berkeley--he had been in the journals all the time. His HIV research gets no funding from the big sources, but that has been compensated by other funding sources (private, I think).

Bottom line, he is FAR more famous than he would have ever been otherwise. He still has fuinding for his lab, and he is invited to speak internationally by those whose agendas are furthered by his propositions.

All of this when Duesberg has been unable to martial ANY experimental data to support his hypothesis. And even HE, a crackpot for all practical purposes, is more successful than he would have been otherwise.

So needless to say, anybody who had any data at all refuting the current model of global warming would almost certainly be guaranteed publication in the big journals, and it would probably be their ticket to fame and glory. Generally speaking, if you science isn't crackpot in nature (like Duesberg's), disrupting the paradigm is the surest way to success.

SO far from being suppressed, as you suggest, people would be encouraged to "disprove" CO2 emissions. It would be their ticket for life. This is my take on how the system works.

Another example: Stanley Prusiner. He discovered prion proteins (of mad-cow disease and Kreutzfeld-Jakob disorder fame). This was bucking a FAR more solid paradigm than CO2 emissions, that of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology (dig the name :D). True, many people criticized prusiner over the years, but his science was solid. He was a prof at UCSF (one of the very best biomed institutions), and he eventually won the Nobel prize (3 years ago?). His funding was never threatened. In fact, he was flush with money.

Most people don't get how scientists think. The very first reaction of scientists is "Show me the data." That's what it all comes down to. So unless somebody is just spouting hot air with no empirical support, they will get a fair hearing. Oh, sure, scientists are human, and everybody has their pet theory, but the botoom line is always the data.

So I seriously doubt there would bne anything repressed. Believe me, if Duesberg couldn't get repressed, NOBODY will be :D

Wormboy

07-01-2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by bruinb77
Let me see. About 4 months ago, no one spoke up when a piece of foam hit the shuttle. There was plenty of talk, but the info never got out to anyone. I'm not talking peer pressure. I'm talking about being discredited or possibly even job security or just plain ignored (you don't get published by saying there isn't a problem).

:confused: I'm confused. We heard about the foam from the second the shuttle went down.

Besides, politics in governmental agencies are VERY different than the general academic scientific community. A story suppressed in a governmental agency? Possible, espcially if only a handful know about it. A story suppressed in the academic coimmunity? NO freakin way. Everybody considers themselves a maverick, and they fight like cats and dogs over credit for stuff.

Believe me, if you see consensus amongst academcs, then there is indeed consensus. Because otherwise they would all be struggling to make the biggest splash by ripping the edifice down. It's standard operating procedure.

Invoking a conspiracy theory in academic research is a total laugh. People's whole careers are made by bucking the trend, and so you can be guaranteed somebody will do so at every turn.

Mind you, it's all in the data, usually. But that doesn't mean that everybody won't be trying to poke holes in something.

That's one of the scariest things about doing science--getting up to give a talk at a conference with 2000 people watching--all of these brilliant people are sitting there trying to find weaknesses in what you are saying. Yikes!

Chaloobi

07-01-2003, 01:55 PM

So I seriously doubt there would bne anything repressed. Believe me, if Duesberg couldn't get repressed, NOBODY will be

Hi Wormboy. I think you mean 'suppressed.' Most of you introverted science types are socially 'repressed' in some way or other, or else you wouldn't have become a scientist. Right?

Chaloobi

07-01-2003, 01:59 PM

Actually, I remember reading about the falling foam issue BEFORE the shuttle crashed. It was noticed on launch, made public, and ruled to be inconsequential while the mission was going on. I remember seeing the news stories about it on CNN's web site, in the Science/Space section. I read that section every day, just before I check my subscribed threads in this forum ;) .

Wormboy

07-01-2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Hi Wormboy. I think you mean 'suppressed.' Most of you introverted science types are socially 'repressed' in some way or other, or else you wouldn't have become a scientist. Right?

oops

/me blushes

bruinb77

07-01-2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by Chaloobi
Actually, I remember reading about the falling foam issue BEFORE the shuttle crashed. It was noticed on launch, made public, and ruled to be inconsequential while the mission was going on. I remember seeing the news stories about it on CNN's web site, in the Science/Space section. I read that section every day, just before I check my subscribed threads in this forum ;) .

That was my point (I was referring to the amount of info BEFORE the shuttle returned, not AFTER the fact), it was ruled inconsequential although many many engineers did not think so.

Back on topic: Since we've been chatting in this thread for the past couple of weeks and my area of expertise is not the environment, I did a bunch of studying and research on this subject. And after reviewing tons of information on the web the past couple of days (just do a google search on global warming to know where I've been), I have to admit that I am wrong in this case. There does seem to be plenty of evidence to support your case.

The biggest problem that I still see is that weather cycles appear to be very long which leaves very few data points to draw conclusions from. But there does seem to be plenty of evidence (from satellite imagry to historical research on climates) to suggest that it is happening.

But I still think the best way to reduce pollution is to go for the Air Quality angle instead of the Global Warming.

Lastly, if there are questions as to what I meant about NASA and the shuttle, please let me know. I don't want to go off topic too badly here.

Chaloobi

07-02-2003, 08:55 AM

Back on topic: Since we've been chatting in this thread for the past couple of weeks and my area of expertise is not the environment, I did a bunch of studying and research on this subject. And after reviewing tons of information on the web the past couple of days (just do a google search on global warming to know where I've been), I have to admit that I am wrong in this case. There does seem to be plenty of evidence to support your case.
First let me say 'wow.' It takes real character to study up on a topic and do a reversal like that. I don't think I've ever witnessed anything like that in this forum. Usually people have their mind made up before they even begin to discuss and the whole thing just becomes a virtual shouting match until someone gives up.
That was my point (I was referring to the amount of info BEFORE the shuttle returned, not AFTER the fact), it was ruled inconsequential although many many engineers did not think so.
I think I understand the point you want to make but I still don't agree that NASA is the example you're looking for. The engineers didn't seem to have any problems expressing their opinion. It was the higher level NASA administrators who decided not to do anything about their concerns. In my mind, this seems a lot like what the Bush Administration did with the EPA's report. The scientists and the lower level EPA employees prepared the report based on their expertise and the higher level administrators, this time in the White House itself, 'adjusted' the report to fit their political agenda.

Unless you're talking about Christine Witman's 'support' for the White House's changes, I don't think there's an argument there was any peer pressuring involved in the EPA. Likewise with NASA. Being ignored is not the same as being pressured to conform.

Chaloobi

07-02-2003, 09:07 AM

But I still think the best way to reduce pollution is to go for the Air Quality angle instead of the Global Warming.
I've been thinking of these two issues as totally separate. Usually air quality is referring to smog, particulates, and acid rain. These are more health related issues than anything else. And acid rain can damage buidlings and other infrastructure as well as destroy small lakes, forests, and farm land (by upping the pH in the soil and water). These also tend to be relatively localized. Smog from LA isn't causing problems in New York. . .

But CO2 build-up is a different animal altogether. The CO2 produced in the US is definitely causing changes throughout the world. And CO2 itself doesn't really affect air quality in terms of direct health and environmental effects. It's the warming that is causing the physical and health issues. So technically, having high CO2 by itself isn't really an air quality problem. . . . .

Back on topic: <snip>
Also, one last point. The discussion of climate change itself isn't really on the original topic of this thread. My biggest concern wasn't wether climate change was real. I was just outraged at the changes the Bush Administration made to the EPA's report in an effort to mislead the public on climate change. No matter what you believe on climate change, the government shouldn't be doctoring up supposedly objective reports before they are released to the public.

termite

07-02-2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Wormboy
oops

/me blushes

Hehe, right click here (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrailPeasants.wav/represd.wav) and choose open, this should clear up the misunderstanding.:D

Ziggy Stardust

07-02-2003, 09:26 AM

Wormboy

07-02-2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by termite
Hehe, right click here (http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/sg/python/Sounds/HolyGrailPeasants.wav/represd.wav) and choose open, this should clear up the misunderstanding.:D

:haha:

I have this nasty habit of mild dyslexia and replacing words. It hasn't hurt me professionally because in writings I always come back and proofread carefully, and in talks I've always practiced it all ahead of time. But I find it coming out a lot on the forum. GACK!

Wormboy

07-02-2003, 12:48 PM

Bruin: I agree with Chaloobi. It's a rare individual who can admit wrong so readily. Remind me to vote for you for judge if you ever run! :D

Chaloobi pretty much expresses exactly my views on the emissions issue, including the main anger here not being about emissions in general, but the mendacity of doctoring a report (especially with industry-funded science, which is anathema to real scientists)

bruinb77

07-02-2003, 07:28 PM

Chaloobi - I see your point about the NASA portion not being exactly the right example that I was looking for. But it still does show a point that sometimes the higher management will not pay attention to the details that are given.

As for my reversal, I know that this area isn't my specialty, but I do like to chat and debate. And as we continued and it didn't disintegrate into just bashing others for a difference of opinion (which alot of threads turn into), I thought I should do my homework so to speak and understand the topic more completely. And the research I that I did wasn't quite matching up to what I understood previously. And I can admit a mistake when I'm wrong.

But back to the main point about the report being changed, my original idea that there were alot of difference in opinion about global warming really doesn't pan out on what I've seen (my first thought as to why the report was changed). When I started looking around, I thought I'd see much more differences in opinion. I still suspect that the report would have been changed no matter what though since the campaign funds are flowing to both parties about now.