Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

And Blue Collar America is...not an adjective I will use here.

Of course I say this as a product of a Blue Collar family.

Another balanced article. It had some stuff I hadn't seen yet.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1

My point is that making all these draconian changes with what we know now seems ludicrous (to me).

There are plenty of scientist that are doubtful that there is any real evidence that mankind is noticebly changing the Earth's temperature. Even many of those that lean that way admit there is not enough evidence to justify drastically changing the way the human race lives. There are scientists that are 100% certain that mankind is adversely effecting global temperatures, but even their models don't satisfactorily explain all the temp variation the Earth experiences. We don't even fully understand how clouds work. There is a lot we don't understand.

I am sure there are plenty of people (scientists and others) that are passionate and altruistic about their global warming beliefs. I just do not think all the uncertainity surrounding the real causes of global warming and the doubts people (scientists and others) have over the causes and effects of temperature change should be dismissed. Those that believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is going through a unique warming up period because of man made reasons that will result in adverse consequences should feel free to adjust their personal lives accordingly. They should NOT be able to enforce their beliefs on others without a lot more evidence/convincing research.

dogma wrote:And Blue Collar America is...not an adjective I will use here.

Of course I say this as a product of a Blue Collar family.

I probably agree with your adjective, also as a product of a BC family. But their political force and power in America is undeniable, and thus is my point.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I thought Al Gore did put money into a carbon credit company, or maybe it was a green energy company (can't recall the details,) and his reward was to be criticised for conspiracy and insider trading.

He was criticized for putting money into a carbon credit company so he could maintain a lifestyle far and above the common person. That is what irked many people. It doesn't look good when you preach fire and brimstone and you don't change anything in your life, other then throwing a couple thousand more dollars a year into planting trees. Do you see what I am getting at? Most of my friends, who like me come from Blue Collar families, don't trust him and other advocates for reasons like that. Many of my friends are a bit more radical and see it as an attempt to further the goal of a complete plutocracy, ie the rich can afford to break the rules concerning climate change, but we peons can't. I am not sold on the idea, but trust me, among the American Blue Collar workers it is gaining popularity.

I understand that feeling, however I don't see why it applies to Al Gore and not to other rich people like Bill Gates or the Bush family.

There was over an inch of snow in Houston. Thats kind of freaky. Rumors that my tongue got stuck on a street sign pole are slanderous lies!

The problem with climate change and it's debate is how politicized it is. Virtually every believer is lefty, and virtually every denier is righty. The science gets completely trampled in the process of everybody joining their respective sides.

Based on my limited understanding of the issue, it seems that there is some pretty decent models that show increased CO2 production leading, after a lag, to increased global temperatures. What I think is lacking is the sort of smoking gun that would justify global regulation of carbon emissions. I think the models are good enough, and nothing else is, to justify continuing to give them credence, but I'm not sure we should uproot the global economy over it.

What they need to do is have a model that shows global warming will lead to soccer taking over as the major sport in the US if not addressed. THEN you'll some actino on the subject...

JEB_Stuart wrote:If he were a true believer, and it really was going to be the end of the world as he declares, then wouldn't he be pouring every dime he has into buying carbon credits, living in a modest home with ample renewable energy sources, and delivering his lectures via things like a webcam or teleconference? That is just my take on it.

Thing is, it isn't the end of the world, and doesn't require a complete lifechange. It represents a range of climate change conditions that will increase exposure to tropical conditions and require many trillions of dollars in capital expenditure to adjust for new weather patterns. It is vastly cheaper to adapt now by lowering emissions.

There's this idea that it either isn't happening, or its utterly vast and requires a complete change of lifestyle... why not a middle position?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dorns Fist wrote:Another balanced article. It had some stuff I hadn't seen yet.

That's worse than the last article, it's just partisan hackery. First it mistakes politics for political will (assuming the difficulties of a global deal reflect popular support for emissions control - which actually has 60% approval worldwide) and goes on to confuse political will with science (whether popular or not, the science remains the science). It then starts fibbing about the leaked emails, claiming the fact that right wing bloggers are scouring the emails is somehow evidence of wrongdoing. If you'd been following the story you'd know by now that the great scandal of the leaked emails involves two quoted sections taken out of context, that basically amount to nothing. Even if you don't read much media there was a thread on it on this forum a couple of days ago.

My point is that making all these draconian changes with what we know now seems ludicrous (to me).

There are plenty of scientist that are doubtful that there is any real evidence that mankind is noticebly changing the Earth's temperature.

No, there isn't. There's a bunch of geologists and the odd physicist that crops up disputing climate change (and among the geologists you can always trace the money back to oil companies), but among the professionals active in the field of climatology there is a 97% agreement that climate change is real and is man made. There is plenty of debate and discussion left to be had about the extent of climate change, the exact impact on local climates and the best way to address the issue.

You never did bother to answer my question about what exactly you'd need to become convinced.

Personally I dont hold much thought in the "global warming" The way I see it, the planet warms and cools over time like it always has. Something will happen eventually to correct the problem. Thats how Earth operates.
But if our sun just suddenly explodes, we wont have to worry about it for what...2 minutes? Isnt that how long it takes the sun rays to get here? 2 or 8? dammit now numbers are popping out from my head lol

KingCracker wrote:Personally I dont hold much thought in the "global warming" The way I see it, the planet warms and cools over time like it always has. Something will happen eventually to correct the problem. Thats how Earth operates.

You're a primary example of another part of the problem. The incredibly ignorant who have their head in the sand, and are too damn lazy to take the time to even look at the most basic material on the topic required to make even the most elementary informed decisions. Deadweight and nothing else.

It's undeniable that human action is causing environmental changes. The scope and scale is not so clear and a big part of the debate around the whole subject, but ignoring the human impact on the environment, and ways to predict and mitigate what could be coming next is dangerously self-delusional.

Bookwrack wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Personally I dont hold much thought in the "global warming" The way I see it, the planet warms and cools over time like it always has. Something will happen eventually to correct the problem. Thats how Earth operates.

You're a primary example of another part of the problem. The incredibly ignorant who have their head in the sand, and are too damn lazy to take the time to even look at the most basic material on the topic required to make even the most elementary informed decisions. Deadweight and nothing else.

Tell us how you really feel!

That people who are intentionally ignorant need a slap upside the head?

There's no rational way to look at the climate data and come to the conclusion that it's all part of a natural cycle that'll work itself out. The world isn't in imminent danger of imploding, anything we do to it, the system will eventually regain equilibrium of one sort or another. The only problem is that if we leave the system to its own devices in terms of regaining balance, there's a good chance that 'of one sort or another' has no guarantee of being a good thing for us.

Ignoring the fringe whackos, the reasoning behind the whole 'carbon responsibility' thing is the same reason fast food restaurants have moved away from styrofoam containers and most people throw trash away instead of dumping it out their window. Doing so isn't going to destroy the world, but taking some responsibility undeniably does make the living environment there a better place.

We'd still prefer it if you'd please take the hint and be a bit more polite when conversing with the other posters.

Thank you.

KingCracker wrote:But if our sun just suddenly explodes, we wont have to worry about it for what...2 minutes? Isnt that how long it takes the sun rays to get here? 2 or 8?

About 10, I think. Of course, the sun exploding without having gone through any of the (billion year long) stages that usually precede it would be pretty unusual.

Kilkrazy wrote:I understand that feeling, however I don't see why it applies to Al Gore and not to other rich people like Bill Gates or the Bush family.

Because they aren't trying to preach the doom of Global Warming to us.

sebster wrote:Thing is, it isn't the end of the world, and doesn't require a complete life change. It represents a range of climate change conditions that will increase exposure to tropical conditions and require many trillions of dollars in capital expenditure to adjust for new weather patterns. It is vastly cheaper to adapt now by lowering emissions.

There's this idea that it either isn't happening, or its utterly vast and requires a complete change of lifestyle... why not a middle position?

Because if you haven't noticed, most people in either side of this debate aren't even considering compromise. Its their way, or off to the gulags with you!

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I understand that feeling, however I don't see why it applies to Al Gore and not to other rich people like Bill Gates or the Bush family.

Because they aren't trying to preach the doom of Global Warming to us.

I don't see what's that's got to do with being jealous of Al Gore's wealth. Oil company presidents are continually trying to preach the lack of doom of no global warming to us, while getting rich by investing in oil shares. Why aren't they envied and disliked?

Its not jealousy over his wealth, its him not putting his money where his mouth is. Its hypocritical in the eyes of many people.

But he is putting his money where his mouth is. He is investing in green technology and carbon futures.

I just don't get it.

Yep.

I don't think this is about investment; it's about consumption.

The fact that he's very wealthy means that he can put a lot of carbon dioxide into the air for no good reason and still balance that out by planting a forest or something (and evidently that's what he does). However, if global warming is seriously in risk of killing half a billion people, and he was chosen by God to stop it, that's still pretty half-assed. He could be planting forests and using commercial flights. Hell, he could use the money he got from selling his private jet to buy even more forests. It's hardly asking him to become an ascetic, but if he won't even sacrifice his private jet flights to prevent a catastrophe, then mustn't we conclude he either does not believe in it as strongly as he says or does not care as much as he says he does?

Thanks Orky, that is exactly what I was saying. I guess I just wasn't very clear.

Kilkrazy wrote:But he is putting his money where his mouth is. He is making lots of money off of carbon futures.

I just don't get it.

Corrected your typo.

Did you know carbon futures were invented by Enron?

Well, remember in the 70s we were causing a new ice age. Really, we as a species aren't that cool. I have always thought that AGW was a total hoax and fear mongering. It made me mad because it took the focus off of real conservation efforts.

The climate changes periodically, period.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:But he is putting his money where his mouth is. He is making lots of money off of carbon futures.

I just don't get it.

Corrected your typo.

Did you know carbon futures were invented by Enron?

That is one of the bigger problems, and Al Gore does seem to be no less than a pusher of this current idea crack. The whole idea about him not riding a bicycle around, while blowing silver bubbles out of his butt... well, it really speaks for itself. When fighting a Hydra.... NUKE IT FROM ORBIT! IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO BE SURE!!!

Dorns Fist wrote:I think it has been obvious for a while that the people that believe global warming is totally man made and going to destroy the planet have been trying to muffle any nonbelievers.

Agreed.

If you were to have all but eliminated humanity entirely 100 or 200 years ago, we'd still be suffering "global warming". The ice age is over, so naturally, temps will increase. The only question is how quickly and to what level.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Dorns Fist wrote:I think it has been obvious for a while that the people that believe global warming is totally man made and going to destroy the planet have been trying to muffle any nonbelievers.

Agreed.

If you were to have all but eliminated humanity entirely 100 or 200 years ago, we'd still be suffering "global warming". The ice age is over, so naturally, temps will increase. The only question is how quickly and to what level.

We are not trying to save the 'planet', we need to maintain an environment in which we can sustain ourselves. I see very little reason why we wouldn't be having an effect on many aspects of the environment. Whether or not all of the data out there is conclusive is a monumental task in itself. Brushing it all aside like your morning coffee is the most important thing in the world (it may be to you however...) is close minded. Not that any of us can actually do something all that amazing about any of this...

If I worked in environmental sciences for multiple decades, I could hope for less than a piece of a part, of a small slice of information leading to conclusive data about such a large, and somewhat overwhelming theory. This, in a nutshell, is why I did not choose to ship of to college early for Marine Biology. I still like whales more than people though... no doubts there.

IMO, we have long passed sustainability in oil removal, ocean fishing, etc. The only question here is on whose shoulders the burden will fall hardest.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Because if you haven't noticed, most people in either side of this debate aren't even considering compromise. Its their way, or off to the gulags with you!

I don't think they're the majority, though they are certainly among the loudest. Personally, I'm not going to define this debate by it's least useful participants. We should sideline those folk, whether they're nutters of the 'man's greed is going to kill mother earth' variety or the 'I haven't read anything on this at all but but I don't like hippies so they must be wrong' sort. Instead we need to spend more time listening to people who've really put time and effort into trying to figure out what's going on and how we can fix this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Somnicide wrote:Well, remember in the 70s we were causing a new ice age. Really, we as a species aren't that cool. I have always thought that AGW was a total hoax and fear mongering. It made me mad because it took the focus off of real conservation efforts.

The climate changes periodically, period.

Again*, in the 1970s climatology was a new science with multiple competing models that attempted to predict the impact of man's actions. Over time these models have been debated and the model that matched the ever-increasing pool of data and demonstrated real predictive power has come to be accepted. This is how science works... physics is not invalid because we've advanced beyond Newton's theories.






*and again, and again...

Find me someone like that, and I might listen more. Not many of the people in charge are like that though...

JEB_Stuart wrote:Find me someone like that, and I might listen more. Not many of the people in charge are like that though...

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

That's the link for the Stern Review, which has the proud claim of being criticised by the extremes of both camps, so it must be doing something right. It argued climate change could be controlled with expenditure of around 1% of GDP (later increased to 2% due to evidence of climate change occuring faster than originally estimated), and failing to do so would result in an economy 20% smaller than what it would otherwise be. He argues long term economic growth requires emissions control.