[nfusion770]

Everyone seems to give truth a spin these days- I can't stand it.

The difference between the oil companies and the environmentalists is that the oil companies generate wealth- a product that fuels our standard of living, jobs, investment income and taxes (was it 40% last year?); environmentalists don't generate anything but alarmism. It doesn't mean that there isn't a place for people who watch out for the environment, it's just annoying that every environmental concern is considered a top priority "crisis."

I reject the notion that big business is evil- businesses, in general, are opportunistic. Those who can gain by supporting the green movement will take advantage of it, while those are hindered by it will cut jobs, raise prices and basically lower the standard of living. I guess I'd like to be certain before we make changes that will be very difficult to have reconsidered.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfusion770 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Everyone seems to give truth a spin these days- I can't stand it. The difference between the oil companies and the environmentalists is that the oil companies generate wealth- a product that fuels our standard of living, jobs, investment income and taxes (was it 40% last year?); environmentalists don't generate anything but alarmism. It doesn't mean that there isn't a place for people who watch out for the environment, it's just annoying that every environmental concern is considered a top priority "crisis." I reject the notion that big business is evil- businesses, in general, are opportunistic. Those who can gain by supporting the green movement will take advantage of it, while those are hindered by it will cut jobs, raise prices and basically lower the standard of living. I guess I'd like to be certain before we make changes that will be very difficult to have reconsidered.

You are correct that not all big businesses are necessarily 'evil', but I'm afraid the data are in (more so every day), and the irrefutable truth is that we have many monumental environmental crises. With regard to climate change, the data are most firmly in. The wacko environmentalists whom you deride are not the only ones who see it, though PR campaigns by various industries seem to have convinced a lot of people that this is the case. When did we start believing PR firms over scientific researchers, who study for a living the extremely complicated things that we unfortunately prefer to have explained in the simplest (and consequently incorrect) terms?

The statement that to address and remedy environmental crises will cause more economic hardship than ignoring them will is false. Perhaps in the next five years, yes, because change is always hard, but in the long term? Tell it to the farmers, who are confronting the very real possibility that someday they may not be able to grow crops for lack of precipitation. We can use our oil-generated wealth to pay fifty times as much for food - doesn't that sound like fun? Or, how about the former Newfoundland cod fishers - I guess maximum wealth was generated by allowing megatrawlers to fish the most productive stretch of ocean in the world into sterility. Damn those environmentalists who were so alarmed that catch sizes were shrinking before the crash came. Oh wait, they were the small-boat fisherman, whose families had been working on the sea for generations. Oops.

Bottom line is that sometimes, stuff happens, and we can deal with stuff either proactively or reactively. Guess which is cheaper?

 

[SactoMan101]

Hey, we should be lucky that we have global warming and not the opposite. At least with warming we can still grow food crops, while with global cooling there would be a mass famine as the cold weather kills off most food crops.

According to Earth's geological history, we may have a period about 250 million years ago an unprecedented Ice Age where most of the planet was encased in glaciers and may have killed off just as much life as the asteroid impact about 65 million years ago that ended the reign of the dinosaurs.

 

[tylernol]

The problem I see... is that my view of the global warming crisis is based on the belief that it's profit-driven. This is my view, and the only way I've been able to get this view is by living as a US citizen for 20 years. Now, that said, I'm not different then many of the other average joes that make up this world. My question is why do we have inefficient vehicles and means of energy when we have the technology (I'd at least like to believe) of having much higher efficiency consumption? The way I see it, 'the media is portraying the global warming crisis as a means to get more people to buy hybrid cars'. Which that in turn carries on the 'war on terror' and our stay in Iraq, and the dependency on foreign oil. Why don't we have razors that last for months? Because you have to continually buy the cartridges that cost $20 for 4. Or so you can 'upgrade' to the newest one out. The thing with human nature is that we have irrational desires so we want certain things, yet ignore harmful things that we do to ourselves to attain those certain things. Doing things without consequence, "It won't affect me in my lifetime," or, "Have my secretary deal with it."

This will ultimately prove our downfall. Just look at the subprime mortage rate deal. The dollar is falling. Countries hate us, for a reason. Most of us don't have discernible goals, and we tend to just run in any direction we can. It's a rat race in america on the grandest scale.

Again, this is all my own opinion, based on what I see, whether it's true or false, it's portrayed to me. I take responsibility for what I see and also what I say, as it is wholly mine.

Tyler

EDIT: Oh yeah, it's all about money. Money money money money!! Money!

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SactoMan101 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Hey, we should be lucky that we have global warming and not the opposite. At least with warming we can still grow food crops, while with global cooling there would be a mass famine as the cold weather kills off most food crops.

Don't count your chickens till they hatch. One potential outcome of global warming is the shutdown of the North Atlantic Current - one of the major 'heat pumps' that moderate northern climates - due to the influx of fresh water from the melting of the Greenland ice cap. Some climatologists speculate that this could lead to such a cooling of Europe and North America that a new Ice Age is not out of the question.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylernol /img/forum/go_quote.gif My question is why do we have inefficient vehicles and means of energy when we have the technology (I'd at least like to believe) of having much higher efficiency consumption?

People don't want high efficiency vehicles. There are two ways to increase efficiency with a given technology base, reduce mass and decrease power. Both have gone the wrong way ever since cars were invented. Mass has increased because people like large and safe cars. Power has increased to cope with the mass and because people like powerful cars. Our technological prowess has allowed us to hold the line on mileage in the face of this trend, but not by much.

The best selling Toyota Camry exemplifies this trend. From 1987 to 2007, the 4-cyl equipped Camry went from 2700 lbs and 86 HP to 3300 lbs and 158 HP. That's a 22% increase in weight and a 84% increase in power over the last 17 years. Mileage, an EPA estimated 24 MPG combined cycle, is the same for both cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylernol Why don't we have razors that last for months? Because you have to continually buy the cartridges that cost $20 for 4. Or so you can 'upgrade' to the newest one out.

If you understood metallurgy, you'd understand why razors don't last for months. It's not like the companies aren't trying. DLCs were a good step that's been in use ever since the introduction of the Mach 3. Kyocera's tried full on ceramic razor blades, but with rather bloody results.

Either way, you could go back to the standby straight razor and learn to sharpen it yourself. No continual buying or upgrading necessary. The need to purchase $20/4 razor refills is merely an artifact of excellent advertising.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylernol Countries hate us, for a reason.

If you can find any world power that many countries didn't hate a some point, I'd be shocked. Our dominance has certainly had a more benign result than most.

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have any of you stumbled across this series of videos? YouTube - wonderingmind42's Channel I discovered them a week ago and found this guy's thesis very interesting. He has created over 40 videos discussing the problem and refuting skeptical arguments against it. No matter what you initial stance is on climate change, I think it is important that you become as educated as possible before solidifying your opinions. I'm not attempting to drag this forum into a destructive political or inappropriate debate - and if this isn't the member's lounge isn't the right place for this then please delete and accept my apologies - I just wanted to pass along some info that I think is pretty interesting and important. Revan

Global warming is FUD & supported by tree huggers..

 

[kool bubba ice]

Quote:

Originally Posted by slwiser /img/forum/go_quote.gif Neither are climatologists that have their hands out for government funds pushing this non-sense credible either.

Of course.. Stopping 'global warming' isn't free.. climatologist need to put in the scare, doom & gloom factor.. Helps to fund their bank account as well..

 

[GlendaleViper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfusion770 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I reject the notion that big business is evil- businesses, in general, are opportunistic. Those who can gain by supporting the green movement will take advantage of it, while those are hindered by it will cut jobs, raise prices and basically lower the standard of living. I guess I'd like to be certain before we make changes that will be very difficult to have reconsidered.

This is an excellent point, and one I agree with, but not completely. There's no question that implementing changes will come with their own set of risks, financially or otherwise - perhaps even with unforseen negative environmental consequences, for irony's sake. But a business is not immune to a hoarding, what's-in-it-for-me attitude. The same individuals who refuse to change their own ways "because it won't affect them now" can be one and the same as a corporation's decision makers who refuse to allow for shortfalls now in hopes of an (IMO inevitable) paradigm shift and profitability later.

It's not all hidden agendas and rhetoric. The automotive industry knows all too well that they sat for too long on developing new engine technologies and now they're scrambling to catch up. At least in Canada, there have been huge strides between the government and the corporations that power us to modernize older nuclear generators back into service with intent of eliminating coal power altogether (a double edged sword, to be sure). Talk to a farmer about the current state of agriculture and then go one step further to question the increasing popularity and profitability of organic crops. Think of the frequency of which towns - maybe your own, have been bombarded with lobbies for the newest landfill location. These are just a few examples where massive corporations, governments and labour groups are all on the same page. This is the future.

I'm not trying to perpetuate the doom and gloom aspect of this. While I do side with the meteorologists, academic environmentalists and field scientists, I can recognize that like anything else, you need to cut through the fat to find the meat. There is a hell of a lot of media attention on this right now, but despite the desperate sensationalism of the whole thing, I fail to see how getting a topic like this on the collective minds of our societies is a bad thing, overall.

Again, you can argue about this from a global perspective until the cows come home, but I'm still perplexed about the staggering opposition from a grass roots level. Especially given the overwhelming number of people who hold the "if it doesn't affect me, I don't care" attitude, you would think more people would be pitching in on a level that helps their own communities. Considering the amount of people still willing to litter their own city streets and highways, it certainly makes you question their arguments, too.

 

[Goh]

slwiser, you support balanced and informed opinions, yet you derive your information from sources like American Thinker and ICECAP that are purposely and transparently skewed towards conservative/right-wing views or climate change skepticism. They, in turn, link to similarly biased sources like The Washington Times. The same way you ask us to, please be critical of the source of your information.

 

[Rav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goh /img/forum/go_quote.gif slwiser, you support balanced and informed opinions, yet you derive your information from sources like American Thinker and ICECAP that are purposely and transparently skewed towards conservative/right-wing views or climate change skepticism. They, in turn, link to similarly biased sources like The Washington Times. The same way you ask us to, please be critical of the source of your information.

Everyting reported in the media is spun to some degree or another, you could probably discount just about any source you chose if you look hard enough for the bias.

Anyway, how about an example from that bastion of right winged conservatism, the Washington Post to balance things a little

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif Of course.. Stopping 'global warming' isn't free.. climatologist need to put in the scare, doom & gloom factor.. Helps to fund their bank account as well..

Are you serious??? There are BIG financial incentives from oil industry groups for climatologists who will publicly attempt to debunk the science supporting the climate change hypotheses. Look at Tim Ball, a leading critic of global warming science - he hasn't published anything in the climatological literature in nearly 20 years (which essentially makes him no longer a climatologist), but he's rolling in cash by going on speaking tours, telling government and industry groups about how climate change is a hoax.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nfusion770 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't want to argue about this, but I'll just say I agree with slwiser. I get the feeling that in 2 years everyone will "conveniently forget the truth" about their part in perpetuating the big global warming scare.

Yes indeed. How most of us have forgotten that as recently as the 1970's, there were dire warnings of an impending ice age. I was around then, and I remember, I even clipped a few articles [one from Discover, IIRC]. From my own study back then, I knew there would be global warming after the late 1990's, though the term had not been invented at that time. Now that GW is here, I know that it will swing back to cool. Get a grip, people.

 

[slwiser]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goh /img/forum/go_quote.gif slwiser, you support balanced and informed opinions, yet you derive your information from sources like American Thinker and ICECAP that are purposely and transparently skewed towards conservative/right-wing views or climate change skepticism. They, in turn, link to similarly biased sources like The Washington Times. The same way you ask us to, please be critical of the source of your information.

You are correct in your assessment of the site and articles that I posted. Since I get so much of the other side from everywhere else I like to view what these people are saying and decide for myself what is probably the right position.

 

[acidbasement]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazarus Short /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes indeed. How most of us have forgotten that as recently as the 1970's, there were dire warnings of an impending ice age. I was around then, and I remember, I even clipped a few articles [one from Discover, IIRC]. From my own study back then, I knew there would be global warming after the late 1990's, though the term had not been invented at that time. Now that GW is here, I know that it will swing back to cool. Get a grip, people.

Climatologists remember the warnings of the impending ice age, yet their prognosis is different from yours. Can you suggest why this might be, aside from the slim chance that they have a much better understanding of the climate system than you yourself do?

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but climate change skeptics are not only arguing with the popular press, which I agree is sensationalistic and rarely accurate with regard to science reporting - they are also arguing with highly educated people who have been pushing back the frontiers of science for decades, and their (the skeptics) arguments are, from what I've seen in this forum, based on gut feelings and flawed amateurish interpretations of incredibly complex phenomena.