Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 16, 2008 12:15:40 GMT -5
Irresistable force (skeptics), meet immovable object (believers).
It's the Kobiyashi Maru.
The answer: Listen to Newt Gingrich. The man is wise.
Drill Here. Drill Now. Invest in Alternative Long Term Energy Solutions.
Well, there's a lot more to it than that, but you can do your own reading.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 16, 2008 12:25:57 GMT -5
Just an addendum to this: a new study finds that 90% of environmentally "skeptic" books since the seventies are linked to conservative think tanks. The pot calling the kettle black. Just google the authors of this and you will see they are environmental activists. So their "research" has the possibility of being just as biased as the "conservative think tanks" they refer to.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 17, 2008 12:27:15 GMT -5
Just an addendum to this: a new study finds that 90% of environmentally "skeptic" books since the seventies are linked to conservative think tanks. The pot calling the kettle black. Just google the authors of this and you will see they are environmental activists. So their "research" has the possibility of being just as biased as the "conservative think tanks" they refer to. Ed, you make a great point, and I have tried to ask the same thing. For some inexplicable reason it falls on deaf ears. For the record, I don't know for sure whether or not man's activities are causing any statistically signifacant effect on the earth's climate. I understand the concern and think that taking reasonable precautions are prudent and wise. But for some reason those on one side of the debate act as if there is factual certaintay backing them up and that the other side is merely selecting their platform based on their political agenda, when in point of fact, if there is a posturing taking place to further an agenda, it would most certainly apply to both sides. Yet for some reason, you almost never hear anyone say that. Should we explore alternative and sustainable sources of fuel? Most certainly. Is it wise to encourage efficiency with regard to fuel consumption? Most certainly. Is it in our best interests to seek energy independence? Absolutely. But .... Do we know for certain that the "sky is falling?" -- which is to say do we have scientific proof that we are causing a warming of the global climate? Without a doubt, the answer is NO. There is nothing wrong with such a position. Those who suggest otherwise are in fact the ones posturing for their own political agenda, not the other way around.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Jun 17, 2008 14:59:22 GMT -5
Whether or not it is "certain" that global warming is happening.... and whether or not you "believe" in it.... Isn't it a good idea to try to prevent it from happening in the first place? I just don't understand the "it's not happening, or at least there's not enough proof, and therefore we shouldn't do anything" argument. Whether it's happening or not wouldn't it be better to not be in the position years down the road thinking "damn, I wish we would have done something?"
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 17, 2008 15:31:43 GMT -5
Whether or not it is "certain" that global warming is happening.... and whether or not you "believe" in it.... Isn't it a good idea to try to prevent it from happening in the first place? I just don't understand the "it's not happening, or at least there's not enough proof, and therefore we shouldn't do anything" argument. Whether it's happening or not wouldn't it be better to not be in the position years down the road thinking "damn, I wish we would have done something?" I hate to go strawman on you, but this is the "alien invasion/giant asteroid" argument, most recently used by a variety of people in the defense community asking for funding to fight the coming war with China. When confronted with questions that there's no proof that we and Beijing are going to go mano a mano over the Spratlies, the answer is always "but the consequences are going to be so terrible that you're going to be sorry!". This is awful logic and poor policy. We do not have enough money to do everything that we want to do right now (forget the war - social security and other entitlements are a nasty cresting tidal wave). Almost every single environmental solution will involve additional costs in some form (either in form of additional taxes or subsidies). It has a cost. So is environmental legislation bad? No. But it needs to be subjected to questions of the ability of the US or the world community to reduce or counteract the negative effects of climate change along with the chance and severity those negative effects would be. Pulling some "if we don't do anything, there's a chance we'll have The Day After Tomorrow" argument is weak.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 17, 2008 15:47:58 GMT -5
Moe, nobody is saying we should do nothing. What we are saying is we should do things that are reasonable (like the items hifi cited) but draconian measures that will be devastating to our economy we should avoid. Our economy functions on energy, as do the economies of all countries, and we must have sources of energy. I would like to magically find one or more alternative sources of energy that have no adverse side-effects but I don't see that utopia appearing. Have you noticed the cost of gasoline lately? Do you understand the task of replacing gasoline with an alternative source, if found, in terms of finding it, refining whatever it is, establishing a distribution system to bring it to the neighborhood, etc. ? This will not occur in the next generation and, in the meantime, what is going to happen to our economy if we don't have oil? And, what is wrong with exploring cleaner coal? Or nuclear? Or drilling in Alaska or offshore? These are some of the most reasonable sources of energy in the near term. What are the consequences if the rulers in the gulf states decide to cut off our oil? Until we have more information to prove that man is causing significant global warming, I think our more important goal should be energy independence. What are you going to say if the next 10 years are just like the last 10 years, that is, the earth has cooled some more? And the cap and trade stuff advanced by McCain and others is merely a way of saying "I won't do anything myself but I'll pay you to do it for me". What a crock.
|
|
|
Post by lightbulbbandit on Jun 17, 2008 17:35:12 GMT -5
"I have completed a study of CO2 levels, atmospheric temperatures, ice core exams, ocean depth temperatures, etc. and it shows without a doubt that we are undergoing an unprecedented global warming process, and that man is at least partly responsible," says a random highly respected scientist.
"Why should we listen to him, he obviously believes in global warming and is biased," responds Bill Middle America when hearing a story about the report.
"Global warming is a myth, temperatures fluctuate over time up and down, and if there actually is a current warming trend it just means we are on an upswing. Man does nothing to effect it either way, " says a recent book questioning global warming theories.
"The book was just published by a conservative think tank, why should we listen to them?" responds an environmentalist group.
Yay! Now nobody has to listen to what anybody has to say cause if they disagree with us then they are obviously biased. Seriously, as a population of people educated at respected universities shouldn't we be able to actually do more than that in debate?
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jun 17, 2008 18:13:11 GMT -5
Moe, nobody is saying we should do nothing. What we are saying is we should do things that are reasonable (like the items hifi cited) but draconian measures that will be devastating to our economy we should avoid. Our economy functions on energy, as do the economies of all countries, and we must have sources of energy. I would like to magically find one or more alternative sources of energy that have no adverse side-effects but I don't see that utopia appearing. Have you noticed the cost of gasoline lately? Do you understand the task of replacing gasoline with an alternative source, if found, in terms of finding it, refining whatever it is, establishing a distribution system to bring it to the neighborhood, etc. ? This will not occur in the next generation and, in the meantime, what is going to happen to our economy if we don't have oil? And, what is wrong with exploring cleaner coal? Or nuclear? Or drilling in Alaska or offshore? These are some of the most reasonable sources of energy in the near term. The Federal Gov't gets a solid chunk of change for the leasing rights that allow drilling in AK and offshore. Everyone of the bills the "evil" Republicans have introduced to allow drilling uses that money to fund federal alternative energy programs. It'd be a good way to cut short term energy costs and get us off of oil at the same time, unless, of course, we're all going to die because of global warming in the next ten years, at which point we're probably screwed anyway.
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Jun 18, 2008 8:56:02 GMT -5
I think it's poor logic to compare global warming to something like a war with China. Quite frankly, there is a good amount of scientists that believe there is scientific proof backing up global warming (even if there is no consensus), while we're far from any sort of widespread fear of a Chinese threat, notwithstanding its size, especially with the knowledge of the state of their army that is terribly far behind technologically.
There's a huge difference between saying "we better get ourselves prepared for an alien invasion" and "there seems to be some evidence towards this trend, we can at least begin to start preparing ourselves for it, and if it's not true, all the better." I'm not saying that we need to completely go balls out and change the face of the earth, but some sort of preparation wouldn't hurt. I'm pretty sure that's already happening militarily, anyway.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 18, 2008 11:29:19 GMT -5
I think it's poor logic to compare global warming to something like a war with China. Quite frankly, there is a good amount of scientists that believe there is scientific proof backing up global warming (even if there is no consensus), while we're far from any sort of widespread fear of a Chinese threat, notwithstanding its size, especially with the knowledge of the state of their army that is terribly far behind technologically. There's a huge difference between saying "we better get ourselves prepared for an alien invasion" and "there seems to be some evidence towards this trend, we can at least begin to start preparing ourselves for it, and if it's not true, all the better." I'm not saying that we need to completely go balls out and change the face of the earth, but some sort of preparation wouldn't hurt. I'm pretty sure that's already happening militarily, anyway. What are we "preparing" for? Environmental activists and "green" companies present nightmare scenarios involving Miami underwater (see, it's not all bad!) and North Dakota never having winter again, and then ask for $1M to fund solar energy research. That's scare tactics. And if we take it as a given that we need to do "something" about global warming, what's that "something"? Tax credits? Where's the money coming from when we're running a deficit? Do you want to jack up airfares when it seems like airlines are already on the brink of collapse? Do you want to restrict air travel (as some have proposed)? Raise gas taxes? Imagine how $5 a gallon would hammer an economy that seems like it's in a recession? Like it or not, the environment is one of many concerns that the United States and the world have to face, and it should not get top billing by default simply even if there's a scientific consensus that "something bad is happening". Within the next month, there are going to be soldiers in Iraq who will die, children in Darfur who will starve, families in Florida who will become homeless, and workers in Indiana who will lose their jobs whether or not global warming destroys the Earth in twenty years. Environmentalism has to make a better case than the bogeyman. There are fundamentally sound reasons to push for energy indepdendence and to reduce pollution, both of which can make up the core of a legitimate energy policy and which have immediate benefits. But simply praying at the church of the environment, where tithing is never enough (go vegetarian, no, go vegan!; don't drive an SUV, no, drive a small car, no, drive a hybrid, no, take public transit, no, walk!; eat at Whole Foods, no, eat at farmer's markets, no, grow your own food, no, take food that's been thrown out, no, eat roots and berries!), is insane.
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on Jun 18, 2008 11:39:37 GMT -5
North Dakota never having winter again Great! I now have lunch plans. Idling my SUV and spraying Aqua Net toward the heavens.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 18, 2008 12:10:02 GMT -5
North Dakota never having winter again Great! I now have lunch plans. Idling my SUV and spraying Aqua Net toward the heavens. ;D - Now THAT'S funny. (Also, depending on where you get your lunch, feel free to burn the styrofoam it comes in.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2008 12:15:50 GMT -5
What are we "preparing" for? Environmental activists and "green" companies present nightmare scenarios... That's scare tactics. ........ Environmentalism has to make a better case than the bogeyman. theexorcist, check out this thread: hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=16358&page=2If saying things like "If we allow gay marriage, someday we'll all be polygamists who are marrying our cousins and computers" isn't a bogeyman scare tactic, I don't know what is.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 18, 2008 12:21:47 GMT -5
What are we "preparing" for? Environmental activists and "green" companies present nightmare scenarios... That's scare tactics. ........ Environmentalism has to make a better case than the bogeyman. theexorcist, check out this thread: hoyatalk2.proboards48.com/index.cgi?board=offtopic&action=display&thread=16358&page=2If saying things like "If we allow gay marriage, someday we'll all be polygamists who are marrying our cousins and computers" isn't a bogeyman scare tactic, I don't know what is. Just an excuse to run this article: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25209226/He looks *WAY* too happy.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 18, 2008 15:37:22 GMT -5
And it's happened. Environmentalists officially fufill Godwin's Law: tinyurl.com/6nc8upYou might want to wear ear protection -- even reading this silently, it still sounds pretty shrill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2008 15:48:52 GMT -5
|
|
moe09
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by moe09 on Jun 19, 2008 11:01:46 GMT -5
I think it's poor logic to compare global warming to something like a war with China. Quite frankly, there is a good amount of scientists that believe there is scientific proof backing up global warming (even if there is no consensus), while we're far from any sort of widespread fear of a Chinese threat, notwithstanding its size, especially with the knowledge of the state of their army that is terribly far behind technologically. There's a huge difference between saying "we better get ourselves prepared for an alien invasion" and "there seems to be some evidence towards this trend, we can at least begin to start preparing ourselves for it, and if it's not true, all the better." I'm not saying that we need to completely go balls out and change the face of the earth, but some sort of preparation wouldn't hurt. I'm pretty sure that's already happening militarily, anyway. What are we "preparing" for? Environmental activists and "green" companies present nightmare scenarios involving Miami underwater (see, it's not all bad!) and North Dakota never having winter again, and then ask for $1M to fund solar energy research. That's scare tactics. And if we take it as a given that we need to do "something" about global warming, what's that "something"? Tax credits? Where's the money coming from when we're running a deficit? Do you want to jack up airfares when it seems like airlines are already on the brink of collapse? Do you want to restrict air travel (as some have proposed)? Raise gas taxes? Imagine how $5 a gallon would hammer an economy that seems like it's in a recession? Like it or not, the environment is one of many concerns that the United States and the world have to face, and it should not get top billing by default simply even if there's a scientific consensus that "something bad is happening". Within the next month, there are going to be soldiers in Iraq who will die, children in Darfur who will starve, families in Florida who will become homeless, and workers in Indiana who will lose their jobs whether or not global warming destroys the Earth in twenty years. Environmentalism has to make a better case than the bogeyman. There are fundamentally sound reasons to push for energy indepdendence and to reduce pollution, both of which can make up the core of a legitimate energy policy and which have immediate benefits. But simply praying at the church of the environment, where tithing is never enough (go vegetarian, no, go vegan!; don't drive an SUV, no, drive a small car, no, drive a hybrid, no, take public transit, no, walk!; eat at Whole Foods, no, eat at farmer's markets, no, grow your own food, no, take food that's been thrown out, no, eat roots and berries!), is insane. So did you even read my post? I don't know what you don't understand about "not going balls out," but I'm pretty sure it means that global warming doesn't have to be the be all and end all of politics. It should, however, come into consideration on some level. That's all. Wow...
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jun 19, 2008 11:31:57 GMT -5
Moe:
Yep, read the post. My problem is that "but some sort of preparation wouldn't hurt", said right afterwards, is generic. And it's extremely generic when the potential consequences of nonaction, as argued by some scientists, are significant.
Currently, the US is engaged is "some sort of preparation", through the funding of alternative energy, the EPA, et cetera. Is that enough? If it's not enough, what level is?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 19, 2008 12:40:21 GMT -5
What gets me is this presumed "either/or" mentality. On one hand you have some scientists and politicians who are seemingly convinced that we have concluded with certainty that global warming is very real and that we are the cause. They then promote a litany of assorted measures including fees/fines/taxes on low efficiency vehicles, raising gas taxes to try to discourage or minimize fuel consumption and raising federal mandates for fuel efficiency among other things. On the other hand, skeptics of the theory suggest that the Al Gores of the world are merely politically motivated and even denounce any scientific evidence altogether as being nothing but a part of an agenda. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. We can be prudent and wise and explore alternative fuels. We can offer incentives for R & D to companies exploring alternative fuels. We can offer rebates or the sort for those adding solar panels and feeding back energy to power companies. Similarly, we can encourage further exploration and expansion of biodiesel energy etc... But we don't have to marry such incentive packages with burdensome taxes and regulations to current companies which -- for lack of a better term -- use more than their share of energy currently or make use of lesser efficient vehicles for example. Those two ideas need not be mutually exclusive. Yet the debate ends up taking on that look as the global warming crowd seeks to strengthen its case by "proving" their theories are correct, while the other side simply gets lambasted as greedy uncaring rich guys who are only looking out for number one. Sorry, but there is a huge area of middle ground.
One example: yes, we should drill more in the Gulf of Mexico for oil. We shoucl also tap into the largely untouched artic oil potential, but we can also encourage increased exploration in ethanol, biodiesel, solar and nuclear among others.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jun 19, 2008 12:59:05 GMT -5
What I think gets missed in a lot of the discussions is that there's a lot we can do outside the deus ex machina or heavy regulation solutions, namely through zoning and planning. We aren't a car-dependent suburban country because we naturally evolved that way, it's what we've explicitly chosen to subsidize. From the 4:1 imbalance in federal dollars for new highway construction to transit, to the zoning and regulatory statutes that reward clearing new land for development and discouraging any sort of density, we've used the law to tilt the market in sprawl's favor.
Now, I'm not saying that I think everyone should move to the city or anything. But allowing high density development abutting transit centers is something we should be encouraging, as are mixed-use developments instead of strip malls. Free parking is not a constitutional right, either, nor is free hookups to the sewer and electic grids for your newly cleared cul-de-sac.
Gas prices aren't ever going to go back down (the Dept. of Energy even states that drilling in ANWR will only lower the price of a barrel of oil $0.75). As seen lately, people will use transit if it's available. We should be building more transit, especially to suburban downtowns, and encouraging denser development immediately abutting them. If we can lower the need to use a car for all trips, we can do a lot to reduce carbon production.
|
|