theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 29, 2008 10:46:06 GMT -5
I don't think that "politicized" is not necessarily a bad thing. Politics is a way to allocate scarce resources and make hard choices.
As you have said, there are problems on both sides. European laws on "green items" tend towards the draconian. And there are some nuts out there who want to radically reduce airline flights. And the list goes on. They are just as bad as the "science deniers" you cite.
The other problem is what appears to be the "hell is paved with good intentions" problem. Farmer's markets are better for the environment, except for all those cars and all that inefficiency with small-scale agriculture may make them worse. Ethanol is better for cars, except that sustainable food used by the poor is replaced by corn and sugarcane fields, which is like everyone getting an SUV and running it on full power. Wind turbines are unnatural and break up the prairie. Solar power results in monstrosities like ICC. Nothing is a good answer.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,331
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 29, 2008 11:02:50 GMT -5
Similarly, many people are apt to dismiss any information which might provide evidence that climate change is a much more complex issue than they want to believe. If nothing else, this information shows that there are other factors which can and do have a major impact on global temperature, which are entirely unrelated to human impact.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 29, 2008 12:59:30 GMT -5
I don't think that "politicized" is not necessarily a bad thing. Politics is a way to allocate scarce resources and make hard choices. As you have said, there are problems on both sides. European laws on "green items" tend towards the draconian. And there are some nuts out there who want to radically reduce airline flights. And the list goes on. They are just as bad as the "science deniers" you cite. The other problem is what appears to be the "hell is paved with good intentions" problem. Farmer's markets are better for the environment, except for all those cars and all that inefficiency with small-scale agriculture may make them worse. Ethanol is better for cars, except that sustainable food used by the poor is replaced by corn and sugarcane fields, which is like everyone getting an SUV and running it on full power. Wind turbines are unnatural and break up the prairie. Solar power results in monstrosities like ICC. Nothing is a good answer. Politics are not a good way to allocate scarce resources because politics amplifies entrenched power such as wealth, organization, and incumbents. Take for example, the regulation of mercury - a chemical that everyone can agree is harmful to human health. The Bush Administration tried several times to pass legislation called Clear Skies in 2002 and 2003 that would move mercury from being regulated under the Clean Air Act through the application of tough demonstrated technology-based standards to regulation through a cap-and-trade program. The cap-and-trade program was favored by electric utilities that burn coal because it would allow them breathing room in implementing these standards or it would be struck down by a court and leave them unregulated. The final EPA rule was written by a person who is now a lobbyist for the energy industry. The rule was basically an implementation of the Clear Skies Act and it gave the coal industry a huge break. This is an example of how democracy works with allocating scarce resources (coal) and environmental regulation - entrenched interests win. That is no way to approach making environmental law and it undermines the premise that resource allocation under a democracy will be like a huge town hall meeting where priorities in environmental regulation and resource allocation are registered. I agree that certain issues like the use of biofuels (as opposed to the sale of those crops to LDCs) create implicate North-South issues. That does not mean that these are worse decisions. The cost trade offs can be measured in terms of the loss of future crop yields due to rising temperatures versus maintaining crop yields through the use of biofuels. The same economic analysis and cost trade offs can measure the relative gain or loss of a proposed environmental law. Simply throwing up your hands and saying the fact there are trade-offs means that nothing should happen is not enough.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 29, 2008 13:23:21 GMT -5
If doing nothing about global warming means that whatever horrific creature that is in St. Pete's avatar goes extinct, well then I'm all for doing nothing! If the human race has to die out too, well then so be it. Some prices are just worth paying. Yeesh, I am going to have nightmares about that thing!
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 29, 2008 13:25:26 GMT -5
SPH:
How should scarce resources be allocated? Politics - which includes voting, but also includes elected reps cutting deals - seems the best way.
Please say you wouldn't involve some high command counsel.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 29, 2008 15:00:55 GMT -5
SPH: How should scarce resources be allocated? Politics - which includes voting, but also includes elected reps cutting deals - seems the best way. Please say you wouldn't involve some high command counsel. I think that the protective principle should be codified in environmental law. There are actually lots of commissions or councils that don't have the greatest transparency such as the "God Commission" that can allow projects that would otherwise be precluded by NEPA.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 29, 2008 15:01:39 GMT -5
If doing nothing about global warming means that whatever horrific creature that is in St. Pete's avatar goes extinct, well then I'm all for doing nothing! If the human race has to die out too, well then so be it. Some prices are just worth paying. Yeesh, I am going to have nightmares about that thing! Its a baby panda, for the record.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,331
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 29, 2008 15:14:20 GMT -5
The first party of the first panda may sue the second-party panda unless that panda was said panda's aforementioned panda.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Feb 29, 2008 15:17:33 GMT -5
The first party of the first panda may sue the second-party panda unless that panda was said panda's aforementioned panda. Bravo! ;D
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 29, 2008 15:22:17 GMT -5
SPH: How should scarce resources be allocated? Politics - which includes voting, but also includes elected reps cutting deals - seems the best way. Please say you wouldn't involve some high command counsel. I think that the protective principle should be codified in environmental law. There are actually lots of commissions or councils that don't have the greatest transparency such as the "God Commission" that can allow projects that would otherwise be precluded by NEPA. Environmental law is made by Congress, which is politics. Just sayin'. Pandas still exist because Roy Hibbert protects them. They're endangered because he always wants them to remember who's boss.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Mar 7, 2008 15:11:59 GMT -5
I think that the protective principle should be codified in environmental law. There are actually lots of commissions or councils that don't have the greatest transparency such as the "God Commission" that can allow projects that would otherwise be precluded by NEPA. Environmental law is made by Congress, which is politics. Just sayin'. Pandas still exist because Roy Hibbert protects them. They're endangered because he always wants them to remember who's boss. Ha! Nice one exorcist. Environmental law is also made by agencies through the regulatory process and Courts via interpretation and adjudication. Good example: the complex mess that is NEPA. That's not to detract from your point at all: obviously a lot of what happens in agency rulemaking is politcally driven (these days anyway).
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 4, 2008 14:31:28 GMT -5
Some more news on this front (oooh! bad pun): www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557209&in_page_id=1770At least someone here has gone on record with something tangible, that we should be seeing record temperatures when La Nina effects subside in a few years. I doubt any actions we take between now and then will have any significant global effect, so I guess we'll see. Actually, to be honest, I am less interested in what a 10-year trend of cooling may mean than I am in reading and enjoying angry comments from Brits. I plan to add "I am sick and tired of all this waffle!" to my own personal lexicon/repertoire immediately! ;D
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 13, 2008 9:18:11 GMT -5
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 13, 2008 12:28:54 GMT -5
I am glad to know that Rush Limbaugh is preaching this guy's gospel. It provides some real credence to his hypothesis. I wish the global warming fear would go away, but I tend to believe the thousands of real scientists, who say this IS a problem. Being a scientist myself, I guess I tend to stick together with my peers. Applying models in my work, I know the extent to trust these models. I know for smaller systems these models could be even better than experiments (which are sometimes hard to do). For larger systems you know your limitations and you plan accordingly. For atmospheric modeling many variables come into play, so there are limits that you can place on these models. Most of the models I have seen show atmospheric carbon dioxide is a problem, especially with sinks, like the rain forest in the Amazon quickly being eroded. I hearken back to the precautionary principle that dictates that we take seriously this threat, because if we don't, we can have irreversible effects.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 13, 2008 13:19:49 GMT -5
Nevada - I don't see where Rush Limbaugh is anywhere involved. Here is a quote from the link I posted:
"On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC."
My point in posting this is there is the cry that there is a consensus that man-made global warming is significant. 31,000 scientists disagree. So much for consensus. I note you are not one of the 31,000.
Of course some will blame my posting this on my age.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,432
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 13, 2008 13:37:56 GMT -5
Nevada - I don't see where Rush Limbaugh is anywhere involved. Here is a quote from the link I posted: "On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released. Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.D's. Think about that. Thirty-one thousand. That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming. A few more join the chorus every week. There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC." My point in posting this is there is the cry that there is a consensus that man-made global warming is significant. 31,000 scientists disagree. So much for consensus. I note you are not one of the 31,000. Of course some will blame my posting this on my age. Ed, of course it is your age. It used to be that you couldn't trust anybody older than 30. That has changed to 60 (oops that includes me ). I was referring to this passage: Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments. RL publicized this, because he "validated" the data. I am a bit skeptical of the numbers of scientists quoted that disagreed with the global warming hypothesis. 22,000 of the 31,000 were not Ph.Ds. I think that says something right there. I am not saying that having a Ph.D. embodies you with some mystical power or wisdom, but it shows that you have been through grad school, have been taught how to do research, you should know what is important in hypotheses and what is not, etc. I note that I am not one of the 2500 scientists on the UN panel, so scientists like me, who think there is something to this global warming business, have not been counted. I think when you do the counting, we number more than 31,000 scientists/9,000 Ph.Ds. Also, I suspect the number of scientists/Ph.Ds doing the actual research or in the atmospheric modeling area agree with the global warming hypothesis at a rate of maybe 10 to one. As I said, it would be great if the hypothesis is wrong, but I think we should examine it as much as possible, because if the hypothesis is right and we don't do anything about it, we are in a heap of trouble.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2008 13:53:47 GMT -5
And there are what, tens of millions of scientists in the world? Yeah, we should extrapolate from 31,000 of them.
By the same logic, we should extrapolate the warming trend of the past century and call it global warming. Shouldn't we?
Funny how the global warming skeptics tell us not to focus on small sample sizes...unless it benefits their argument.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 13, 2008 13:57:24 GMT -5
Actually ed, it is your age: you're too young to remember that a Swedish scientist first put forth the idea that increased concentrations of atmospheric CO2 could warm the globe in 1896, and that generations of scientists have studied the issue, and that the word "consensus" means general agreement, not unanimity (as Nevada points out).
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jun 13, 2008 14:43:36 GMT -5
yeah what exactly qualifies the objectors as scientists.
1) For the most part scientists agree global warming is a legitimate issue that must be addressed. 2) even suppose the man made impact is not as big as we've been lead to believe,first of all it definitely isn't helping. second of all how could polluting less hurt. The steps people are proposing to help fix global warming are good things in themselves anyway. Frankly in my mind it doesn't even matter if global warming exists are not we should still pollute less, work to save energy, and try and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jun 16, 2008 10:46:16 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.
|
|