SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 26, 2007 3:39:38 GMT -5
Wow. Fox "news"! And some obscure dude in New Zealand? OK, I'm convinced.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 26, 2007 8:15:35 GMT -5
Not trying to convince you, SirSaxa, merely pointing out that not everyone agrees with the "consensus". Also, dismissing something because you don't like the source does not contribute to the discussion. Why not dispute the interpretation of this "dude"?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 26, 2007 10:24:29 GMT -5
See, that's one of the articles from the other side that bugs me. Right off the bat, he claims that those who support global warming want to hamstring our economy, as if that's their main goal.
I don't know of anybody who thinks that holding the economy back is a good thing. Sometimes it is seen as an acceptable side effect to an effort to avoid a greater calamity, but I don't think too many scientists are motivated by a desire to hold the economy back.
The fact is that most scientists who believe in global warming think that it's a genuine and very serious threat to humanity. They trumpet their findings in public not becuase they're part of some sinister plot to ruin the American economy, but because they're genuinely concerned about what they see as a serious problem. That doesn't mean that they're automatically right, but for global warming critics to start out by doubting their motives is unproductive and wrong.
The fact is that scientists on both sides of this debate have good intentions. The sooner we stop whining about how global warming proponents 'want to ruin our economy' or how global warming critics 'are in the pockets of big business' the sooner the scientists can get down to the facts and start figuring out exactly what's going on with our climate.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 26, 2007 13:03:37 GMT -5
Agree with Stig 100%.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 26, 2007 20:45:03 GMT -5
Not trying to convince you, SirSaxa, merely pointing out that not everyone agrees with the "consensus". Also, dismissing something because you don't like the source does not contribute to the discussion. Why not dispute the interpretation of this "dude"? A few things. One, there is a difference between the definitions of "consensus" and "unanimity". If what you were doing was trying to point out that the human impact on climate change has resulted in an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, but not in absolute unanimity, your message escaped me. Possibly because you titled this thread "What global warming?" then added "the consensus seems to be falling apart". Two, there is no debate within the scientific community that human activity is contributing to climate change. There is only debate about the percentage of change that can be related to human activity, and the range of potential outcomes. Three, those who most vociferously deny human impact on climate change don't cite any scientific studies to support their point of view. They just make blanket statements. Sen. James Inhofe, R-OK, former Chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment is a perfect example. He calls global warming a hoax, says we can't possibly know what temperatures were thousands of years ago, nor can we know how much CO2 was in the atmosphere at the time, and cites no scientific evidence whatsoever. He merely denies the ability of scientists to determine those facts. Four. Republicans like Sen. Inhofe and Bush/Cheney try to turn this into a Republican v Democrat issue. But, of course, it is not. Virtually the entire world recognizes the human impact on climate change, except for the Republican party of the USA which -- coincidentally -- just happens to be deeply in bed with the oil industry (esp. in Texas) and with the Saudi ruling family. Five. Bush came into office saying he would reduce CO2 emissions -- a key part of his campaign platform. But once he took office, he immediately flip flopped on that and gave his big biz patrons free rein to release as much C02 as they pleased, undermining his newly installed head of the EPA, Republican Christie Todd Whitman. Six. Bush also said he would not sign the Kyoto protocol because the science was fuzzy (it seems that anything to do with science or math is "fuzzy" to this Yale and Harvard B school grad). He also said the issue was serious and required study. Then has done absolutely ZERO for the first 6+ years of his administration. Claiming there is a debate about global warming is like claiming there is a debate about cigarettes causing cancer. There isn't any, unless you work for the oil industry, the tobacco industry, or the Bush administration. If you are truly interested in finding out the truth about this issue and what the scientific community -- the consensus of the scientific community -- thinks, you could start with the IPCC reports from the UN. They represent the consensus of close to 200 countries. Then you could move on to read what James Hanson of NASA has to say, or Robert Correll, head of Climate Change for the National Science Foundation, or Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE, or Bill Reinart of Toyota, or Lee Scott, CEO of Walmart, or even Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican Governor of California. Or a myriad of others - like the conservative UK-based Economist magazine. Don't worry, you don't have to go anywhere near Al Gore, an environmental group like the NRDC, or even a Democratic candidate for President. Most people on this board (myself included) are not scientists and could not conduct these studies themselves. But most of us are smart enough that if we took the time to read up on the issues, read the results of some of the studies and look to a wide source of information from reputable news organizations around the world, we can get a pretty good idea of what is actually going on. Or, we could just deny it all because we don't want to believe it.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 28, 2007 19:19:58 GMT -5
change, except for the Republican party of the USA which -- coincidentally -- just happens to be deeply in bed with the oil industry (esp. in Texas) and with the Saudi ruling family. Yeah, we really hate the enviroment down here in Texas. Who knows how the state legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, just passed a comprehensive clean air bill aimed at tightening standards for pollutants and (gasp!) greenhouse gases. What's even more baffling is that the bill was authored by a Republican in the House and sponsored by a Republican in the Senate. As a Texan, I personally fear reprisal from the oil industry. I am sure big oil will close down all the Gulf Coast refineries and raise our pump prices (because it's the oil companies that set the oil prices, right?). NB: The bill has its flaws, but the caricature of Texans as oil-swilling cowboys that has been widely parroted over the past seven years is beginning to irk us just a tad. There are plenty of politicans not from Texas, on both sides of the aisle, that accept donations from big oil.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on May 29, 2007 16:03:38 GMT -5
Very well said, SirSaxa
There are guilty politicians in both major parties. Republican or Democrat, crusty old rich guys in bed with big oil come in all shapes, sizes, and party affiliations.
One quick story related to big oil but totally unrelated to our discussion: I had a scotch on the rocks at the Pipeline Club in Valdez, Alaska a couple weeks ago. This is the very same Pipeline Club where Joseph Hazelwood had a scotch on the rocks before crashing his ship, the Exxon-Valdez, into some rocks in Prince William Sound in 1989.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on May 30, 2007 11:50:08 GMT -5
Robert Samuelson has a column in today's WaPo on the relationship between global warming, energy markets, gas prices, and politics.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 30, 2007 18:17:49 GMT -5
RE gas prices: "big oil" makes about 8 cents a gallon from gasoline sales. Local service station makes about 6 cents a gallon. Federal and state taxes make about 50 cents a gallon (in New York, it's 63 cents). Why don't we hear about government gouging customers?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 31, 2007 8:39:10 GMT -5
RE gas prices: "big oil" makes about 8 cents a gallon from gasoline sales. Local service station makes about 6 cents a gallon. Federal and state taxes make about 50 cents a gallon (in New York, it's 63 cents). Why don't we hear about government gouging customers? Because the federal government didn't make some $40 billion lin profit last year, like Exxon did, nor did its stock surge 35%, like Exxon's did.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 31, 2007 11:15:17 GMT -5
RE gas prices: "big oil" makes about 8 cents a gallon from gasoline sales. Local service station makes about 6 cents a gallon. Federal and state taxes make about 50 cents a gallon (in New York, it's 63 cents). Why don't we hear about government gouging customers? Because the federal government didn't make some $40 billion last year, like Exxon did, nor did its stock surge 35%, like Exxon's did. No, the federal government "made" a hell of a lot more than $40 billion last year. And tax revenues have surged by about 35% over the last few years. I don't mind the discussion, but the oil companies are entitled to make profits, you know?
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on May 31, 2007 11:47:46 GMT -5
Because the federal government didn't make some $40 billion last year, like Exxon did, nor did its stock surge 35%, like Exxon's did. No, the federal government "made" a hell of a lot more than $40 billion last year. And tax revenues have surged by about 35% over the last few years. I don't mind the discussion, but the oil companies are entitled to make profits, you know? Fair point. Original post modified to reflect exxon's $40 billion in profit not revenue. I actually agree with you to a certain extent about windfall profits like these. It costs a lot--with the oil companies assuming a fair amount of risk--to find, extract, and refine the oil pumped into Hoyatalkers' minivans. Though if you want to get technical, there is a huge difference between oil companies seeing their stock surge by 35% last year and the federal government seeing tax revenues rise by a comparable percentage over the last few years. The benefits I derive from an oil company's stock/revenue increasing by a certain percentage (increased oil exploration) aren't exactly comparable to the benefits I derive from the government's revenue increasing by a comparable percentage (increased services such as roads, schools, health care, etc).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2007 13:06:15 GMT -5
Because the federal government didn't make some $40 billion last year, like Exxon did, nor did its stock surge 35%, like Exxon's did. No, the federal government "made" a hell of a lot more than $40 billion last year. And tax revenues have surged by about 35% over the last few years. I don't mind the discussion, but the oil companies are entitled to make profits, you know? They certainly are. But if they're so good at making profits, maybe they should stop accepting government subsidies and tax breaks along the way. Or would that simply expose them as poorly run business?
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on May 31, 2007 15:00:58 GMT -5
Long before the second Iraq war and current surge in oil prices, perhaps the late 90s, I read (in the Economist I think) that if you take into account the taxes we allow for military expenditures to protect our oil supply lines (convoys, coast guard support, etc.), we're actually paying $7 plus per gallon. Anyway, oil/energy prices are up, but they are still a relative bargain compared to health care and labor prices.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Jun 1, 2007 13:56:10 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 3, 2007 7:43:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2007 8:20:40 GMT -5
I can no longer take easyed seriously now that he's backing his points with links to www.canada.com
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,866
|
Post by thebin on Jun 6, 2007 11:43:16 GMT -5
From what I can gather...Easyed is saying that there is a manufactured consensus in the mainstream media about significant human contribution to climate change that doesn't reflect reality. He then gives some links to the few voices from outside the mainstream (for mainstream media read: 98% of their writers/reporters will never once vote Republican in their lives) and is damned because the sources of those links are deemed to be outside of the mainstream.
I don't envy you easyed.
|
|
|
Post by ExcitableBoy on Jun 6, 2007 11:54:46 GMT -5
From what I can gather...Easyed is saying that there is a manufactured consensus in the mainstream media about significant human contribution to climate change that doesn't reflect reality. He then gives some links to the few voices from outside the mainstream (for mainstream media read: 98% of their writers/reporters will never once vote Republican in their lives) and is damned because the sources of those links are deemed to be "outside of the mainstream." I don't envy you easyed. I don't particularly care what the local journalism-major has to say about the science behind climate change. I also don't appreciate people like George Will mining for quotes from the 70's and then factually misrepresenting them. Whatever side of the spectrum you're on, you shouldn't appreciate this type of journalism (take your pick, it's either amateur or purposely misleading). Instead, why not look to the Science magazines of the world? There are hundreds of rigorously peer reviewed journals that exist solely to flesh out answers to questions such as our impact on the changing climate. Citing canada.com does not do much to further the debate about the underlying science that has built a consenus.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jun 6, 2007 12:54:12 GMT -5
See, this is where you lose me. I'm willing to listen to or read arguments for and against, but it seems that every time there's an anti-global warming opinon, the natural reaction is just to trash it without even giving any consideration.
Why does it matter what site this information is posted on? If you know of specific information about Lawrence Solomon and why he is not a credible source or about the EPRF, that's fine. I'll admit not knowing anything about him, but a quick check (and just that; granted very cursory) seems to indicate that he's farily well credentialed to speak on the subject of energy and the environment.
Certainly he has a point of view, which you may not agree with, but that alone shouldn't mean it's not worth reading. Again, if you have specific information that says that this man or his organization is not credible, fine. But saying the information is worthless just because of where it's posted from is ludicrous.
As for George Will misrepresenting facts, I can agree with that, as long as you can agree that Al Gore has been doing the same thing and that's just as wrong.
|
|