| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2009 07:55:11 PM · #251 |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 08:24:56 PM · #252 |
Fact: Every scientist is on SOMEONES payroll
Another thing, whenever anyone stands against anything that is mainstream he/she will definitely be attacked, ridiculed, and ripped to shreds. Unfortunately, being an environmental alarmist is mainstream nowadays. I didn't even bother reading your link to some random guy's forum.
I've said all that needs to be said in this thread, bubye now. |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 09:06:21 PM · #253 |
Do you believe in playing Russian Roulette?
If the "environmental alarmists" are wrong and we act on their plan, we have cleaner air, more power, and some fat-cat energy companies will have to adapt, or be replaced like the dinosaurs you're burning in your gas tank ...
If the "environmental alarmists" are right and we don't act, we run the real risk of ending modern civilization as we know it. It's one thing for some homeowners to be "under water" on their mortgages, but it will be more serious when Wall Street is literally under the Atlantic.
Ultimately, I think (as usual) it comes down to greed -- basically an insistence on spending our children's inheritance now and screw the future ... |
|
|
|
07/30/2009 09:55:44 PM · #254 |
Wallstreet isn't going to be under the Atlantic any time soon. Sea levels rose about 1 ft in the last 150 years and are predicted to rise about another foot in the next 100 years.
There are many, many issues which need our attention right now. Climate change is only one. The other issues if addressed will far surpass the effectiveness of addressing global warming alone.
The sky is not falling and the world is not turning into one giant lake. What's needed is proper discussion, not bickering.
Bjorn Lomborg has it right. Looking at the economics of all the alternatives and picking the one that best serves to improves things at the least cost.
The alarmists have got our attention. Let's not let them run the show as they will be leading us down the most expensive, least effective path.
This does not mean do nothing. Far from it. But until we get some decent discussion nothing is going to happen. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:41:28 AM · #255 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Wallstreet isn't going to be under the Atlantic any time soon. Sea levels rose about 1 ft in the last 150 years and are predicted to rise about another foot in the next 100 years. |
1 ft? Try 1 meter.
It's interesting that a UN panel of top scientists from 113 countries that reaches a unanimous conclusion and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work are so quickly dismissed as "alarmists." This isn't a bunch of tree-hugging Greenpeace activists in tie-dyed shirts, and you might consider the possibility that they're simply reporting what they found. Frankly, it's more far-fetched to believe 113 governments of varying ideologies could orchestrate a conspiracy of any kind together, much less one that demands actions those governments don't want to take. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:55:06 AM · #256 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Any link by the IPCC spells out fraud. Proves nothing. |
The conclusions of a Nobel-prize winning group of climatologists from 113 nations proves nothing, but you'll believe the word of a discredited geologist on Exxon's payroll. Wow. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:06:04 AM · #257 |
I'm no sheep, and i wont believe something just because I'm told to believe it.
"Lots of people agree on this, ooo nobel prizes, oooh scientists are telling me to believe this then i certainly should i shall believe them blindly without any scrutiny, and the cherry on top is that Al gore is telling me to believe this, this leaves no room for doubt, also there's a cool sounding panel called IPCC (WOW IMPRESSIVE NAME) now I'm 100% sure its true"
That's called herd mentality and that's not my cup of tea. The same kind of herd consensus convinced the world its ok to bomb Iraq because it UNDOUBTEDLY and CLEARLY had WMD's and posed an immediate risk to Americans, nowadays we casually joke around about it on the daily show as "bad intelligence", i doubt the hundreds of thousands who died in Iraq find it funny.
IPCC's methods are very questionable, fraudulent and far from trustworthy. Why should i believe a panel that found it necessary to forge the list of scientists that "agreed" with its main thesis? Sounds like dirty politicians at work. This is biased science, its science with the predetermined task to prove that climate change is man made. That was their goal from day one, to prove this fact, clearly setting the stage for biased conduct.
chew on this |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 05:46:33 AM · #258 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
Any link by the IPCC spells out fraud. Proves nothing. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The conclusions of a Nobel-prize winning group of climatologists from 113 nations proves nothing, but you'll believe the word of a discredited geologist on Exxon's payroll. Wow. |
Not everyone buys into the conclusions reached by this org whose leader is at best a hypocrite and an opportunist and at worst is.......well, Al Gore.......8>)
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 08:01:52 AM · #259 |
Originally posted by Timosaby:
I'm no sheep, and i wont believe something just because I'm told to believe it. |
At least be honest. You won't believe it because you're determined not to. The WMD situation is a good analogy, but you're on the wrong side of it: we went against the recommendations of the people in the field who actually study the issue. The very idea that IPCC might be politically motivated defies logic... governments around the world would like nothing more than to reassure us that everything is fine with business as usual. You suspect fraud and influence where the opposing side has already admitted it (literally bribing scientists to speak out on their behalf).
No matter. It's highly unlikely that any meaningful action will be undertaken in the next 20 years, and eventually the sand will become too hot to stick your head in it. ;-) |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 08:25:58 AM · #260 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
No matter. It's highly unlikely that any meaningful action will be undertaken in the next 20 years, and eventually the sand will become too hot to stick your head in it. ;-) |
In the next 20 years that sand's gonna become that hot?
I don't think so!
Even your own experts don't buy into a change that quick.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 09:24:20 AM · #261 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
In the next 20 years that sand's gonna become that hot? |
A hyperbole, Jeb. With the observed acceleration of warming, it will become increasingly difficult to explain with anything BUT human influence (it already is).
You may dispute Gore or the IPCC on specifics, but there is 97% global agreement among climatologists that global warming is real and significantly influenced by man. The concept has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. That much is no longer in dispute, and pretending it is is like refusing to believe astronomers en masse regarding the stars or denying physicists in general on a prediction of inertia. Timo's calling the people who actually study the issue a "crazed, politically driven environmentalist movement" and waiting for proof from the experts. It's crazy talk â these ARE the experts! The only part in dispute is not "whether," but "how much" and "how bad."
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 09:37:19. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 09:59:32 AM · #262 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Wallstreet isn't going to be under the Atlantic any time soon. Sea levels rose about 1 ft in the last 150 years and are predicted to rise about another foot in the next 100 years. |
1 ft? Try 1 meter.
It's interesting that a UN panel of top scientists from 113 countries that reaches a unanimous conclusion and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its work are so quickly dismissed as "alarmists." This isn't a bunch of tree-hugging Greenpeace activists in tie-dyed shirts, and you might consider the possibility that they're simply reporting what they found. Frankly, it's more far-fetched to believe 113 governments of varying ideologies could orchestrate a conspiracy of any kind together, much less one that demands actions those governments don't want to take. |
I doubt the 1 meter. It only rose 1ft in the last 150 years. Also, Al Gore has indicated a rise of 20ft. Ludicrous. If that's not alarmist, I don't know what is.
Instead of trying to stop climate change (you can't anyway) to avoid the rise, whatever it is, why not take preventative measures to protect against the rise?
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 10:03:08. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 10:24:05 AM · #263 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Do you believe in playing Russian Roulette?
If the "environmental alarmists" are wrong and we act on their plan, we have cleaner air, more power, and some fat-cat energy companies will have to adapt, or be replaced like the dinosaurs you're burning in your gas tank ...
If the "environmental alarmists" are right and we don't act, we run the real risk of ending modern civilization as we know it. It's one thing for some homeowners to be "under water" on their mortgages, but it will be more serious when Wall Street is literally under the Atlantic.
Ultimately, I think (as usual) it comes down to greed -- basically an insistence on spending our children's inheritance now and screw the future ... |
I don't think there is a better to put it, we risk nothing listening to the "environemental alarmists" and we risk everything not to listen to them. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 11:02:26 AM · #264 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I doubt the 1 meter. It only rose 1ft in the last 150 years. Also, Al Gore has indicated a rise of 20ft. Ludicrous. If that's not alarmist, I don't know what is. |
Gore didn't say 20ft in 100 years. He said "in the near future." Geologically speaking, 500 or 1000 years would still qualify, so that quote is meaningless aside from a general statement of future potential (there are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet alone).
The IPCC did not include changes in ice flow because these types of changes are not very well understood. However, a study published this year in the journal Science attempts to set an upper limit on sea level rise by 2100.
âWe have estimated limits on sea level rise during the next century by considering simple constraints on glacier and ice sheet motion,â says Joel Harper, an author of this study and a glacier expert at the University of Montana in Missoula. âOur work suggests that a 0.8-meter [2.6 feet] sea level rise is plausible, two-meter [6.5 feet] is only possible under extreme conditions, and more than two-meter is unlikely,â he says. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 11:28:43 AM · #265 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I doubt the 1 meter. It only rose 1ft in the last 150 years. Also, Al Gore has indicated a rise of 20ft. Ludicrous. If that's not alarmist, I don't know what is. |
Gore didn't say 20ft in 100 years. He said "in the near future." Geologically speaking, 500 or 1000 years would still qualify, so that quote is meaningless aside from a general statement of future potential (there are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet alone).
The IPCC did not include changes in ice flow because these types of changes are not very well understood. However, a study published this year in the journal Science attempts to set an upper limit on sea level rise by 2100.
âWe have estimated limits on sea level rise during the next century by considering simple constraints on glacier and ice sheet motion,â says Joel Harper, an author of this study and a glacier expert at the University of Montana in Missoula. âOur work suggests that a 0.8-meter [2.6 feet] sea level rise is plausible, two-meter [6.5 feet] is only possible under extreme conditions, and more than two-meter is unlikely,â he says. |
Instead of throwing all our money at trying to limit the sea level rise, we could take action now with projects and policies to avert disasters. This would help far more people at a much lower cost in a shorter period of time. For me, who cares what the effect of our efforts is in 100 years. What can we do to help NOW?
1) improve levee systems
2) stop developing areas subject to flooding. This only increases the losses in the case of a flood.
(these are only two examples)
The more studies we do, sure, will improve the estimates but studying the issue to death does not improve the situation since no action is taken.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 11:32:27. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:04:58 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
1) improve levee systems
2) stop developing areas subject to flooding. This only increases the losses in the case of a flood. |
Damage mitigation is already part of the recommendations, but there's only so much you can do to hold back the oceans, deal with drought and limit storm damage... meanwhile the problem only continues to grow. 20ft may be an outlandish estimate for sea level rise by 2100, but it's not going to rise 1ft or 1 meter and then stop, either. Treating the symptoms is pointless if you ignore the disease. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:21:42 PM · #267 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
1) improve levee systems
2) stop developing areas subject to flooding. This only increases the losses in the case of a flood. |
Damage mitigation is already part of the recommendations, but there's only so much you can do to hold back the oceans, deal with drought and limit storm damage... meanwhile the problem only continues to grow. 20ft may be an outlandish estimate for sea level rise by 2100, but it's not going to rise 1ft or 1 meter and then stop, either. Treating the symptoms is pointless if you ignore the disease. |
There's the key. You can't do one without the other. Yet, if you listen to the politicians, they are of one mind and that reducing CO2 emissions (directly, no talk of indirect methods) must be addressed first and do the rest later.
The indirect methods for reducing CO2 emissions are actually the most cost effective and will, in the end, produce the best results.
The problem as I see it right now is that there is too much rhetoric to sift through and no meaningful discussions as to the most practical approach. People are still promoting Kyoto as the only way and since we haven't acted yet we need a Kyoto II.
Without China and India on board, the reductions done in the US will have a smaller and smaller effect on the whole outcome.
BTW, I don't agree with Kyoto (the intention yes, the process no) in the first place.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 12:54:36 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
1) improve levee systems
2) stop developing areas subject to flooding. This only increases the losses in the case of a flood. |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Damage mitigation is already part of the recommendations, but there's only so much you can do to hold back the oceans, deal with drought and limit storm damage... meanwhile the problem only continues to grow. 20ft may be an outlandish estimate for sea level rise by 2100, but it's not going to rise 1ft or 1 meter and then stop, either. Treating the symptoms is pointless if you ignore the disease. |
That's so much of what I have issue with when it comes to the experts. And that's what bothered me so much about the Nobel.
Anyone with a clue and a pulse knows that we're diligently going down the path of self-destruction, and that we need to change the way we live.
And we know how to fix most of it, but it's not profit conscious to give a shit about how we do things if you're a business.
It takes effort and commitment to change the way we live and if it's not done across the board, all the spouting of stats and posturing is just that much more CO2 blown into the atmosphere.
If Gore wants to prove himself worthy of the award, then he needs to make drastic changes and show us how he's willing to make a giant step. As long as he has that place in Tennesee, and doesn't drive a Cobalt or a Civic without a chauffer, and thinks he's so important to the effort that he can ignore his own footprint, then he's just a new iteration of Chicken Little.
Lead by example, Al....I already knew what you're squaking about, and I knew it almost four decades ago at the first Earth Day. I changed how I do things then.....how 'bout, you, Al?
What are you doing for your planet today? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:08:35 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Gore didn't say 20ft in 100 years. He said "in the near future." Geologically speaking, 500 or 1000 years would still qualify, so that quote is meaningless aside from a general statement of future potential (there are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet alone).
|
Ya, but to Joe Public, the near future means next week or at least within the decade. The statement (from Al Gore) is meant to mislead and alarm.
Message edited by author 2009-07-31 13:10:27. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:17:01 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Lead by example, Al....I already knew what you're squaking about, and I knew it almost four decades ago at the first Earth Day. I changed how I do things then.....how 'bout, you, Al? |
...the Gores buy energy produced from renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Tonight, Countdown confirmed with the local utility officials that their program, called the Green Power Switch, actually costs more for the Goresâfour dollars for every 150 kilowatt hours. Meaning, by our calculations, our math here, that the Gores actually chose to increase their electric bill by $5,893, more than 50 percent, in order to minimize carbon pollution."
Associated Press reported on December 13, 2007 that Gore "has completed a host of improvements to make the home more energy efficient, and a building-industry group has praised the house as one of the nation's most environmentally friendly [...] 'Short of tearing it down and starting anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher,' said Kim Shinn of the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design." |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:23:04 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Gore didn't say 20ft in 100 years. He said "in the near future." Geologically speaking, 500 or 1000 years would still qualify, so that quote is meaningless aside from a general statement of future potential (there are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet alone). |
Ya, but to Joe Public, the near future means next week or at least within the decade. The statement (from Al Gore) is meant to mislead and alarm. |
Well weeks or decades is just silly (to you it apparently meant 2100), but yes, the whole point is to raise a red flag and call attention to a very real problem. If sea levels rise 20 feet in 300 years (not unreasonable), the rate of rise is more important than the actual end date. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:29:59 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Gore didn't say 20ft in 100 years. He said "in the near future." Geologically speaking, 500 or 1000 years would still qualify, so that quote is meaningless aside from a general statement of future potential (there are 5-6 meters worth of sea level in the Greenland ice sheet alone). |
Ya, but to Joe Public, the near future means next week or at least within the decade. The statement (from Al Gore) is meant to mislead and alarm. |
Well weeks or decades is just silly (to you it apparently meant 2100), but yes, the whole point is to raise a red flag and call attention to a very real problem. If sea levels rise 20 feet in 300 years (not unreasonable), the rate of rise is more important than the actual end date. |
If that's all that's done with the information (raise a red flag) then good, however, I don't see it being taken in that context at all. I see it being taken as 'the sky is falling and we need to spend trillions to stop it' even if the trillions spent really doesn't get us very far. Squeaky wheel syndrome. |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:49:46 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I see it being taken as 'the sky is falling and we need to spend trillions to stop it' |
Exactly right. I would expect the same warning if a mile wide meteor were on a collision course with Earth. Sadly, I would also expect the same response: "There's no meteor- it's a hoax," "This retired chemist in Boise says the meteor won't really hit us," "The damage estimates are wildly overstated" "The solution is too expensive or it won't work," "Meteors are natural and have hit the earth before," "Let's build bomb shelters instead," yadayadayada...
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...even if the trillions spent really doesn't get us very far. |
How do you know? |
|
|
|
07/31/2009 01:58:31 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I see it being taken as 'the sky is falling and we need to spend trillions to stop it' |
Exactly right. I would expect the same warning if a mile wide meteor were on a collision course with Earth. Sadly, I would also expect the same response: "There's no meteor- it's a hoax," "This retired chemist in Boise says the meteor won't really hit us," "The damage estimates are wildly overstated" "The solution is too expensive or it won't work," "Meteors are natural and have hit the earth before," "Let's build bomb shelters instead," yadayadayada...
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
...even if the trillions spent really doesn't get us very far. |
How do you know? |
Sorry, that needs to be qualified. The trillions, if spent in such a way to help the most people in the least amount of time then yes the benefits are worth it.
There is comparative economic information available but when it comes to climate change the reaction is usually that we don't care how much it costs, just do it.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2009 02:16:43 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The trillions, if spent in such a way to help the most people in the least amount of time then yes the benefits are worth it. |
Nobody likes waste (well, outside of the defense and hedge fund industries...), but there are no quick solutions. Even if all human GHG emissions were reduced to zero tomorrow, we'd still be feeling the effects for decades to come. The snowball is rolling, so to speak, and solutions will require exponentially more time and expense now than they would have 50 years ago. Rapid climate change is an extinction event, and without immediate and meaningful action the final cost may not matter. |
|
