1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Global Warming

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Buzz112, Feb 8, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dec 7, 2007 #421 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    One reason: Friend's in Oil and Big Business. It's the head in the sand approach. If we don't see or acknowledge the problem, then it doesn't exist.
     
  2. Dec 7, 2007 #422 of 819
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,906
    209
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Well stated, FogCutter. That is why our country is called a Republic, not a Democracy,
    as the uninformed believe. Not to turn this interesting discussion into a political detour,
    but if consensus were the sole determinant, Al Gore would be president today.
     
  3. Dec 7, 2007 #423 of 819
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,189
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    It seems that you are inferring that this has something to do with current politics.
    What was the problem eight years ago or 15 years ago when Mr Gore was in office?

    It is easy to scapegoat "big oil" or come up with some huge conspiracy theory.
     
  4. Dec 7, 2007 #424 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Good question.

    Global warming is not caused by politics but until the political mindset changes there will be little done to reverse the damage.

    During the Clinton/Gore administration many environmental protection plans were put into effect. Almost immediately upon entering office Bush reversed most of those protections. In the last 7 years the this trend has continued. Pollution laws were either thrown out or ignored. It is not a conspiracy theory, it is just the administration favoring big money over the good of the people and protection of our environment.

    Gore was a global warming advocate during the previous administration and talked about the problems during his campaign in 2000.

    If you read up on the Kyoto Protocol you will find that it had the signature of Al Gore. Shortly after moving into his office, Bush withdrew US support for the Protocol.
     
  5. Dec 7, 2007 #425 of 819
    Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    4,964
    55
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    James -- Gore was involved in the environmental movement when he was in office, if I recall. Even if he were, he was not in a position to introduce legislation as Vice President. Also, remember that during the Clinton administration, there was a Republican dominated congress.

    The petroleum industry has one of the more powerful lobbying groups, and they, along with the trucking industry and other large corporations are resistant to the terms of Kyoto, because it would cost them a bundle to comply. Now, the Senate is pushing legislation that would put the onus on industry. IMHO, it's long overdue.
     
  6. Dec 7, 2007 #426 of 819
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,189
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    And who is in control now? I suppose there are distractions.
    Hopefully it is being done as less of a political move than as a scientifically backed need. The UN has a lot of "interesting" resolutions that I'm glad that the US does not simply fall in lock step with. Independence is important ...
     
  7. Dec 7, 2007 #427 of 819
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Nice try, but no dice on giving Clinton a pass. One of Clinton's actions in office was to send along the Kyoto accord to the Senate with a recommendation that they NOT pass it. It got voted down unanimously. Kyoto was a horrible treaty that I'm thankful we never ratified. It would have crushed our economy while giving countries like China and India (two of the worst when it comes to generation of greenhouse gases) a pass.
     
  8. Dec 7, 2007 #428 of 819
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    With all due respect, many of the environmental laws signed in by Clinton were simply asinine. Case in point had to do with a clean air standard that ended up being counter-productive. It required that power plants reduce emissions - it toughened those standards. All well and good. It also grandfathered in existing plants. Again, no complaints there. Where it got stupid was with the next part of the legislation - if I own a plant that was in place before the implementation of that law, I'm exempt from it - EXCEPT if I decided to upgrade my plant at all. At that point I was required to fully comply with the new legislation. Why is that stupid? Because - what's the incentive for me to make even moderate upgrades to my plant to reduce emissions? None. Because if I made ANY changes at all - even very moderate, inexpensive ones that would reduce overall emissions, I would no longer be exempt, and I would be forced to comply with the legislation in full, costing me alot of money. It created a disincentive for power plants to upgrade their systems at all, resulting in overall dirtier air.

    The voluntary aspect of what President Bush did was designed to get around that. If I own a power plant, and I'm exempt from the current law, I'm now free to make moderate upgrades without losing that exemption. It's all about incentive.
     
  9. Dec 7, 2007 #429 of 819
    machavez00

    machavez00 Hall Of Fame

    3,771
    15
    Nov 2, 2006
    Phoenix,...
    Again, when did CO2 become a pollutant? With each breath we expel CO2. With every child we increase out "carbon footprint"
     
  10. Dec 7, 2007 #430 of 819
    durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    But there have also been man-made warming advocates that have revised their stance after reviewing the evidence and now do NOT believe the current hype. I was able to grab a quick link:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1834348/posts


    And I like this quote from Michael Crichton regarding consensus:

    "Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

    "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

    "Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." - Michael Crichton
     
  11. Dec 7, 2007 #431 of 819
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    While I understand your point, I don't see the incentive here.
    "I'm now free to..."
    Let me see: I'm making money now, but I would spend some of that for something I don't need to? And I would do this why? :confused:
    I'm exempt, so I can make changes to increase my profits, but since I'm exempt for any standards, why would I make any improvements other than to increase my profits? :confused:
     
  12. Dec 7, 2007 #432 of 819
    James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    46,189
    1,074
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    I like that too! :D
     
  13. Dec 7, 2007 #433 of 819
    veryoldschool

    veryoldschool Lifetime Achiever Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    42,684
    349
    Dec 9, 2006
    Now here is where mankind can't change the environment. We're just another animal on this planet.
    Go back a a page or so here: http://www.dbstalk.com/showpost.php?p=1320934&postcount=390
     
  14. Dec 7, 2007 #434 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    I need not mention that the Democrats are in the majority, but as to control....

    Bush will veto anything meaningful that they pass.
     
  15. Dec 7, 2007 #435 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    And Michael Crichton is a scientist in what field? Or is he an author who has just enough scientific knowledge to devise stories about things that could go wrong.
    A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing when it is used to misinform.
     
  16. Dec 7, 2007 #436 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    OK. Point made. People change their minds. That list includes 6 scientists who joined the skeptics. Meanwhile, how many thousands of scientists joined with the advocates of global warming.
     
  17. Dec 7, 2007 #437 of 819
    durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    Today I ran across an article from one of those who shares the Nobel Peace Prize this year with Gore. He contributed to the IPCC report and was not a fan of how the UN manipulated the report.

    Some highlights:

    "The bureaucrats had multiplied the effect of melting ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets by 10." The IPCC modified the report slightly when the author pointed out their error. "The IPCC now says the combined contribution of the two great ice-sheets to sea-level rise will be less than seven centimeters after 100 years, not seven meters imminently..." "Gore, mendaciously assisted by the IPCC bureaucracy, had exaggerated a hundredfold."

    "Recently a High Court judge in the UK listed nine of the 35 major scientific errors in Gore's movie, saying they must be corrected before innocent schoolchildren can be exposed to the movie. Gore's exaggeration of sea-level rise was one."

    The IPCC also exaggerated the increase of CO2 levels by ignoring the actual impact of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. "...the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold."

    "...the IPCC has repealed...the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once."

    "For half a century we have been measuring the temperature in the upper atmosphere - and it has been changing no faster than at the surface. The IPCC knows this, too. So it merely declares that its computer predictions are right and the real-world measurements are wrong."

    He concludes, "My fellow-participants, there is no climate crisis. The correct policy response to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing." While reminding them of the 40 million people that died due to the incorrect "consensus" that DDT was dangerous.


    - http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20071205.!15
     
  18. Dec 7, 2007 #438 of 819
    durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    I'm not sure. How many wanted grant money that they knew would come ONLY if they push the man-made warming agenda?
     
  19. Dec 7, 2007 #439 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    --
     
  20. Dec 7, 2007 #440 of 819
    txtommy

    txtommy Icon

    805
    0
    Dec 30, 2006
    Grant money should be available easily for either side of the argument. Contact any large polluting corporation and they'd be glad to fund scientists who wish to disprove global warming.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page