[News] Global Warming: Media Hype ?

[Dignan]

What I often wonder is what the opponents of the GW idea are afraid of? What are you afraid of? (I have many assumptions on this, but would like to hear it from the horse's mouth - no offence intended). Being wrong (we are all wrong)? Changing a lifestyle in a major way (that's going to happen in the next 50 years whether we like it or not as we run out of oil)? What is it?

Very nice photo Fondueset...

Laminar, that's a really good question. I am afraid of guys like AL Gore, nutjobs who are willing to distort the facts (even as they are percieved by experts in the field) to achieve their goals. WHat are their goals? I have no idea. That's also scary to me. The Kyoto protocal scares me, i'm glad Clinton had the good sense not to sign.

Mostly i'm just afraid of hysteria. Gore made a comment the other day that the earth is doomed to destruction in ten years. And that the events portrayed in the movie The Day After Tomorrow are an accurate protrayal of what we can expect in the future. That is fear mongering, pure and simple. And it's being spewed by argueably the loudest most visible GW proponent out there, a guy who based on his resume should be pretty believable. Most people just are not interested enough or don't have the tiime to research the subject on their own, so they believe stuff like that. Hence, hysteria. The is very scary.

I'm of the opinion that we are doing a good job right now. Other fuels are being actively sought, it's just a matter of time. Oil reserves are finite, change is coming; i just think it should be allowed to come at a natural pace.

 

[unirdna]

Fact is, if someone could develop a REAL way of generating cheap energy without burning fossil fuels, this technology would rip through the world like a wildfire. Yes, the power of the free-market.

I wish that were true, roy. If only our energy system was "open source". If you think those companies would sit by quietly and become obsolete, your trust is misplaced. This thread likes to talk about history....when in history have those with the wealth and power not fought to keep it? Most would bring down the world before they would concede their thrones.

Do you honestly think that we are exploring alternative energy at a swift pace? What if the pet wells dried up tomorrow? You think that pace might increase?

We are researching alt energy at the pace congruent with fossil fuel depletion - not with environmental impact. We won't ween ourselves from that tit until it no longer makes economical sense to go after it. And so, those who own the pet will not allow us to ween ourselves until there is no more $$ to be made. This is human nature......and I might add, much more predictable than mother nature.

If the free-market worked like you think it does (and I wish it did), we would have petroleum companies continuously flirting with the lowest possible price. As it is now, they all know when to move the price up and down in unison. I don't know exactly how all of that works, but if you claim it to be a free market......well, I guess you are a communist . I'm going to get Joe.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

.... What are you afraid of? (I have many assumptions on this, but would like to hear it from the horse's mouth - no offence intended). Being wrong (we are all wrong)? Changing a lifestyle in a major way (that's going to happen in the next 50 years whether we like it or not as we run out of oil)? What is it?

Laminar,
There are a few things I am afraid of, however none of them has any relation to the discussion at hand.

"Uncomfortable" would be a better word.
I am uncomfortable with;
1) mass histeria,
2) fearmongering
3) Use of main-stream media for blatant pseudo-scientific propaganda with alterior political motives.

This is not a complete list of things I am uncomfortable with, but the 3 above seem to be the most relevant to this thread.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

I wish that were true, roy. If only our energy system was "open source". If you think those companies would sit by quietly and become obsolete, your trust is misplaced. This thread likes to talk about history....when in history have those with the wealth and power not fought to keep it? Most would bring down the world before they would concede their thrones.

Do you honestly think that we are exploring alternative energy at a swift pace? What if the pet wells dried up tomorrow? You think that pace might increase?

We are researching alt energy at the pace congruent with fossil fuel depletion - not with environmental impact. We won't ween ourselves from that tit until it no longer makes economical sense to go after it. And so, those who own the pet will not allow us to ween ourselves until there is no more $$ to be made. This is human nature......and I might add, much more predictable than mother nature.

If the free-market worked like you think it does (and I wish it did), we would have petroleum companies continuously flirting with the lowest possible price. As it is now, they all know when to move the price up and down in unison. I don't know exactly how all of that works, but if you claim it to be a free market......well, I guess you are a communist . I'm going to get Joe.

Unirdna,
People who insisted on regulating the energy market untill it became a government sponsored and protected MONOPOLY, are the same people who complain about "price fixing". I find that intellectualy dishonest.

As for the alternative energy being held back: - If a cheaper and more efficient solution existed, people would be using it. Majority of the corporations would benefit tremendously from a clean cheap energy.

Fossil fuels are being used because that is the cheapest and most efficient source of energy and untill scientists (real scientists, not GW schills) find a better / cheaper source of energy, the world will continue to use fossil fuels.

Ofcourse everything above can be negated by your conspiracy theory. So, let's just agree to disagree.

 

[laminar]

RoyNexus.

Valid concerns for any issue.

I think the left vs. right issues fall into the trap of what you describe.

In those cases, I feel that while their actions may begin with a concern about something happening (GW or leftist activism) it deteriorates into a struggle for power, personal ego, personal influence, money, political influence. That makes things muddy.

This is why I find these feuds so frustrating. All sides may be arguing about Global Warming on the surface but what's actually going on is that all sides want to be "right" or at least to discredit the other side. All the while, the very basic issues are ignored. Serious incidents are lumped away as worn out arguments that are out of fashion or offensive.

So I'll ask you and everyone again: Is there anything that we all should be doing differently in the next 50 years? Do you think that there will be significant changes in our environment that will affect your way of life or not?

If not, please explains your views. I'm not interested in who is right or wrong at this point or at this level, what I'm interested in is what you all think.



Roy- Fossil fuels are cheap, but don't forget the significant government tax credits and incentives for oil and gas sectors that help them out, plus the absence of any accouting for environmental damage. If Canada or the US had the same incentives for alternative energy sources as say, Denmark or Germany and other countries, I think we'd find more incentive among corporations to invest in it and then the price would come down.

 

[unirdna]

Fossil fuels are being used because that is the cheapest and most efficient source of energy and untill scientists (real scientists, not GW schills) find a better / cheaper source of energy, the world will continue to use fossil fuels.

You are right, Roy. And you probably know way more about markets and monopolies than I ever will. I'm just a person who looks at the world being used up, and hopes that we don't ruin everything. I look at the history of human ingenuity, and I think that we are lazy compared to other generations. I think we can do better, and should not be content to sit on a sub-par system. And now on to Laminar's request....

As I consider myself more than just a GW shill, I can speak for scientists in that we can not survive on dreams alone - we too need money. And since there is a lot of money in petroleum, many of my (geology) classmates work for this industry.

And so, how about if the DOE gets a big fat research grant. Or, if you don't trust the Gov, we could give it to university engineering departments, where youth and tenacity still reign over greed and conquest. The long and short is that research requires $$. Sometimes you get great findings....sometimes "dead ends", but always information. But, here's the best part. Instead of parading their discoveries during campaign times and autoshows, we actually use their findings and find a way to mass market their ideas. And the Gov would hold the patent and charge everyone that wants to use it, generating more money for more research. And while we're at it, how about we step up on the "pure" research. Research to learn for the sake of learning, not just to turn a buck. Michael Faraday's field equations were all-but useless when he discovered them 200 years ago, but today they are used to understand and create every electrical thing on earth.

 

[trux]

Thanks, Paul Kotik, for your comments. Now I stay assured that global warming does not exist at all (in spite of well measurable ocean level rising, glaciers melting, and global average temperature rising). Now I am finally persuaded that all we need to do is doing nothing for the next 100 years(except of buying each as much Exxon stock as we can). If after 100 years the oceans still do not start boiling and evaporating, then all the hype around GW was just a huge hoax and a deliberate disinformation of the Al Qaida eco-terrorists who wanted to destroy the USA and the Western civilization because they hated our freedom. Thanks for opening our eyes!

 

[laminar]

I think human beings have one talent over all other species on this planet: our ability to use tools. (I include language in the definition). We think this ability crowns us as the supreme being over all others. This is sad. We think whales are relatively dumb animals, because they can't speak our language, can't walk around on land and don't have opposable thumbs. But I like to think they've figured how to live and survive on this planet better than anyone or anything. Ants, are also on the top of my list, too. More ants in the world than anything else, I've heard.

Sometimes I am ashamed of ourselves because we are still banging two sticks together and throwing shit at things.

Yes, we can make tools of all different shapes and sizes. But we are idiots when it comes to deciding whether they are "good" or "bad" for the world we live in.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

I have to admit :

All this fearmongering and self-deprecation by my global warming worshipping - breathholding brethren is driving me to gas up my SUV, load it up with diving gear and head out to the beach tomorrow morning, work be damned.

Take care everybody and remember, as Laminar says: " Don't buy crap".
Even if this proverbial crap is being peddled by Al Gore himself.

rofl rofl rofl

 

[stingraydd]

Why aren't we having this discussion about CFCs - chlorofluorocarbons? Wasn't all that science about destruction of the ozone layer a bunch of crap as well? You've heard that C02 isn't a pollutant because it's odorless, colorless and tasteless - so is freon. No, that was a pretty quick decision and no right or left about it. Or what about leaded gasoline or asbestos? Where were all the complaints about "bad science" and "getting rid of my TR3" when leaded gasoline was cut from the market? Why is it that C02 causes all this mudslinging at scientists and why is it mainly a problem for Americans?

 

[Draenog]

I am an environmental scientist, I work in an Environmental Regulatory Role.

It is very clear that Global warming is occurring.

It is also clear that anthropogenic effects are contributing significantly to this problem.

There is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that this is the case.

 

[fleedermouse]

pkotik,

Dude, we're not talking about 'evil corporations', we're concerned about balance of power. Why the hell do people like you have to make everything about side-taking and negativity? Corporations are unaccountable in too many ways. That's all the left is talking about.

and NO- CFC's destroying ozone is not 'a bunch of crap'. How many of you criticizing legitimate scientists are actually trained in science?

 

[Fondueset]

I think that was roy - though I could be wrong.

I also think bringing up the E word is a little odd. Seems to be a buzzword used to amplify the overall tone of the argument and invalidate the opponent as hysterical. I was the one who brought up SUVs and Cell phones - I never did state my primary concern - which is to stay out of their way as they swerve all over the road while driven by 'Il puttanone!'. At that point roy started throwing the word 'evil' around. Which is another word like 'extremist', 'radical', 'liberal', 'neo-con', 'right-wing', 'ultra-conservative' all of which are used to heap a shitload of premises into any discussion without having to justify or explain them.

I do remember when gas mileage was a major factor in automobile purchases. This went away sometime in the late 80s.

Personally I'm not hysterical. All this environmental stuff is basically math - as is a good percentage of this conversation.

 

[Dignan]

pkotik,

we're concerned about balance of power.


Why the hell do people like you have to make everything about side-taking and negativity?

Is it just me or are these completely contradictory statements? YOURE concerned about balance of power? what balance of power? how about just being honest with yourself about the FACT that some very reputable scientists are not on board with all the gloom and doom predictions? Screw sides.

 

[roy_nexus_6]

I am an environmental scientist, I work in an Environmental Regulatory Role.

It is very clear that Global warming is occurring.

It is also clear that anthropogenic effects are contributing significantly to this problem.

There is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that this is the case.

Doesn't look like "..There is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community."


http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...n/14910117.htm

"....So what are we to make of Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Robert Balling at Arizona State, Sallie Baliunas at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Randall Cerveny at Arizona State, John Christy at the University of Alabama, Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University and Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

And David Legates at the University of Delaware, Henry Linden at IIT, Richard Lindzen at MIT, Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth, Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama and Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?

All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals. Some, like Lindzen, are undisputed leading thinkers in their fields. Yet all dispute Gore's alarmist claims.

 

[Dignan]

Doesn't look like "..There is overwhelming consensus within the scientific community."


http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/...n/14910117.htm

"....So what are we to make of Tim Ball at the University of Winnipeg, Robert Balling at Arizona State, Sallie Baliunas at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Bob Carter at James Cook University in Australia, Randall Cerveny at Arizona State, John Christy at the University of Alabama, Robert Davis at the University of Virginia, Christopher Essex at the University of Western Ontario, Oliver Frauenfeld at the University of Colorado, Wibjörn Karlèn at Stockholm University and Christopher Landsea at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?

And David Legates at the University of Delaware, Henry Linden at IIT, Richard Lindzen at MIT, Ross McKitrick at the University of Guelph, Patrick Michaels at the University of Virginia, Dick Morgan at the University of Exeter, Tim Peterson at Carleton University, Roger Pielke Jr. at the University of Colorado, Eric Posmentier at Dartmouth, Willie Soon at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama and Boris Winterhalter at the University of Helsinki?

All are respected authorities on climatology, working at respected universities, who appear regularly in peer-reviewed science journals. Some, like Lindzen, are undisputed leading thinkers in their fields. Yet all dispute Gore's alarmist claims.

Just goes to show you the far reaching influence of the oil corporations rofl rofl rofl

 

[laminar]

:duh

(sigh)

 

[Cliff Etzel]

zzz

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/08/11/greenland_pla_02.html?category=earth&guid=20060811153030

Yeah, guess Global Warming isn't happening...

When all is said and done - the worlds climate is changing - problem is - it appears people would rather be right in their position instead of working together to come up with effective solutions.

Now I know why I don't come back all that often - too much hostility...:ko

 

[Fondueset]

This much is certain: Whatever may or may not be happening - it's the fault of republicans. And also Roy.

But more importantly - Roy's argumen, as presented, is nominally flatulent and here is why.

Awhile ago I was in a certain american city with my brother-in-law. We were walking around unarmed late at night and checking out some great music in various clubs. A lady-of-the-evening was standing nearby and hiked up her skirt - all the way. My brother in law looked at me and said 'Am I crazy - or did she just...' The fact is - she did - but the idea that this somehow confirms my brother's sanity is not logical.

Likewise - disagreeing with Al Gore's characterization of global warming in no way supports the embedded assertion that all those people don't think there is such a thing as global warming. They may just not like the way Al presented it.

What if somebody crapped on your front door step? Would you then launch upon and outright condemnation of defecating?

There is also a problem with presenting lists of people as a way of supporting your argument. It's a popular method among politicians and various interest-groups-on-a-jag but amounts to 'argument by loudest noise' aka 'allota somebody elses opinion'.

Besides, what are we to make of Nespot Ferqule of the World Oceanic and Atmosphereo Authoritay? Or Fenton Xutzvert Keybunkle of Wassa Madda U., Bleepo Nudjfrete' of Moskva Polyphrenic, Quang Argyle Methuse of the Directorette Climaticus, Hercule Smed Ophopleus of Das Incht ver Mediterreatio or Bunky Pooters of Wal-mart?

And what of the propheses of the great and ominous Volmar?

 

[fleedermouse]

Ahhh...on this thread I agree Cliff, but 99.9% of Deeperblue is pretty tame from my experience. Maybe I don't get out enough but it's been pretty apolitical for me.

Fondueset, I agree and disagree. The Republicans in America are extremely resistant to all change it seems. Sometimes, this actually comes out to be a good thing, but for the most part, it seems, it represents an inability to adjust to changes and needs of the world and our society with the bigger picture in mind. Since the characteristics of adaptability and ecological consciousness are, in recent times, more attributable towards liberal thinkers, I would have to agree that the Republicans have been responsible for the greater amount of shift towards a societal structure that exacerbates our lack of control over our own destiny.

Case in point: the liberals were for curtailing (really eliminating) logging in the Pacific Northwest. Since we had already logged 95% of the region did it really matter? Yes, because the environmentalists efforts are responsible for the conservation of millions of acres of virgin giant forest stands that are important to society at so many levels. However, these same efforts are responsible for the halting of a number of important landmark timber sales that are extremely progressive and ecologically sound. Great forest fires have happened since and that helps to swing the pendulum back towards the right in federal forest lands mgt. The tragedy continues. But, in true modern "Republican" fashion George Bush promised to be a compassionate conservative while making friends with only the most untrustworthy of forest harvesters. This essentially gave the environmentalists no choice but total opposition to all salvage logging in the region. I think the analogy fits well to our side of the global warming issue. How are we to trust someone with so much power who appears to care so little about the reality of the situation? Of course, I forgot, the corporations are really snuggly, loving, caring and responsible. How could I possibly implicate them in anything negative?