UnderGround Forums
 

PoliticalGround >> Global warming = liberal agenda?


2/4/07 10:30 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6186
"The wording of this report as compared to the 2001 report will also be much stronger indicating that something needs to happen SOON [emphasis mine] or rising temperatures and sea levels will pose a real threat to humanity." The end is nigh! We must DO SOMETHING. ANYTHING. Faster, now, hurry, hurry. Act first, think later.
2/4/07 10:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6187
Joe Ray: "It should also be noed that the majority of these same climate change deniers believe America found Saddam Hussein's WMD, that Saddam was in cahoots with Al-Queada to plan and commit the 9/11 attacks and that the evolution is a liberal hoax." Cite your source. "Majority" sounds pretty damned specific. Or are you going on faith? I'm betting you just made that up. I think you're talking out of your ass and making things up.
2/4/07 10:42 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 10:44 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18668
"If the "globe" is "warming" then so be it. What I'm concerned about is the messianic fever that the left has about it." I'm just concerned that I'm going to leave my progeny with a steaming pile of shit. Frankly I don't really care if the solution is driven by free market fprces a la JBraswell's proposed elimination of corporate welfare masking the true cost of fossil fuel from the consumer, or simply redefining corporate culture to shoulder stuff they currently call externalities, or some of each. And by "they", I mean we. But I think the biggest problem politically is that soooo many on the right side of the aisle have been in denial that their egos will not allow them to admit they were wrong, and fucked up.
2/4/07 10:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6188
"Real science is based on proof, not consensus." I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Science is done by humans and works by observation, so by necessity it must be based on consensus. Consensus has been and will again be wrong, but that's just the way science is. What make science better than "mere" consensus is repeatability. What allows science to function well is a culture of honesty. When we lose that, science dies, and the lawyers move in. Ignore the hysterics and the counter-hysterics-- science is slow, let it happen. It is said that the only way a new theory is accepted is when enough of the people who believe in the old theory die or retire. There is a great deal of truth in that. Math is based on proof, but even there there is discord about foundational matters.
2/4/07 10:45 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07 10:47 PM
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18669
Oh btw NWS, what's your beef with me on this thread? Did I insult you? Call you a nazi? piss you off in some unknown way? Why the personal attack? Does my very exostence offend you? What? What? Okaaay!
2/4/07 10:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18670
"The central question is: Is there anything that we can do about it which will result in less harm than just letting things be? I am close to certainty that the answer is NO." What, you mean abandoning any tech advances that are energy efficient, and sticking with the modern muscle car, the SUV? Note, I am asking a question, not putting words in your mouth, just the ball in your court. How can being environmentally more friendly be harmful? I don't get you.
2/4/07 10:51 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6189
"I'm just concerned that I'm going to leave my progeny with a steaming pile of shit." I'm a progressive. I think that instead of crippling our economy to reduce the amount of warming by less than 1%, that we should grow our economy enough to allow us to apply a judicious technical solution. In this case doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, NOW will cause more problems than it will solve. Convince me otherwise. "Frankly I don't really care if the solution is driven by free market fprces a la JBraswell's proposed elimination of corporate welfare masking the true cost of fossil fuel from the consumer, or simply redefining corporate culture to shoulder stuff they currently call externalities, or some of each." I don't know if there is a "solution" much less a "problem". I think the most prudent thing is to wait for better data. "But I think the biggest problem politically is that soooo many on the right side of the aisle have been in denial that their egos will not allow them to admit they were wrong, and fucked up. " Listen to me when I tell you that we have been hearing environmental doom stories for years. This one may have truth. Maybe. But the environmentalists have been crying wolf for so many years that I just don't put that much stock into what is clearly a club being used to advance an agenda. The "right side" (whatever that is) reaction is a reaction to the clear messianic intent of the "left side" (whatever that is) to use the science to advance their long standing anticapitalistic goals. The reaction is only incidentally to the science.
2/4/07 10:52 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6190
"Oh btw NWS, what's your beef with me on this thread? Did I insult you? Call you a nazi? piss you off in some unknown way? Why the personal attack? Does my very exostence offend you? What? What? Okaaay! " Dude, what did I say? No beef here.
2/4/07 10:54 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18671
"In this case doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, NOW will cause more problems than it will solve. Convince me otherwise." Okay How about eliminating incandescent light bulbs from manufacturing, much like how VCRs have been phased out, and replacing them with compact fluerescents currently available that last way longer and use less energy. What problems will this create?
2/4/07 10:55 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18672
"Dude, what did I say?" "jelly and hubris on the same thread. Joy" Sorry if my sarcasm detector malfunctioned
2/4/07 11:03 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6191
"What, you mean abandoning any tech advances that are energy efficient, and sticking with the modern muscle car, the SUV? Note, I am asking a question, not putting words in your mouth, just the ball in your court. How can being environmentally more friendly be harmful? I don't get you." I'm all in favor of energy efficiency and prudent net carbon use reduction. Heavy coersion (onerous taxes or regulations) will reduce the efficiency of our economy and therefore our ability to address the problem with engineering approaches. The approaches that I see the "left side" advocate typically involve a huge "industrial planning" element. That strikes me a recipe for poverty, not success.
2/4/07 11:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6192
"Sorry if my sarcasm detector malfunctioned" No disrespect intended. We've crossed keyboards for years, typically with reasonably high decorum.
2/4/07 11:09 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18673
"The "right side" (whatever that is) reaction is a reaction to the clear messianic intent of the "left side" (whatever that is) to use the science to advance their long standing anticapitalistic goals. The reaction is only incidentally to the science." That's interesting, except that for example if you take Stephen Harper's recently revealed correspondence (for example) that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by socialists to steal money from rich countries as from the heart, then the guy and the party who cleaves to him (to this day he has people in his cabinet saying this) are in De Nile, and have been for a while. Seems to me the reaction is because the environment has never really been a concern in corporate culture once it was defined as an externality, and thus there has historically been a strong resistance to considering it as being relevant. And of course, the politicians bought by and paid for by corporate culture will advance this agenda. Where Harper messed up is that under recent Canadian electoral reform, corporations don't mean as much in politics as they used to anymore, so he can't generate as much noise. Again, I work for these guys, I have for 15 years, and I am under no illusions as to the motivations behind corporate behaviour - there are only two - profit, and loss reduction. Morality does not really exist in the corporate universe. The only reason I get paid what we agreed to is because the law says they have to honour employment agreements. So why would I trust them for anything?
2/4/07 11:11 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6193
"How about eliminating incandescent light bulbs from manufacturing, much like how VCRs have been phased out, and replacing them with compact fluerescents currently available that last way longer and use less energy. What problems will this create?" That's the thing. I don't know what problems it will create. One claim is that the mercury contained in the CF bulbs is not worth worrying about. Maybe. Maybe not. I don't know what problems any of the proposed solutions will create-- but I'm sure they'll create plenty. Besides the fact that I've tried them and most look like shit, it might be a prudent solution-- but will it really address anything but a vanishingly tiny part of the problem? CF bulbs are a just a start-- I see an increasing array of THOU SHALT NOTs (THOU SHALT NOT use indandescent bulbs) coming into play, and it spooks me a little. I sense a tyranny of good intentions arriving.
2/4/07 11:16 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6194
"That's interesting, except that for example if you take Stephen Harper's recently revealed correspondence (for example) that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by socialists to steal money from rich countries as from the heart, then the guy and the party who cleaves to him (to this day he has people in his cabinet saying this) are in De Nile, and have been for a while." I'm not familiar with this. "Morality does not really exist in the corporate universe." Of course not. Corporations are fictional persons designed to make money and nothing else. "So why would I trust them for anything?" Of course you don't trust corporations. The only reason we allow such obviously psychotic entities to exist is that they function as designed. They make money, and in order to make money they make things and provide services, things and services which, on the whole, net, make life better. But they need to be kept on a short leash. They exist for the public good.
2/4/07 11:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6195
OK, besides a war-on-quality-lighting, what else have you got? I'd go for a large-scale nuclear power plant building program. We know it works. Are you on board for that?
2/4/07 11:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18674
"I see an increasing array of THOU SHALT NOTs (THOU SHALT NOT use indandescent bulbs) coming into play, and it spooks me a little." Okay, but do you pine for the loss of VHS tapes? There's no law against them, but who makes them? They're as rare as hen's teeth now. Is this the 'tyranny' of the market place? The tyranny of a culture manipulated by Madison avenue types into thinking they need to watch movies on DVD? If a bunch of companies hopped on the bandwagon and started pimping energy solutions so hard that they squeezed the old stuff out of the marketplace overnight, would this bother you even though you had no say?
2/4/07 11:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18675
"I'd go for a large-scale nuclear power plant building program. We know it works. Are you on board for that?" Yes, I think it's safer than fossil fuels - at least we can contain the waste. Anyway, gotta crash. More tomorrow.
2/4/07 11:34 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6197
"Okay, but do you pine for the loss of VHS tapes? There's no law against them" Then that's perfectly fine. The market is imperfect, but it is our best bet to extract technical progress from human interactions. Any involuntary contortion of that market will depress productivity and depress technical advancement, reducing our chance of an engineering solution. "but who makes them? They're as rare as hen's teeth now. Is this the 'tyranny' of the market place?" No, it is the sum of billions of individual and independent decisions. I respect that. I am wary of small committees of people deciding which behaviors are permissible for billions of people. "The tyranny of a culture manipulated by Madison avenue types into thinking they need to watch movies on DVD?" Much like "democracy is the worst form of government except for all of the others", the free market is the worst economic system except for all of the others. "If a bunch of companies hopped on the bandwagon and started pimping energy solutions so hard that they squeezed the old stuff out of the marketplace overnight, would this bother you even though you had no say?" Not one bit. I want my dirt cheap plug-in-to-standard-socket car. I like voluntary. I am wary of the tyranny of good intentions.
2/4/07 11:35 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
New World Samurai
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 6198
"More tomorrow." OK.
2/4/07 11:56 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
MrFixit
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 04-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/09/2006
Posts: 2675
"I sense a tyranny of good intentions arriving. " That about sums it up for me. Well said.
2/5/07 9:00 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
jellyman
7 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 18677
Seems to me that the best course of action is to come up with solutions. What form these should take is another matter, but denial or inactivity is not an option, imo. NWS you mentioned you think corporations should be kept on a short leash, but do you think the leash is short enough?
2/5/07 11:29 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
BEEF & CHEESE
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 09/29/2002
Posts: 11077
"Seems to me that the best course of action is to come up with solutions. What form these should take is another matter, but denial or inactivity is not an option, imo." -And it all comes back to there being some conclusive evidence that... 1) The earth's temp is rising at a rate that will destroy its human inhabitants. 2) That man caused this and must stop the actions that caused it. 3) That man can actually reverse it. The scientists don't even agree on #1 yet. But tree huggers and politicians that want their votes are already to start on #3. Religion has no place in government. Whether its Judeo-Christian or enviro. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
2/5/07 1:32 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
PoundforPound
165 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 7457
A majority of the world's leading scientists in this area are coming to the same conclusion, but that is not enough for you. So what would you consider conclusive evidence?
2/5/07 1:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Jbraswell
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 05-Feb-07
Member Since: 07/15/2002
Posts: 4694
"Oh and where the fuck has it been exposed? Have not seen that little gem of a post" You presented an article as evidence for global warming skepticism, and it turned out that the article was arguing that heat islands are not the cause of global warming. You didn't even know what the article was about. "My position is that the same peopel pushing this theory are the same who pushed other theories that never materialized." As has been pointed out on this thread and others, your position is incorrect. There has never, ever been a broad consensus of SCIENTIFIC organizations on the various doomsday issues you listed. Your inability to distinguish between a Time magazine cover and a public statement by the NAS is the tired tactic to which I was pointing. "I posted information that has yet to be proven innacurate by anyone here." You posted articles whose content you didn't know.

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.