"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

[Agoxlea]

I think this LA Times article from today is particularly relevant to this discussion.

https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Summary: Basically scientists from UC Berkley that were funded by the Koch brothers set out to disprove climate change, and instead came to the conclusion that the general consensus on climate change is correct.

Also One Brow, that sight you linked to was the best thing of my life. It is upsetting to see such a long list of flawed arguments all at once though.

 

[Agoxlea]

I also realize I probably should have started a new thread for this, but didn't realize my comment would lead to such a lengthy discussion. I actually thought a majority of you, other than Millsapa, would agree with me.

 

[Gameface]

I also realize I probably should have started a new thread for this, but didn't realize my comment would lead to such a lengthy discussion. I actually thought a majority of you, other than Millsapa, would agree with me.

You must not be from Utah

 

[LogGrad98]

I also realize I probably should have started a new thread for this, but didn't realize my comment would lead to such a lengthy discussion. I actually thought a majority of you, other than Millsapa, would agree with me.

Not sure why you thought a majority would agree with you. There is still obviously debate over the issue so people will be somewhat divided. Unless it is the circular fallacy that if I believe something, it is right, whereby it is safe to assume that anyone else must believe the same thing, since it is right. From what I have read of your posts I don't think you fall into that category, so your assumption must come from somewhere else.

 

[One Brow]

There is still obviously debate over the issue so people will be somewhat divided.

There is also debate over whether the earth is flat.

Still, I agree that it is not reasonable to expect there to be no debate when the way people make money is at stake.

 

[Agoxlea]

Not sure why you thought a majority would agree with you. There is still obviously debate over the issue so people will be somewhat divided. Unless it is the circular fallacy that if I believe something, it is right, whereby it is safe to assume that anyone else must believe the same thing, since it is right. From what I have read of your posts I don't think you fall into that category, so your assumption must come from somewhere else.

Gameface: I actually lived in Utah my entire life, but moved to the Bay Area last year. I've followed this board for years and felt like was a pretty liberal group relatively speaking. Actually gameface and lograd are two of my favorite posters in the Utah Jazz part of the forum, so I was even more upset that you were the specific people that disagreed with me haha. I guess that actually addresses LogGrad's post too. I just thought this board seemed a little more liberal than Utah as a whole. I am actually totally fine with a majority of conservative values even if I don't agree with them all the time. The thing I get hung up on is the denial of things such as global warming. In my opinion which is occasionally flawed it seems as if, as far as politicians are concerned, some things like climate change denial are specifically for the purpose of creating a rift between the parties. Most countries' conservative parties actually acknowledge climate change, and it seems to be a political maneuverer to deny things such as climate change. Not to mention evolution, and the even more outlandish claims by certain politicians that believe wind is not a renewable resource. You are two of the posters that I often agree with, or if not, at least you have valid claims to your points of view. However, in my book climate change is a pretty settled issue, and when people don't acknowledge it, I get upset that it takes away from the issue of what we should do about the issue of climate change.

Disclaimer: I had been drinking a little before that post, so i'm fairly sure I meant what I wrote, but if my argument has gaping holes (more than usual) you know why.

 

[Sneakers]

Republicans just want so hard to make Obama the bad guy... I'm not even a staunch Democrat, I have left leanings but I'm not set in my ways, I just find it funny when people (of any alignment) are just blinded by an irrational "need" to hate something that they'll delude the issues and trick themselves into seeing one way and one way only. Like Obama's a Democrat.... he HAS to be a bad guy!!!

 

[LogGrad98]

Republicans just want so hard to make Obama the bad guy... I'm not even a staunch Democrat, I have left leanings but I'm not set in my ways, I just find it funny when people (of any alignment) are just blinded by an irrational "need" to hate something that they'll delude the issues and trick themselves into seeing one way and one way only. Like Obama's a Democrat.... he HAS to be a bad guy!!!

Go back 6 years and simply replace "democrat" with "republican" and "Obama" with "Bush" and you have the same thing. And really Obama has done a good job of making himself the bad guy. I am a staunch moderate, I think both sides have something to offer and only when we get past partisan politics will we really make progress, but it is obvious Obama is very little filler in an attractive, politically correct package. He talks the part, he looks the part, he has good sound-bites, but the invasion of Libya should be enough to convince even the staunchest democrats that Obama does not care one whit about the constitution. It is not the only time he has done an end-run around due process.

 

[LogGrad98]

Gameface: I actually lived in Utah my entire life, but moved to the Bay Area last year. I've followed this board for years and felt like was a pretty liberal group relatively speaking. Actually gameface and lograd are two of my favorite posters in the Utah Jazz part of the forum, so I was even more upset that you were the specific people that disagreed with me haha. I guess that actually addresses LogGrad's post too. I just thought this board seemed a little more liberal than Utah as a whole. I am actually totally fine with a majority of conservative values even if I don't agree with them all the time. The thing I get hung up on is the denial of things such as global warming. In my opinion which is occasionally flawed it seems as if, as far as politicians are concerned, some things like climate change denial are specifically for the purpose of creating a rift between the parties. Most countries' conservative parties actually acknowledge climate change, and it seems to be a political maneuverer to deny things such as climate change. Not to mention evolution, and the even more outlandish claims by certain politicians that believe wind is not a renewable resource. You are two of the posters that I often agree with, or if not, at least you have valid claims to your points of view. However, in my book climate change is a pretty settled issue, and when people don't acknowledge it, I get upset that it takes away from the issue of what we should do about the issue of climate change.

Disclaimer: I had been drinking a little before that post, so i'm fairly sure I meant what I wrote, but if my argument has gaping holes (more than usual) you know why.

To clarify, my argument is not that global warming and some kind of climate change are not happening. My concern is that we do not understand the ramifications nor the causes very well, yet some want us to be willing to jump overboard on assumptions. I think that has the potential to be far more damaging than the status quo. We do not know for certain for example if :

1) Is climate change being caused by mostly natural influences or mostly man-made. Sure we contribute to the issue (won't say problem, as a changing planet is what we live on...it will change with or without us eventually) but exactly how much do we contribute? Is it more cyclical, which is something we only vaguely understand since ice-core samples and fossilized tree-ring data are hardly conclusive? Or is it really that right now we are boiling ourselves completely without any help from mother nature? That is the rub here, is no model really shows that we are causing X% of the climatic changes our world is experiencing. The assumptions say "yeah we cause, well, a lot of it, a good chunk anyway, heck maybe all of it, ok maybe not that much". I think we need to understand this part before we can even figure out how to most effectively mitigate the issues. All we know is how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere (estimates anyway) and we can see how much is there now and how much 5 years ago. That is a small piece of a very very large and complex puzzle. For me the science has yet to move past correlation into the realm of causality. At least enough for me to be willing to bank my kids' future on it.

2) No one really knows if climate change will be necessarily bad or good in the long run. This is kind of like saying "wow my tooth hurts a little right now, let's yank that sucker out!" Maybe we need to understand better what the outcomes might be before we make sweeping changes that will affect the entire globe and generations to come. It could be that acting rashly would make things worse (in many ways, not necessarily climatically).

Acting on assumptions is a dangerous game. We always will have some level of assumption, but I want to see better data when we are expected to buy into doomsday predictions when the geological record shows that with far more CO2 and far higher temps than we have now, life was radically abundant. How do we know this won't actually be good for us long-term? That is the problem, we don't know, but so many are pushing to act regardless. That is scary and irresponsible.

 

[babe]

I think this LA Times article from today is particularly relevant to this discussion.

https://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404,0,772697.story

Summary: Basically scientists from UC Berkley that were funded by the Koch brothers set out to disprove climate change, and instead came to the conclusion that the general consensus on climate change is correct.

Also One Brow, that sight you linked to was the best thing of my life. It is upsetting to see such a long list of flawed arguments all at once though.

My observation to this event would be "exactly". I would think that explains everything about what is going in this area of research.

And why.

I predict that given about fifty years from now, you won't be mentioning to anyone that you once worried about "Global Warming".

Science doesn't have a good track record for being useful to confirm or deny our present hypotheses. It does have a good track record for forcing scientists, as well as the rest of us, to search for a new hypotheses.

 

[babe]

Our Oily Political "Science"

It's probably quite logical that the thread on Obama and Libya turned into "Global Warming".

But let's do one straight out on the general subject of the relations of oil politics to the UN IPCC reports, including Global Warming and the proposals to harness this "crisis" to world-wide UN tax schemes as well as local ones like our "Cap and Trade" proposed legislation.

Why do the Rockefeller circles of influential people come down in favor of reducing our dependence on oil? And strengthening the global governance powers of the UN?

A long time ago while the first oil barons were working for cartel power, one fool remarked that it was a good thing we had so much oil. Rockefeller disagreed, saying that was the worst problem possible. And proceeded with maneuvers to reduce overall production, buying and shutting down various oil operations.

Today we are still doing this typical "Rockefeller" thing, at both the corporate level and through the actions of our government. Look at our response to the Gulf crisis last year. Look at what actually happened when we displaced Saddam Hussein, and at what is happening in Libya.

The basic strategy our oil cartel industry has implented is a world-wide "Use Theirs First" policy. That's why we are getting our oil from the most politically unstable areas today, and that is why some "players" who are producing "too much oil" are being displaced.

Neat trick. Our Military Industrial Complex complementing our oil cartel and providing price support. Our global governance producing further schemes for providing price support. . . . even a whole new "industry" of essentially re-establishing a cartel set up for "selling indulgences" like the Catholic Church did in the middle ages. . . . which of course is set up in such a manner as to provide a windfall of great wealth to those who already have great wealth. Including some payola to compliant little global-governance compliant leaders for third-world and poor countries.

 

[DutchJazzer]

havent been following the other thread. havent actually been watching the news lately.

but the Un policy of diplomacy is ****. the un should be dismantled

 

[Surely]

havent been following the other thread. havent actually been watching the news lately.

but the Un policy of diplomacy is ****. the un should be dismantled

But if they dismantled the UN then where would America spend the extra $598,292,101 (the number from 2009)?

 

[PearlWatson]

There is also debate over whether the earth is flat.

Still, I agree that it is not reasonable to expect there to be no debate when the way people make money is at stake.

LOL!

I didn't see the comparison to flat earthers coming from a Warmiac scoundrel pushing his Armageddon dogma, and of course all "scientists" are pure of heart with no self-interested motives.

 

[One Brow]

... of course all "scientists" are pure of heart ...

"All scientists" are not anything. Scientists are a very diverse group, highly competitive, and love to show each other up. Getting them to agree on things is, as the well-worn expression says, like herding cats. It's in part because they so competitive and ego-driven that, when they do agree on something, it's for better reasons than group-think.

 

[PearlWatson]

"All scientists" are not anything. Scientists are a very diverse group, highly competitive, and love to show each other up. Getting them to agree on things is, as the well-worn expression says, like herding cats. It's in part because they so competitive and ego-driven that, when they do agree on something, it's for better reasons than group-think.

All scientists are not anything, but they are highly competitive and love to show each other up.

 

[One Brow]

All scientists are not anything, but they are highly competitive and love to show each other up.

Fair enough. The nature of science is that it is more difficult to succeed unless you are highly competitive and love to prove other people wrong, as far as I can tell, but of course not every scientist fits that mold, just like not every basketball player is a phenomenal athlete.

 

[franklin]

All scientists are not anything, but they are highly competitive and love to show each other up.

That is a very distinct kind of ownage. Nicely done, sir.

I've thought about using this tactic a time or two, but it would quickly backfire after one of my drunken tirades.

 

[franklin]

Here's the thing, I'm my own kind of extremist. I believe that liability laws could solve this problem for us. If someone's actions damage you then you should be able to hold them accountable. That is perfectly in-line with my concept of individual rights. Currently we have a situation where if your actions damage others (driving your car, for instance) you cannot be held accountable if your actions are specifically permitted buy law. Chemical manufacturers are allowed to dump by products into our air as long as they do so within defined limits. So the government is telling them that they can do a certain amount of damage to others without the people being damaged having any recourse. In my opinion a truly free market would say first that you can manufacture whatever you'd like, but you take 100% responsibility for your actions and if anyone anywhere is damaged by your actions then you are fully liable.

That is an extreme position and would wreck our economy if implemented tomorrow. I understand that. But in my opinion that is the correct solution to our environmental problems. To take it a little further, cars' exhaust is poisonous. If things were done the way I think they should be done we would need to capture and dispose of all by-products we produce or else be liable for the damage they cause, so driving a personal vehicle that burns gas would not be realistic unless technology was developed that allowed us to capture or abate all the harmful emissions. Unlike now where we can produce harmful emissions as long as we have our sticker saying we are harming others within the allowable limits provided by law.

This is pretty radical the way I think you are going with it, but I don't think the foundation of the concept is extreme at all. I'm more in favor of having incentives built into the system that control damages. It's obvious a startup chemical manufacturer could do more damage than they could ever imagine compensating for. This is the flaw I see in your view, and where moving from Laissez faire to regulated free market is advantageous.

I'm in favor of a high gas tax for many reasons, one is for environmental benefit (weird how us right leaners want to destroy the environment, right?). We socialize pollution and allow everyone to burn as much gas as they want. Why not provide an incentive for good behavior (conservation) and a build in a penalty for the adverse? Your compensation is built into the system and cannot be averted. It's also the easiest way to combat GW (real or perceived) and wouldn't cost us a dime if properly offset. How radical is that? We can reverse pollution without costing anything through incentives alone. Crazy.

Disclaimer: I had been drinking a little before that post, so i'm fairly sure I meant what I wrote, but if my argument has gaping holes (more than usual) you know why.

I fully approve. Also, you've added more than your "fair share" to this thread. Thank you.

 

[LogGrad98]

But if they dismantled the UN then where would America spend the extra $598,292,101 (the number from 2009)?

Pretty sure the politicians can come up with some way to spend it. I know, how about a bridge to nowhere to help my brother's not-so-struggling construction company by paying him 10x the next highest bid? Yep, that and a few dozen more projects ought to cover it.