An Inconvenient Truth

[mraynrand]

I see. We were talking apples and oranges. You were saying fear drives activism and I was saying that fear doesn't drive all research.

[MJZiggy]

While we're talking about research and killing ourselves and stuff, grab a Coke and read this:

[SkinBasket]

So you're saying that since we can't prove indisputably that the models are true, then we should say that the logic is all wrong and do nothing to clean up our planet? No one has answered my previous question. What would it really cost us to change our actions to more sustainable behaviors.

People are doing things to clean up the planet. Sure, others are doing more to create pollution than those who are trying to constrain it, but it seems people like to forget the progress being made on several fronts, from improving existing energy forms to creating new, cleaner ones on the production side and making better use of energy and conserving more on the consumption side.

Obviously it costs us nothing to be personally smarter about using energy on an individual level, but thats not a real solution when talking about global problems.

But who do you mean by "us?" Americans? Surely there are many in the US who are already doing what they can to use less energy for a variety of reasons, from wanting to save the world to wanting to save a buck.

If by "us" you mean industry and transportation in the US, then the cost will be trillions of tax dollars, wider trade deficits, hundreds of thousands of jobs, higher costs for energy to cover higher production costs and R/D for cleaner fuels - which means higher costs for everything from milk to airplane tickets.

There's a reason we use forms of energy that pollute - they're cheap. Try convincing someone who needs public assistance as it is just to keep their apartment livable during the winter that higher energy prices will benefit their kids in 20 years when they've got them in 3 jackets and 2 blankets now. Try convincing someone who just lost their job in industry or transportation to a company in China or India or Africa and is living on the street that lowering our CO2 emmissions 40 ppm over 40 years is worth it. Try convincing the entire country that giving up their cars for more expensive, slower moving, "Smart Cars" is something that needs to be done to stop the ice caps from melting in 200 years. Try explaining to the masses of newly unemployed and homeless and healthcareless that their kids, if they survive, will live in a better, cleaner world.

So again I ask, are we this stubborn that we will fault the research and not do things that could greatly benefit us and our children in the future?

I'm not trying to be snide with this post, but one of the points I've been trying to make is that changes of the magnitude that many are suggesting to make the world cleaner cannot be implemented overnight. It's going to take a lot of money and change to the countries' industry, transportation, infrastructure, energy production, processing, and delivery systems - not to mention personal change on the individual level. Not to mention trying to balance this change with the need to stay somewhat competetive in the global market.

[No Mo Moss]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

[No Mo Moss]

Personally I think that the alternative types of energy could be a huge economic boost for this country. If good forms of alternative energy can be develped it would mean a lot larger gain for this country than staying on this same track. I mean who really benefits from the oil companies? My local BP isn't doing S*it for the community.

Here's an example.

If Hydrogen cell technologies were imployed at a local neighborhood level, say one per 10 city blocks, and handled in a sort of co-op manner it would boost the economy in many ways.

#1 Our winter heating bills are killing this country. I had months well over $400 this winter. Cutting that to $100 - $200 is the same as giving me $200-$300 dollars to use in the economy.
Many estimates report that such technology would be 80%-%90 less expensive.

#2 It would create jobs at a more local level, more of a community position.

#3 Mass producing this new technology would become a huge industry of its own. The more successful it became, the more demand there would be for the product worldwide.

Eventually the automotive industry will inevitably switch to a more fuel efficient form of energy such as hydrogen cell technology or something similar. It wil either happen in 5-10 years or 30-50. Why not lead the world in production of such things. Instead the Japanese hybrids have ruled the market thus far. If we could lead the world in the manufacturing of such things we would no doubt reap huge economic gains.

It isn't that people think this happens overnight, its that you have to actually start looking into it seriously before you are going to get any real solutions. The atomic bomb probably would have taken 30 more years to build had there not been some sense of urgency. Currently there is no sense of urgency.

[mraynrand]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

[jack's smirking revenge]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

Mraynrand, can you tell me where to get flawless or unbiased research? Where do you go for your information with which to base your scientific opinion? Just curious. I understand that all research is somewhat flawed and biased, but if all research is flawed and biased, then I'm getting the impression from you that all research is somewhat useless.

tyler

[Little Whiskey]

can you tell me where to get flawless or unbiased research?

tyler

the internet or TV.

[No Mo Moss]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

We live an a disposable culture, you don't need research to tell you that is wasteful and depletes resources.

Women that are pregnant can no longer eat more than 12 oz of most wild caught fish here in MN because of the birth defects that the mercury will cause. Do you know anyone pregnant, maybe we could put this nonsense to the test?

[Badgepack]

Who really needs any type of research to know that we are exhausting our resources, polluting the land, air, and water, the poplulation is overcrowded, and that I would hate to think what it will be like for my great grandchildren.

Thank you.

That's right. If the research is non-existant or flawed or biased, just believe what you want to believe on pure faith.

My faith tells me that oil, coal, natural gas, ect. is non-renewable.
My faith tells me that there are ponds I would not set foot in.
My faith tells me there are 60 million more people than last year.
My faith tells me that the ice caps are melting much faster than they should.

[No Mo Moss]

This is from jstone on the identical thread on the JSO site. He put it so damn beautifully I have to post it here:

Thanks to No Mo Moss who was thoughtful enough to post a link to a movie about a serious environmental matter. For that, the left-hating fringe responded with anger and ignorance right on cue. The plain (and inconvenient) truth is that they are such tools for a political party that their whole being has to exist in that tiny little ideological bubble. Horrors if a non-party approved idea should exist.

This is an environmental matter, whether you are a right winger, a left winger, a communist, an independent, a religious fundamentalist or an atheist. How collossally stupid does one have to be to trivialize this as some left wing conspiracy or hoax? Are we supposed to believe that scientists from all over the world have some secret coordinated plan to use their life's work and career interest to spend corporate and government funding in order to fabricate a giant hoax to destroy the U.S. because, doggone it, they hate the U.S. so BAD???

The scientists in the U.S., who live in our cities, were classmates and friends of ours, who shop in the same stores and eat at the same restaurants, secretly are dominated by a single-minded hatred of the Republican party so they make up global warming to waste a bunch of money to ruing American and bite off the hand that feeds them and financially ruin the rest of us too? All in a calculated, synchronized effort? Really, are people that stupid, or has political partisanship gone way over the cliff?

Someone said the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. Said it as if it were absolute fact. Based on what - science? Quote from studies from freerepublic, newsmax, or scientists from the energy industry when it conforms to your closed-minded viewpoint and reject all the rest?

Some said the earth is millions of years old. Better not tell that to the hardcore religious fundamentalists. They are convinced the earth is barely 6,000 years old and that carbon dating and ice core dating are hoaxes and fuzzy science. By their belief, there couldn't have been an ice age or else it would have been in the Bible.

I'm saying, be careful of what you think you're absolutely certain of, especially if you have no real knowledge in this area. Opinions are like you-know-what; everyone has one.

What if the global warming-is-a-myth crowd happen to be wrong and society didn't take action when we could have maybe made a difference? On the other hand, if the global warming-is-a-fact crowd is wrong, what did it really cost us in the long run? We made the earth a little cleaner?

Was the ecosystem X billion years ago the same ecosystem as today? Hardly. Human, animal, and plant life has all changed in number since then, plus the chemical artificial substances that science has created and the pollutants we put in the air. A mountain in Antarctica puts out more CFC's than air conditioners and that is supposed to mean global warming doesn't exist? Whaaaaa??? If these people don't worry about CO2 levels, perhaps they could experiment by sitting with their SUV's running in a closed garage and see if they notice any change in their personal environment.

I usually just read the forum topics and never post, but these topics have devolved to angry and stupid rants. And I'm the sucker that just got drug down to that level by posting. Sorry for all who are offended by this, but try harder next time to pause and use some reasoning before popping off with some approved spin point from a political party that neither knows you exist - unless you pay them money - nor gives a damn about anything but perpetuating power. There's no money to be made in environmental causes, so the environmental issues are dismissed as "inconvenient".

'night all. I'd stick around but hate the whole back-and-forth name calling. But since I threw some rocks at a few people, then I'll expect some thrown back at me as well.

Brilliant!

[mraynrand]

Interesting to see people try to phrase it as all-or-none or leftists versus the 6,000 year old earth creationists.

SOME science is junk science. SOME science is agenda-driven science. MOST science is pretty decent, well-executed, and appropriately peer reviewed. I was focusing primarily on the science behind the subject of this thread - that is the models that predict at worst case scenario, about a 2 degree planetary warming over the next 100 years. When someone says that they don't need evidence but can rely on faith to know that the earth is overpopulated and is becoming more polluted, I'll respond to that. Where on earth do you think the information about PCBs and Hg in the environment comes from - an act of god? It's absolutely pathetic to have someone harshly critique one side of the argument by claiming that they are ignorant creationists and then fall back on secularism/materialism (or nothing) as their faith-based source for truth.

In science you have to differentiate observation from interpretation. Observations include: Population is increasing. Carbon dioxide levels are rising. The planetary temperature is rising slightly (varies depending on your source and where in the atmosphere you measure). Mercury levels in some waterways are higher. In some they are lower. Fires on the Cuyahoga no longer take place and massive re-speciation has occurred. Smog levels in Los Angeles and San Bernadino are lower than 30 years ago.

Overpopulation and pollution are interpretations (In science journals they are called conclusions) and are subject to regional considerations (in the case of pollution) and other considerations (as the case for human-created global warming - that is, what EXACTLY is the contribution of humans relative to natural cycles of the Earth, solar changes, natural environmental changes, etc.). Yes there are areas that are polluted. Yes AIDS is rampant in Africa. But are these signs of overpopulation and uncontrollable waste, or are they issues that result from destructive behaviors that can be solved?
How do you know that Oil is a finite resource? Relative to what? I know I'll never collect on this debt, but I'll bet everything I own that oil never runs out - ever - until the Earth melts when the Sun expands. Eventually the cost will rise so high that other sources will be found to replace it and in the meantime it can be recovered (more expensively) from other sources such as shale and coal.

The bottom line here, as I have limited time, is that many of you just aren't thinking. You have a few facts and in many cases, some extreme interpretations. You know some things are worse off than they used to be - some areas ARE more polluted and there are less pristine open areas. But do you recognize that there are trade offs? Many of the diseases that are being researched today are being studied because they are the diseases of older people (cancer, typically) or are the diseases of wealth (obesity, type II diabetes), or are the maladies of corrupt behavior (orthopedic fixation for victims of drunk or drugged or cell-phone inattentive driving, or AIDS from promiscuity). We have these things because people are living longer and in many cases better and/or more carelessly than ever in history - despite some extra pollutants here and there - that as we find out about them, and CAREFULLY verify them as true threats (not fake threats like DDT), that can be eliminated.

[No Mo Moss]

Overpopulation is a real problem and any statement refuting that is irresponsible. Regardless of region it is a problem. If it doesn't exist then why have some countries had to limit the number of children allowed? It's called the carrying capacity, how many can be sustained with available resources. You can't have infinite amounts of people on the planet, is that what you're suggesting?

Its not a difficult concept and requires no scientific studies whatsoever. My grandparents had 3 kids. each of those kids had three kids. That's 14 people. When the grandparents die you're down to 12, but once the kids have offspring you're likely at 32. how's that not going to be a problem?

First the environment is in great shape and then overpopulation is just an interpretation, give me a break!

[SkinBasket]

This is from jstone on the identical thread on the JSO site. He put it so damn beautifully I have to post it here:

blah blah blah... more "non-partisan" cold hard facts which happens to include bashing conservatives because they're fucking idiots who just don't get it....

Brilliant!

Real convincing stuff. I really appreciate how you've now moved all your arguments into the "you don't need facts to see this..." and "you don't need science to tell you that..." after all your ranting about how science backs you up 90%.

You continue to ignore the progress being made on a real level and continue to shout out your ideals as fact and scientific certainty. You have yet to offer any plan of action outside of signing the Kyoto treaty and unrealistic models of how energy distribution will work in the future (your hydrogen cell yabberjabber about coops and local ownership).

Whoever develops the next large source of energy is not going to hand away the bazillions of dollars that will have been spent researching, developing, and building the delivery infastructure needed for said energy source. Guess what? They're going to sell it! Yes, crazy idea, but they're going to to sell it to you and make a profit! Just like gasoline!

And you know what else? After said energy source has been established, there's not going to be an "economic boon" in mass producing it because companies in Europe, Asia, Canada, and Mexico will simply do it cheaper - just like pharmacuticals. Especially if the US companies have been hogtied by your ideas about handicapping American businesses with things like the Kyoto chicken raping device.

[SkinBasket]

From the now infallible source of jstone of JSOnline:

"I'm saying, be careful of what you think you're absolutely certain of, especially if you have no real knowledge in this area. Opinions are like you-know-what; everyone has one."

Goddamn if it don't make me piss myself everytime I read a statement like this thrown in the middle of a post like the one above. Nomo, you really should listen to him on this one. Seriously. Especially while you're creaming your pants listening to Al Gore whip you into an environmental catastrophy frenzy.