An Inconvenient Truth

[Partial]

I know that they will always be building houses and subdivision. My point there was that to do it, it isn't necessary to bulldoze down every tree within a quarter mile of the place. If they plan it correctly, a lot of them can be saved to the benefit of both the environment and the new homeowner, but it's just easier to plow everything down so that's what they do without even thinking about it.

very, very true.

[SkinBasket]

So in one paragraph you're trashing the validity of your own study that you've used to back up your arguments and then stating how even though it's trash it's still good enough for you?

Well, this was a decidely UNscientific canvasing by CNN for a article at their website. The 19 respondants all generallly supported the science behind the film. Yes, that impresses me. If you walked into a Climatology convention, and the first 19 people you met told you opinion A, I think you would be highly reassured that opinion A is widely shared by the larger group.

Except your analogy fails miserably and I have to believe you are skirting, or ignoring altogether, the truth. You don't take into consideration that it would be like walking into a convention, asking 100 people (not the FIRST 19) if they saw a movie made to preach to the choir, and only 19 say yes, of course they've seen it, it's very important work, very important to furthering the cause of global warming in America. Meanwhile the other 81 scientists didn't think the show was worth their time or attention, which in my mind means they aren't particularly interested in what the movie is pushing, which says a lot considering it deals with their life's work.

Your leaps in logic are astounding, HH. Then again, it doesn't surprise me much considering that you are more than willing to accept as truth an UNscientific questioning of an UNrepresentative sample which could only return a 19% response rate.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Except your analogy fails miserably and I have to believe you are skirting, or ignoring altogether, the truth. You don't take into consideration that it would be like walking into a convention, asking 100 people (not the FIRST 19) if they saw a movie made to preach to the choir, and only 19 say yes, of course they've seen it, it's very important work, very important to furthering the cause of global warming in America. Meanwhile the other 81 scientists didn't think the show was worth their time or attention, which in my mind means they aren't particularly interested in what the movie is pushing, which says a lot considering it deals with their life's work.

You're right. The 100 people are likely a random sample, but the 19 respondants are not.
You perceive that the 81 people don't think the show is worth their time and attention. I doubt that, I think they probably just gonna see it on DVD.

Your reasons for dismissing the CNN story are legit. I just judge it differently.

[SkinBasket]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

Partial, I know it may not be an appealing prospect, but if you read this whole thread, you would know that isn't what I'm saying at all.

In case you're too busy to take a look through, here's the problems I have in a nutshell:

This movie is obviously a biased look at an unresolved scientific issue. Furthermore, the movie relies on one of the most politically charged politicians of our day for it's narrative. This in conjunction with the "witty" attempt at moral highgrounding that is its title, leads me to believe that the movie is crap.

As far as the actual issue of GW goes, the main problem I have is that changes are underway to make our air "better" and "healthier." It makes political, economic, and moral sense to do so. The questions I have posed to those who are going hysterical about GW are these:

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs for everything from fuel for heating to food to housing, higher taxes to a country where we pay 30-50+% of our income to one tax or another, massive job loss as companies move overseas, and a exponentially exploding trade deficit as everyone from Joe Union to Bill Gates looks to buy things cheaper from foreign companies --- to name a few of the problems with trying to implement a faster change in green tech.

2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees? Maybe you haven't taken a look at the big atuo makers' finacials lately, but they don't exactly have the cash on hand to start planting trees because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself and it's easier to demonize big business than accept personal responsibilty.

3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.

That's it... in a nutshell. For even wordier and even less eloquently stated versions of these points, with conterpoints by our beloved PR friends, see the previous nine pages.

[Harlan Huckleby]

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs

Too big of a question to argue, and I certainly don't have the knowlege to do so very well, but I will stab a little. You present a false choice!!
You talk about a country dealing with poverty? How about China!? Most of their population is marginally fed. China has decided it is worth the investment to retool their industries with green technologies, and the communist central committee has no reputation for being do-gooders.
We could switch to hybrid cars in 15 years without massive economic dislocation.
Why do you suppose car manufacturers who offer fuel-efficient autos are kicking ass?

And green industries could be the source of economic OPPORTUNITY.

2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees?

I think the most immediate and doable move is to push our country and the world to fission nuclear power. Yes, fission sucks, but is sucks a lot less than coal burning power plants. I accept there will be some environmental catastrophes. But it is lesser evil than hydrocarbons.
I suspect nuclear plants designed in 2010 will be far safer than the 1970 editions.

Long term: Run electric cars and trains off of that nuclear power grid. Trains should connect cities. Electric cars can operate within cities.

And pray to Jesus, Allah and Buddah that Fusion is perfected for the next century. One century at a time - baby stepping.

[Harlan Huckleby]

3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what?

OK, your value judgement is what it is, and I respect you for stating it clearly.

Specifically, I'm concerned that the polar ice caps are going to melt faster than some predict. We talk about uncertainty in the GW models from the standpoint that they may be too pessimistic. But there is also reasonable possibility that they may be too optimisitic!!!

Scientists were surprised by the rate of decline of glaciers and mountain snow in last 10 years.

The polar caps might also melt faster than generally predicted. As the caps melt, the remaining ice melts at a faster rate, the melted liquid has a corrosive effect, it nonlinear process. Hell, I don't know how well they have that modeled.

Some people think New Orleans could be underwater within 75 years. I think that's within realm of the possible. (So far below sea level that they are not salvagable. NY City not far behind!)

That strange article from NY Times that I posted earlier, the one about pumping Sulphur Dioxide into upper atmosphere to stimulate global cooling, is not a completely unthinkable, drastic measure to save coastal cities around the world!

[jack's smirking revenge]

[quote="SkinBasket"]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs for everything from fuel for heating to food to housing, higher taxes to a country where we pay 30-50+% of our income to one tax or another, massive job loss as companies move overseas, and a exponentially exploding trade deficit as everyone from Joe Union to Bill Gates looks to buy things cheaper from foreign companies --- to name a few of the problems with trying to implement a faster change in green tech.

Answer: Refocus the billions of dollars we're spending on "nation-building" and combatting a faceless enemy (terrorism is a concept, not a contact) in an area that has questionable relevance towards investing in the energy future in the United States. How about subsidies for wind-powered or solar-powered homes? I think both exist, but they're not enough to make any common person take advantage of green tech.

[2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees? Maybe you haven't taken a look at the big atuo makers' finacials lately, but they don't exactly have the cash on hand to start planting trees because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself and it's easier to demonize big business than accept personal responsibilty.

Again, its about money and where we put it. We all have a responsibility to the environment. I don't pity auto makers. They open and close auto plants to justify the bottom line to their shareholders. A major Ford plant in my area will most likely be closing in the next couple of years because the Ford bottom line doesn't look as good as it used to. Ford built the facility. Ford will abandon the facilty. Ford will also abandon the 3,000 people that get their livlihood from that facility.

Yes, I know the argument is more complex, but "big business" has more resources to deal with the problems than the common man and/or woman. My firm gives out $400,000 in Foundation money every year. It is mostly given towards the arts. The United Way is a major benefactor from most large corporations. If half of company charitable donations were refocused toward environmental concerns (in order for me to work downtown, I have to use transportation, which, in turn, pollutes the environment), instead of pet projects (mirroring political giving), then maybe this problem could be addressed in a different way and corporations with "risky financials" wouldn't take the hit that you're suggesting.

[3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.

Skin, I actually agree with you on this point. I think the fall of our race is as inevitable as its coincidental rise. Ironically, we'll probably be the cause of our own demise. Pretty doom and gloom talk, but I have no problem with it. I think that leads to a greater philosophical discussion though. Are we worth saving?

[Partial]

Skin, are you saying this is completely false and nothing to be concerned about? At the very least, wouldn't you feel better breathing better, healthier air?

Partial, I know it may not be an appealing prospect, but if you read this whole thread, you would know that isn't what I'm saying at all.

In case you're too busy to take a look through, here's the problems I have in a nutshell:

This movie is obviously a biased look at an unresolved scientific issue. Furthermore, the movie relies on one of the most politically charged politicians of our day for it's narrative. This in conjunction with the "witty" attempt at moral highgrounding that is its title, leads me to believe that the movie is crap.

As far as the actual issue of GW goes, the main problem I have is that changes are underway to make our air "better" and "healthier." It makes political, economic, and moral sense to do so. The questions I have posed to those who are going hysterical about GW are these:

1) You want massive change to make our air better? Then explain how you'll deal with the massive economic crisis that follows. Explain how a country already wrangling with poverty is going to justify higher costs for everything from fuel for heating to food to housing, higher taxes to a country where we pay 30-50+% of our income to one tax or another, massive job loss as companies move overseas, and a exponentially exploding trade deficit as everyone from Joe Union to Bill Gates looks to buy things cheaper from foreign companies --- to name a few of the problems with trying to implement a faster change in green tech.

2) What, exactly, do you propose we do to reduce pollution that isn't already being done? Please, for arguments sake, can we stay away from "punishing" big business by forcing them to plant trees? Maybe you haven't taken a look at the big atuo makers' finacials lately, but they don't exactly have the cash on hand to start planting trees because you're too damn lazy to do it yourself and it's easier to demonize big business than accept personal responsibilty.

3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.

That's it... in a nutshell. For even wordier and even less eloquently stated versions of these points, with conterpoints by our beloved PR friends, see the previous nine pages.

I didn't read your post, just the first line. Yeah, I didn't want to read all of that I'm going to read your post and add my comments through an edit


edit - i think between jack and harlan the point I would have attempted to make is made.

[SkinBasket]

Too big of a question to argue, and I certainly don't have the knowlege to do so very well, but I will stab a little. You present a false choice!!
You talk about a country dealing with poverty? How about China!? Most of their population is marginally fed. China has decided it is worth the investment to retool their industries with green technologies, and the communist central committee has no reputation for being do-gooders.
We could switch to hybrid cars in 15 years without massive economic dislocation.
Why do you suppose car manufacturers who offer fuel-efficient autos are kicking ass?

And green industries could be the source of economic OPPORTUNITY.

What's the false choice? Any move toward any new tech will cost money - and lots of it. That's why it's done the way it's done - slowly. That way you have time to spread the cost of R/D, implementation, infastructure, and consumer-end upgrading over time. You mention fuel-efficient cars? Excellent! Another simple idea that's been in the works for decades! That isn't a massive change, that's a change thats been ongoing and continues to evolve slowly.

WHat's this China yabber-jabber about besides helping to make my point. China is forgoing the wellfare of it's people to implement (supposedly) cleaner technology. I say supposedly because they are great at global PR on a few large projects while the old massive production lines continue to smoke away. Mainly they are trying to industrialize faster than the government can afford to make up for what they see as lost time. Their system of governance and the entire social system however, really isn't comparable to any other nation, so it's also hard to make a point of comparison even if you can prove that China is making sincere moves toward a greener tomorrow.

I think the most immediate and doable move is to push our country and the world to fission nuclear power. Yes, fission sucks, but is sucks a lot less than coal burning power plants. I accept there will be some environmental catastrophes. But it is lesser evil than hydrocarbons.
I suspect nuclear plants designed in 2010 will be far safer than the 1970 editions.

Long term: Run electric cars and trains off of that nuclear power grid. Trains should connect cities. Electric cars can operate within cities.

Once again, consider the R/D, implementation, construction, and infastrucre changes necessary even for a change to fission - if it's even possible to stabilize in a meanful and productive manner. Increased energy costs, increased taxes, more business moving to India and China and Mexico for cheaper production costs, increased unemployment... you get the idea.

One century at a time - baby stepping.

Exactly the point I'm making. Of course that would assume there is no immediate crisis of global proportions. Something your friend Al would be disappointed you don't believe.

[SkinBasket]

Answer: Refocus the billions of dollars we're spending on "nation-building" and combatting a faceless enemy (terrorism is a concept, not a contact) in an area that has questionable relevance towards investing in the energy future in the United States. How about subsidies for wind-powered or solar-powered homes? I think both exist, but they're not enough to make any common person take advantage of green tech.

Maybe people aren't taking advantage of those subsidies because the those technologies are not workable for a majority of people for a variety of reasons. On a large scale, they simply don't generate enough reliable energy to supply the demand. That and then all you greenies start crying over the poor fucking dead birds - killed at the hands of wind technology. Whole ecosystems threatened! Throwing money at outdated and inefficient technologies hardly seems like a national, much less global, solution.

Again, its about money and where we put it. We all have a responsibility to the environment. I don't pity auto makers. They open and close auto plants to justify the bottom line to their shareholders. A major Ford plant in my area will most likely be closing in the next couple of years because the Ford bottom line doesn't look as good as it used to. Ford built the facility. Ford will abandon the facilty. Ford will also abandon the 3,000 people that get their livlihood from that facility.

Well Ford ain't shutting down factories for the fun of it. Neither is GM or Dymler-Chrystler. They're shutting down factories to pay the pensions and benefits of the millions of workers current and retired. The unions are more interested in keeping their benefits as is than keeping the company they work for in business, which admittedly is their job. It becomes a problem however, when instead of having 3000 jobs with lesser benefits, they have zero jobs with zero benefits. My uncle worked as a janitor for GM, retired in his 40s, and hasn't worked a day since. How the fuck is that business model going to work for anyone?

Yes, I know the argument is more complex, but "big business" has more resources to deal with the problems than the common man and/or woman. My firm gives out $400,000 in Foundation money every year. It is mostly given towards the arts. The United Way is a major benefactor from most large corporations. If half of company charitable donations were refocused toward environmental concerns (in order for me to work downtown, I have to use transportation, which, in turn, pollutes the environment), instead of pet projects (mirroring political giving), then maybe this problem could be addressed in a different way and corporations with "risky financials" wouldn't take the hit that you're suggesting.

So now you want to cut charitable giving and force that money into environmental causes? How's that going to work? "Sorry NFL, you've given too much money to United Way, we are now forcible donating your money to Greenpeace. What? You don't believe in the work Greenpeace is doing? Too bad." I understand what you're saying Jack, but once again, what is the real-world solution to redirecting charity dollars? If it's not voluntary giving, then it's a tax. Just what we need to keep businesses in America competitive - another business tax.

[3) What is the ultimate harm to global warming? That one may be harder to answer since no one seems to know. My position is this: IF our accrued temperature change 4000 years from now is as cataclysmic as Gore, TIME Mag, and others want to you believe, then 99.8% of the species on the planet will die. So what? A few thousand years later the building blocks of this world will build it back up again - minus us. I don't see a problem with that. Certainly you don;t think this civilization will last forever do you? Bottom line: The world will live - with or without us, so what is the ultimate harm? The loss of mankind? If that's the case, then we've got far larger thing to worry about than a temperature trend that may or may not continue and may or may not lead to any large consequences globally.

Skin, I actually agree with you on this point. I think the fall of our race is as inevitable as its coincidental rise. Ironically, we'll probably be the cause of our own demise. Pretty doom and gloom talk, but I have no problem with it. I think that leads to a greater philosophical discussion though. Are we worth saving?[/quote]

Its in our nature to struggle, so we will. Its not really gloomy. No one seems to cry about the dinosaurs after all. I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

Concern that our planet could be tranformed into an ugly place in this century is not hysterical. Fact based. Observation based.

[MJZiggy]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

THEY DON'T WANNA DIE!!!!

[Deputy Nutz]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

Concern that our planet could be tranformed into an ugly place in this century is not hysterical. Fact based. Observation based.

To bad they were saying the same thing 10 years ago, then it faded. Before that global warming was the hysteria of the 80s. Same thing some scientist were predicting the ice caps wrere going to melt before the turn of the century. Well they haven't melted yet, so they are mostly full of shit.

[jack's smirking revenge]

[quote="Nutz"]

I just wonder what the underlying motivation for so much demogague based hysteria is.

Well they haven't melted yet, so they are mostly full of shit.

Who is full of shit? The ice caps or the scientists?

tyler

[Scott Campbell]