You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
May 27, 2018, 09:07:26 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: I giggled...  (Read 3793 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NiferbelleTopic starter

I giggled...
« on: December 01, 2013, 07:16:48 PM »
...then I signed the petition.

http://www.climatenamechange.org/#

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2013, 07:25:47 PM »
I'm afraid this gives them more attention than they deserve.

At this point, if someone denies human-caused climate change, either they are being willfully ignorant, or someone is paying them to hold that opinion.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #2 on: December 01, 2013, 07:41:18 PM »
Climate change is real, but this petition is a terrible idea.

One can reasonably make the case that by renaming hurricanes as certain politican figures, that the World Meteorological Organization would be espousing a distinct political agenda behind their science.  While this might certainly already be the case, the reason we respect scientific organizations is because we consider them to be the source for raw, pure scientific data, upon which we can make our own decisions about policy.

It undermines the cause more than anything.

Offline Robelwell202

  • The tall, dark stranger your mother warned you about.
  • On Hiatus
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Location: Earth
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless in the face of beauty
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2013, 08:58:12 PM »
At this point, if someone denies human-caused climate change, either they are being willfully ignorant, or someone is paying them to hold that opinion.

If I may be so bold, sir, this statement gives me the chills.  I happen to NOT subscribe to the Global Warming/Climate Change myth, and by the standard in your statement, it would place me in something that I know I'm not (Willfully ignorant).

While I'm reserving my statement about how insulting this might be seen, I do wish that you'd rethink this.  There are other opinions out there, which are just as informed, if not more informed.  I won't go into the specifics, but I would ask that you reconsider.

With respect,

R

Offline NiferbelleTopic starter

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2013, 10:12:29 PM »
I think the overwhelming scientific consensus trumps opinion. I'm not drawing any conclusions about climate-change deniers but I'm going to trust the experts, thank you.

And it will never happen, ValthazarElite which is why I felt safe signing it, and no, I really wouldn't want it to for the very reason you listed but it was funny and somewhat cathartic and that was sort of my way of expressing my appreciation for a good laugh.   

Offline Iniquitous

  • Diva of the Damned | Mother of Horrors | Patron Saint of Blankies
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2011
  • Location: Somewhere between the lost and the fallen
  • Gender: Female
  • Mirror mirror whose the fairest bitch of all?
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 2
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2013, 01:40:31 AM »
I am far from 'willfully ignorant'. I do not buy into the 'humans are causing global warming' bit. Why? Because the earth's climate is cyclic. We have had ice ages, mini ice ages and periods of 'warmer than normal'. Case in point: during the 11th century the English people were growing their own vineyards for wine. This was known as the Medieval Warming Period. It preceded the mini ice age of the Dark Ages. There is also the fact that 2013 is the solar maximum - the point when the sun is the hottest, so everything is heating up.

Do I believe humans have a hand in the warming up? Yes. Do I think we are the only (and greatest) cause? No. Not even close. I've done my reading on this, I've listened to both sides. I'm sorry, common sense (for me) says that we humans are not the greatest factor in these changes.

**edited to correct the year of the solar maximum**
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 01:49:32 AM by Iniquitous Opheliac »

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2013, 02:48:58 AM »
Do I believe humans have a hand in the warming up? Yes. Do I think we are the only (and greatest) cause? No. Not even close. I've done my reading on this, I've listened to both sides. I'm sorry, common sense (for me) says that we humans are not the greatest factor in these changes.

**edited to correct the year of the solar maximum**

I have also researched this issue, and I agree with this statement.

Climate change is very real - but the concept that human beings are the primary, or even majority, drivers for this change is entirely inconclusive when you look at the research.  It is unfortunate that this issue is being used largely as a political tool nowadays.

Offline Zakharra

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2013, 09:56:06 AM »
I have also researched this issue, and I agree with this statement.

Climate change is very real - but the concept that human beings are the primary, or even majority, drivers for this change is entirely inconclusive when you look at the research.  It is unfortunate that this issue is being used largely as a political tool nowadays.

 That's the problem I have with a lot of climate change supporters. They are adamant that humanity is the main or sole cause off it, and the proposed regulations supposed to fix it are pretty badly thought out; an example is the ethanol that is now required to be added to gasoline in the US. It's sent the price of corn shooting through the roof and doesn't make for clean burning and isn't good for engines The carbon tax seems like another boondoggle in the works. The proposals to fix the problem aren't exactly working.

Offline Oniya

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2013, 10:03:08 AM »
One major problem with the carbon tax is that companies can buy waivers.  As soon as you allow that, then the ones that eschew the expense of carbon-footprint-reducing measures start funneling that money into paying off those waivers, and you end up just as far behind.

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 11:56:31 AM »
My own opinion is that, we shouldn't be polluting the environment, regardless of whether it causes global warming or not. I also agree with the cyclic theory and think that the world will eventually right itself one way or another, but I do also think that the amount of carbon we're producing isn't helping and won't help in letting the weather fix itself come the next mini or big ice age.

I'm also unsure about signing this petition because unfortunately politicians, despite the best efforts of our founding fathers to include well rounded men in the line up, is not made up of well rounded men. There are no scientists on the board and they're only in it to make money. Not only will this give science a political agenda, it will likely not give science a voice in the government when it is so woefully lacking, but make it the enemy... I can see both negative and positive aspects to this but can't coherently get all of my thoughts out right now as I have to leave. Will add more thoughts later. >.<


Offline Robelwell202

  • The tall, dark stranger your mother warned you about.
  • On Hiatus
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2011
  • Location: Earth
  • Gender: Male
  • Helpless in the face of beauty
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 12:06:56 PM »
What baffles me is, why does no one take the following fact into account?

Carbon dioxide is used by plants to create oxygen.  It's been proven, time and again, that plants in an environment rich in carbon dioxide create a higher amount of oxygen.  Also, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, and not actually 'produced' (as in created out of nowhere).  Carbon, as an element, is what we're made of, and it exists all around us.

Considering that carbon-dioxide limitations would limit oxygen production, I find it ludicrous that this idea would actually have merit.

Offline Ebb

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2013, 01:17:23 PM »
What baffles me is, why does no one take the following fact into account?

Carbon dioxide is used by plants to create oxygen.  It's been proven, time and again, that plants in an environment rich in carbon dioxide create a higher amount of oxygen.  Also, carbon dioxide is naturally occurring, and not actually 'produced' (as in created out of nowhere).  Carbon, as an element, is what we're made of, and it exists all around us.

Considering that carbon-dioxide limitations would limit oxygen production, I find it ludicrous that this idea would actually have merit.

When people speak of carbon dioxide and climate change, they're referring to the increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere as a result of carbon that was previously locked into fossil fuels being released by the burning process to add to the C02 in the atmosphere. A secondary concern is that reduction of forests lowers the capability of removing that CO2 from the atmosphere through the normal cycle.

While it is true that carbon is not really being created or destroyed, clearly carbon that is in the air in the form of C02 will affect the climate in a way that carbon bound into coal or oil and left in the ground will not. This is not really a controversial part of the discussion.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html


Offline Avis habilis

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2013, 01:22:03 PM »
... the concept that human beings are the primary, or even majority, drivers for this change is entirely inconclusive when you look at the research.

Not even close: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/what-look-tomorrows-new-ipcc-report.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2013, 01:50:54 PM »
Not even close: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/what-look-tomorrows-new-ipcc-report.

This isn't isn't as cut and dry an issue as is presented in mainstream outlets.  I am not interested in getting into a scientific discussion about about each perspective, because that really isn't my area of specialization or interest, but perhaps someone else in this thread will be more interested.

Climate change is very real.  Climate change is also a powerful tool for galvanizing political agendas - regardless of political party.

If we accept that government is working for special interests, and we also accept that government is working with lobbyists for private corporations, we should not be so quick to assume that scientific leadership is immune from these very same lobbies.

I hold pure science in the highest regard, but for better or for worse, that isn't always what we are getting with many of these organizations, such as the IPCC.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2013, 02:00:24 PM »
If we accept that government is working for special interests, and we also accept that government is working with lobbyists for private corporations, we should not be so quick to assume that scientific leadership is immune from these very same lobbies.

Yes, it has been shown that denialists have been taking cash from extraction industries to obfuscate the connection between industry & climate change in exactly the same way Big Tobacco's pet scientists insisted there was controversy about whether smoking was linked to lung disease & cancer. That was a lie too.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2013, 02:26:20 PM »
Yes, it has been shown that denialists have been taking cash from extraction industries to obfuscate the connection between industry & climate change in exactly the same way Big Tobacco's pet scientists insisted there was controversy about whether smoking was linked to lung disease & cancer. That was a lie too.

Rather than emphasize a partisan divide, realize that we are essentially saying the same thing here - which is, we need to have pure, unbridled scientific data from which to make decisions.

Politicians who advocate and deny man-made climate change - both Democrats and Republicans - are actively courted by lobbyists.

You gave a good example of Republican lobbying, similar to Democrat lobbying with wind and solar companies.  The Republicans and Democrats are simply two sides of the same coin.

Offline Avis habilis

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2013, 02:34:53 PM »
... we need to have pure, unbridled scientific data from which to make decisions.

We have it. Wind & solar companies aren't bankrolling the studies that demonstrate a connection between human activity & climate change. Extraction industries are bankrolling the handful that deny it.

Offline Ebb

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2013, 02:36:58 PM »
Rather than emphasize a partisan divide, realize that we are essentially saying the same thing here - which is, we need to have pure, unbridled scientific data from which to make decisions.

Politicians who advocate and deny man-made climate change - both Democrats and Republicans - are actively courted by lobbyists.

You gave a good example of Republican lobbying, similar to Democrat lobbying with wind and solar companies.  The Republicans and Democrats are simply two sides of the same coin.

Unbiased, pure scientific consensus on the impact of human activity on climate change is as near to 100% as anything in the realm of actual science can get. Wikipedia is not a primary source, of course, but there are an extensive list of references on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.  See in particular the section titled "Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing", focusing on the lists of concurring, non-committal and dissenting scientific organizations.

You are postulating a false equivalence. The scientific studies that have been extensively cross-examined come from reputable scientific bodies located around the world. This is not a US Democrat vs. US Republican issue, and to frame it in those terms is to ignore the much bigger picture.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2013, 02:46:41 PM »
I don't disagree with a lot of what you all are saying.  I am sure there is merit to these studies, and perhaps now it is even becoming clear that humans have played a large role in climate change.  If I were researching this purely from a scientific view, I would agree with you both.

But suggesting that this hasn't becoming adversely politicized, both by Republicans and Democrats, is missing the mark.  This thread itself was based on a campaign to politicize scientific research.  It is because of this unfortunate reality that I am cautiously skeptical about this issue.  Certainly, political 'deniers' have political motives in distorting the presentation of scientific data, as do political advocates of man-made climate change.

But yes, on an empirical level, I see what you are both saying.

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2013, 10:12:33 PM »
Taking a minute to state my opinion.

When I was younger it was all about global cooling and holes in the ozone. 

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government and give up freon gas.

Now it is global warming man made

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government

Both studies were primarily financed by the government costing billions in research grants to prove the hypothesis true and they did.


My opinion:  Men (man kind) does a lot of stuff that should be addressed and dealt with but in a reasonable manner.  In 7000 BC, you could walk from France to Ireland and not get your feet wet.  The global warming melted ice caps and the sea level rose to where it has been during current times.

I've been sailing in Idaho in lakes that are over a thousand feet deep that used to be glaciers.  They melted. 

My brother is a forester and tells me that there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago due to planting and managing forests.  These are thriving due to carbon dioxide. 

Why is it that if I start to build a house and don't put up silt fences I will be fined thousands of dollars to keep a little dirt out of a creek.  But a farmer can plow a thousand acres right next to a river and then fertilize it and be exempt from any regulations?  Fines increase money for government.

The loudest voices for "man made" global warming are in the UN because all of the third world countries want to receive compensation from the developed countries that caused the drought in their country.

We've had hurricanes, tornados, droughts and floods all through history but if there is a profit to be made we should blame it on climate change.  I say that if man is causing global warming that we should open a couple holes in the ozone and balance it out.

Lets focus on littering, pollution and the wind farms that are killing all the bird.  Who thought that they might use the strongest winds to choose their migratory patterns?
« Last Edit: December 02, 2013, 10:37:29 PM by smokindriver »

Offline Ebb

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2013, 12:07:44 AM »
Taking a minute to state my opinion.

When I was younger it was all about global cooling and holes in the ozone. 

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government and give up freon gas.

Now it is global warming man made

Solution:  Pay taxes to the government

Both studies were primarily financed by the government costing billions in research grants to prove the hypothesis true and they did.


My opinion:  Men (man kind) does a lot of stuff that should be addressed and dealt with but in a reasonable manner.  In 7000 BC, you could walk from France to Ireland and not get your feet wet.  The global warming melted ice caps and the sea level rose to where it has been during current times.

I've been sailing in Idaho in lakes that are over a thousand feet deep that used to be glaciers.  They melted. 

My brother is a forester and tells me that there are more trees now than there were 100 years ago due to planting and managing forests.  These are thriving due to carbon dioxide. 

Why is it that if I start to build a house and don't put up silt fences I will be fined thousands of dollars to keep a little dirt out of a creek.  But a farmer can plow a thousand acres right next to a river and then fertilize it and be exempt from any regulations?  Fines increase money for government.

The loudest voices for "man made" global warming are in the UN because all of the third world countries want to receive compensation from the developed countries that caused the drought in their country.

We've had hurricanes, tornados, droughts and floods all through history but if there is a profit to be made we should blame it on climate change.  I say that if man is causing global warming that we should open a couple holes in the ozone and balance it out.

Lets focus on littering, pollution and the wind farms that are killing all the bird.  Who thought that they might use the strongest winds to choose their migratory patterns?

In situations like this it is worth asking yourself "What evidence would need to be presented to me in order for me to change my opinion on this subject?"

If the answer is "There is no possible evidence that would cause me to make that change" then it is a safe bet that engaging in further conversation on the issue is unlikely to be productive on either side. If, on the other hand, there is evidence which would be sufficient then it is worth spelling out what that evidence is, and then responding accordingly if that evidence is presented to you.

Matters of scientific fact are not subject to any person's opinion.

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2013, 04:36:47 AM »
In situations like this it is worth asking yourself "What evidence would need to be presented to me in order for me to change my opinion on this subject?"

If the answer is "There is no possible evidence that would cause me to make that change" then it is a safe bet that engaging in further conversation on the issue is unlikely to be productive on either side. If, on the other hand, there is evidence which would be sufficient then it is worth spelling out what that evidence is, and then responding accordingly if that evidence is presented to you.

Matters of scientific fact are not subject to any person's opinion.


I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options.  That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism.  The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept.  Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.

My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years.  (not to mention millions of years).  If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit. 

I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go.  (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting. 

So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic.  If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.




Offline Ebb

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2013, 08:15:40 AM »

I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options.  That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism.  The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept.  Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.

My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years.  (not to mention millions of years).  If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit. 

I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go.  (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting. 

So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic.  If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.

The book you're referring to is State of Fear. Michael Crichton had it published in 2004. It has been roundly criticized by climate scientists, including some of those whose research is quoted and, according to them, misused in the book. See here and here for two examples. The book won the 2006 Journalism Award from the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. After some controversy the AAPG decided to rename their award to the "Geosciences in the Media" award.

Here's the thing. Climate science is a complicated thing. Any discussion of climate change by laymen (I'm assuming that you are not a scientist; I know I am not) can take place at one of two levels. Either we can rely upon the work of those who have studied the field and spent their lives doing research in the area, or we can try to evaluate the evidence based on common sense, our own experience and our own observations.

I would submit that taking the second path is, in this instance, wrong. There are many topics about which reasoned debate can occur between intelligent and educated folks based simply on personal experience and common sense. Complex scientific topics do not fall under this umbrella. I can no more debate the accuracy of various CO2 measuring techniques than I could debate the intricacies of string theory. I do not consider it a failing to admit that; I have spent my life and my career in another field, and there is no shame in admitting that my own knowledge of this particular area of scientific inquiry will never equal that of a scientist who has devoted their life to it.

Which leaves us with the first path, essentially an appeal to authority. While appealing to authority can be a fallacy in a debate, it is not necessarily so. What I find curious and disheartening among climate change deniers is the tendency to appeal to a very narrow set of authorities, thereby confirming their opinion that this is a valid method of discussion, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that humanocentric climate change is real and is in fact the overriding factor in overall climate change in the last century. How does one with a straight face refer to the "pages and pages" of scientific studies cited in work of fiction by a non-scientist while ignoring or trying to discredit the IPCC Assessment Reports, which have literally been signed off on by tens of thousands of the most reputable scientists in the world?

I can only surmise that those who take this route have come to a conclusion on their own a priori and then are engaged in an exercise of finding resources that fit their conclusion, rather than examining the voluminous evidence and analysis that has already taken place and then basing their conclusion on that. In other words, putting the cart before the horse. What I truly cannot fathom is why someone would take this approach, generally speaking. Certainly there are individual instances that are easily explainable by the profit motive. There are a fair number of people who derive financial benefit from denying the scientific consensus. I do not understand, though, why a person who is not being compensated for their time would think this way. I suspect it has something to do with a general distrust of the scientific enterprise, or possibly an unwillingness based on personal pride to accept that there are subjects in which a certain degree of training is required in order to register an educated opinion. Training which -- I again stress -- I do not personally have. And which I suspect that no one on this thread is in possession of either.

Are scientists infallible, or superhuman? Of course not. But they are the ones, by definition, who are the most well-versed in this area. If I need my car fixed I speak to a mechanic. If I want to know about gourmet food I speak to a chef. If I want to understand the effects of human activity on climate change, I speak to (or read) those who are experts in the field. I know of no other approach that makes sense.

I note that Vekseid has started a sticky thread on this topic, so further discussion should probably be directed there.


Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2013, 11:32:19 AM »

I'm willing to look at, listen to and discuss all reasons theories and options.  That is why I stated, in my opinion, specific reasons for MY skepticism.  The fact that data and formulas continually are corrected or challenged by other scientists add more hesitancy to my blind following of this concept.  Deep throat said it best when he said to follow the money and that is my largest reason to pause and find the truth first.

My main point is that we have been undergoing significant climate change for the last ten thousand years.  (not to mention millions of years).  If we as humans all of a sudden say that the sun is not the main reason for change I think is giving ourselves too much credit. 

I read a Michael Creighton book a while a go.  (so long I don't remember the name) There were pages and pages of "scientific studies" sited as references for the book and they all went against the studies that you are quoting. 

So I guess that I'm saying that man-made global warming could be a factor in the environment but to say it is the only or even the main reason would go against my observations and sense of logic.  If you were willing to also open your mind and discuss the reasons that I mentioned as just a start then we could find a common starting place for a fair discussion.

I think it's clear that the sticky isn't being read.

Human activity resembles the ten largest flood basalt provinces combined, if not more. There is not enough fossil fuels to sustain this for very long, thank whatever deity you may ascribe this too - but it's a moot point. Each individual igneous province left a telltale mark on the geological record, signifying immense climate change. 11 of 19 are correlated with mass extinctions.

And this, in addition to the "all-time record as far back as wee can see" oceanic data, is why I said what I did in my first post. It does not take very much effort to find how much carbon a basalt province ejects, nor does it take very much effort to find how much carbon humanity has been ejecting. You're given two and two, and if you don't tell me they sum to four I'm going to say something is up with you.

Offline Moraline

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2013, 07:05:01 PM »
Quote
Just over 97% of published climate researchers say humans are causing global warming.[107][108][109]


107.  ^ Anderegg, William R L; James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107 (27): 12107–9. Bibcode:2010PNAS..10712107A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107. PMC 2901439. PMID 20566872. Retrieved 22 August 2011.
108.  ^ Doran consensus article 2009
109.  ^ John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs. Andrew Skuce (15 May 2013). "Expert credibility in climate change". Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.

~ quote from wiki with cited bibliographic sources

There's no credible evidence to the contrary. Humans are causing climate change.

Sure, if you don't trust the word of one scientist then I understand the skepticism, but there are literally thousands+ of the world's leading minds that say it's scientific fact and only a handful that are still sitting on the fence about it. The few that argue against it, almost always only argue against some aspect being the cause but even they still agree that Human civilization is the cause of climate change and that climate change is real.

It's simple - We(humans) are causing climate change as a result of a vast array of ways in which we are effecting the environment. Climate change isn't the single factor of any one specific thing we are doing, it's the sum total of all of what we are doing. Our living planet cannot sustain current human consumption and growth levels the way in which we are currently doing those things. 

We know what most of the worst things are that we are doing. Now we just need to find ways to change and do it quickly because all of our solutions so far will take a very long time to implement. When the house is burning down around you, you don't try to put it out with one cup of water at a time. You call in the fire department and take drastic action.  97% of all scientists say it's time to call in the fire department.  What are we waiting for?

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2013, 08:53:34 PM »
There's no credible evidence to the contrary. Humans are causing climate change.

Sure, if you don't trust the word of one scientist then I understand the skepticism, but there are literally thousands+ of the world's leading minds that say it's scientific fact and only a handful that are still sitting on the fence about it. The few that argue against it, almost always only argue against some aspect being the cause but even they still agree that Human civilization is the cause of climate change and that climate change is real.

It's simple - We(humans) are causing climate change as a result of a vast array of ways in which we are effecting the environment. Climate change isn't the single factor of any one specific thing we are doing, it's the sum total of all of what we are doing. Our living planet cannot sustain current human consumption and growth levels the way in which we are currently doing those things. 

We know what most of the worst things are that we are doing. Now we just need to find ways to change and do it quickly because all of our solutions so far will take a very long time to implement. When the house is burning down around you, you don't try to put it out with one cup of water at a time. You call in the fire department and take drastic action.  97% of all scientists say it's time to call in the fire department.  What are we waiting for?

Is there a conflict of interest here?  If I'm a scientist and say, "Just the same cyclical stuff that has been going on since as far back as we can track."  The there is no reason to give another $2.5 BILLION dollars to you next year.  Give me a million and I will write about all the man made global warming you want, as long as you give me another million next year.  At a $1M each we could buy off 2,500 scientists.

Why would those other scientist question the accuracy instead of just sticking out their hand?  Dumb or has a conscience.  I took statistics and numbers can be presented in different ways. 

I've taken my car in before and charge a thousand dollars to fix it.  When it didn't solve the problem he said, "I thought that was it.  I must be this other thing, it will be another thousand dollars."

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2013, 09:30:36 PM »
Is there a conflict of interest here?  If I'm a scientist and say, "Just the same cyclical stuff that has been going on since as far back as we can track."  The there is no reason to give another $2.5 BILLION dollars to you next year.  Give me a million and I will write about all the man made global warming you want, as long as you give me another million next year.  At a $1M each we could buy off 2,500 scientists.

Why would those other scientist question the accuracy instead of just sticking out their hand?  Dumb or has a conscience.  I took statistics and numbers can be presented in different ways. 

I've taken my car in before and charge a thousand dollars to fix it.  When it didn't solve the problem he said, "I thought that was it.  I must be this other thing, it will be another thousand dollars."

All you have are vague accusations and numbers pulled out of your hind end.

Meanwhile, people doing actual work get death threats from anti-intellectuals such as yourself. You personally lob false accusations about them, without the slightest bit of interest in backing up a single word you say.

They get paid shit for wages - though there are healthy bribes waiting for them if they are willing to take them.

By the fossil fuel industry.

No evidence of the converse exists. Just rabid accusations by anti-intellectuals. Because the idea of devoting your life to a subject offends you, or something.

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2013, 10:07:18 PM »
For the climate change figure, they used Obama’s fiscal year 2014 request for $2.7 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which cuts across 13 federal agencies.

Offline Ebb

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2013, 10:12:02 PM »
For the climate change figure, they used Obama’s fiscal year 2014 request for $2.7 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which cuts across 13 federal agencies.

If you're so inclined, I would appreciate a reply to my post to you earlier in the thread.

But lacking that, I hope you'll satisfy my curiosity. Who is the "they" that you refer to in this post?

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2013, 10:36:46 PM »
I just did a search for the amount of funding and then scanned the article.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/14/jim-bridenstine/rep-jim-bridenstine-says-us-spends-30-times-much-c/

I didn't want to make you read the whole thing so I copied that part of the article.  I didn't read your whole post but will look at it in the morning when I can focus on it.

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #30 on: December 03, 2013, 11:06:30 PM »
For the climate change figure, they used Obama’s fiscal year 2014 request for $2.7 billion for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which cuts across 13 federal agencies.

And what, exactly, do you think this money goes to?

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #31 on: December 04, 2013, 08:21:53 AM »
Thousands of scientists that have an opinion on climate change?

Offline Avis habilis

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #32 on: December 04, 2013, 09:13:29 AM »
I just did a search for the amount of funding and then scanned the article.

Did you scan the part where it pointed out that his claim was mostly false?

Or the part of the document that the "$2.7 billion" linked to where it pointed out that the money went to renewable energy research, not climate science?

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #33 on: December 04, 2013, 09:19:15 AM »
No, and I apologise if I did.  I wish we could all have this discussion over drinks instead of this forum.  I think we all want what is best for the planet and society.  I might be a little right of center on this topic based on my travels around the world and you might be a little further left based on the urgency you feel to correct the problem.
SD

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #34 on: December 04, 2013, 02:33:41 PM »
Thousands of scientists that have an opinion on climate change?

You could have read your own link to know that this is nothing more than your own baseless speculation, with zero grounding in fact or reality.

No, and I apologise if I did.  I wish we could all have this discussion over drinks instead of this forum.  I think we all want what is best for the planet and society.  I might be a little right of center on this topic based on my travels around the world and you might be a little further left based on the urgency you feel to correct the problem.
SD

You're not center-right. You are actively anti-intellectual. You insult, lie, and demean those who have given their life study to make the world a better place. You openly support ideologies whose allies would see a third of this forum's membership dead. You make claims about the 'left' with no evidence to support it, while ignoring that the 'right' is in fact fully guilty of these activities.

There cannot be any discussion if you refuse to look at the facts, or consider the possibility that you might be wrong. That is what scientists do - check to see if they're wrong. Such a notion is the principle behind the scientific method, and all human achievement owes credit to this.

What you have is an ideology - attempting to alter the facts to support your opinions.

Eventually, every ideology must face reality, one way or another. It often leads to a lot of people dying for no sensible reason.

Offline smokindriver

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2013, 03:04:10 PM »
There are scientists that agree with my point of view.  I stopped by to have a discussion not be personally attacked.  I will stick to other parts of this fine site.

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2013, 05:10:22 PM »
There are scientists that agree with my point of view.  I stopped by to have a discussion not be personally attacked.  I will stick to other parts of this fine site.

A discussion implies discourse.  You did not bother to acknowledge a single fact presented in this thread.

You personally attack the integrity of people I respect - some of whom are members here - then whine persecution when called out on it.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2013, 05:21:51 PM by Vekseid »

Offline Kythia

  • My smile is like a breath of spring, My voice is soft like summer rain
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • And you can not compare with me: Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #37 on: December 04, 2013, 10:15:17 PM »
I think a large part of the problem is that, on a gut level, none of this sounds serious.  The earth will warm by a couple of degrees?  So what, the difference between the day and night temperatures can be more than that, let alone the difference between Siberia and Death Valley.  Sea levels will rise by a foot?  I grew up in a port, they do that twice a day, big whoop.  Etc.

I'm not claiming none of these actually aren't important - obviously there is variation in the world and a change in the average is a different matter to the average being different in different places.  Of course it is.

All I mean is that, well... Ebb raises the point about seeing a mechanic when your car is broken.  Fair enough.  I don't own a car but my hot water boiler did go down recently and I called out a repairman.  He tried to tell me what was wrong with it, I said "look, here's some money, make my boiler work.  All of this time you're talking to me about pumps is time you could be fixing my boiler."  It's a matter of scale.  To him, the problem was my pump was doing something weird, to me the problem was that my boiler didn't work.  When my computer goes down, to the repair guy my motherboard might have overheated, to me the laptop doesn't switch on. To a climate change scientist the problem is sea acidification or whatever.  TO me the problem is...what precisely?  I can't internalise or conceptualise what a rise in global temperatures means.  Hell, there's no massive consensus from specialists on precisely what the ramifications would be, as I understand it.

So I think a large part isn't "denial" per se, more a simple lack of this being/feeling important.

But then, green taxes come in.  Governments take other initiatives. Leaving aside the efficacy of those measures, that's something that does have a personal resonance.  My hypothetical petrol bill has just gone up.  Well, now whats happened is that something that has no tangible effect on my life is costing me money, fuck that noise.  If there is any sort of a debate, even if it is a manufactured one, there will be a percentage of people who will take the side of the debate that is "I don't want to make these short term sacrifices"

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #38 on: December 04, 2013, 10:33:44 PM »
Rising sea levels also means shoreline water tables get contaminated with saltwater. This is a problem for many island nations, but also a problem in e.g. Florida.

The drastic increase in inclement weather is another factor, and while we can manage the impact on the agricultural cycle easily enough, forestry poses a challenge - they don't move very quickly naturally.

The serious concern is what is happening to the oceans. Entire chunks of the ecosystem are being destroyed, at a rate the Earth has never sustained before. The worst of this only plays out over a millennia... but it can't keep going the way it is. One way or another, an unsustainable process must stop.



That said, the vast majority of the abuse is by large-scale players. Either by propping up unsustainable fishing subsidies, continuing fossil fuel subsidies and making sure that alternative subsidies get panned, non-Libertarian Republicans working to curtail and regulate consumer use of solar power, and so on. There's a lot that can be done without touching the bills that most taxpayers pay.

Offline Ebb

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #39 on: December 05, 2013, 08:02:03 AM »
I think a large part of the problem is that, on a gut level, none of this sounds serious.  The earth will warm by a couple of degrees?  So what, the difference between the day and night temperatures can be more than that, let alone the difference between Siberia and Death Valley.  Sea levels will rise by a foot?  I grew up in a port, they do that twice a day, big whoop.  Etc.

I'm not claiming none of these actually aren't important - obviously there is variation in the world and a change in the average is a different matter to the average being different in different places.  Of course it is.


In my experience there are about four tacks taken by those who argue against climate change. Sometimes with appropriate data and discussion you can sort of push people up this ladder. Sometimes people jump back and forth among the levels, muddling the issues, and the discussion goes nowhere. I don't have time for a full writeup, but here's the general idea.

Level One: There is no climate change.
Level Two: Okay, there's climate change, but it's a natural phenomenon. Any human activities are just a small part of it.
Level Three: Okay, humanocentric causes are a big part of climate change, but the effects are going to be small. Or maybe they're just unknown. It's not worth worrying too much about.
Level Four: Okay, the effects are pretty dire. But there's nothing we can do about it anyway -- we're not going to give up our cars and factories. So oh well, let's just live with it.
Bonus Round (applies to all levels): This stuff is just too complicated for us to figure out / there's so much debate among scientists / we can't ever really know the answers here.

It sounds to me like the argument you're making is right around level three. Are you taking a sort of devil's advocate view here, or is that truly your belief? If it's the latter then I'd be happy to try to provide more details about exactly how bad things are likely to get. But if not then there are probably better things I could be doing with my time, like laundry.

Offline consortium11

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2013, 09:51:31 AM »
In my experience there are about four tacks taken by those who argue against climate change.

Level Three: Okay, humanocentric causes are a big part of climate change, but the effects are going to be small. Or maybe they're just unknown. It's not worth worrying too much about.
Level Four: Okay, the effects are pretty dire. But there's nothing we can do about it anyway -- we're not going to give up our cars and factories. So oh well, let's just live with it.

How are either of these arguing against climate change? They both expressly accept climate change and the anthropogenic contribution to this. What they're asking is merely what our response to it should be... and that is a very legitimate question. One of the key questions in all debates about climate change in general is whether we should view it as something that is preventable or manageable which lead to dramatically different approaches.

And let's remember here, we're not dealing with an exact science, especially with regards to the global warming element. As Hans von Storch points out, what the models have predicted and what has actually happened vary immensely and without more accurate models we cannot have accurate predictions... and without more accurate predictions it's nearly impossible to put together a good policy based on them. We've already seen several well-meaning initiatives arguably do more harm than good (the rise of biofuel leading to starvation and a huge hike in food prices for example). That's not to deny anthropogenic climate change... it's merely to debate what the best response to it should be.

Offline Kythia

  • My smile is like a breath of spring, My voice is soft like summer rain
  • Dame
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Gender: Female
  • And you can not compare with me: Kythia
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #41 on: December 05, 2013, 12:50:54 PM »
I think my argument/point is closer to (4) on the Ebb Scale of Climate Change Denial (TM).

I accept its happening.  I accept it could get bad (though I do emphasise could - see Consortium's post above mine for essentially my feelings.)  Where I bow out is when I ask what you expect me - I don't own a string of factories, or even a car, nor am I a politician or politically active (my record of voting for the candidate with the first surname alphabetically is unbroken) - to do about it.

And, if the answer to "What is Kythia meant to do about this" doesn't rhyme with "beet buck ball" then, as Consortium says, we move at least partially out of a conversation about climate change qua climate change and into one of politics.

I own some pearls, if I'm feeling energetic I may clutch them.  On a very good day, I may even demand that someone thinks of the children.  For anything beyond gasping in horror periodically, though, I want to know how it affects me.  And not just the problem - sea acidity or whatever - but also the ramifications of the solution.  Because I don't know anyone in Florida or low-laying islands but I do know me.  And sure, I'm prepared to pay to save/ease lives of people I haven't met, but I want to know where my money (time/energy/righteous indignation/comments that someone should do something) are going. 

To put it in strict monetary terms for ease of discussion, how much is this problem going to cost us if left unchecked, how much does the potential solution cost.  And I also want to put as close to zero effort as possible into finding out those answers - that, by the way, wasn't a demand you give up your precious free time to educate me, merely a position statement.

So yeah, I think I'm closer to (4), (3.5) maybe.  YMMV

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #42 on: December 05, 2013, 01:00:55 PM »
How are either of these arguing against climate change? They both expressly accept climate change and the anthropogenic contribution to this. What they're asking is merely what our response to it should be... and that is a very legitimate question. One of the key questions in all debates about climate change in general is whether we should view it as something that is preventable or manageable which lead to dramatically different approaches.

And let's remember here, we're not dealing with an exact science, especially with regards to the global warming element. As Hans von Storch points out, what the models have predicted and what has actually happened vary immensely and without more accurate models we cannot have accurate predictions... and without more accurate predictions it's nearly impossible to put together a good policy based on them. We've already seen several well-meaning initiatives arguably do more harm than good (the rise of biofuel leading to starvation and a huge hike in food prices for example). That's not to deny anthropogenic climate change... it's merely to debate what the best response to it should be.

The argument of "We can't do anything about this without significant sacrifice." It's a pretty weak argument - it costs us nothing to shift coal subsidies to solar, hydro, nuclear, etc. subsidies, and work to shut down coal plants and replace them with said alternatives. It costs us less to end fishing subsidies and setup marine reserves. I don't know how much managing nitrate runoff would cost, but it's a very 'human scale' problem.

What's left? Well, carbon recapturing seems to be effective. Dangerous for every vehicle on the road to have it, but trucks, tractors, and trains could be fitted accordingly, and this could be reinvested in crops and algaculture accordingly.

The barrier to most of this is nothing but political cronyism.

Offline ladia2287

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2013, 12:16:18 AM »
Unfortunately, as far as the powers that be are concerned, climate change is merely an excuse to impose taxes and make money. To me this idea is ludicrous; how is me giving my government an extra couple of hundred dollars a year going to actually change the situation for the better?

Yes, the Earth's weather patterns are to an extent, cyclic. To argue that human activity is the sole cause of global warming is, in my opinion, naive. However, I cannot deny that our behavior has had a severe negative impact on the environment at large. It seems that in order to make any progress in this matter we need to accept two facts. One, it is happening. Two, there are many factors contributing, and humans are one of them. We need to accept that some, but not by any means all, of these factors are within our control and as individuals if we make whatever adjustments we can, then globally it can make a difference.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2013, 12:57:24 AM »
Unfortunately, as far as the powers that be are concerned, climate change is merely an excuse to impose taxes and make money. To me this idea is ludicrous; how is me giving my government an extra couple of hundred dollars a year going to actually change the situation for the better?

This is why I said earlier that climate change has become overly politicized.  I acknowledge the scientific facts everyone here is discussing, but to suggest that politicians who are supporting environmentally-friendly initiatives are truly concerned about the environment is a huge stretch.  Unfortunately, almost every issue discussed on the congressional level - even social issues - are entrenched with economic interests, on both sides.

While I try to be optimistic in our political system to believe that laws being passed are in the best interests of greater society and mankind, I am not naive to the realities.  If for whatever reason climate change ceases to be a money generating phenomenon (which will never happen due its booms in wind, solar, and alternative energy sectors), I can assure you that its topic will disappear from discourse among currently "environmentally-friendly" politicians - no matter how dire an issue it becomes.  On the same token, if for whatever reason, climate change ceases to be a money depreciating phenomenon for certain industries, such as the oil and coal industries, it will again disappear from discourse among currently "climate-change denialist" politicians.  Again, this was simply a hypothetical argument, and will not actually happen, since climate change will have drastic long-term effects - both economic and non-economic.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 01:02:10 AM by ValthazarElite »

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2013, 01:40:26 AM »
Unfortunately, as far as the powers that be are concerned, climate change is merely an excuse to impose taxes and make money. To me this idea is ludicrous; how is me giving my government an extra couple of hundred dollars a year going to actually change the situation for the better?

What extra taxes are you talking about?

You've probably not spent more than a dollar a year on the government's climate change programs, some of which are rather fucking important (unless you think fucking up the harvest is okay).

Edit: To add to this...

Where is the bitching about fossil fuel subsidies, which are 2-20 times the size of the climate monitoring and research programs?

Where is the bitching about the military industrial complex?

Tumbleweeds and crickets.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 01:48:55 AM by Vekseid »

Offline ladia2287

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2013, 03:08:20 AM »
The Australian government imposed a so-called carbon tax a couple of years ago. It wasn't repealed until earlier this year after the election. It was quite literally a tax on carbon and was implemented for no reason actually related to environmental projects. It was solely because our government is in so much debt that politicians literally taxed the first thing they could think of that wasn't already taxed.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2013, 03:14:48 AM »
Where is the bitching about fossil fuel subsidies, which are 2-20 times the size of the climate monitoring and research programs?

Where is the bitching about the military industrial complex?

Tumbleweeds and crickets.

Maybe you guys genuinely do care about the environmental effects of climate change, and that is very admirable.  But suggesting that any political party would work to reduce oil subsidies in a crusade to save the environment is a joke - even if that is the image they try to portray.

They are being lobbied in the same manner by wind and solar companies.  It is essentially a tug-of-war between non-renewable and renewable energy companies.  Check out the total amounts being lobbied by non-renewable and renewable energy industries for 2010:

Total for Oil & Gas: $111,839,931
Total Number of Clients Reported: 178
Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 744

Total for Misc Energy (i.e. renewables): $39,644,102
Total Number of Clients Reported: 368
Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 740

"All sectors combined spent $566,082 per member of Congress."
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/12/top-25-u-s-energy-lobbyists-of-2010

Everyone can bitch all they want about too many fossil fuel subsidies, but nothing is going to happen unless you end lobbying.  That's the first step towards creating a sustainable solution for climate change.  Otherwise, nothing is going to change.

100% guaranteed losers in all of this is the middle class - regardless if renewable lobbyists or non-renewable lobbyists are bribing more in the future.

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2013, 03:42:42 AM »
100% guaranteed losers in all of this is the middle class - regardless if renewable lobbyists or non-renewable lobbyists are bribing more in the future.

Yeah, right.

Wind, solar, nuclear, algaculture - all have in common the fact that they can give people a degree of independence from the cartels we're currently forced to deal with.

I'm not entirely sure what your viewpoint is, here. Some "We can't change anything so don't bother trying." degree of cynicism?

The Australian government imposed a so-called carbon tax a couple of years ago. It wasn't repealed until earlier this year after the election. It was quite literally a tax on carbon and was implemented for no reason actually related to environmental projects. It was solely because our government is in so much debt that politicians literally taxed the first thing they could think of that wasn't already taxed.

Ahh sorry, missed your location -_-

Those were rightly bunk. I'm glad the US dodged the Kyoto treaty, for all the flak we got over it.

That does not, however, equate to "The solution to climate change must solely mean more taxes." or some other such cynicism.

Offline ladia2287

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #49 on: December 06, 2013, 04:02:14 AM »
I wouldn't have minded as much if the money was actually going to be used for environmental protection projects, or funding research to help find ways of reducing our dependence on heavily polluting machinery/cars/processes/whatever, but the government openly admitted that wasn't the case. They needed cash and they wanted to impress the other countries in the Kyoto protocol without actually putting any real effort in. That annoyed me.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #50 on: December 06, 2013, 04:40:02 AM »
Yeah, right.

Wind, solar, nuclear, algaculture - all have in common the fact that they can give people a degree of independence from the cartels we're currently forced to deal with.

I'm not entirely sure what your viewpoint is, here. Some "We can't change anything so don't bother trying." degree of cynicism?

Since you mentioned solar energy, there are two avenues one can utilize - solar panels and the solar energy industry.

Solar panels are far from affordable.  You are assuming that most middle class people own their own houses, which is a declining trend, and even many of them are struggling to make their mortgage payments.  Add on the fact that the solar installation process costs $18,000 to $40,000 to purchase, and it is not even a possibility for most (unless one wants to take out yet another loan, which doesn't seem like a great idea).
http://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease/cost-of-solar/

However, there is a growing development of a solar power industry.  Basically, a company installs solar panels at your residency, and you sign a 10-20 year contract, and pay a company for your energy on a monthly basis.  While this is certainly a far more affordable model compared to self-installation, this "solar energy industry" is no different from the oil or coal industry, and does not resolve the lack of independence you mention regarding such energy cartels.  However, this definitely creates a more environmentally-friendly energy model, which is great.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/97-of-americans-overestimate-cost-of-installing-solar/

My viewpoint is that it all comes down to money.  There are many people in this thread who are very passionate about the health of the environment, and doing things like recycling, lowering their thermostat when they are not home, etc.  But many of them would still rather maintain some of their savings rather than invest in solar panels purely for the sake of the environment.  And that's very understandable, and I am presuming you would agree that at some point, finances are an issue.  Given that understanding, it is no different for politicians or energy cartels - only the scale of money, and perhaps their level of greed.  These middle class individuals are talking about saving 100s/1000s of dollars, while big energy is talking about saving millions.

So I'm just being realistic.  If you are committed to an environmentally friendly future for Earth, the only way to win is to dramatically increase renewable energy lobby funding.  Only other option is to make lobbying illegal as a whole, which is definitely not going to happen anytime soon.  If we're taking the increasing renewable energy lobby funding route, the end result will be a cleaner and healthier Earth, but the creation of powerful alternative energy cartels (similar to current oil cartels).

It isn't cynicism, this is why there's no solution in sight for this issue.

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #51 on: December 06, 2013, 06:47:48 AM »
I wouldn't have minded as much if the money was actually going to be used for environmental protection projects, or funding research to help find ways of reducing our dependence on heavily polluting machinery/cars/processes/whatever, but the government openly admitted that wasn't the case. They needed cash and they wanted to impress the other countries in the Kyoto protocol without actually putting any real effort in. That annoyed me.

Well the whole point of it was not to actually change greenhouse emissions directly but rather make carbon emissions more expensive for developed countries. As far as addressing the problem goes, that's a nonstarter.

Since you mentioned solar energy, there are two avenues one can utilize - solar panels and the solar energy industry.

Solar panels are far from affordable.  You are assuming that most middle class people own their own houses, which is a declining trend, and even many of them are struggling to make their mortgage payments.  Add on the fact that the solar installation process costs $18,000 to $40,000 to purchase, and it is not even a possibility for most (unless one wants to take out yet another loan, which doesn't seem like a great idea).
http://www.sunrun.com/solar-lease/cost-of-solar/

Twenty years ago it was quite a novelty. It's becoming less so each year.

Quote
However, there is a growing development of a solar power industry.  Basically, a company installs solar panels at your residency, and you sign a 10-20 year contract, and pay a company for your energy on a monthly basis.  While this is certainly a far more affordable model compared to self-installation, this "solar energy industry" is no different from the oil or coal industry, and does not resolve the lack of independence you mention regarding such energy cartels.  However, this definitely creates a more environmentally-friendly energy model, which is great.
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/intelligent-energy/97-of-americans-overestimate-cost-of-installing-solar/

No, this was the original way. At least, when I was growing up and my father looked into installing solar, the rent plan was the only option - and it was debatable if the solar cells were even going to last the lease. The fact that outright buying your much higher-quality panels is becoming more feasible each year is what's new.

Quote
My viewpoint is that it all comes down to money.  There are many people in this thread who are very passionate about the health of the environment, and doing things like recycling, lowering their thermostat when they are not home, etc.  But many of them would still rather maintain some of their savings rather than invest in solar panels purely for the sake of the environment.  And that's very understandable, and I am presuming you would agree that at some point, finances are an issue.  Given that understanding, it is no different for politicians or energy cartels - only the scale of money, and perhaps their level of greed.  These middle class individuals are talking about saving 100s/1000s of dollars, while big energy is talking about saving millions.

So I'm just being realistic.  If you are committed to an environmentally friendly future for Earth, the only way to win is to dramatically increase renewable energy lobby funding.  Only other option is to make lobbying illegal as a whole, which is definitely not going to happen anytime soon.  If we're taking the increasing renewable energy lobby funding route, the end result will be a cleaner and healthier Earth, but the creation of powerful alternative energy cartels (similar to current oil cartels).

It isn't cynicism, this is why there's no solution in sight for this issue.

Yes, it's cynicism. Patents only last twenty years. Oil wells don't move very fast. Industry is wherever you allow it to be.

Offline Oniya

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #52 on: December 06, 2013, 06:54:04 AM »
Someone mentioned affordable solar panels?  Have a look at these.  There's a similar design for water heaters.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #53 on: December 06, 2013, 08:18:46 AM »
Someone mentioned affordable solar panels?  Have a look at these.  There's a similar design for water heaters.

These are great ideas, but it's an enormous risk.  You'll need to register it, and obtain any necessary local/state permits, and then get it regularly inspected.  If you have something extensive like this in your home, and it isn't properly approved (which will be difficult as a DIY project lacking professional safety standards), it's a great way for your homeowner's insurance to be totally voided in the event of an unrelated damage to something else in your home.   Most likely nothing like that will happen with invasive DIY projects, but is that a risk you're willing to take?  The costs add up real quick.

No, this was the original way. At least, when I was growing up and my father looked into installing solar, the rent plan was the only option - and it was debatable if the solar cells were even going to last the lease. The fact that outright buying your much higher-quality panels is becoming more feasible each year is what's new.

Yes, it's cynicism. Patents only last twenty years. Oil wells don't move very fast. Industry is wherever you allow it to be.

I agree with you that solar/wind technology is more than likely the direction things will be moving in over time.  But it is this concept of renewable energy being a beacon of self-sufficiency and anti-industry which I consider a utopian dream, and one not based on any precedent. 

Emerging industries usually start out organic and pure, as you describe.  Usually things are free, unregulated, and open until investors begin to take note of the growing industry.  Big money begins to pour into the industry, and business conglomerates begin to form, as they start to buy out start-ups.  Then comes regulation, new job specialities being created for oversight of the industry by these conglomerates, etc.

Just look at the internet itself.  It started out pure and organic, but as investors took notice, tighter regulation by private enterprise (and government) began to increase.  Marketers see our shopping habits and other personal data as valuable marketing tools, our real life identities are increasingly attempting to be merged with our online identities, government sees it fit to openly consider data streaming taxes, internet companies themselves are colluding with one another in a manner not unlike the oil industry. 

Perhaps solar and wind are self-sufficient methods now, or at least in the slight near future, but certainly not over the long-term.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2013, 08:20:00 AM by ValthazarElite »

Offline Rogue

  • The Bratling ~ her Mx ~ they/them unless other pronouns/gender are specified please~
  • Champion
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2012
  • Location: delens solem lunam facti sunt ei
  • ~Edenmon Master~ ~GenderFluid~
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #54 on: December 06, 2013, 03:18:35 PM »
*Pipes in* If you consider the amount of money that big oil companies make a day, $375 million, is it hard to imagine what they could do with it if they actually decided to care about anything other than the bottom line.

With that much profit, they could afford to spend money getting into "clean" gas and more energy efficient vehicles, as well as a bunch of other things that would make everyone's lives easier. However, they don't. So instead, they try to find more sources of gas and focus on building more drills.

Unfortunately, all 5 of these oil companies work together and have decided the most important thing is the bottom line and lining their pockets with gold so to speak. I personally find that this oligarchy is as bad as a monopoly. If they did anything with their profit to benefit the world, it would be one thing, but they don't because it would end up making them less money.

They could help make it more affordable for people to get solar panels or make their own wind farms (I mean a kid in Africa managed to do it).

But the main problem is that the government won't do anything to fix it because they make money from these financial giants (one way or another) and I'm pretty sure between these five companies they could afford the military and pay it better... there's a problem here and I don't think it's the government.

((While I know I said I'm more for the cyclic theory, I also know that the amount of poison we're releasing into the air is bad and wish to correct this, regardless of the effects on global warming. It has a visable negative impact now.))

Online Vekseid

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #55 on: December 06, 2013, 04:37:19 PM »
I agree with you that solar/wind technology is more than likely the direction things will be moving in over time.  But it is this concept of renewable energy being a beacon of self-sufficiency and anti-industry which I consider a utopian dream, and one not based on any precedent. 

Emerging industries usually start out organic and pure, as you describe.  Usually things are free, unregulated, and open until investors begin to take note of the growing industry.  Big money begins to pour into the industry, and business conglomerates begin to form, as they start to buy out start-ups.  Then comes regulation, new job specialities being created for oversight of the industry by these conglomerates, etc.

Just look at the internet itself.  It started out pure and organic, but as investors took notice, tighter regulation by private enterprise (and government) began to increase.  Marketers see our shopping habits and other personal data as valuable marketing tools, our real life identities are increasingly attempting to be merged with our online identities, government sees it fit to openly consider data streaming taxes, internet companies themselves are colluding with one another in a manner not unlike the oil industry. 

Perhaps solar and wind are self-sufficient methods now, or at least in the slight near future, but certainly not over the long-term.

I find it interesting that you're arguing with me, of everyone on this forum, regarding regulatory attempts on emerging industries. As if 1) all regulation is bad, 2) all bad regulation is unopposable, and 3) all bad regulation in place is enforceable.

I would have taken your statement a lot more seriously just after the DMCA was passed. That was fifteen years ago - when the technocratic voice was generally associated with 'nerds' and we didn't have a whole lot of power. I'm sure there are a lot of fights ahead, but it is not a given that 'big industry' is going to win.

Offline Valthazar

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #56 on: December 06, 2013, 05:18:49 PM »
I fin interesting that you're arguing with me, of everyone on this forum, regarding regulatory attempts on emerging industries. As if 1) all regulation is bad, 2) all bad regulation is unopposable, and 3) all bad regulation in place is enforceable.

I would have taken your statement a lot more seriously just after the DMCA was passed. That was fifteen years ago - when the technocratic voice was generally associated with 'nerds' and we didn't have a whole lot of power. I'm sure there are a lot of fights ahead, but it is not a given that 'big industry' is going to win.

Never said all regulation was bad - online cyberbullying laws and even DMCA being great examples of good regulation.  However, regulation creates greater avenues for litigation.  For better or for worse, this means getting started in the industry requires attorney consultation, contract writing, etc.  It basically keeps the common man out - as I described earlier with what is already happening with DIY solar panels. 

You're right, a lot of people are risk takers and brazenly do what they want without contracts or attorneys.  But all it takes is one tiny issue for the system to crack down and ruin their life financially.

Offline ladia2287

Re: I giggled...
« Reply #57 on: December 06, 2013, 08:48:23 PM »
Never said all regulation was bad - online cyberbullying laws and even DMCA being great examples of good regulation.  However, regulation creates greater avenues for litigation.  For better or for worse, this means getting started in the industry requires attorney consultation, contract writing, etc.  It basically keeps the common man out - as I described earlier with what is already happening with DIY solar panels. 

You're right, a lot of people are risk takers and brazenly do what they want without contracts or attorneys.  But all it takes is one tiny issue for the system to crack down and ruin their life financially.

Unfortunately or otherwise, regulation really is required, for a number of reasons. One is that not everyone is sufficiently skilled or qualified to do things like this themselves, but that won't stop people from attempting to do such things. Regulation exists to protect society from such people, whether it is the home handiman trying to make an extra buck doing electrical work without a license, or the drug manufacturer who reaches for a bottle of toilet cleaner to mix into a home-made batch of pills, or even a legitimate company trying to dodge basic consumer rights or safety requirements.

As for the financial burden faced by people who try to skip the basic requirements for getting into any given industry, my sympathy is limited. Those rules exist for a reason. We may not like them. We may think life would be so much easier without them (speaking as a business manager, I am legally required to fill out a mountain of paperwork for any workplace injury, for example. Even a papercut. I find it incredibly tedious, and in some cases pointless, but it has to be done and I know the reason behind it), but if we choose not to follow them, we have to accept the consequences and if that includes taking a huge chunk out of our hard-earned money to give to the authorities, then so be it.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: I giggled...
« Reply #58 on: December 10, 2013, 10:13:39 AM »
Let me offer you guys some perspective from a fellow who has been with his state EPA for 24 years.  I have more than a passing bit of knowledge because well it puts food on my table. I am a biologist by trade and do not work with emissions, but it is one of those things where one has to know a bit about a broad range of things because environmental is a wide ranging category. The current understanding in the scientific community is cloudy.  The reason it is referred to now as climate change in the press as opposed to global warming is there is not scientific proof it is human caused. Global warming implies human cause. Note I said “proof” scientifically speaking there is a vast difference between theory and proof. So right now it is up in the air if there is a natural cause, human cause, or a combination of the two.  If I had to make a guess I would say combination, but it is undeniable that human kind is having a vast effect on the planet. Probably worse in developing countries because they worry more about where their next meal is coming from than they do about things like environmental awareness.

Not being an expert in climate change I would however like to offer an overview of environmental affairs.  The short version is do not believe all that you read. I run into many things professionally that the opposing sides make something that is really complicated seem really simple by cherry picking facts to suit their own agenda.  When you are someone like me that has a professional reputation at stake and is not just trying to solicit donations or push an agenda you do not have that luxury.

Over the course of my career I have seen environmental conditions improve drastically.  For example at the start of my career in 1990 I spent 85% of my time doing cleanup to remediate problems that were already there and 15% of my time doing regulation to try and ensure further problems did not develop. Now my time allocation is flipped.  My office used to handle around 300 complaints of environmental issues a year. We now field about 90 a year because there just are not as many things out there that grab the attention of people. Also of those complaints many are just plain fabricated in a feud between neighbors or my favorite a dispute between management and employees.  Because of confidentiality I obviously cannot supply hard sources for these numbers but trust me they are accurate.

I think solar power, wind power, and the various other alternative energy sources are a good thing. But as I have seen with each developing environmental field there are growing pains.  First off you have all the get rich quick people who have hair brained schemes that they sell as cutting edge.  These schemes cannot and will not ever work in the real world because the environment with things like weather just is and what might work under ideal conditions simply will not work there.  As the field becomes more developed you have folks who have a legitimate idea but the economics is prohibitive. In other words until the field becomes more developed and the price comes down the average family or business simply cannot afford it even if it is green. Next there is a phase when the economics catch up and not only is the product what have you green, but there is also a real cost benefit of going green.  And usually by this time the get rich quick scam artists have been weeded out. In my opinion where we are on alternate power sources is a space between two and three at present.  We are getting there but it is still not quite there. An analogy might be made with when personal computers became affordable for everyone.

We all have a standard of living we would like to maintain and I do not think anyone wants to go back to living in a cave, heating with fire, and using the hole out back to relieve themselves. It is just a matter of the fluid nature of things to catch up so the process is both clean and feasible.  There are a lot of growing pains. But in another say decade I could see many homes in the US having their own wind mill to generate power.  Also, having said that I dislike corporate welfare and the like and the way large companies are given way too much influence on regulations as a “stake holder.” But I have to give the devil his due in that large companies are much less of a professional problem for me than the small mom and pop operations or private individuals. It was not always that way but at this point in time big companies know they have deep pockets.  They also know there are guys like me out there who make a living catching them with their fingers in the cookie jar and that I will get deep into those deep pockets when I do. So with enlightened self-interest they take great pains to make sure they go above and beyond.  Not to mention the large companies discover they save money when they generate less waste and often the process is more efficient so they use less raw material.  Of course they would have never gotten there if regulation had not made them go there. The system is flawed and it makes me crazy as often as not, but I have to admit over the decades I have seen it work.

Of course guys like me generally do not dive into discussions like this because until you have been in the field you cannot appreciate all the intricacies. So when asked what I do I am generally cagey and say something like “I’m a biologist” or “I work for the government.” But my reply to all of you would be there is a kernel of truth in each of your arguments.  It just takes time to develop because Rome was not built in a day.