SO.. BUSH WAS AN IDIOT??

[radditsu]

You guys are the worst. REDDIT has better discourse than this.



U dum nigs.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh and there is this.
http://www.populartechnology.net/201...ience.html?m=1

My mistake; I Googled your story and picked the first reasonable-looking site (bad choice [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.])

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Well it was peer reviewed. And I do believe he is actually a scientist.

Peer review (sadly) means squat nowadays. And I believe he is too, but when you have a hundred scientists saying one thing and one scientist saying something different ...

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm not sure why you're comparing cigarettes to global warming

Both are cases where the scientific community has a clear consensus, but industry has spent tons of money confusing the issue, so to an outside observer like yourself there appears to be a controversy when there isn't.

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but really this evidence would put more onus on the industries than it would on anyone else. I mean I don't remember ever manufacturing CFC's in my back yard. The blame shift of the C02 theory is why it continues to gain acceptance despite valid counter evidence. I mean when you can tell someone that grilling a steak, or burning some brush in your back yard is contributing to climate change, and at the same time ignore the massive amount of damage that mass produced chemicals are having, there would seem to be some bias on the part of the C02 global warming theorists. That and the fact that their concrete evidence that they had 5 years ago about what the median temperature of the earth would be, and the state of the ice caps has turned out to be completely false, might just make a logical person think that at least a good chunk of that data was garbage.

Look, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, and I don't think I'm going to convince you by citing global warming research. When you've already fortified your mind against all evidence to the contrary, more evidence won't help. All I can say is, look at peoples' motivations.

The scientists are motivated to find the truth and make you believe the truth; that's just the kind of people they are (you don't study climate science for the babes). In contrast the coal and oil industry stands to literally save billions if they can just delay regulation a few years more. So you can either follow the money and the conflict of interest, or you can buy what the coal industry is selling.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My mistake; I Googled your story and picked the first reasonable-looking site (bad choice [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.])


Peer review (sadly) means squat nowadays. And I believe he is too, but when you have a hundred scientists saying one thing and one scientist saying something different ...


Both are cases where the scientific community has a clear consensus, but industry has spent tons of money confusing the issue, so to an outside observer like yourself there appears to be a controversy when there isn't.



Look, I don't claim to be a climate scientist, and I don't think I'm going to convince you by citing global warming research. When you've already fortified your mind against all evidence to the contrary, more evidence won't help. All I can say is, look at peoples' motivations.

The scientists are motivated to find the truth and make you believe the truth; that's just the kind of people they are (you don't study climate science for the babes). In contrast the coal and oil industry stands to literally save billions if they can just delay regulation a few years more. So you can either follow the money and the conflict of interest, or you can buy what the coal industry is selling.

I never said that there wasnt an agenda behind it. Im sure the energy industries are just as tied in as anyone else. What I'm saying is that there has been a strong deflection of guilt toward regular joe's as the "consumer" as opposed to placing the blame squarely where it lies, industry. Whether you view that as Coal, Nuclear, Oil, whatever, thats not the point. The point is that the majority blame has been shifted towards regular every day people buying products from a store, or not using the correct mercury laden lightbulbs, instead of looking to the manufacturers of said products as the culprit. I'm fine with blaming the energy companies myself, they are the ones pushing for a carbon tax so as to raise the cost anyway.
If you take C02 out of the scenario all of the consumer blaming goes by the wayside. Because consumers cant produce the complex chemicals that are actually responsible for the adverse impact on the environment. If you dont see how the current state of eco-alarmism plays into depopulation theories like agenda 21, then im not sure youll ever realize why the whole debate was started in the first place.

[Glenzig]

I do agree with you about peer review not mean ing a whole lot anymore though. Ive been noticing that for a long time now. I just know that I have been told several times that peer review=scientific fact. So that was a bit disingenuous on my part. Sorry.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I never said that there wasnt an agenda behind it. Im sure the energy industries are just as tied in as anyone else. What I'm saying is that there has been a strong deflection of guilt toward regular joe's as the "consumer" as opposed to placing the blame squarely where it lies, industry. Whether you view that as Coal, Nuclear, Oil, whatever, thats not the point. The point is that the majority blame has been shifted towards regular every day people buying products from a store, or not using the correct mercury laden lightbulbs, instead of looking to the manufacturers of said products as the culprit. I'm fine with blaming the energy companies myself, they are the ones pushing for a carbon tax so as to raise the cost anyway.
If you take C02 out of the scenario all of the consumer blaming goes by the wayside. Because consumers cant produce the complex chemicals that are actually responsible for the adverse impact on the environment. If you dont see how the current state of eco-alarmism plays into depopulation theories like agenda 21, then im not sure youll ever realize why the whole debate was started in the first place.

I see what you are trying to say, I believe you are looking at it from the wrong angle though.

It's not as much 'guilt tripping the consumer' as it's explaining that the consumer (by the very nature of purchasing the same destructive products over and over again) is what keeps the source of the problem (industry) going.

Money talks. If you can convince consumers to spend their money on more ecologically safe products, the industry will adapt and sell ecologically safe products to meet the demands. Look at aerosol products as a precedence to this.

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm fine with blaming the energy companies myself, they are the ones pushing for a carbon tax so as to raise the cost anyway.

Ummmm ... I don't think they want a carbon tax, it would hurt their bottom line no?

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If you dont see how the current state of eco-alarmism plays into depopulation theories like agenda 21, then im not sure youll ever realize why the whole debate was started in the first place.

You mean this?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Depopul...spiracy_theory

That page explains quite well why I don't buy in.

[mtb tripper]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Can't we all just agree that both parties are horrible? I don't care about your politics, if you have half a brain you've got to admit that Bush was a moron ... but at the same time you also have to admit that Obama's positions are indistinguishable from Bush's on many (most?) important issues.

Both parties are completely corrupt, and if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention. Sure one side might be a little better than the other on any given issue, but until we take the money out of politics both are going to represent the interests of the rich and not of America.

Vote 3rd party in 2014!

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see what you are trying to say, I believe you are looking at it from the wrong angle though.

It's not as much 'guilt tripping the consumer' as it's explaining that the consumer (by the very nature of purchasing the same destructive products over and over again) is what keeps the source of the problem (industry) going.

Money talks. If you can convince consumers to spend their money on more ecologically safe products, the industry will adapt and sell ecologically safe products to meet the demands. Look at aerosol products as a precedence to this.

And all you have to do is fork over 3x the money. You see the irony in this right? If a product is known to be harmful to the environment by its production methods, then the production methods or the product should be removed outright. This eliminates the middle man completely. I have no idea how every single product I buy is produced, but the companies that produce them do. Saying that the industry that produces said product shouldn't have to care about the environmental safety of the production methods until it affect their bottom line is just more guilt tripping and blame laying on the buyer of the products who are more than likely ignorant of the impact of said product rather than blaming the producer of said product who is very well aware of the impact. This isnt a solution to anything. It only serves to perpetuate the problem since the buyer will always be pushed toward the less expensive product simply by advertising alone.
Aerosol products are still being produced BTW. So simply proving that something is harmful will never in itself remove the production of said product.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ummmm ... I don't think they want a carbon tax, it would hurt their bottom line no?



You mean this?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Depopul...spiracy_theory

That page explains quite well why I don't buy in.

Look into how the carbon tax would actually work. They will get tremendous kickbacks to offset any increased operating costs and at the same time increase rates to cover the increase of operating costs. Its a win win for them. doesnt slow down production, doesnt change production methods, it only raises rates.

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And all you have to do is fork over 3x the money. You see the irony in this right? If a product is known to be harmful to the environment by its production methods, then the production methods or the product should be removed outright. This eliminates the middle man completely. I have no idea how every single product I buy is produced, but the companies that produce them do. Saying that the industry that produces said product shouldn't have to care about the environmental safety of the production methods until it affect their bottom line is just more guilt tripping and blame laying on the buyer of the products who are more than likely ignorant of the impact of said product rather than blaming the producer of said product who is very well aware of the impact. This isnt a solution to anything. It only serves to perpetuate the problem since the buyer will always be pushed toward the less expensive product simply by advertising alone.

That's an issue with lobbyists though and is besides the point.

Originally Posted by Glenzig

Aerosol products are still being produced BTW. So simply proving that something is harmful will never in itself remove the production of said product.

Look into how modern (anything produced since the mid 1990's) aerosol is produced. They banned ozone depleting substances then and the earth has since repaired virtually all of the measurable damage.