so, where were we.
global warming, as sensationalized by any douchebag who wants someone to listen to them, is retarded.
I'm not saying that it's impossible the earth's average temperature is increasing every year. I'm not saying that it's impossible that humans could change the earth's climate. I'm saying, that any scientist, worth being called a scientist, would not give a definitive answer on this concept. They might say something like, if you take a small sample of recent history, blah blah blah. But if you hear "we [humans] are causing the earth's temperature to increase," seriously?, just laugh. What scientist makes a call without a control variable? Without a reasonable sample? I mean.. Come on? Really? Douche
Ok. So here's what I don't understand about this whole affair. They say that people claiming global warming isn't true, are big corporations that don't want to loose money by having to recycle or not dump waste into lakes. Ok, that might be true. I'm sure they don't want to loose money, sounds reasonable, they have something to gain by it being untrue. So you have those dudes on that side of it. -- Now, Who's on the other side? Hippies? Environmentalists? Where does this idea come from being for the idea that global warming is a reality? Do people side with this idea because there is no big company behind it; therefore, it makes them look good? Wait a second. What about the douche who's selling some lightbulb that "saves" a bunch of energy. Maybe it's huffy, who wants you to ride bikes so you'll buy more bikes. Maybe nike wants you to walk so you'll wear out your shoes faster. Maybe it's some solar panel company who wants to sell more of their product. Has anyone noticed, that no matter what side you pick, you are still going to "ruin" the planet?
a solar panel costs way more of the earth's resources, and way more money, that you will ever save during the entire lifespan of that solar panel (* I made this up, but it's probably true ) You burn more of the earth's fuel (food/food production) by walking to your destination that it costs to drive (car/gas/production) *
No matter what you do, or how you live, you are going to ruin the planet. No matter how much of a douche you are, you are doing something wrong, according to someone out there. So do you really want to spend your whole life walking around wondering what you are doing wrong, or would you rather make a few "earth friendly" choices when you can, and keep it to your freakin self
Aug 26, 2007
week 1, v2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Preachin' to the choir here. Like those Biodiesel companies don't have just as much to gain by terrorizing people into believing in global warming as those big companies do by denying it.
I've taken a new stance on this subject. Baby Boomers are ruining the planet. Not environmentally so per se. But, with their divisive, greedy, hypocritical, selfish, selfish, selfish, (did I mention selfish?) B.S. Want an example? Right when baby boomers ding dongs are starting to not work? TA-DAA! Viagra! Way to change the world, Boomers! Meanwhile heart disease, Cancer, and AIDS ravage the earth.
Neo-conservatives? Liberals? I hate both of them. Two sides of the same coin. That coin is called Baby Boomers.
(Also, I am aware that my parents and most of the people who will read this' parents are Baby Boomers. But, not all boomers are bad. Just a lot of them. Most of them. Almost all of them.)
viva viagra
There are so many things wrong with this post I'm not sure where to begin.
First of all, I am very aware that I am perceived among a certain group of friends from Burbank as somewhat of a "crazy liberal" which colors how my words will be perceived by the readers of this blog. Despite this unfortunate label, I will do my best to let facts and logic make my arguments for me.
You're right that most scientists tend to shy away from making definitive statements. Too often there is significant dissenting opinion among the scientific community about a given topic, and/or there are confounding factors that mitigate the extent to which a conclusion can be reached. That is precisely what makes the majority opinion about global warming so remarkable--the *vast majority* of scientists now agree, after studying decades' worth of data, that global warming is real, that we are causing it. Your observation that it's pretty rare for scientists to make a claim like that only makes the call for recognition and action all the stronger.
Hear me out. Don't stop reading now because you disagree with me. I didn't stop reading yours.
You talk of "reasonable samples" without putting forth any reasonable suggestion of what a reasonable sample should be. What we have to work with is many millenia worth of data representing CO2 levels (found in ice cores in at the poles) in addition to 6 decades' worth of modern CO2 readings charting the levels rise in the modern era. The *vast majority* of earth's scientists consider that a reasonable sample. What would you add? I'm guessing experimental data. Which brings me to...
You talk of control samples. Obviously, it's impossible to conduct a controlled experiment of global warming on the scale necessary to emulate global effects over centuries. That means that thinking ahead and using the data we do have to make informed decisions about the future becomes much more important. Saying we can't make decisions without a control sample is tantamount to giving up in this case, since we'll never have that luxury. That doesn't mean negative consequences won't happen, or that we can't do anything to stop them with what we do know.
It is an unfortunate product of our polarized political system and the actions of some powerful special-interest groups that the "environmentalist" movement has been branded the domain of hippies and extremists. While this may have been true several decades ago, trying to dismiss environmentalism as extremist dogma nowadays is falling for the old political tactic of "poisoning the well" employed by strategists on both sides of the aisle. To wit: if you can't beat someone on factual/moral/logical grounds, poison their image in the eyes of the public. Global warming is no longer a niche idea--it's supported by loads of data, an overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, and a growing number of its political leaders. Saying otherwise is absurdly contrarian at this point.
Your suggestion that the environmentalist movement is as motivated by self-interest as the anti-environmentalist movement is by oil and coal corporations is absolutely ridiculous. Environmentalism is championed by SCIENTISTS more than any other demographic, and they, by the very nature of their trade, are sharply sanctioned against exercising bias (else they'd be discredited as scientists). The fact is, we WANT environmentalism to become profitable if we expect it to actually have a chance of succeeding. The industries you mentioned are indeed capitalizing on the chance to make money, but did they invent environmentalism? Certainly not. Does the human race stand to lose a great deal of its livelihood if environmentalism succeeds? Quite the contrary. Ask yourself these same questions vis-a-vis Big Coal and anti-environmentalism, and you'll have a very different story.
"a solar panel costs way more of the earth's resources, and way more money, that you will ever save during the entire lifespan of that solar panel (* I made this up, but it's probably true ) You burn more of the earth's fuel (food/food production) by walking to your destination that it costs to drive (car/gas/production) *" <--I'd love to hear how you came up with such ideas, and why you think they're true. Both claims are completely untrue. Solar panels take a while before they start paying for themselves, but keep in mind that a)our society has devoted way more attention to developing coal and oil technology than solar, thus slowing the technological development of solar as a product, and b)once solar cells are in place, their energy supply *never runs out* and *never produces waste.* As for your claim that more joules of energy are burned in respiration walking down the street than are burned by a car's engine: food is also a renewable resource, and consuming food does not produce close to the amount of waste product per gram as burning gasoline. It is a widely known fact that gas-burning engines are incredibly inefficient, gram-for-gram. Certainly no more efficient than our digestive tracts.
"or would you rather make a few "earth friendly" choices when you can, and keep it to your freakin self" <--environmentalism is a movement that requires participation on a massive scale. "Keeping it to your freakin self" would cause the downfall of the movement. It's not another case of "to each his own" because what I do affects you and vice versa. I care very much that you and everybody else on the planet knows about global warming and tries to make earth-friendly choices, and you should care too.
Will, the tone of most of your posts thus far has been rather tongue-in-cheek and apparently as interested in humor as serious discourse. The tone of this post is biting and as such, I'm not totally sure where you stand. But I'm taking your post seriously because you appear to be spewing the same kind of knee-jerk responses that you so vehemently claim to dislike.
Needless to say, I feel very strongly about this issue and it is a struggle for me to hold myself back from knee-jerking back in your direction. I would be more than happy to discuss this issue in more detail with you in an informed, civil conversation.
I use scooters as a tag because it's an example in the thing.
see. here's the deal. So, let us say that everyone jumped on board tomorrow. What would they do? Stop using their car, or setup a program to spend billions on a program to decide how we should spend trillions? How are we supposed to pay that bill when we can't get into our cars to go to our job?
It's not that I don't think the world's temperature is increasing. It's that I think nobody really looks at what each side has to gain by this being "real or not." It's like when you hear "hey, if you don't want stem cell research, your parents ARE going to die from x disease." Oh no. I better vote for a program to give money to scientists. In other words, if I vote against it, I am killing my parents? So, where was option C, where I can support it with conditions? It's bullcrap political agenda that's meaninglessly pushed onto people who don't ever ask what's really going on.
Show me to official report of scientists who's field of study is global climates, who has absolutely nothing to gain by picking a side. Your list would have no names on it. Even if the reward isn't monetary, who said having your name on a big study isn't valuable? Being "the" guy who brought it to everyone's eyes? Me saying that environmentalists have something to gain is not ridiculous. Honestly, did Darwin study turtles for years and when he decided to share his findings, submit his work as Anonymous?
This wasn't about environmentalists or hippies. It was about douchebags. I hate when politicians pick up 'issues' that they well know they can't do anything about, and make it a big deal, using key words, just to appeal to the crowd. So I guess that means my post was about politicians
Free market economics baby. Consumers guide the demand, suppliers alter their production habits accordingly. Consumers want less pollution, they go crazy and get everyone to jump on the bandwagon, go green, demand green, and Suppliers go green. Change? It was true to begin with. Free market economics baby. No change? It was all just a bunch of bull to begin with. Free market economics baby. Think the economy is wrong? With time, you'll have an even MORE convincing argument (with either belief), and you know what that means - free market economics baby.
I just don't like the whole "with us or against us" mentality of both sides.
Just because I may not cotton to the whole global warming thing doesn't mean I don't care about the environment. It just means that I think that I am going to let the idea percolate before I jump on board. Remember when scientists said that smoking cleaned out the lungs?
Also, just because I am not on the global warming bandwagon doesn't mean that I agree with putting up oil derricks wherever we damn well please.
Also, how about some positive feedback? I mean would a collective pat on the back be too much to ask? I mean back in the day it was perfectly acceptable to toss your garbage out the car window. No longer. I'm sure that hybrid car sales are through the effing roof. But, where is the "Hey everyone, good job!"? If global warming is in fact a reality and the global temperature does go down. There will be no party. There will be no collective "good job." There will be more complaining about something else.
Besides, shouldn't all those trapped greenhouse gases be billowing out of the gigantic holes in the O-zone?
Will:
You're right that practically speaking, we can't all just stop driving our cars to work tomorrow. Culture and societal norms are much more difficult to change than policies or laws. No one (except maybe--dare I say it--the most "extreme" environmentalists) expects change to happen overnight, which is why environmentalists have been trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to raise the alarm for the past couple of decades. The urgency of the situation doesn't mean that we cut 50% of our CO2 emissions today. It means we cut 10% today (if you're curious how to do this, there are innumerable resources on the web devoted to this topic) and continue to cut emissions over the next couple of decades aided by expanded social programs and improved technology. The awareness of the urgent need for change and the desire to take action are the foundation for a positive direction, and the sad fact is that some of our most prominent leaders are only just now coming around to this idea.
As for spending billions on a program to decide how to spend trillions: if global warming is to be stopped, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than a government program, which would likely be fraught with inefficiencies and red tape. Society as a whole has to be invested in a movement toward sustainable development, which means the private sector must take the lead. Free market economics will definitely come into play, because businesses that are best able to operate under the mantra of sustainability will be rewarded by the market. I would LOVE it if society could function totally unburdened by government, guided by the invisible hand of Adam Smith and a prevailing moral standard of social accountability. Of course I speak of a utopian society, but I just wanted to make it official to all of you that at heart, I am fiscally a CLASSICAL CONSERVATIVE. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
If you're saying that you dislike it when politicians grandstand on an issue, hyping it up solely because it will make them look good in the eyes of their constituents, then we are in agreement. But does that necessarily mean that the issue has no merit? I hate BS political agendas as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to tear up my refund check just because some “douche” politician thought he’d pump himself full of hot air by raising a stink about middle-class tax cuts. Reducing global warming benefits everyone (on average), and while I’d rather politicians address the issue civilly without ramming it down everyone’s throats, I’m at least glad it’s finally getting the attention it deserves.
Re: scientists having something to gain: yes, I’m sure there is some amount of notoriety or self-satisfaction that would come with playing a role in bringing the issue to the public eye. In this case though, we’re talking about thousands of scientists and millions of activists working together globally, so the credit would be diluted far and wide. What I was trying to get at is that these same scientists and activists don’t have personally as much to lose by environmentalism failing (their children and grandchildren do) as the coal and oil industries have to lose by anti-environmentalism failing. In the short run, self-interest is a MUCH bigger motivator for these industries than it is for environmentalists. It doesn’t take an economist to see that.
Tanner:
"It just means that I think that I am going to let the idea percolate before I jump on board. Remember when scientists said that smoking cleaned out the lungs?" <--True, we can point to numerous examples illustrating that what is considered common knowledge today might not be tomorrow. The question is whether inaction is justified given our current of knowledge and level of potential and actual risk. In this case, the notion that global warming is a serious threat has received steady, growing support since it was incepted, to the point now when there is no longer any real debate (at least within the scientific community). Our knowledge base has unprecedented confidence—over 90% of data support global warming as a serious threat, an unbelievable statistic in science. The risks are significant (I won’t beat a dead horse here). How is inaction justified in the face of such lopsided risk analysis? Or to put it more pointedly: what are you waiting for?
"Also, how about some positive feedback? I mean would a collective pat on the back be too much to ask? I mean back in the day it was perfectly acceptable to toss your garbage out the car window. No longer."<--You're right, we have come a long way from such days. Do we (as society) deserve some credit for instituting standards that put a stop to such behavior? Sure. We've done some things right. Recycling has been very effective at reducing waste in the past 20 years. The Kyoto Protocol was a monumental step toward international cooperation to reduce emissions (even though we didn't sign it). Do these laurels give us license to dismiss the new challenges that face us today? Keep in mind that it was a struggle to get laws passed (and more importantly, to change people's mindsets) to effect positive change back then as well. Societies are resistant to change, and thus some struggle is always expected. It doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do. 30 years ago, we could have pleaded ignorance about global warming. With the amount of information available to us today, we are not afforded that luxury.
I have a very difficult time coming to grips with the fact that sometimes, good, intelligent people (like you guys) persist in your borderline stubborn skepticism that global warming is a serious threat despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Tanner, you have mentioned to me on a couple of occasions that you don't think that global warming is that big of a deal, but I never heard why. Please enlighten me. What specifically aren't you convinced of, and what's lacking in the data and analysis I pointed to that would make such skepticism legitimate?
I really would welcome hearing a compelling logical argument against the severity of the threat of global warming. Now is your chance to convince me that your point of view is the right one.
On a side note, I find it very ironic that the Google ad below my post just a moment ago read "Global warming--not a crisis! See why." Of course I clicked on it. Oh well. I'd rather you get as much of their money as possible.
Post a Comment