Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Climategate 2.0

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like

    Climategate 2.0

    More man-made global warming fun:

    [url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/[/url]

    A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.

    Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

    Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

    “I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

    “Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

    The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?” Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

    The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

    “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

    “I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

    These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

    More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

    “Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

    “I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run,” Thorne adds.

    “Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive … there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC,” Wigley acknowledges.

    More damaging emails will likely be uncovered during the next few days as observers pour through the 5,000 emails. What is already clear, however, is the need for more objective research and ethical conduct by the scientists at the heart of the IPCC and the global warming discussion.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,321
    Post Thanks / Like
    ...of course...now i am all for,all for consevation...but the "global warming" thing HAS ALWAYS been political...back to the land groups from europe's late 70's, basically wanting to go back to livings as peasants,have grabbed this thing and refuse to let go...the last gasp of the worlds 'red diaper babies'...but we still need alternative sources of energy...thats just common sense...

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    deniers of climate change don't have a scientific leg to stand on... all you have are out of context emails.

    who cares what the temperature is globally or how much ice is on the caps? or how many wild storms there are, or why it's 65 degrees on thanksgiving.

    we've got EMAILS!

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,885
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think for me as well as many others is that we do not deny climate change, we deny that climate change is caused by human activity to the degree that the global warming profiteers suggest.

    I'm all for alternative fuels, recycling, and less pollution.

    I agree with the quoted article below.

    =====================================



    [url]http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/[/url]

    "Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about."

    By David Evans

    "The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

    Let’s set a few things straight.

    The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

    [B]Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.[/B]

    Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

    The disagreement comes about what happens next.

    The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

    This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

    That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

    Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

    This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

    At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

    There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

    But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

    They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

    One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

    The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

    Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

    The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

    We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

    Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

    Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

    Financial Post
    David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23."

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4251041]deniers of climate change don't have a scientific leg to stand on... all you have are out of context emails.

    who cares what the temperature is globally or how much ice is on the caps? or how many wild storms there are, or why it's 65 degrees on thanksgiving.

    we've got EMAILS![/Quote]

    The burden of proof lies on those proposing the concept of human-induced irreversible global warming.

    The point is that neither side does. But one side lies and says they do. And you eat it up because it fits your political agenda. And you'll continue to dismiss the obvious because you will believe what you want to believe.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4251108]The burden of proof lies on those proposing the concept of human-induced irreversible global warming. [/QUOTE]

    gravity hasn't been proven either do you have emails from the gravity profiteering community??

    i also like all these prefixes "Human induced" "irreversible" no one's asking for the admission that it's unfixable. Nature always fixes itself, but we have to fix New Orleans.

    here's the truth big business (i.e Washington DC) doesn't like the idea of climate change cause it might cost them money in the short run.

    taxes, carbon credits etc it's always about money

    the way i see it the money we pay up front will be peanuts compared to the cost of cleaning up all these disasters or all the drought stricken stuff that's already happening.

    let me also point out that no one has a solution for climate change. Admitting it exists, is a problem, that's a start. obviously XOM doesn't want people to think about it or talk about it but it's just as real as cigs cause cancer. the science exists, deniers just choose to overlook it.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=gunnails;4251063]
    [B]Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.[/B]
    [/QUOTE]

    anything more than a degree or two will have a huge effect. it doesn't have to be 30 degrees a decade to be a problem.

  8. #8
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    4,885
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4251144]anything more than a degree or two will have a huge effect. it doesn't have to be 30 degrees a decade to be a problem.[/QUOTE]

    ===========================================

    Agreed.

    My point being that there are many factors that cause global warming and cooling that far out weigh any man made attempts to alter these natural cycles. Stuff like the sun and volcanoes.

    I personally don't think tere s a whole lot Man Kind can do about it one way or the other. Of course this is only have my opinion I am in no way an expert on global climates.

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4251041]deniers of climate change don't have a scientific leg to stand on... all you have are out of context emails.

    who cares what the temperature is globally or how much ice is on the caps? or [B]how many wild storms there are[/B], or why it's 65 degrees on thanksgiving.

    we've got EMAILS![/QUOTE]


    I posted this article in another thread last week. The "wild storms" theory is just another exageration.

    [QUOTE]Weathering Man-Made Climate Change

    Poverty, not global warming, is the cause of death and destruction in the face of extreme weather.

    Ronald Bailey | November 22, 2011


    A new United Nations report projects man-made global warming will boost the damage caused by heat waves, coastal floods, and droughts as they get worse by the end of the century.


    In a press release about the report, Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX), Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change Co-Chair Qin Dahe expressed high confidence that temperatures have increased due to man-made global warming. The study further expressed medium confidence that droughts had increased in some areas as a result of man-made climate change. However, the researchers could not draw firm conclusions about the effects of climate change on any trends in hurricanes, typhoons, hailstorms, or tornadoes. (The full report detailing the scientific work behind the study will not be released until February.)


    It is generally agreed that the average temperatures over land have increased by about 1° Celsius[PDF] since the 1950s. Looking toward the end of the 21st century, the report relies on computer model projections which suggest that 1-in-20 year hottest day events are to become a 1-in-2 year events. The report also projects that inundations that once happened every 20 years are likely to occur every five years.


    Sounds bad, but that’s a hundred years from now. With regard to the next few decades, the researchers more sanguinely report, “Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain.” That means that weather extremes for the next several decades will likely be within the limits of natural variation, making it almost impossible to discern any effect of man-made climate change on them. In other words, whatever weather disasters do occur will not be on a scale or frequency beyond those that humanity has experienced in recent decades.


    More crucially, the U.N. report acknowledges, “In many regions, the main drivers for future increases in economic losses due to some climate extremes will be socioeconomic in nature.” The upshot is that any increase in weather disaster damage is largely due to an increase in what can potentially be destroyed and the number of people exposed to it.


    Can researchers discern any effect that the recent increase in global average temperature has had on people and their property? Not really.


    For example, a recent Reason Foundation report [PDF], Wealth and Safety: The Amazing Decline in Deaths from Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900–2010, notes, “Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events globally has declined by more than 90 percent since the 1920s, in spite of a four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting of such events.” The death rate from droughts is 99.9 percent lower than it was in the 1920s; the death rate from floods is 98 percent lower; and the death rate from big storms like hurricanes has declined more than 55 percent since the 1970s.


    Keep in mind that the death rate due to extreme weather between 2001 and 2010 averaged about 38,000 per year compared to about 59 million annual deaths for all causes. The Reason Foundation report concludes, [B]“While extreme weather-related events, because of their episodic nature, garner plenty of attention worldwide, their contribution to the global mortality burden—0.07 percent of global deaths—is relatively minor.”
    [/B]

    What about economic losses? Proponents of catastrophic man-made climate change have been seeking evidence that it is boosting risks among the weather damage and loss data. A recent review article[PDF], “Have Disaster Losses Increased Due to Anthropogenic Climate Change?” by Laurens Bouwer, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS), surveyed 22 studies looking at trends in natural hazard losses. Bouwer, a researcher in the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije University in the Netherlands, included studies that all looked at economic losses, covered at least 30 years of data, and were peer reviewed.


    Generally loss data are normalized to take into account inflation, and changes in exposure and vulnerability associated with increases in wealth and population. The BAMS review found, [B]“The studies show no trends in the losses, corrected for change (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.”
    [/B]

    Another recent study, “Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: global analysis,” by Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthel, two researchers associated with the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, also probed trends in weather disaster loss data in search of a global warming signal. Besides using conventional techniques that take into account increases in population and wealth to normalize losses, they also develop an alternative technique that looks at relative losses over time. Briefly, their new measure looks at how much actual loss occurred relative to the amount that was at risk. For example, what percentage of wealth in Miami was destroyed by hurricanes in 1920 versus 2010? If the actual-to-potential-loss ratio is increasing over time, this suggests that the weather is having a growing impact.


    Analyzing weather disasters between 1980 and 2009, Neumayer and Barthel find, “Both methods lead to the same result for all disasters: no significant trend over time according to the conventional method, a marginally significant downward trend according to the alternative method.” Applying both normalization methods, they find no significant trends in weather related losses for both developed and developing countries. Looking regionally at North America, Western Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, and South and East Asia also uncovers no statistically significant trend in losses caused by weather disasters. In addition, two 2009 studies found no upward trend in normalized losses dues to windstorm or floods in Western Europe since 1970. One concluded, “Results show no detectable sign of human-induced climate change in normalized flood losses in Europe.”


    Neumayer and Barthel, using their alternative normalization method, do identify a “strongly negative trend” in normalized weather disaster damages in developed countries. They speculate, “This could possibly indicate a stronger capability of richer nations to fund defensive mitigating measures, which decrease vulnerability to natural disasters over time.” Richer societies are likely reducing their weather losses by establishing better early warning systems, enacting stronger building codes, and constructing firmer levees. People may be protecting themselves ever better against the consequences of storms and floods, even though the weather is getting worse.


    Although no upward trend in weather damages can be found in developing countries, the U.N.’s SREX report does note that fatality rates and economic losses as a proportion of GDP from weather disasters are higher in poor countries. In fact, between 1970 and 2008, 95 percent of deaths from natural disasters occurred in developing countries. [B]Bad weather produces death and destruction largely when it encounters poverty.
    [/B]

    [B]Let’s conclude with two observations: First, recent research indicates that man-made climate change has not been nor is it likely to be a big contributor to losses stemming from weather disasters in the next few decades. Second, boosting the wealth of poor people through economic growth is their best protection against meteorological disasters in the long run, whether fueled by future man-made climate change or not.
    [/B]

    Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is available from Prometheus Books.

    [/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4251140]gravity hasn't been proven either do you have emails from the gravity profiteering community??

    i also like all these prefixes "Human induced" "irreversible" no one's asking for the admission that it's unfixable. Nature always fixes itself, but we have to fix New Orleans.

    here's the truth big business (i.e Washington DC) doesn't like the idea of climate change cause it might cost them money in the short run.

    taxes, carbon credits etc it's always about money

    the way i see it the money we pay up front will be peanuts compared to the cost of cleaning up all these disasters or all the drought stricken stuff that's already happening.

    let me also point out that no one has a solution for climate change. Admitting it exists, is a problem, that's a start. obviously XOM doesn't want people to think about it or talk about it but it's just as real as cigs cause cancer. the science exists, deniers just choose to overlook it.[/QUOTE]

    The reason the gravity agruement doesn't hold up is that no one is looking to legislate gravity credits that will put our economy back into a downspin.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [B]“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”[/B]

    :shakehead
    :mad:

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4254921]= no one is looking to legislate gravity credits that will put our economy back into a downspin.[/QUOTE]

    cap and trade died 5 years ago. No one is looking to do that anymore. It's a right wing boogieman.

  13. #13
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4254961]cap and trade died 5 years ago. No one is looking to do that anymore. It's a right wing boogieman.[/QUOTE]

    Call it what you want. I was responding you you saying

    [QUOTE=bitonti]taxes, carbon credits etc it's always about money

    the way i see it the money we pay up front will be peanuts compared to the cost of cleaning up all these disasters or all the drought stricken stuff that's already happening.

    [/QUOTE]

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,296
    Post Thanks / Like
    [B]Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.[/B]

    I'm pretty sure the issues are: how much, and can we change it in a meaningful way? Everything else is verbal masturbation.

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,554
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4254961]cap and trade died 5 years ago. No one is looking to do that anymore. It's a right wing boogieman.[/QUOTE]

    Obama brought it to Congress last year.

    But again, accuracy isn't really your thing.

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    at the very least, man-made pollution has had a deleterious affect on the environment. That is a proven scientific fact. At worst, man-made pollution is causing severe climate change that will have devestating effects.

    Even taking the lesser of the above scenerios, there needs to be changes made. But our government is so beholden to big business (mostly because they fund their hand picked politicians) that nothing of substance is being done.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4255253]at the very least, man-made pollution has had a deleterious affect on the environment. That is a proven scientific fact. At worst, man-made pollution is causing severe climate change that will have devestating effects.

    Even taking the lesser of the above scenerios, there needs to be changes made. But our government is so beholden to big business (mostly because they fund their hand picked politicians) that nothing of substance is being done.[/QUOTE]

    While this is true, to you deny that the American population as a whole will throw a fit if:

    1) product costs increase due to more stringent environmental policies
    2) product manufacturing continues to go overseas to avoid such policies
    3) way of life is affected (i.e. gotta buy expensive light bulbs, electric cars, etc.)

    It's not just "big business" that gov't is afraid of . . .

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4255220]Obama brought it to Congress last year.

    But again, accuracy isn't really your thing.[/QUOTE]

    thanks Mr Accuracy. it's still politically dead.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=OCCH;4255284]While this is true, to you deny that the American population as a whole will throw a fit if:

    1) product costs increase due to more stringent environmental policies
    2) product manufacturing continues to go overseas to avoid such policies
    3) way of life is affected (i.e. gotta buy expensive light bulbs, electric cars, etc.)

    It's not just "big business" that gov't is afraid of . . .[/QUOTE]

    very fair points.

    I agree that the issues above would be something that must be addressed but sadly, pollution/climate change has become so politicized that many people cannot get passed the fog of propaganda to confront the harsh choices that you point out which need to be made. I think a great many people would be willing to make sacrifices as long as they believe they are not being duped. They don't trust the government or the media and so it will be hard to have people make changes.

  20. #20
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    4,220
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4255314]very fair points.

    I agree that the issues above would be something that must be addressed but sadly, pollution/climate change has become so politicized that many people cannot get passed the fog of propaganda to confront the harsh choices that you point out which need to be made. I think a great many people would be willing to make sacrifices as long as they believe they are not being duped. They don't trust the government or the media and so it will be hard to have people make changes.[/QUOTE]

    I'd also add they'd need to be convinced it's a MAJOR problem, as opposed to "a problem".

    As others have stated, it's not necessarily the thought of climate change that stirs the pot, but what's causing the change. If it turns out to be cyclical, there's not much we can do about it anyway. If "real" evidence comes out that shows we're killing ourselves, then yes -- people will do what needs to be done . . .

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us