Jump to content

Leaked Emails Rock the Global Warming Debate


Jason

Recommended Posts

First off, keep in mind where alarming science news comes from:

 

 

Secondly, minus the alarmism, this is exactly how science is supposed to work.  Given the best evidence of the day, scientists hypothesize plausible explanations of natural (or unnatural) phenomena.  As new evidence becomes available, what seemed plausible just a few years ago may no longer be.  And that's OK!  This constant refinement of our understanding has given us mobile phones, the internets and adorable pictures of kittens.

 

After years of refinement, collection of new evidence, further refinement, etc. we end up where we are today.  The VAST MAJORITY* of the scientific community says that the current trend of climate change is attributable to human activity, namely dumping obscene amounts of formerly sequestered CO2 (oil, coal, gas) into the atmosphere.

 

* If GWB had a mandate at 50.7% of the popular vote, WTF does this mean for the 97% consensus among climate scientists?

We all know that science, by nature, is never settled. Hypothetically though, if what the "scientific community" is true and humans are causing "climate change" (whatever that means), what can actually be done about it by the United States? On a global level, we don't emit all that much Co2 into the atmosphere. Counties like Brazil, China, and India are building new coal plants every week. If they refuse to stop this practice, what good would raising taxes here in America do? If "global warming" is real, its a GLOBAL problem, not a U.S. problem. If the rest of the globe doesn't care, why risk damaging your economy for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IEA declared that the U.S. has already reduced its carbon emissions more than any other country on earth since 2006. Our co2 emissions are at level not seen since 1992. At what level would you like it to drop to? Because whatever level that its, it won't make up for China, India, and Brazil continuing to emit massive amounts of c02 into the atmosphere everyday with no consequence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, science does settle things from time to time, for example the definitions of "scientific community" (qualified people who write peer-reviewed journal articles) and "climate change" are pretty simple to find.

 

The first thing the US can do about it is have our policymakers FUCKING ADMIT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING IT and treat it like an actual problem. 

 

India, China, and the like do pose challenges, but the solution is NOT to throw our arms up in the air and give up; to me that is the most unamerican course we could take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, science does settle things from time to time, for example the definitions of "scientific community" (qualified people who write peer-reviewed journal articles) and "climate change" are pretty simple to find.

 

The first thing the US can do about it is have our policymakers FUCKING ADMIT THAT HUMANS ARE CAUSING IT and treat it like an actual problem. 

 

India, China, and the like do pose challenges, but the solution is NOT to throw our arms up in the air and give up; to me that is the most unamerican course we could take.

Isaac Newton's laws were considered "settled" for 200 years until Albert Einstein came along. Real Science is never settled. It only takes one brilliant person to come along and change the way we think about everything.

 

In regards to your latter argument, what power does the U.S. have in fighting "global warming"? Power is the ability to achieve intended effects. If the intended effects are to stop "global warming" (if it does in fact exist), then what power does the U.S. have to do that? None. Without getting all counties (or at least the one's most guilty) to agree on this "settled science", you can't ever get to the intended effect. Admitting that "global warming" exists does nothing. Again, the only thing that matters is achieving the intended effect. That's not possible. China will never arrest the development of their industrialization in order to go along with the United States. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that because Newton's laws break down as you approach the speed of light, we should toss out the most recent, reliable, and generally agreed upon analysis of climate change because in 200 years we might find that it doesn't really apply at the quantum level?

 

As I said, emerging economies are a challenge. The first step would be to set a good example.  Greenhouse gas emissions are down but maybe there is some room for improvement?

 

us-ghg-emissions-figure1-2013.gif

 

While we work on our own dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, we can pressure other countries into lowering their emissions and use the time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

You writing "if it in fact does exist" leads me to believe you don't genuinely want or care about a solution to the "other country's emissions" problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all know that science, by nature, is never settled. Hypothetically though, if what the "scientific community" is true and humans are causing "climate change" (whatever that means), what can actually be done about it by the United States? On a global level, we don't emit all that much Co2 into the atmosphere. Counties like Brazil, China, and India are building new coal plants every week. If they refuse to stop this practice, what good would raising taxes here in America do? If "global warming" is real, its a GLOBAL problem, not a U.S. problem. If the rest of the globe doesn't care, why risk damaging your economy for it?

 

 

This argument amounts to they do it so we can do it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I have no clue as to whether global warming is an actual threat to mankind ( I wont call it "climate change" because that doesn't mean anything). What I do know is that if it is man-made, there is nothing that the United States can do to curb it in the slightest. Unless you get countries like China and India to also comply with whatever environmental regulations you set forth, it will all be for naught anyway. 

 

 

I dont really understand it, and other guys are probably doing worse things...so fuck it.

 

Now, i'm not trying to attack you personally as my comments are directed towards scociety as a whole. But that statement exemplifies, quite perfectly, the combination of ignorance & apathy that is out of control in this country. There's no search for truth or understanding, strive for perfection or progress, or desire to make the world a better place.

 

We will not act unless the personal, selfish, benfits are immediate and signifcant. We look for any reason not to believe something that sounds like it may be inconvienient, yet will accept the first shred of evidence that supports what we want to hear.  We're a scociety that doesn't trust the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that is in consensus over climate change, but we belive some shitty actor on a midnight infomercial that tells us about a magic pill that will make the fat melt off our bodies.

 

Apathy and ignorance. We dont really understand something, but that doesn't matter since we never really gave a fuck about the truth anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I dont really understand it, and other guys are probably doing worse things...so fuck it.

 

Now, i'm not trying to attack you personally as my comments are directed towards scociety as a whole. But that statement exemplifies, quite perfectly, the combination of ignorance & apathy that is out of control in this country. There's no search for truth or understanding, strive for perfection or progress, or desire to make the world a better place.

 

We will not act unless the personal, selfish, benfits are immediate and signifcant. We look for any reason not to believe something that sounds like it may be inconvienient, yet will accept the first shred of evidence that supports what we want to hear.  We're a scociety that doesn't trust the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that is in consensus over climate change, but we belive some shitty actor on a midnight infomercial that tells us about a magic pill that will make the fat melt off our bodies.

 

Apathy and ignorance. We dont really understand something, but that doesn't matter since we never really gave a fuck about the truth anyway.

Once again, find a solution! You don't have one and neither do any of the politicians. Raising taxes? Killing the Coal Industry? What does any of that have to do with lowering the sea levels or making the planet cooler? Remember, the key word here is GLOBAL. If you can't get a global consensus on this (which you can't), you're wasting your time, money and resources. What you would end up doing is costing an entire american industry their livelihoods in order to solve nothing. I would say you should look long and hard at this before you go taking food off of people's tables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that because Newton's laws break down as you approach the speed of light, we should toss out the most recent, reliable, and generally agreed upon analysis of climate change because in 200 years we might find that it doesn't really apply at the quantum level?

 

As I said, emerging economies are a challenge. The first step would be to set a good example.  Greenhouse gas emissions are down but maybe there is some room for improvement?

 

us-ghg-emissions-figure1-2013.gif

 

While we work on our own dumping of CO2 into the atmosphere, we can pressure other countries into lowering their emissions and use the time to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.

 

You writing "if it in fact does exist" leads me to believe you don't genuinely want or care about a solution to the "other country's emissions" problem.

I don't care about problems that are factually uncontrollable. We couldn't convince China to turn over Edward Snowden, but we're going to somehow convince them to significantly scale back their industrialization that basically took the country out of poverty? Regardless of your ideology, you have to stay in reality. In reality, China is never going to do that, same with India. In reality, without all of these counties who emit massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere going along with you, you have nothing but an intentionally fractured economy. Go tell the people in West Virginia that you want to save the planet and they'll tell you they want to keep food in their kid's mouth.

 

A lot of this stuff is like saying, "feed the world" or " peace on earth": it means nothing and has no intended effect, but it makes everyone feel better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This argument amounts to they do it so we can do it too.

No it's more of, don't harm your economy for no desired effect. Why kill a coal industry that provides jobs for millions of people when you haven't even come up with a realistic solution yet? The rest of the world doesn't think in terms of a utopia. Places like China and India are only interested in enhancing their own interests. As flawed as those counties are, sometimes I wish our country behaved that way. God knows we could use a little bit of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's more of, don't harm your economy for no desired effect. Why kill a coal industry that provides jobs for millions of people when you haven't even come up with a realistic solution yet? The rest of the world doesn't think in terms of a utopia. Places like China and India are only interested in enhancing their own interests. As flawed as those counties are, sometimes I wish our country behaved that way. God knows we could use a little bit of it. 

 

 

You can create jobs without harming the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

You can create jobs without harming the environment.

Like I said, go tell them that in West Virginia. When their coal job goes away, what indistry is going to be giving them another job with medical and dental? In the here and now, people are interested in not becoming homeless. The environment comes second (or third) to that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even if something clearly has a negative impact on the billions of human beings on the planet, we should still keep doing it because a few localized populations currently depend on it? i bet in the 1800's some folks worried about the people whose livelihood depended on the slave trade... what the hell were they going to do if they couldn't snatch people up from africa and sell them anymore?

 

How would the effects of gradually reducing the nations dependancy on fossil fuels be any more devastating than what private industry has already done with outsourcing?

 

The mass outsourcing  of our industrial base has financially ass-raped the middle and lower middle class of this coutry in the name of increasing profits for a relatively small number of shareholders and investors ...but transitioning to an alternative energy source in the name of making imporovements for every human being on earth is unacceptable? Howabout we invest in the clean energy effort as an opprotunity to bring back some of those jobs we sent to asia and south america?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So even if something clearly has a negative impact on the billions of human beings on the planet, we should still keep doing it because a few localized populations currently depend on it? i bet in the 1800's some folks worried about the people whose livelihood depended on the slave trade... what the hell were they going to do if they couldn't snatch people up from africa and sell them anymore?

 

How would the effects of gradually reducing the nations dependancy on fossil fuels be any more devastating than what private industry has already done with outsourcing?

 

The mass outsourcing  of our industrial base has financially ass-raped the middle and lower middle class of this coutry in the name of increasing profits for a relatively small number of shareholders and investors ...but transitioning to an alternative energy source in the name of making imporovements for every human being on earth is unacceptable? Howabout we invest in the clean energy effort as an opprotunity to bring back some of those jobs we sent to asia and south america?

How would gradually reducing the nation's dependency on fossil fuels curb the supposed devastating effects of global warming? It wouldn't. It's not U.S. Warming, its global warming.

 

So you hate outsourcing (everyone does), but your'e perfectly okay with evaporating thousands of jobs, with no guarantee of anything replacing them?

 

It's a lot like Dodd & Frank. It's good in theory, but if your'e working for a small bank that isn't able to write loans anymore due to excessive regulations and is obligated to assume all liability on the prospect of a default, what happens to your job? You lose it. Where are the politicians waiting in the wings to give you a new job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, go tell them that in West Virginia. When their coal job goes away, what indistry is going to be giving them another job with medical and dental? In the here and now, people are interested in not becoming homeless. The environment comes second (or third) to that.  

 

nobody will care in wv when wv doesnt exit 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would gradually reducing the nation's dependency on fossil fuels curb the supposed devastating effects of global warming? It wouldn't. It's not U.S. Warming, its global warming.
 
So you hate outsourcing (everyone does), but your'e perfectly okay with evaporating thousands of jobs, with no guarantee of anything replacing them?
 
It's a lot like Dodd & Frank. It's good in theory, but if your'e working for a small bank that isn't able to write loans anymore due to excessive regulations and is obligated to assume all liability on the prospect of a default, what happens to your job? You lose it. Where are the politicians waiting in the wings to give you a new job.


First, from what I gather the global consensus on global warming is not that we're in immediate risk of catastrophic disaster. Rather, the current energy practices are irresponsible thus changes need to start being implemented now to work towards a more sustainable solution for the future.

As far as the WV situation, the answer is yes. Industries rise and fall, populations prosper and flounder and at the end of the day shit happens. It would be unfortunate, and I would imagine most people wouldn't be quite as fucked as you're implying, but if it's part of the collateral damage from working towards a global good I could live with it.

I work in the defense industry. I design weapons and ammunition that have no other application or use in this planet besides war. If there were a chance to eliminate war or even just America's involvement, at the expense of my career, I'd sign up in a fucking heartbeat.

The little guy gets fucked all the time, and very often it's an injustice. However, every now and then it's an unfortunate price to pay for genuine progress.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, from what I gather the global consensus on global warming is not that we're in immediate risk of catastrophic disaster. Rather, the current energy practices are irresponsible thus changes need to start being implemented now to work towards a more sustainable solution for the future.

As far as the WV situation, the answer is yes. Industries rise and fall, populations prosper and flounder and at the end of the day shit happens. It would be unfortunate, and I would imagine most people wouldn't be quite as fucked as you're implying, but if it's part of the collateral damage from working towards a global good I could live with it.

I work in the defense industry. I design weapons and ammunition that have no other application or use in this planet besides war. If there were a chance to eliminate war or even just America's involvement, at the expense of my career, I'd sign up in a fucking heartbeat.

The little guy gets fucked all the time, and very often it's an injustice. However, every now and then it's an unfortunate price to pay for genuine progress.

What "greater good" are you referring to? It doesn't exist, it's just the here and now. Like I said earlier, you can't think about these things through the prism of a potential utopia because you will never get it. Stay in reality. In reality, the U.S. can not prevent or curb global warming, if it does in fact exist. The U.S. could take measures that look good to the untrained eye, but if they do not achieve the desired effect, why bother with them? Do not act just to act. When an actual, realistic solution to "global warming" arises, be my guest, until then don't attempt to arrest our industrialization for mere political optics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care about problems that are factually uncontrollable. We couldn't convince China to turn over Edward Snowden, but we're going to somehow convince them to significantly scale back their industrialization that basically took the country out of poverty? Regardless of your ideology, you have to stay in reality. In reality, China is never going to do that, same with India. In reality, without all of these counties who emit massive amounts of co2 into the atmosphere going along with you, you have nothing but an intentionally fractured economy. Go tell the people in West Virginia that you want to save the planet and they'll tell you they want to keep food in their kid's mouth.

 

A lot of this stuff is like saying, "feed the world" or " peace on earth": it means nothing and has no intended effect, but it makes everyone feel better. 

 

In a brutal way, this is evolution at work.  You either adapt/change to your environment or die. As a modern society we have safe guards to make the death part unlikely, but the point is still valid.

 

If nothing ever changed we wouldn't be here today. Just because a society/segment of the population doesn't like it or it seems harsh, doesn't make it less true.

 

If all the coal was gone from the planet tomorrow, would the planet care? No. You adapt to the change or you die. It's how evolution works.

 

Sometimes things have to change and there are casualties along the way of the ill-prepared, or the unable to adapt.

 

In the grand scheme of things, if you have to sacrifice a few to save the many you do it. It's a necessary evil for the betterment of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "greater good" are you referring to? It doesn't exist, it's just the here and now. Like I said earlier, you can't think about these things through the prism of a potential utopia because you will never get it. Stay in reality. In reality, the U.S. can not prevent or curb global warming, if it does in fact exist. The U.S. could take measures that look good to the untrained eye, but if they do not achieve the desired effect, why bother with them? Do not act just to act. When an actual, realistic solution to "global warming" arises, be my guest, until then don't attempt to arrest our industrialization for mere political optics. 

 

Wait a minute.. So unless you have a perfect solution in hand you don't even try?

 

Most times, solutions are found by the commitment to solving the problem and the very act of trying. Think of where we would be if we took this stance on other aspects of our advancement.  How many things would we never have "fixed" if we had never bothered trying to do it until we had the perfect solution in hand?  The things are too numerous to list.

 

You solve problems by first resolving to solve them.. Then you keep trying to solve them until you manage to do it.  You don't get anywhere by looking at a problem and going "that's just too big to deal with" and throwing up your hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wait a minute.. So unless you have a perfect solution in hand you don't even try?

 

Most times, solutions are found by the commitment to solving the problem and the very act of trying. Think of where we would be if we took this stance on other aspects of our advancement.  How many things would we never have "fixed" if we had never bothered trying to do it until we had the perfect solution in hand.  The things are too numerous to list.

 

You solve problems by first resolving to solve them.. Then you keep trying to solve them until you manage to do it.  You don't get anywhere by looking at a problem and going "that's just too big to deal with" and throwing up your hands.

Incorrect. Unless you have A SOLUTION, you do nothing. We keep going in circles here. What is the point of taking action if doesn't achieve any intended effect? You're throwing complete malarkey out there. "You solve problems by resolving first to solve them". That's crap. There is no solution and there won't be a solution until you get a global consensus, which you never will (at least not in our lifetimes). You can take a whole bunch of action, and it will look really nice to someone who doesn't know anything, but in reality, it achieves nothing. Don't waste time, resources, and money with no goal to achieve any intended effect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In a brutal way, this is evolution at work.  You either adapt/change to your environment or die. As a modern society we have safe guards to make the death part unlikely, but the point is still valid.

 

If nothing ever changed we wouldn't be here today. Just because a society/segment of the population doesn't like it or it seems harsh, doesn't make it less true.

 

If all the coal was gone from the planet tomorrow, would the planet care? No. You adapt to the change or you die. It's how evolution works.

 

Sometimes things have to change and there are casualties along the way of the ill-prepared, or the unable to adapt.

 

In the grand scheme of things, if you have to sacrifice a few to save the many you do it. It's a necessary evil for the betterment of society.

But you're killing it with no intended effect. You're killing it just to kill it. Killing the coal industry in the U.S, will have absolutely zero effect on global warming, so why are you doing it? According to you, you're sacrificing them for the greater good. But the problem with your argument is that no greater good could possibly be achieved. So in reality, you're going to kill the coal industry in order to make yourself feel better about things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...