Paper; Global Warming "The Biggest Science Scandal Ever"

[mittman]

Thats not happening. Its just paranoid scare tactics.

IMO This statement is every bit as wrong as saying that there is no evidence indicating it is happening. I think it is pretty obvious that the findings are being used for agendas that have some or all of these ends especially for the US.

I am less convinced that the majority of the scientific community are on board with those agendas. However, like I said earlier, this has become a cash cow. Anything that may make the funding appear unnecessary endangers the milk source.

 

[AUDub]

IMO This statement is every bit as wrong as saying that there is no evidence indicating it is happening. I think it is pretty obvious that the findings are being used for agendas that have some or all of these ends especially for the US.

I am less convinced that the majority of the scientific community are on board with those agendas. However, like I said earlier, this has become a cash cow. Anything that may make the funding appear unnecessary endangers the milk source.

Reminds me a lot of this:

Smoking Aloud

The ongoing anti-smoking campaign is not about public health, drug abuse, or teen smoking. What it is all about is money, control, and jurisdiction.

Luckily, that kind of stupidity has been marginalized, but it's parallels to the current climate debate are more than mere coincidence. One expert for hire has been involved in both campaigns.

Meet S. Fred Singer. He took money from Philip Morris through his think tank, SEPP, to rail against the dangers against second hand smoke.

 

[Tide1986]

Reminds me a lot of this:

Smoking Aloud



Luckily, that kind of stupidity has been marginalized, but it's parallels to the current climate debate are more than mere coincidence. One expert for hire has been involved in both campaigns.

Meet S. Fred Singer. He took money from Philip Morris through his think tank, SEPP, to rail against the dangers against second hand smoke.

Energy is a bit more ESSENTIAL than cigarettes.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Energy is a bit more ESSENTIAL than cigarettes.

I don't know why this would be lost on anyone...

 

[Bamaro]

I don't know why this would be lost on anyone...

Its not so who said otherwise and why was that statement even made?:conf2:

 

[AUDub]

Energy is a bit more ESSENTIAL than cigarettes.

I'm aware of that. They're structured very similarly, though. Pretty much all of the same dog whistles are represented.

I believe the whole debate regarding the science within political circles and especially the general public is contrived. Now, do I believe there are unscrupulous people on both sides seeking to benefit? Sure (one side far more than the other, but I digress).

I'm no climatologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a decent enough understanding of the science to realize that the kind of objections on forums like this one are generally pretty ridiculous.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Its not so who said otherwise and why was that statement even made?:conf2:

It's lost on anyone who likens this to the debate over cigarettes. Badly.

 

[Bamaro]

It's lost on anyone who likens this to the debate over cigarettes. Badly.

I doubt that

 

[Tide1986]

I'm aware of that. They're structured very similarly, though. Pretty much all of the same dog whistles are represented.

I believe the whole debate regarding the science within political circles and especially the general public is contrived. Now, do I believe there are unscrupulous people on both sides seeking to benefit? Sure (one side far more than the other, but I digress).

I'm no climatologist by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a decent enough understanding of the science to realize that the kind of objections on forums like this one are generally pretty ridiculous.

When you reference objections, what do you mean? Objections to the global warming findings? Objections to the alternatives to fossil fuels? Something else? All of the above?

 

[crimson fan man]

I don't think that nobody is against cleaning up the air or anything like it. It all comes down to most people just don't trust the government. I know for one thing I don't. Even if it was a crisis the government would just mess it up by putting a lot pork in any bill to fix it. We as a nation is screwed no matter what happens.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I doubt that

Of course you do.

You don't get to have this thing both ways. You don't get America's wealth, standard of living, prosperity, all of that, without fossil fuels. Disrupting that process, right now with no suitable alternative, and you jeopardize all of that. Seriously. So comparing all of this to the whole debate over cigarettes is rather ludicrous.

 

[AUDub]

It's lost on anyone who likens this to the debate over cigarettes. Badly.

Why is that? Both deal with denialism of well researched and widely accepted science within their respective communities. They had a lot in common.

If that comparison bothers you, how about a comparison regarding the gasoline additive tetra-ethyl lead?

In 1921, after a long string of inadequate solutions, a clever but chronically catastrophic chemist named Thomas Midgley developed a fuel additive which eliminated ping problems while increasing fuel efficiency. Though the chemical agent eventually gained worldwide acceptance, it left a rash of psychosis, a trail of bodies, an epidemic of crime, and an irreparably damaged environment in its wake.

 

[AUDub]

When you reference objections, what do you mean? Objections to the global warming findings? Objections to the alternatives to fossil fuels? Something else? All of the above?

Generally the long since debunked objections with the findings are what bothers me the most

 

[TideEngineer08]

Why is that? Both deal with denialism of well researched and widely accepted science within their respective communities. They had a lot in common.

If that comparison bothers you, how about a comparison regarding the gasoline additive tetra-ethyl lead?

The comparison bothers me, not because of the science involved, but because of the political suggestions at correcting the issue. Warning the public that hey, you're going to get lung cancer and die unless you quit smoking is on a completely difference scale than saying we've got to quit using fossil fuels for energy (and literally EVERYTHING else that makes our economy run).

It's just not possible without massively disrupting everything and frankly killing us anyway.

I don't know enough to state whether or not the science is "right." I have opinions, but I've gotten to the point I try to keep them to myself. But on what the supposed solutions will do? That doesn't take an advanced degree to discern. That's all I'm talking about.

 

[AUDub]

The comparison bothers me, not because of the science involved, but because of the political suggestions at correcting the issue. Warning the public that hey, you're going to get lung cancer and die unless you quit smoking is on a completely difference scale than saying we've got to quit using fossil fuels for energy (and literally EVERYTHING else that makes our economy run).

It's just not possible without massively disrupting everything and frankly killing us anyway.

I don't know enough to state whether or not the science is "right." I have opinions, but I've gotten to the point I try to keep them to myself. But on what the supposed solutions will do? That doesn't take an advanced degree to discern. That's all I'm talking about.

Oh, I see. You've set up a nice little strawman in my place.

I'm not suggesting we quit using fossil fuels. That's not plausible at this time. We do need to make some major efficiency improvements until something better (hopefully) comes along.

 

[TideEngineer08]

Oh, I see. You've set up a nice little strawman in my place.

I'm not suggesting we quit using fossil fuels. That's not plausible at this time. We do need to make some major efficiency improvements until something better (hopefully) comes along.

You're not suggesting it, but many do. What other solution could there possibly be?

Anyway, that was a fascinating article about lead. I see the parallels, but I could also make the parallels work in the other direction. I'm talking about an incompetent government propping up something that was bad for society.

 

[AUDub]

You're not suggesting it, but many do.

Not too many. To the extent that it exists, it's an extremist position not really worthy of consideration.

EDIT: But we should find ways within reason to minimize their use, and the eventual goal should be to end our dependence on them.

What other solution could there possibly be?

Efficiency improvements to the best of our abilities. We waste a metric crap ton of energy as it is.

Moves toward cleaner energy like nuclear, which is actually very safe. Hopefully advancements torward newer, cleaner energy production means. I've mentioned Lockheed-Martin's supposed fusion breakthrough. Hope they're not blowing smoke up our butts.

Anyway, that was a fascinating article about lead. I see the parallels, but I could also make the parallels work in the other direction. I'm talking about an incompetent government propping up something that was bad for society.

It is an excellent article. I'd recommend bookmarking the site. They have some very interesting stuff on there.

Anyway, on the government aspect, I certainly agree. There were deeply entrenched special interests in government that hindered any sort of progress, and that is still the case today.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Audub, you are right. It's impossible to make a good case to someone whose mind is made up already. I don't feel bad about that. It is what it is. You have your arguments and counter arguments neatly lined up and citations organized (probably by category). I get it. You are obsessed. Ok. I'm sure you know better than the scientists who were there.

 

[OreBama]

Speaking of nuclear energy, I watched a documentary a few weeks ago called "Pandora's Promise" that addresses the safety issues of nuclear power. It's quite safe and I've been a proponent of it for many years. If we're serious about carbon emissions for whatever reason, and there are many good reasons, nuclear power is the way to go. And, no, I am not Montgomery Burns.

 

[AUDub]

Speaking of nuclear energy, I watched a documentary a few weeks ago called "Pandora's Promise" that addresses the safety issues of nuclear power. It's quite safe and I've been a proponent of it for many years. If we're serious about carbon emissions for whatever reason, and there are many good reasons, nuclear power is the way to go. And, no, I am not Montgomery Burns.

Exactly right. Just to further support your stance on this: