Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
The denial industry
    #6076926 - 09/19/06 04:06 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The denial industry

The oil giant ExxonMobil gives money to scores of organisations that claim the science on global warming is inconclusive - which it isn't. It's a strategy that has set back action on climate change by a decade, and it involves the same people who insist that passive smoking is harmless.

ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".
Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: Alex213]
    #6077963 - 09/19/06 12:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I really get angry at the environmentalist allegations in the "Global Warming" debate, because, IMHO they really do employ junk science. Let me explain what I mean.

It's no secret that most of the studying I do is in the area of economics. It's very hard for most economists to get their work taken seriously, specifically because no one is ever comfortable with assertions that human behavior can be quantified and predicted.

As a result, economists usually have to provide evidence above and beyond the "hard" sciences to prove causality in their studies, as opposed to simple correlation. As a result, most of the research I read, be it books, papers, or articles, dedicates a significant amount of the paper to showing not just statistical correlation, but also providing mathematical arguments in favor of causality, whether it be through the use of instrument variables, panel data, "differences in differences" arguments, etc.

Similarly, the peer-reviewers usually focus their attacks on this part of the paper, knowing that it will always be the most controversial, academic debate in economics is constantly centered around "is this causality or just correlation?" asked over and over again.

Meanwhile, environmental researchers in favor of human-generated global warming theories usually skip this whole argument. They tend to show a positive trend in global temperatures and a positive trend in CO2, and then conclude that humans are causing global temperature change.

The entire consideration that correlation does not necessarily mean causation doesn't usually make it into most climate research papers.

I know that might be standard in geophysical sciences research, but given my background, I'm programmed to ask "Is this causation or just correlation?" whenever I read an academic paper, and surprisingly enough, there are very few answers provided in climate research.

In fact, when National Geographic surveyed Global Warming research this past year (I think it was in February, but I don't have the magazine infront of me right now, I'll try to dig it out later) they conceded that most models of human impact cannot account for the entirety of the observed climate change: some amount of climate change must have occured naturally.

Furthermore, (this is from the National Geographic website) there's evidence in Greenland's icecore samples that rapid climmate change has occured naturally in the past. They recorded one 10-year period where temperatures increased by *15* degrees F. Icecore samples from previous warming periods, notably at the end of iceages, also record the climate beginning to warm *before* CO2 levels began to increase, which suggests that there are at least some natural warming processes that are not linked to CO2 emissions at all.

This is not to say that human emissions have no effect: the point is, I just don't know how big an effect, and the available research doesn't help much. Because of the over-emphasis on correlation and not causality, it's nearly impossible to determine what the best path to take is.

What if we take drastic steps, massively reduce CO2 emissions, and cripple our economies in the process, only to learn that we were caught in the midst of a larger, ultimately more damaging, natural process. Even if you don't buy into the Exxon-funded research, there's no question that the Kyoto Protocols will have a negative impact on world economies. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has admitted that even optimistic studies show a decrease in economic growth of at least 1%, possibly 2% (compared with the Exxon--funded study claims in excess of 3%, all these numbers were taken from this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4415818.stm )

It's also notable that a decrease in growth of 1% is non-trivial given that most developed economies only increase by 2-5% annually anyway.

So, for me at least, it's important to ask hard questions of climate research before taking potentially damaging steps. Clearly the climate is changing, but we need to be sure *why* it is changing before we talk about the best way to solve it.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6078017 - 09/19/06 12:52 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

So, for me at least, it's important to ask hard questions of climate research before taking potentially damaging steps. Clearly the climate is changing, but we need to be sure *why* it is changing before we talk about the best way to solve it.

That's a load of garbage, if I ever saw one.

The evidence for a human cause of climate change is inexcusable. While we certainly are not responsible for all of it, we are responsible for some. As long as we are responsible for some of it, we can have an effect on it if we try.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: trendal]
    #6078050 - 09/19/06 01:05 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
That's a load of garbage, if I ever saw one.

The evidence for a human cause of climate change is inexcusable. While we certainly are not responsible for all of it, we are responsible for some. As long as we are responsible for some of it, we can have an effect on it if we try.



But what if we're not even responsible for the vast majority of it?

Isn't it more important to study how much we can or cannot stop first?

What if we completely cut off CO2 emissions only to find out that massive flooding is going to take place no matter what. Shouldn't we start preparing for that sort of thing now, rather than later? Isn't it delusional to cut off CO2 emissions and then tell ourselves we've "made it all better"?

More importantly, if it turns out drastic climate change is going to happen whether we cut emissions or not, why should we cause joblessness and impoverishment by setting artificial emissions goals which ultimately will not have a significant impact of total climate change?

If the icecaps are going to melt no matter what, why should we damage the economy needlessly?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6078095 - 09/19/06 01:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Are you saying that humans haven't had any effect at all on CO2 levels? Go ahead and say it if you are, so I can stop arguing with a person who is obviously losing it :smirk:

The research has already been done, and most climate scientists are in agreement on the results.

How much research needs to be done before you agree?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinenakors_junk_bag
Lobster Bisque
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/23/04
Posts: 2,415
Loc: ethereality
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
Re: The denial industry [Re: trendal]
    #6078205 - 09/19/06 02:02 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Ah, it seems to me that the climate changes in cycles. There is no irrefutable proof that humans in their relatively short existence, let alone the existence of technology has altered things so drastically.

I mean a hundred years ago, the last the time the summers of America knew such intense heat waves, and "severe" weather no one was crying that the sky was falling.

I don't mean to say global warming isn't a real phenomenon, I do mean to say it may be one that can't attributed to the advent of intelligent man. There are so many factors. Radiation from the sun which has been at all time records highs.

Also its true, the earths poles are stockading, which scientist believe happen every x amount of years, causing the radiation field that protects our earth's ozone from the damaging rays of the sun's nuclear energies to weaken until such times as the poles have reached the terminus of their journeys.

Global warming and global freezing have been happening since the dawning of the ages.
It would be foolish to take actions against this thing until we further understand it, for to do so may put into motion a chain reaction far worse. We simply need more information. I mean who is to say, yet.


--------------------
Asshole

Edited by nakors_junk_bag (09/19/06 02:33 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: trendal]
    #6078314 - 09/19/06 02:28 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

trendal said:
Are you saying that humans haven't had any effect at all on CO2 levels? Go ahead and say it if you are, so I can stop arguing with a person who is obviously losing it

The research has already been done, and most climate scientists are in agreement on the results.



Where did I say that humans haven't had any effect on CO2 levels?

The question I want answered is: How big an effect do the current CO2 levels play in the climate change we are currently undergoing? I was causality, not correlation. You can point to increasing CO2 levels and you can point to increasing temperatures, and I would agree that they seem to be, at the very least, weakly correlated over the past century. But I want to know if the one is definitively causing the other.

As I stated in my above post, climatologists have also shown instances in the fossil record when temperatures have changed as much or more as they are now, and have changed as fast or faster than they are now, and in some of these cases there wasn't even an associated change in CO2 levels!

In fact, on a geological scale, the Earth's temperature has been INCREDIBLY low for the past 2 million years or so. (This graph is pretty rough, but gives a good idea: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts , a better graph is available in the front of A Brief History of the Human Race by Michael Cook)

If we're caught in a natural cycle of increasing temperature, frankly we can cut our CO2 emissions to nothing, and the aggregate impact will be negligible.
Furthermore, ass National Geographic reports here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
we know that temperatures have risen 1 degree F over the past century, but we know from the fossil record that on at least once occassion, temperatures rose by 15 degrees F in just 10 years. If we are caught in a similar natural cycle, any human impact on global warming will be a mere drop in the bucket.

The point is, we don't know.

In their rush to prove global warming, climatologists have repeatedly taken correlation to mean causation. Just because CO2 is increasing while temperatures are increasing DOES NOT mean the two are significantly related. For all we currently know, of the 1 degree F that temperatures have increased, human CO2 emissions are responsible for 1/10th of the recorded increase.

Quote:

trendal said:
How much research needs to be done before you agree?



I was clear in my first post in this thread: I want proof of causation.

I want to see research proving that the increases in CO2 during the past century are responsible for all, a majority, or at the very least, a significant amount of the temperature changes also recorded in the last century.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibletrendalM
J♠
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/17/01
Posts: 20,815
Loc: Ontario, Canada
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6078564 - 09/19/06 03:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Take a look at this graph:



Still don't think CO2 levels have an effect on temperature? :smirk:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: trendal]
    #6078829 - 09/19/06 04:49 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Again, correlation DOES NOT mean causality.

I agree that CO2 and temperature are correlated, I have never said otherwise.

However, that does not mean that the one caused the other.

If I was to create a graph that charted Christmas Cards sent vs. Occurances of Christmas, it would look very similar to the graph you just posted. However, that would not mean that Christmas Cards cause Christmas, no matter how correlated they are, sending a shitload of Christmas Cards in April will not suddenly result in Christmas.

Or, how about this example: if I was to chart car ownership across countries next to life expectancy across the same countries, it would appear at first glance that owning a car suddenly makes you live longer. We know this is clearly not the case, and that even though life expectancy and car ownership may be correlated, there is certainly no causal relationship.

Looking at the graph you posted, I would still ask questions. Like, why did the current temperature spike appear to crest already if there has been no let up in CO2 pravailance? Or why does the same differential in CO2 not consistantly cause the same differential in temperature?

There is definitely a correlation between CO2 and temperature, I have NEVER said otherwise.

However, I need climatologists to prove that the one definitively causes the other, and that has not been done.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleAlex213
Stranger
Registered: 08/22/05
Posts: 1,839
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6081265 - 09/20/06 04:25 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

The trouble is which "scientists" are denying the consensus? It seems to be pretty much exclusively those funded by Exxon.

Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".

The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".

In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.


http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
Re: The denial industry [Re: trendal]
    #6081350 - 09/20/06 06:46 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

> I really get angry at the environmentalist allegations in the "Global Warming" debate, because, IMHO they really do employ junk science.

Junk science to the nth...

> we can have an effect on it if we try.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Are we fixing something that we don't understand that isn't really a problem? What happens when our plans to fix something based upon assumptions go wrong making the problems worse rather than better? If my car starts to make odd noises, I don't simply start replacing parts hoping I fix it. Instead, I analyze the problem and test my hypothesis as to what is wrong until I figure out the problem. Only then do I spend money on parts to fix the machine.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't be conservative with the planet, that we shouldn't try to reduce pollution and emissions, that we shouldn't try to live clean and healthy lives. Rather, I am saying that to scare people into changing their lives based upon junk science is wrong. It doesn't matter how noble the cause is, feeding people junk science is wrong, period.

> Are you saying that humans haven't had any effect at all on CO2 levels?

Not at all. I am saying that there is no proof that the CO2 levels are causing an abnormal increase in global temperatures. One year it is CO2, the next it is ozone, the next it is is water vapor, the next it is something else... I'm not claiming that there isn't a causal relationship, but please, show me proof before you expect me to buy into it.

> Still don't think CO2 levels have an effect on temperature?

The graph tells me nothing except that both CO2 levels and temperature seem to rise and fall together. There could be a third factor that is driving both CO2 levels and temperatures.

For example, off the top of my head, lets say the planet core is warming and cooling on the cycle shown in the graph. As the core gets warmer, the CO2 that is at the bottom of the ocean, warms and starts to rise. The CO2 increases first, as it is closer to the source of warming, followed by an increase in air temperature.

I don't me for the above to be debated for validity. I am only using it as a simple example that we have to be careful making assumptions about the data we see. It is much to easy to fit the data to what we want to prove...

> The trouble is which "scientists" are denying the consensus?

The trouble is that people don't understand "science". Lets use another field as an example, something most people can understand... something like accountants... everybody knows one of these.

Go to any accountant you can find, and ask them one simple question. "If you were working as an accountant for a large company, and the president of that company came to you and asked you to fudge the numbers so that the company performance would look better to investors, would you? If not, why not?"

Their answer will apply to scientists for the exact same reason. (I won't spoil the fun. Give it a try and see what answers you get.)

Quote:

In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".




So the global warming crowd is trying to remove funding from any scientist that is working on research that refutes the global warming crowds position... and then they have the gall to spin it such that it appears that they are trying to keep outside influence away from the science... oh, the irony.

I love the double standard... if you get grant money from environmental groups, then the science is sound, but if you get money from energy groups, then the science is flawed... oh, the irony.



Wow, Economist, I am impressed. Reading your posts in this tread, for me, feels like deja vu. We certainly have identical opinions on this subject.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineodrorir
Stranger

Registered: 09/09/06
Posts: 5
Last seen: 17 years, 7 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: Alex213]
    #6089745 - 09/22/06 10:26 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I love this correlation not causation arguement.

Do you understand why there are other methods employed in research besides experiments? It is because you cannot always isolate all the variables present. There is no way to determine 100% causation without builiding a miniture universe where we can control every vairable but one, by no means possible with today's technology.

So I guess you propose we just wait until either we all die due to climate changes or the cycle turns? It is obvious this is the only time in history that humans have polluted the atmosphere, and there is a strong correlation in pollutants and global warming. This alone should be enough to cause some kind of action.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 13 years, 1 month
Re: The denial industry [Re: odrorir]
    #6089776 - 09/22/06 10:43 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I know one Fact! The Sun is around 6 billion years into a 10 billion year lifespan and the Earth is cooling. I guarantee that in 4 billion years we'll all be DEAD.


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: odrorir]
    #6090107 - 09/22/06 12:26 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

odrorir said:
Do you understand why there are other methods employed in research besides experiments? It is because you cannot always isolate all the variables present. There is no way to determine 100% causation without builiding a miniture universe where we can control every vairable but one, by no means possible with today's technology.



But I wouldn't need 100% causation. Frankly I'd be happy with 10-20% (as determined by controlled regressions).

There are dozens of mathematical solutions to proving causation. They could try and employ an instrument variable, they seem to have enough geological evidence to run a "differences-in-differences" regression (in fact, I can't seem to understand why they won't), And, as I already stated, if they could put together some competing theories and run a controlled multi-variate regression, that would at least give an estimate.

Unfortunately, climatologists do none of these things. They report CO2, they report temperatures, sometimes they run a standard regression to prove correlation, and that's it. They call it a day. Thus, I can't help but wonder why they don't employ any of the standard methods for proving causation. None of them are anywhere near as complicated as "building a model of the universe," most just involve mathematic manipulation of data that they seem to suggest they can already collect (for example, with access to currently reported findings it shouldn't be too difficult to run time-series panel data on ice core sample records).

But the point is, they don't do that, and I can't figure out why, except to say that until they do, the pro-global-warming camp really is employing junk science.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: The denial industry [Re: odrorir]
    #6090668 - 09/22/06 03:18 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

It is obvious this is the only time in history that humans have polluted the atmosphere




Set global warming aside for a moment. My question to some people is, why is the fact alone, that we are creating pollution, not enough to want to turn it around?

Even if the globe wasn't warming, why wouldn't we still want to turn it around?

And the person who argues that creating pollution is good for  creating corporate profits, I mean "jobs", I want to ask them to run their own scientific experiment.

Step 1. Turn your car on in an open area.
Step 2. Place your face about a foot away from the exhaust pipe.
Step 3. Breath in the exhaust for ten minutes.
Step 4. Hopefully, you are still conscious enough to report the results of this experiment to the rest of us.

The trees and plants are only cleaning up the polluted air so fast and the trees are coming down without being replaced at some disturbing rates.

We'll still be okay in our life time, but we would go down as the generation that fucked up the planet for it's future, if we don't move towards bio fuels.

Hey, did any of you catch on CNN last night that Richard Branson is donating 6 billion and his name in the media to help bring clean burning bio fuels to the world and get us off of dirty fuels for good?

Granted, his planes and trains are not helping, he knows that, so he said he will be using ALL of the profits from those two aspects of his business to put towards the cause of getting everything running on clean fuel.

He did say that his 6 billion is rather small compared to the oil money that will be putting up opposition to his efforts, but he is going for it anyway. (Exxon makes that in 6 days according to someone here in this post. :crazy:)

Branson's accomplished a lot in his time and is a guy who can make things happen. He's also good at getting media publicity. This is good news to have him move in on the cause for bio fuels for anyone who supports the cause.

Global warming is back on the table. Say it is part of a natural planetary cycle, (my dad argues that it is the result of the planet still coming out of the last Ice Age), should it not still be a concern on some level, like developed land that will become submerged how much and over what time period and how will seasonal cycles change effecting food crops for example?

Science does know the cause of pollution in general and can be working more agressively on that now.

Science does know the planet is warming and can be working on trouble shooting for the future, now.

Science does know, the world has limited oil supplies and can be working on alternative fuel sources more aggressively now.

Jobs within the air polluting oil drilling/guzzling industry,  will just get shifted over to jobs in the biofuel industry.

Sure there may be some growing pains, and that's a part of growth and progress. Will I cry for oil barrons and oil companies loosing out on billions in profits a year? No. They should have plenty enough in the mind boggling wealths they have amassed to live well on and be able to re-invest their wealth into bio fuels anyway.

Oh and if anyone is going to disagree against biofuels with ad hominems, then , please huff off of your autos exhaust pipe with your garage door shut first. :smirk: Juuuuuuuust kidding. :smile:

Diasgree with kissing dependency on oil goodbye all anyone wants. The global switch will happen soon enough because there are enough people with power and influence who care to help the people help themselves without it who care.

Brazil has been running 80-90% of its cars now on bio fuels made from sugar cane production for the last ten years. A friend who lived there at the time said, they just marched out into the streets , had an uprising and demanded it and they got it. She said it was awesome.

How is it that Brazil is ahead of the U.S. on this? It's embarrassing, really. 

And really, I don't want anyone to huff off of an exhaust pipe.  Switching over to clean burning bio fuels is about more then global warming or clean air, it's also about getting off our dependency on oil, which the world only has so much of anyway before we run out.

Support it for that reason at least. The U.S. doesnt drill enough to support its needs. if a war breaks out that blocks oil imports into the U.S. we are screwed. Had we already set ourselves up like Brazil, we wouldn't have to worry about that. We have plenty of land for growing corn. (thats what Branson wants to use, the waste after the cobs have been harvested.)


:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole

Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6091262 - 09/22/06 06:53 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Every single organism creates pollution. We exist because the first organisms polluted the planet with oxygen, which was nothing more than a trace element in the primordial atmosphere. That being said, we are so enormously successful that we have an impact beyond normative levels that would be associated with our biomass. Nonetheless, it is not the least bit close to a threat except in isolated sections. One volcano will out-pollute a decade's worth of human activity.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 7 years, 12 days
Re: The denial industry [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6091394 - 09/22/06 07:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
Every single organism creates pollution. We exist because the first organisms polluted the planet with oxygen, which was nothing more than a trace element in the primordial atmosphere. That being said, we are so enormously successful that we have an impact beyond normative levels that would be associated with our biomass. Nonetheless, it is not the least bit close to a threat except in isolated sections. One volcano will out-pollute a decade's worth of human activity.




Excellent point, As far as carbon dioxide emission the damage has already been done and cutting emissions or exhaust is fruitless, more concern must be established on habitat destruction, The natural beauty of earth is being destroyed at a massive rate even in our own country, runoff from housing and clear cutting has polluted local stream waters and chokes out aquatic life which makes drinkable water scarce.

When i worked at a Photolab i saw employees dump silver nitrate intot he sink,entire buckets of silver nitrate, a drop of silver nitrate could clear out a septic tank. Its careless behavior like that, it pisses me off.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: The denial industry [Re: zappaisgod]
    #6091484 - 09/22/06 08:20 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

True,  We are yet far off from making the air unbreathable on our own. (Still no excuse to push it though)

There are more pressing reasons for switching over to alternative energy sources like, becoming independent from other volatile nations who supply oil to us, and because, it's going to run out eventually and it will take time to switch over systems and we shouldn't wait to do it after the wells dry up.

I was having fun with the huffing exhaust pipe stuff. It is nasty for people who live in big polluted cities though. It's nasty when I get off of the plane at O'Hare airport to visit family. Speaking of nasty, it is also nasty having to watch our government suck Arabias balls for their oil too. Having to pay big bucks for gasoline when supplies run short, is not preferable nor does it make sense for us to have to, like after Katrina, when we have so much land for growing renewable corn on.

Supposedly the government owns a lot of land in the U.S. reserved for farming and its not in use right now. Makes no sense that we are not using it to grow corn for reusable energy. Some of the land could be leased to the private sector looking to produce it.

It's my understanding people have tried and are trying now and they are getting threatened by Arabs. The Arabs say that if they try to launch their bio fuel corps, they will just drop the price of oil and cut them out of business before they can even get a running start.

I heard that Bush said he won't allow the Arabs to use that ploy, and will keep gas prices the same regardless so bio fuel start ups have a chance to compete with gas at least.

Ugggggg politics :lol: I'm working to understand it all better here by hearing other perspectives, getting feedback and asking questions. Thanks you all!

:peace: :heart:


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEconomist
in training
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 1,285
Last seen: 16 years, 8 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #6092197 - 09/22/06 11:58 PM (17 years, 7 months ago)

I just wanted to post my opinion on environmental matters, because it differs significantly from what the majority of people here seem to feel.

Personally, I don't value the environment. I know many people do, I don't. I also can't explain this. To me, it's akin to not enjoying a particular type of music, the environment has just never been that important to me. I've also been to areas with particularly bad air, notably LA and Mexico City, and it has honestly never bothered me. I can understand that it bothers some people, but it really has never mattered to me.

Meanwhile, what I do value are peoples dreams, visions and the hard work they are doing to achieve it. Again, I can't explain why this is, it's like enjoying one type of music and not another, there's nothing to it, you just like something more than something else.

To me, the environmentalist movement has been one of the greatest killers of dreams and destroyers of visions that America has ever seen.

When someone decides that the factory up the road is making the water a funny color, they usually don't think about what's going on at that factory. They don't know that the factory owner has decided to gamble on a brand new reactor type, or that that the researchers (most chemical factories, no matter how small, have a research team) are very close to a new polymer which will allow even more windows to survive the next hurricane. They don't think about the foreman who earned his position by constantly being on the lookout for improvements in efficiency, and finally worked up the nerve to take his proposal for a new type of valve to management. Nor do they think about the night-shift worker who's thankful he found a well-paying job that lets him take creative writing classes during the day.

Instead, they just think about the funny color the river turned, and they are quick to label the entire factory with one name: money-grubbers.

Then, they get together and pass laws to make the factory implement better standards, move locations, or even close down for good. And it's easy to vote for those laws, because it's neither your money nor your dreams that are on the line, just the river which you didn't even own to begin with.

It's always easy to spend other people's money and to tell other people they can't do what they want to do.

The environmental movement has decided that it's too troublesome and expensive to buy land that they want to protect, so they do the next best thing: they use a combination of the "tyranny of the majority" and police power to take it away.

Now, we're faced with a bigger issue, something the environmentalists tell us is a danger to everyone: Global Warming. This is more dangerous than anything that the dreamers and builders of America have ever faced before. No longer do the environmentalists want to take away one river here, one forest there, they want to demolish industry on a national level, no one will be spared.

Worse, they're using junk science and scare tactics to do it. They're filling our minds with nightmare scenarios and yet they can't even back them up with the most basic of scientific research tools (you can read my above posts to see what I'm talking about).

Now, none of this matters to many (probably most) of you, because you inherently care about the environment. It's a genre of music you like, and so when you hear that it's in danger, you're quick to react.

It's really not that much different from the tactics that President Bush has used to garner votes in the past. Paint nightmare scenarios, add in incomplete evidence, and tell the public not to worry because we have a volunteer army, so their lives won't be put in danger. Only in this case it's not the public's money, it's the "evil corporation's" so the public should rest easy, and follow the environmentalist's cause.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinedr0mni
My Own Messiah
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/21/04
Posts: 2,921
Loc: USF Tampa, Fl
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
Re: The denial industry [Re: Economist]
    #6092269 - 09/23/06 12:29 AM (17 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

... why should we damage the economy needlessly?




now this may be thinking outside the BOX a little bit... but maybe an economy based on some abstract concept like money, isn't as important as the preservation of ecosystems and quality of life.

Maybe our economy is on a suicide track, growing like a cancer rather than a stable, symbiotic organism. Perhaps the economy needs to be reformed into one based on localized distribution (less energy on shipping, and self-supporting communities), free energy technology (less energy than we use now, but we waste so much, we could easily survive on much less), and limited industry (by limited I mean, limits on waste products, and a selective focus of technology on communications, medicine/healthcare, sustainable agriculture, and space travel). Oh, and a restriction of technological development for military purposes.

We have the technology right now to do SO MUCH good! But we are wasting it on slaughter and decadence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Oil, Climate, and Terrorism EchoVortex 1,073 2 09/06/02 06:13 AM
by EchoVortex
* Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
( 1 2 3 4 ... 28 29 )
luvdemshrooms 39,602 570 05/03/08 12:51 PM
by geokills
* The last word on global warming
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Luddite 9,468 83 12/18/09 03:01 PM
by GI_Luvmoney
* Global warming: The Three degrees....
( 1 2 all )
Alex213 3,214 35 04/19/06 07:39 AM
by Alex213
* Last gasp of the global warming deniers
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
Alex213 12,589 136 02/09/07 12:34 PM
by gluke bastid
* More fantasies about global warming carbonhoots 998 17 11/01/03 02:44 PM
by d33p
* Global warming "past point of no return"
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
Alex213 3,608 85 09/23/05 12:06 PM
by MagicalMystery
* Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming
( 1 2 3 4 all )
GazzBut 5,279 67 10/12/04 11:56 AM
by Innvertigo

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,134 topic views. 2 members, 4 guests and 11 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.