| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 08/22/05 Posts: 1,839 |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
J♠ Registered: 04/17/01 Posts: 20,815 Loc: Ontario, Canada |
| ||||||
|
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. -------------------- But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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?
| |||||||
|
J♠ Registered: 04/17/01 Posts: 20,815 Loc: Ontario, Canada |
| ||||||
|
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. How much research needs to be done before you agree? -------------------- But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
| |||||||
|
Lobster Bisque Registered: 11/23/04 Posts: 2,415 Loc: ethereality Last seen: 16 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
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)
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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: 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.
| |||||||
|
J♠ Registered: 04/17/01 Posts: 20,815 Loc: Ontario, Canada |
| ||||||
|
Take a look at this graph:
Still don't think CO2 levels have an effect on temperature?
-------------------- But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 08/22/05 Posts: 1,839 |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
Error: divide byzero Registered: 04/27/01 Posts: 23,480 Loc: Caribbean Last seen: 3 months, 8 days |
| ||||||
|
> 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: 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.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 09/09/06 Posts: 5 Last seen: 17 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
Live to party,work to affordit. Registered: 10/03/04 Posts: 8,978 Loc: South Texas Last seen: 13 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
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
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
Quote: 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. )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. Juuuuuuuust kidding. 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.)
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
Exposer of Truth Registered: 08/13/03 Posts: 13,673 Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Last seen: 7 years, 12 days |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
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 I'm working to understand it all better here by hearing other perspectives, getting feedback and asking questions. Thanks you all!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
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.
| |||||||
|
My Own Messiah Registered: 08/21/04 Posts: 2,921 Loc: USF Tampa, Fl Last seen: 16 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
Quote: 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.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: But isn't this inherently a judgement call? The environment matters to you, so to you saving it is a "good". But that's your choice. It doesn't matter to me as much as other things do. What you call decadence, I call medical research, creative expression, and entrepreneuship. But that's my judgement, not yours. This isn't something we're going to agree on, I'm just asking you to see the other side.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
Hey, that was a very thoughtful post on sharing more of your personal views on things. It really helps when people do that to understand and respect radical differences better.
I very much value this too, probably second to life itself- Quote: I live to make dreams come and its the best feeling there is. See my sig ![]() Sometimes, eco, the individual dreams of humans and what they work hard at to accomplish as individuals do come into conflict with each other. What do we do about it. Work with this mock example and I'll run with your corporate polluted river one. One may dream of their child one day playing in a certain river they grew up playing in. They may work hard at maintaining their childhood home they inherited and at setting themselves up financially before they feel responsible enough to start raising a family of their own there. And then, they take their child down to that river, years later, only to find, all sorts of toxic scum and dead fish in it it, because that was the side effect of someone else's working hard at making their dreams of becoming CEO of a company they are dedicated by developing more efficient production and cost cuts. The family protests and demands a clean up act. Two dreams have collided and are in conflict. Now what? Who's dream is more important? Power struggles usually result. I think given time, humans will become better able at seeking understanding and compromise and I really do believe we will be working in more co-operative and synchronized levels as we evolve further. On a personal note, I have concerns greater then the environment at this time, like how children are being raised and the public education system. Where my environmental concerns are the strongest right now are with the Oceans actually. Studying economics, you understand the trickle down effect. The natural world sustains our life and if we mess with it too much, we won't be alive to be able to make dreams come true here any more. It does have to fit somewhere in our value list if even at the bottom. If even if it doesn;t make your list at all, can you understand why it is on other peoples list and maybe even appreciate they are looking out for what sustains our life for you? Maybe others do appreciate some of the things you value very much so as well. We are all obviously appreciating technological advancements or we wouldn;t be typing on the internet. We are all also appreciating the benefits of our capitalistic society as well as corporate innovations in the market place that allow for us to own computers and internet access. Even if they never stop to consider how much of what in their lives they use and enjoy that comes from corporate capitalism, the material drives of others, and scientific innovations they obviously do. We all have our roles to play that keep the whole ship moving forward. I think when people get "testy", its because they are feeling the planet progressing out of balance based on their sense of balance. There's definitely a give and take at play and some people feel that others take more then they give, based on their personal values. Balance is key and I think all of the pushing and pulling in the world is all about our individual sense of trying to keep the balance and equilibrium as stable as possible. Actually, if you look around it's more like shoving and Jerk yanking each other around. Maybe with more open communication and understanding it will mellow out to just gentle nudging for compromises to be made and for everyone to get what they want and we learn how to work together to create win wins for all. That'll take time and continued maturing as a race of intelligent beings. Our future survival will depend on it. Here's somethings I'll put forward that is of great interest or concern for many I could care less about- competitive sports, archeology, and geneology to name a few. They are all probably important in the bigger sceheme of things and perhaps I should better work to appreciate others hard work, interest and efforts in those areas. If you feel about the ecological environment the way I feel about those things, then, I can totally relate to that feeling at least. ![]()
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
Stranger Registered: 05/29/06 Posts: 540 Loc: North America Last seen: 16 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Simple. One dream is causing harm one isn't. Polluting a river not only potentially harms people, but it harms the local wildlife that reside there. We have no right as humans to extinguish life on this planet and if nothing can survive us then we are the worst beings to ever live here. I serious hope I am not part of such a species, I am already ashamed enough at the sheer level if ignorance and apathy, I would not prefer to add global genocide to the list. A man can be a CEO without dumping stuff in a river, a child cannot play in toxic water. One dream harms, one dream doesn't, if your harming others to make your dreams come true then you don't deserve to dream. -------------------- "Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson "Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa
| |||||||
|
horrid asshole Registered: 02/11/04 Posts: 81,741 Loc: Fractallife's gy Last seen: 7 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Here's an interesting example of one environmentalist's dream causing harm. Rachel Carson, on the basis of junk science, decried DDT as the cause of eagle eggs breaking. There was such an outcry among the nitwittery that DDT was banned worldwide. Subsequently, millions of people died from malaria. Millions and millions. Then we have the idiot class screaming about geneticly engineered rice. Millions are fed that otherwise wouldn't be. But there is a screaming class nonetheless. Different dreams. Cars, computers, refrigerators, etc. all come at a cost. We are currently at such an astonishing level of effectiveness as a species that it may well be unparalleled in the entire universe. We have no evidence to the contrary. There is no reason to believe that we cannot achieve whatever is necessary to continue that success. I do not support the river dumping absolute that you cite. They should be forced to clean that up. But that does not obligate me to embrace the overweening absolutism of the Greenpeace fools, either.
| |||||||
|
My Own Messiah Registered: 08/21/04 Posts: 2,921 Loc: USF Tampa, Fl Last seen: 16 years, 11 months |
| ||||||
|
Economist, I'm a all for medical research, entreprenuership, and creative expression. What I'm against is SOV's (Singularly Occupied Vehicles), Waste-Consumption economics, forced dependence on transportation industry, and the destruction of self-sufficient communities.
the current system DENIES creativity, restricts beneficial technology (like medicine, perma-culture, and Free Energy) for profits sake, and systematically suppresses environmental movements. I'm not asking you to join Greenpeace and get run over by whaling boats. But until we can create self-sustainable, artificial ecosystem, we are dependent upon the earths ecosystems for survivial. We are only begining to glean the complex relationships between forests, weather systems, rainfall, etc, and our own activitites. If we destroy our support system then there is no hope for anyone. That's why I said "Limited Industry" should be limited to medical, communications, free energy, and space technology, etc. These areas promote human survival and harmony. Industries which destroy the environment and human life include Military/Defense/weapons technologies, mass production of chemicals, the oil industry, advertising and public relations firms, food additive companies, junk food companies, agri-corp, etc. I see the other side. I see the wonderful benefits that capitalism and technology have for humanity, but you must admit to see the other side. The side which represses labor movements for profit, destroys the enviroment, and suspends all aspects of moral conduct for the sake of "the well being of the economy". I'm not picking sides, I'm trying to take a holistic approach to all of this.
| |||||||
|
jiggy Registered: 07/20/04 Posts: 7,469 Loc: Heart of Laughte |
| ||||||
|
Nice way to elucidate the balance being called for by some here.
I think most don't want to see the preservation of one sides values come at the cost of the other. What they want to see is more working together to maintain a mutual appreciation of both values. With a little compromise and co-operation, sense of responsibility, less stubborn extremism on both sides, and some forethought with better planning, we can maintain positive growth on both sides and all enjoy the fruits of both the nature made and man made. Because some people can't do that explains why we have the extremes fighting against each other instead of working with each other to come to mutually benefical agreements, where no one has to loose anything of great value to them and everyone can win much of what they want.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I guess the biggest problem I have is that I feel capitalism is far more tolerant of environmentalism than the other way around.
If you want to buy land and leave it un-developed, protect it, and allow wildlife to run its course, the capitalist camp (for the most part) won't stop you. They won't try to pass laws that forcibly develop your land, or threaten you with fines and jail terms if you leave it fallow. However, the environmentalist camp tries to reach out and effect land they don't own. They force companies to pay fines and even threaten with jail terms, for polluting land that they own. It doesn't bother me as much when there is a demostrable damage done to bystanders or damage done outside the private property. It does bother me when attempts are made (as they are in the case of Global Warming) to regulate companies when there isn't quanitfiable damage being done. This is especially important because CO2 isn't toxic to humans and there are severe problems with the research done on Global Warming (see my previous posts in this thread for those arguments). Finally, I understand the point you are making Dr. Omni, but I find it very hard to believe because of a lack of empirical evidence. We have been "destroying" the ecosystem for tens of thousands of years. Most of the fossil record suggests humans hunted wooly mammoths to extinction. In Britain, wolves were hunted to extinction in the dark ages. And yet there has been no massive collapse of ecology, even on local levels. I just find it hard to accept the idea that there's going to be some massive collapse in the future, when we can't even find small-scale collapses in the past. Even in cases of soil-nutrient shortages, there have always been easily found solutions, either natural or engineered, and it has never resulted in a general lack of habitability.
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: The problem with capitalists is that you think your right to own land is sacred, when in fact, we all belong to the earth. The way you use a particular piece of land affects others. In fact, simply owning land affects others, because you use up a finite piece of the earth which you had no part in creating, nor did its original owner. You don't honestly believe that a piece of land becomes disconnected from the rest of the environment just because it's owned by someone, do you? And surely you can't believe that the smog generated on a piece of property stays within that property. We are all part of a greater being called Gaia. When any part of her is out of balance, she becomes sick, and the parts that make her up suffer along with her. She does have a strong immune system, but it can only heal so much. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Semper Fidelis Registered: 01/11/05 Posts: 7,782 Loc: Harmless (Mostly) Last seen: 43 minutes, 35 seconds |
| ||||||
|
We should all roam were we please......why are there fences?
-------------------- “I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: Fences can create a private space, which can actually encourage neighborliness in some sense. Having a piece of land for private use is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but to think that you have a sacred right to use that piece of land any way you want is to ignore the interconnectedness of life and act as though we are superior to the earth itself. --------------------
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: So the problem with my sacred belief is that it doesn't agree with your sacred belief? ![]() I'm not saying capitalists are definitively right, we may not be, but what we believe in is no less "right" than what you believe in. The major difference is that the capitalist belief structure does not require you to do anything, whereas your belief structure demands quite a bit from the capitalists.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
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.
This is just nonsense. There have been hundreds of studies showing the correlation between carbon levels in the atmosphere and temperature are statistically significant. I want proof of causation. Science 101: Even when the experimental variable can be controlled and manipulated, CAUSALITY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OR DEMONSTRATE! If you want causality, you're never going to get it.
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Did I claim otherwise? I definitely agree that they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other. Quote: You need to take some better science classes. Here are some examples of mathematical ways to prove causation: Use an Instrument Variable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ins Collate Data and do Panel Analysis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan Even Multiple Linear Regression could be used ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mul I'm not looking for "iron clad proof" I'm just looking for some form of mathematical evidence for causation. I'm not asking for 100% certainty, just something more than mere correlation. We have TONS of climate data, why not run a multiple linear regression on a larger data set? Why only test for correlation between CO2 and Temperature? What if CO2, Temperature, and global SO2 are all correlated? What would that mean? How about the correlation between ozone content and Temperature controlled for CO2 emissions, and vice versa? These are important tests that need to be run, but they haven't been done.
| |||||||
|
Rhizome Registered: 01/01/05 Posts: 23,576 Loc: The Barricades |
| ||||||
Quote: That's because life demands a lot of us. This is like a pilot bitching about the fact that he has to land the plane. --------------------
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
I definitely agree that they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other.
Yes. Just like the statistically significant correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer does not mean one causes the other. Scientists employed by the Tobacco industry were a big fan of this argument. If you can say: "they are correlated to a statistically significant degree, but that does not mean the one causes the other" I don't know what to tell ya. David Hume might admire your denial of causality, but it doesn't get any more precise than that.You need to take some better science classes. Here are some examples of mathematical ways to prove causation: Inferential statistics do not prove causation in any empiric sense. Causation is impossible to observe, it is assumed after enough coherent data has been collected. Scientists can only observe that event-A happens and event-B follows it consistently. As Richard Dawkins puts it, "Operationally we can never demonstrate that a particular observed event C caused a particular result R, although it will often be judged highly likely. What biologists in practice usually do is to establish statistically that events of class R reliably follow events of class C." Edited by MushmanTheManic (09/26/06 07:27 PM)
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
Quote: Actually one of the more famous studies proving most detrimental health effects used Panel analysis to show causality. The British Doctors Survey (available here: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1519 ) compared doctors of several similar groups, contrasting smokers with non-smokers in each group. They showed that even when you control for age, generation, race, location, etc. the smokers still had a greater incidence of health problems in every case. They did not just say "there's a correlation between smokers and health problems". Now, clearly this wouldn't work for the climatologists, so they would have to find other options. Personally I can think of no reason multiple linear regression wouldn't work for them, so long as they included other variables tracked across the past century. I also suspect finding an instrument variable may be helpful. There may even be some way to get together panel data, but I don't know for certain. Quote: I don't really know what works for biologists, and if that's all they really do, frankly I'm afraid for them. Statistics CAN provide estimates of causality if used correctly. Will you always be right? No, of course not, but you can usually get close. That's what the entire science of econometrics is about: applying empirical evidence to economic models in order to develop economic theory. Economists also aren't the only ones who do it, as I already mentioned above, it's used in medicine, and it shows up in many physics papers (albeit in a different form than used in medicine and economics). Perhaps some fields of biology are having a tought time with it, hence your quote, but I don't know. What I do know is that at least three sciences (Physics, Medicine, Economics) believe that correlation is not enough to draw a conclusion.
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
"...lung cancer and chronic obstructive lung disease are closely related to continued cigarette smoking and to the daily number of cigarettes smoked. For each of the other nine categories of cause of death there are more moderate, but again highly significant (each P < 0.0001), positive relations with the continuation of cigarette smoking and with the daily number smoked."
I'm wondering why they didn't included the p-value for lung cancer and chronic obstructive lung disease, but otherwise that is an awfully impressive study. (Any probability below 0.5 is considered statistically significant. Having a p-value of 0.0001 means they had a very well made study.) I don't see anything that demonstrates causality, although it comes extremely close. If this study did prove a causal connection, the p-value would be zero, which is impossible. If you think I'm just pulling this p-value nonsense out of my ass (I hope you're not), the book, Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research by Gary King, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba states, "...no matter how perfect the research design, no matter how much data we collect, no matter how perceptive the observers, no matter how diligent the research assistants, and no matter how much experimental control we have, we will never know a causal inference for certain." This is also called the Fundemental Problem of Causal Inference. compared doctors of several similar groups, contrasting smokers with non-smokers in each group Exactly. This is a correlational study. In an 'true' experiment, the independent variable, in this case cigarette smoking, would have to be manipulated. Since it is unethical to force people to smoke, a group of smokers is contrasted with a group of non-smokers. This is how almost all ethical medical studies are constructed. They showed that even when you control for age, generation, race, location, etc. the smokers still had a greater incidence of health problems in every case. In other words, there was a positive correlation between health problems and smoking. Statistics CAN provide estimates of causality if used correctly. I agree with this wholeheartedly, but there is a vast difference between demonstrating causality and providing estimates of causality. No, of course not, but you can usually get close. And, how close you are to causality is generally determined by the statistical significance. Edited by MushmanTheManic (09/26/06 10:28 PM)
| |||||||
|
in training Registered: 10/11/05 Posts: 1,285 Last seen: 16 years, 8 months |
| ||||||
|
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, and in an earlier post in this thread, I even stated that if a multiple linear regression could be run to control for other variables, I would be satisfied if as little as 10% of the temperature change could be reasonably estimated to be caused by CO2 emissions.
I'd accept similar estimates of causality depending on the method used. Unfortunately the majority of the pro-global-warming research out there doesn't do any of this. They show correlation and that's it. They say "the temperature's going up, and CO2's going up". I need more. Where's the panel analysis? Why haven't they found an instrument variable?
| |||||||
|
Stranger ![]() Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
Ok. To get back on track:
Should businesses be allowed to damage important ecosystems or pollute at will? Here is one of the few places I deviate from my normal libertarian views. Just as consumers should be protected from businesses that sell harmful products, I think natural ecosystems should be protected from businesses that harm them. If that means the business loses money or cannot access certain resources, too bad. They'll have to find a more environmentally friendly way to do commerce. (Adapt or die. )
| |||||||
| |||||||
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
![]() |
Oil, Climate, and Terrorism | 1,073 | 2 | 09/06/02 06:13 AM by EchoVortex | ||
![]() |
Global warming is killing us all! AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!! ( |
39,602 | 570 | 05/03/08 12:51 PM by geokills | ||
![]() |
The last word on global warming ( |
9,468 | 83 | 12/18/09 03:01 PM by GI_Luvmoney | ||
![]() |
Global warming: The Three degrees.... ( |
3,214 | 35 | 04/19/06 07:39 AM by Alex213 | ||
![]() |
Last gasp of the global warming deniers ( |
12,589 | 136 | 02/09/07 12:34 PM by gluke bastid | ||
![]() |
More fantasies about global warming | 998 | 17 | 11/01/03 02:44 PM by d33p | ||
![]() |
Global warming "past point of no return" ( |
3,608 | 85 | 09/23/05 12:06 PM by MagicalMystery | ||
![]() |
Surprise CO2 rise may speed up global warming ( |
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 ] | ||


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


David Hume might admire your denial of causality, but it doesn't get any more precise than that.