|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 07/25/2001 : 11:53:36 [Permalink]
|
I could easily inderstand it if you were dubious of news from a website that featured Greenpeace writers. Hell, I should too.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 12:08:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's unfortunate that his demonization by others with an agenda has affected you in that way.
Everyone has an agenda. Some, to make sure that the planet is inhabitable for our grandchildren. Some, to make sure that nothing affects their economic stability. Some are whores for one or the other above groups - These are the ones we read in the "popular" media and have the most power over opinion. Take your choice, whats your bigger fear?
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 12:17:16 [Permalink]
|
What a LOAD of crap. Glassman gives a vague list of generalized pap.
quote:
Worries about the future are based on primitive computer models that can't even describe current conditions accurately. And a special panel of the National Academy of Sciences used the word "uncertain" 43 times in 28 pages last month in a review of the state of the science.
Actually the computer models(!) are rather sophisticated and require considerable processing time. There is not single "computer model". There are many DIFFERENT groups with DIFFERENT models.
quote:
Tentative findings are a pretty thin reed on which to rest an emissions-reduction policy which President Clinton's own Energy Department estimated would reduce America's gross domestic product by as much as 4.3% annually.
Of course, trend analysis and predictions economics here are take as fact. Interesting that faith is put into a so-called "science" in which economic forcasting has shown itself to be about as accurate as prediction from "The Psychic Friends Network".
quote:
Most of the world's policy makers are well aware of the shaky foundation and high cost of Kyoto. They also know that global warming, if it exists at all, won't become a problem for another 50 years or so. So why do the Europeans oppose a high-tech shield against a real threat -- nuclear-tipped missiles launched by mistake or by rogue nations -- while they embrace expensive steps against theoretical global warming? Here are three answers:
If we don't have enough data to say what's occuring with global warming, how can the author blithely dismiss the effect as "won't become a problem for another 50 years or so". If we don't know, then WE DON'T KNOW. The play for Son-Of-SDI is a nice and misleading touch. The "high-tech shield" would work only for the continental US, if it worked at all (it hasn't been shown to work yet).
quote:
Politics. Remember that key European governments are coalitions in which Social Democrats have a plurality of legislators but need the Green Party to form a majority, and the Greens usually get the environmental ministry. Under this setup, mainstream politicians, worried about their coalitions falling apart, are happy to pay the Greens lip-service.
"Commie" innuendo, gross over simplification, and I certainly seen no data to support this political observation.
quote:
In addition, Kyoto, as a treaty that tells people how they can live, is the last gasp of Europe's authoritarian left. Many in Europe are not only comfortable with such restrictions, they like imposing them. Except when it comes to running topless advertising on television, the true liberal tradition does not run deep, and socialism retains its popularity. Europeans have not had many chances lately to impose their moral will on others -- especially not on Americans -- but Kyoto is a big one, not to be neglected.
Heaven forbid that any regulation gets enacted that affect the "right" of any US citizen, or corporation, from doing anything they feel like doing, no matter how sociopathic it is! It's a small, crowded world. We don't have the option of getting off.
quote:
Economics. In 1997, signing Kyoto over the objection of the unanimous Senate, Vice President Al Gore got taken to the cleaners. The treaty was rigged in favor of the Europeans. At heart, Kyoto is as an economic roadblock -- like the rejection of the General Electric-Honeywell merger -- built to trip U.S. competition.
How was it rigged in favor of the Europeans? More unsubstanciated innuendo.
quote:
The Europeans resent cowboy capitalism. They resent that Americans work long hours, take their laptops to the beach, attract the best and brightest immigrants. Europe has its own comfortable lifestyle, with six-week vacations (just try to find a good restaurant around Bonn that's open in July) and a culture that largely disdains entrepreneurship. That's their choice, but there are costs. One is that Europe has lost leadership to the U.S. in virtually every business sector.
They are really jealous over "Baywatch" and "Dallas", too, aren't they? Aren't all of the French big fans of Jerry Lewis, wear striped shirts, and carry baguettes everywhere? What would happen to this statement if we replaced "Communists" with Europeans? Kinda prejudiced.
quote:
One way to fight back is to impose higher costs on the U.S. economy than on their own. That was the charm of Kyoto. Europeans can meet their greenhouse-gas emissions limits under a "bubble" -- that is, all of Europe gets credit for the large reductions in carbon dioxide that occurred in the 1990s in Britain (which switched from coal to gas for economic reasons, largely because of North Sea finds) and in Germany (which benefits from the post-reunification shutdown of inefficient, mainly coal-fired factories in the former East Germany). As a result, Europe reduced its overall emissions between 1990 and 1999 by 4%, toward a target of 8% below 1990 levels. The U.S., with a target for reductions of 7%, has increased its emissions 30%.
It's not fair that the Europeans are being efficient? SUVs shouldn't count! Wahh! Lets see, the author is complaining that the Euros who have lessened their CO2 output should be penalized, but the US who has grossly increased their output should be given a break?
quote:
Romanticism. There is something frightening about the brand of environmentalism that many Europeans embrace. It is not a wide-open-spaces kind of American environmentalism but a romanticism-in-the-Bavarian-woods kind of European environmentalism.
Evil Multinationals
"Dem Yuro-pee-un, they's don't think like me or you. They's different. Ah don't like dat." Of course they don't have a "wide-open-spaces" type o |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 12:34:00 [Permalink]
|
SDI galls me.
quote:
Thomas L. Friedman: 'MAD isn't crazy'
Contributed by rev_cletus on Tuesday, July 24 @ 09:41:48 EDT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times
I sure welcome the news that the Bush team will open missile talks with Russia, because it might bring some clarity to the Bushies' arguments on missile defense, which have been at best incoherent and at worst dishonest.
Look at the Republican arms expert Richard Perle's Senate testimony last week. He was trying to justify why we need missile defense against rogue leaders, who, he claimed, cannot be deterred by the classic doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD), which has kept the peace for 50 years. "[Some say] you can count on Saddam to be deterred by our deterrent," said Mr. Perle. "I frankly don't want to count on the rational judgment of a man who used poison gas against his own people."
Let's dissect that statement. Mr. Perle is comparing the Iraqi people to the American people, and suggesting that since Saddam used gas against his own people, you never know, he may do the same to us.
Well, there is one small difference between us and the Iraqi people: We have nuclear weapons to retaliate with and they did not. During the gulf war Saddam had poison gas warheads. He was warned by the elder President Bush that if he used that poison gas against U.S. troops, his regime would be wiped off the planet. And he didn't use it. Not only did he not use it against our troops in a war on his own border, with his whole regime and maybe his own life in the balance, he did not even put poison gas on the Scuds he fired at Israel, which would have been enormously popular in the Arab world. Why not? Classic deterrence. He knew the Israelis would destroy Baghdad.
In other words, the one thing we know about Saddam is that given the ideal opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction against us, before we had any missile shield, he chose not to for exactly the reasons that the Bushies insist are out of date — classic deterrence. Saddam understands something the Bushies refuse to admit: that there is a difference between evil and crazy. Saddam is evil. But he has survived all these years precisely because he's not suicidal.
This gets to the core problem with the Bush approach to missile defense. It is based on flimsy or dishonest arguments, including: (1) We need a missile shield because the cold war deterrence doctrine of MAD, mutual assured destruction, is out of date. The truth: We will continue to rely on MAD for decades to come. Indeed, the U.S. is now so overpowering, the only thing that might be new about MAD is that it is no longer mutual. Any rogues firing a missile at us would end up with TAD — Their Assured Destruction. (2) Classic deterrence can't be relied upon to work against rogues because they are crazy. The truth: All evidence proves just the opposite.
The Bushies resort to these tall tales because they are theologically obsessed with missile defense. So to justify spending $100 billion on a system to deter rogues who are already deterred by classic deterrence, and to justify ripping up the ABM treaty (the Bushies' real goal, because they hate arms control), they have to make wildly exaggerated claims that we are in a whole new era and the old ways won't work.
As I said before, I am not theologically against missile defense, but it has to be judged by what it really is — a defense system that will always be, at best, a supplement to mutual assured destruction, which is neither out of date nor going away. It is like wearing suspenders along with a belt.
Sure, it would be nice to have some extra protection against rogues. But if the Bush team wants us to pay huge money for such suspenders it must prove that missile defense works under battlefield conditions, which it hasn't; that it can be deployed without alienating Russia and China, which can overwhelm any system by simply selling missiles to rogues; and that the system will not cost so much that it will divert needed resources from weapons and army units, which already do work against real threats.
"Missile defense isn't like abortion, where the only issue is whether you're for or against it," says Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert. "Who wouldn't want both a belt and suspenders? The question is, what are the economic and strategic costs, and what are the alternatives?"
These require honest arguments, not theology, and the Bushies have not made them.
Reprinted from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/
07/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 13:05:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If we don't have enough data to say what's occuring with global warming, how can the author blithely dismiss the effect as "won't become a problem for another 50 years or so". If we don't know, then WE DON'T KNOW.
That is PRECISELY the problem. "we don't know" is not allowed in the political arena. It may be a valid statement for the START of scientific inquiry, but you can't END with it. You can't get government funding by continually saying "we don't know". You can't get governments to commit resources by saying "we don't know". You have to say SOMETHING, even if it's wrong. Particularly with elected, limited-term officials who hold the purse strings.
And that's why, IMHO, the whole global warming debate is such a circus.
This next rant is related, but not related, to climatology and meteorology. I live in Cleveland, Ohio on the south shore of Lake Erie. An unstable cold front pushes in from the West past Toledo (western edge of Lake Erie) with menacing thunderheads. The storm warnings go up, doppler radar predicts heavy downpours for Cleveland and the stupid alert systems go off. Within 40 miles, the ENTIRE original storm front has dissipated. Cleveland gets nothing. Meanwhile, the wind shifts 45 degrees to the Northwest (not predicted), the front pics up a massive volume of water traveling over Lake Erie and dumps the whole thing on Youngstown (eastern Ohio). No warnings, no predictions, nothing.
And these same guys (and gals) with all the King's computer models and all the King's radar tinker toys, know exactly what's going to happen to the Earth, when they DON'T know what the atmosphere will spawn in a lousy 100 mile stretch in 6 hours.
I'm not alone in my skepticism. Because what it boils down to is your average (enter country of residence here) telling their local politicians...
"You want me to give up WHAT for WHAT?"
(:raig |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 13:21:22 [Permalink]
|
Well, Bozola, believe it or not, I'm mostly in agreement with you in your analysis of the Glassman piece, even though I posted it. The point being that both sides pick and choose and politicize more than they rely on sound science.
One disagreement, though, regarding the computer models. He is referring to the computer models (GCM's) used for the IPCC report out of the UN; they are what the NAS study reviewed. When he says they can't describe current conditions accurately, he is referring to some control tests in which the models were fed data from previous years and asked to extrapolate the current conditions. The results were then compared to actual developments and found to be way off base. So why is there stock placed in these models' ability to predict climate change/development in the future? This is the centerpiece of my own reluctance to accept the popular version of global warming.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tentative findings are a pretty thin reed on which to rest an emissions-reduction policy which President Clinton's own Energy Department estimated would reduce America's gross domestic product by as much as 4.3% annually.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, trend analysis and predictions economics here are take as fact. Interesting that faith is put into a so-called "science" in which economic forcasting has shown itself to be about as accurate as prediction from "The Psychic Friends Network".
I mentioned in one of my earliest posts on this topic that the economic forecasts are on ground as shaky as that of the global warming forecasts, so we're together so far. My question, though, is the reverse of yours. If we must dismiss the economic forecasts because they are shaky, then why must we accept the climate change forecasts when they are no better?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Politics. Remember that key European governments are coalitions in which Social Democrats have a plurality of legislators but need the Green Party to form a majority, and the Greens usually get the environmental ministry. Under this setup, mainstream politicians, worried about their coalitions falling apart, are happy to pay the Greens lip-service.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Commie" innuendo, gross over simplification, and I certainly seen no data to support this political observation.
You are exactly right. Yet I am an "anti-environmentalist", "denialist", "corporate stooge", "suckler at the corporate teat", etc. This is good argument?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way to fight back is to impose higher costs on the U.S. economy than on their own. That was the charm of Kyoto. Europeans can meet their greenhouse-gas emissions limits under a "bubble" -- that is, all of Europe gets credit for the large reductions in carbon dioxide that occurred in the 1990s in Britain (which switched from coal to gas for economic reasons, largely because of North Sea finds) and in Germany (which benefits from the post-reunification shutdown of inefficient, mainly coal-fired factories in the former East Germany). As a result, Europe reduced its overall emissions between 1990 and 1999 by 4%, toward a target of 8% below 1990 levels. The U.S., with a target for reductions of 7%, has increased its emissions 30%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not fair that the Europeans are being efficient? SUVs shouldn't count! Wahh! Lets see, the author is complaining that the Euros who have lessened their CO2 output should be penalized, but the US who has grossly increased their output should be given a break?
I can't argue with you at all on this one; at least not within the framework of Glassman's piece.
quote:
What "kind of progress" is this author advocating? More SUVs? No, this impulse isn't driven by paranoia, but by money.
Yes. On both sides.
And the SDI issue is another topic on which I have opinions but little real knowledge so I'll stay out of that one. At least for now.
My kids still love me.
Edited by - Garrette on 07/25/2001 13:23:54 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 13:28:02 [Permalink]
|
Well, it's getting interesting again, so I hate to have to bow out temporarily, but I'm leaving for vacation for 11 days.
Have fun.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2001 : 16:08:22 [Permalink]
|
I was attacking his article, not you Garrette. No, actually, I do not really disagree with you.
quote:
You are exactly right. Yet I am an "anti-environmentalist", "denialist", "corporate stooge", "suckler at the corporate teat", etc. This is good argument?
I consider myself a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. I think that wasting monies and resources is self destructive process, and all economic goals should be primarially long term goals. I cannot stand pork-barrel projects like SDI; let's build a moonbase for instead. I'm a social liberal because I think people can be an amazing resource if we help develop their/our brains and critical reasoning ability.
I'm an environmentalist because I HATE SUVs and fossil fuels fired power plants, but I'm a evil bastard because I want to put nuclear power plants in the middle of cities.
I'm a peace freak because I want global arms control, gun registration, and the banning of chemical/nuclear/biological weapons, but I'm a militarist because I believe in mandatory military subscription and the furthering development of a "professional" military.
Labels, by in large, are bullsh*t. Glassman's decision to use bigoted and inflammatory labels set the tone for the entire article I think.
quote:
I mentioned in one of my earliest posts on this topic that the economic forecasts are on ground as shaky as that of the global warming forecasts, so we're together so far. My question, though, is the reverse of yours. If we must dismiss the economic forecasts because they are shaky, then why must we accept the climate change forecasts when they are no better?
My point was and is the same as your. This guy is using a double standard. I don't like that. He should apply the same critical reasoning to both sides of his arguement.
I am a firm believer in honest discussions. I cannot abide bullsh*t. An arguement should be able to stand on it's own. It shouldn't need lies to prop it up. I cannot abide political/private agendas constantly deriding, derailing, and lying about important decisions that must be made. I can't stand the constant pandering to the lowest, basest, and most reactionary appeal to a self-indulgent ignorant mass of couch potatoes.
These clowns like Glassman are simply protecting their investment at the expense of the rest of us. Maybe I'm a little naive in believing that people, in general, should see beyond their own immediate self interest. I don't like to think that they can't. I'm still an optimist. I still think that we, the people on this planet, can toss all these shysters out on their ears, and get on to dealing with the important stuff. Let's start with tossing Brittany Spears and her ilk first.
We are a thinking species; we need to use our big bloody brains. There is some some sh*t serious extinction event things starting to show up like overpopulation, global warming, and resource overutilization to name a few. I'm trained as an engineer; problems should be faced squarely and solved, not swept under a rug of rhetoric. Perhaps a twenty more years of having a SUV, a house in some godforsaken burb-clave, TV, and McNasty's McBurgers is worth risking extinction. I could be wrong, but I know that if I had to live in a LA suburb, I'd opt for it.
I know we can find safe, practical, fair, and humane solutions to all of these issues. The problem is allowing people to tolerate all these bullsh*t artists from all sides.
rant rant rant
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture.
Edited by - Bozola on 07/25/2001 16:16:32 |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 05:29:03 [Permalink]
|
Good thing about greenpeace is that you expect them to be baised.
Everyone has some form of bias, its more dangerous when people aren't looking for it.
Oh and I have heard that the Kyoto treaty is being altered and likely to be signed, but even the original one didn't go far enough, but at least its a first step.
BTW: Bush would like to say he is cleaning up the parks.
Also interesting how those in the US get less lesiure time then those in Euorpe, maybe the US almost unregulated capitalism (compared to europe) has something to do with it.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer.
Edited by - bestonnet_00 on 07/26/2001 05:34:02 |
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 08:32:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
BTW: Bush would like to say he is cleaning up the parks.
I believe the joke is that Bush just wants to clean out all that filthy oil and carbon soot (i.e., coal) from our national treasures.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 16:56:10 [Permalink]
|
Just a few thoughts while pondering the recent exchange between Bozola and Garrette on this thread.
Most involved in this discussion appear to accept a priori that steps to reduce greenhouse gasses will depress the economy. I have seen no theoretical or empiracle data that show this. Those of us on the side of reducing these pollutants are forced into defending the scientific facts while off-hand economic arguments are taken at face value. I have seen comments on this board suggesting that the environment is flexible enough that despite pollution, global warming, and whatever else humankind can dish out, species that can compete will servive and other new ones come into being. Are not economies likewise flexible? At least healthy economic systems are. Innovation and regulation are both perturbations to an economic system that affect it the same way. Older or less efficient companies and/or industries either have to compete or become extinct (or significantly less relevant). We have seen recent regulations involving worker safety and pollution control, both very costly. The general economy though keeps going despite the doomsday prophets. Waste and inefficiency are NEVER good for an economy much less a particular company.
I am at this time rereading the report 'Climate Change Science; An Analysis of Some Key Questions' from the 'Committee on the Science of Climate Change' from the National Reasearch Council. It can be found on the National Academies webpage. This discussion has gone around enough times that I need to have a review of the scientific facts of global warming.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 17:18:10 [Permalink]
|
I mentioned much earlier that economic reasons are almost always given as a reason against reducing pollution/emissions etc.
As far as I can tell the opposite has proven to be true. New regulations appear to help the economy. I don't think many could argue that the quality of life was every in danger and that definately goes up.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 18:08:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I mentioned much earlier that economic reasons are almost always given as a reason against reducing pollution/emissions etc.
I recall that. My comments were made because I because of my observation that no one seems to question the assertion that reducing greenhouse gasses would hurt the economy. There seems to be this mantra-like mind set that says;
Regulation bad! Laissez-faire capitalism good!
Regulation is one way of making sure the most efficient industries survive.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Bozola
Skeptic Friend
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 18:46:36 [Permalink]
|
Personally, I am convinced by the data and by my knowledge as a chemist that there is a real and undeniable effect going on.
What makes is so terrible is that these days even slight climatological changes can have massive economic reprocussions.
Just look at the drought on the west coast of the US.
Bozola
- Practicing skeet for the Rapture. |
|
|
|
comradebillyboy
Skeptic Friend
USA
188 Posts |
Posted - 07/26/2001 : 19:28:57 [Permalink]
|
sadly, science is very influenced by politics when it comes to environmental issues. in a past life i was an environmental engineer for an electric utility. i represented the company on several air quality committees made up of electric utility types. among other things i followed all of the scientific debate on things like acid rain and the effects of industrial pollution on the atmosphere.
it was very difficult to find anyone in the debate without a political agenda. both sides look only for the data that supports their point of view. the environmentalists were not noticably more honest than the industry people.
in my opinion warming is occuring. how much is contributed by human activity is uncertain, but likely not zero. one side says "wait till we know more" the other says that might be too late.
the resolution is political, not scientific.
comrade billyboy |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
