Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Conflicting Science in Global Warming/Cooling
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm #746466
wakefloodParticipantSave your energy for more productive things, AAR. I’m quite serious. It’s not like any amount of data from respected scientific sources is going to change the minds of folks who don’t have an open one.
By which I mean, if you’re still one of the few who doubts that either man is changing the climate or that the climate change exists at all, you’re not really interested in science. You’re interested in politicizing science.
I humbly suggest you put that energy into something that will give you a return on your investment.
April 1, 2013 at 3:50 pm #746467
JoBParticipantwakeflood
to AAR : “I humbly suggest you put that energy into something that will give you a return on your investment.”
i humbly disagree. i have put a lot of energy into comments here on the forums in the past few years..
and am humbly gratified at the return on my investment…
i wasn’t expecting short term returns anyway :)
April 1, 2013 at 4:07 pm #746468
wakefloodParticipantI get your point, JoB. I was simply referring to the fact that I’ve seen essentially the same hackneyed and failed arguments meted out by the same deniers of reality time and time again in this space.
AAR was pleading that he/she didn’t have enough time to go researching down yet another rabbit hole for data that likely wouldn’t change anything.
If the intent is to educate oneself, then by all means, research away – I certainly do that as often as possible.
But let’s not delude ourselves that we’re changing the minds of those who have chosen their reality.
And yes, you are right, you don’t always know if other folks are lurking and picking up some new info to help them reach their own conclusions. Which is likely the source of your well-deserved ROI! :-)
April 1, 2013 at 4:33 pm #746469
Talaki34ParticipantAAR – I suggest you read my post again. Slowly and not focusing on single sentences.
April 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm #746470
AARParticipantPlease excuse me, Talaki34, I guess I wasn’t the only one to misinterpret your post. You mentioned working in the fuels industry, and perhaps that statement directed my thinking into how to interpret your response.
April 1, 2013 at 5:21 pm #746471
wakefloodParticipantAnd for my part, I wasn’t directing my note to AAR necessarily to respond to T34’s note. Which is certainly NOT part of the denier ilk. Just that in general, facts aren’t budging the deniers on this or any other venue.
As a way to clarify a possibly more salient point, I would like to ask T34 why his side of the aisle has regressed so much over the last 20 yrs.?? Your position used to be the starting point for discussions between the two sides. Now, you don’t even seem to have a seat at the table. I suspect the answer is two fold: 1. FF Industry funded “denier faux science” designed to confuse and obfuscate. And 2. The proliferation of RW media sources that blather psuedo-science to the fertile minds ready to grab hold of anything that sounds plausible.
Either way, it begs a solution. And fast. The discussion of HOW to address the situation isn’t even back on the table yet. T34, how do we get it there?
April 1, 2013 at 5:40 pm #746472
wakefloodParticipantAnd not that anyone needs proof, but I thought I’d just throw it out there that one of the most vocal and powerful US Senators is proud to be a climate change denier. Inhofe has long called climate change a “hoax”.
The guy is a defacto spokesman for the GOP on environmental matters fer godsakes.
April 1, 2013 at 9:22 pm #746473
DBPMemberYou know, wake, in a sense we are all “deniers.” People like Inhofe are just a little deeper in denial than the rest of us.
Everyone who is contributing to the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a ppm rate higher than what can be sustained without causing irreversible environmental damage is in denial.*
In other words . . .
Everyone who is still driving an oil-powered vehicle (e.g., me) is in denial.
Everyone who flies in or builds aeroplanes (e.g. all my friends) is in denial.
Everyone who has more than 1.8 kids is in denial.
Everyone who eats MEAT is in denial.
In short, every American is in denial.
But thanks for your efforts here anyway. I support what you and others are trying to do.
***********************
*Depending on who you talk to, a “safe” number would be 300 ppm of CO2. We are now in the 390s and rising.
Sorry if this material has already been covered here.
April 1, 2013 at 9:34 pm #746474
CaitParticipant*applause for Jan’s valiant effort at diversion* Scotch sounds pretty good right now!
April 1, 2013 at 9:40 pm #746475
wakefloodParticipantDBP: I grant you that we all contribute to varying degrees but there’s a tangible difference between those who know they’re doing damage and consciously attempt to limit it as best they can and those that either deny that they’re doing damage, or don’t care.
Something is better than nothing. :-)
Or maybe you beg to differ?
April 1, 2013 at 11:02 pm #746476
DBPMemberNope. I’m with you, wake.
Climate change deniers of the Inhofe ilk are more harmful than people who drive Humvees, use wood stoves, and take cruises.
But the reason the Inhofes of the world exist at all is because the rest of us really DON’T want to face reality and make the lifestyle and political changes necessary to save the situation.
In a weird way, middle-of-the-roaders like President Obama actually appreciate Inhofe, because he allows Obama to look like he’s proposing bold things on the environment, when what he’s really proposing are just some watered-down half-measures and sell-outs.
Now that Al Gore’s written his book and won his Nobel (still waitin’ on mine) we can comfortably ignore what he was saying. Just by giving Gore the Prize and buying his book, we’ve done something for the environment, right?
* * * * * * *
BTW, here’s my current solar production, backdated by about 15 minutes:
According to the government, my solar electric system has so far prevented carbon emissions equivalent to the amount of carbon sequestered by 110 young trees growing over a period of 10 years.
Sincerely,
Mr. Goody 2 Shoes
April 1, 2013 at 11:26 pm #746477
wakefloodParticipantWell, I know lots of folks around these parts are doing half-a$$ed versions of carbon reduction – and most of it done with the usual cognitive dissonance.
Example: This very blog had an article about the potential significant reduction of metro bus service due to funding reductions on the horizon. Seems many of the comments bashed metro for all sorts of reasons – from picking the wrong areas to reduce, paying too many health benefits to employees, mismanagement, etc. Only a few touched on the concept that when you take into account the value provided and the uncounted costs of the externalities – we should probably be paying $4+ every time you step on a bus and you’d still be ahead of the game. Or fund metro through more long-term, sustainable revenue streams so you don’t have to have these reduction talks every few years. But that requires folks walking their talk. And we all know how hard that is.
PS – Had an interesting discussion this weekend with two other corporate mucky-mucks about how effed up their company’s projects were – over budget, way behind, all sorts of inefficiencies. And these were very large and “admired” companies. Champions of Commerce, all. Next time you go thinking that gubment is all about blowing up your tax dollars and private sector’s got their you-know-what together. Drop me a note and I’ll share a few more not-so-uncommon stories…
April 1, 2013 at 11:27 pm #746478
Talaki34Participant“Either way, it begs a solution. And fast. The discussion of HOW to address the situation isn’t even back on the table yet. T34, how do we get it there?”
You want solutions? You want to get things addressed? For honest, open and thoughtful discussions to begin, the following has to stop on both sides of the isle:
“As a way to clarify a possibly more salient point, I would like to ask T34 why his side of the aisle has regressed so much over the last 20 yrs.?? Your position used to be the starting point for discussions between the two sides. Now, you don’t even seem to have a seat at the table. I suspect the answer is two fold: 1. FF Industry funded “denier faux science” designed to confuse and obfuscate. And 2. The proliferation of RW media sources that blather psuedo-science to the fertile minds ready to grab hold of anything that sounds plausible.”
April 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm #746479
wakefloodParticipantOh, and a sincere kudos to you, Mr. Two Shoes. I would like to know more about your solar setup and what you did and would recommend? Share as you have time.
April 1, 2013 at 11:33 pm #746480
wakefloodParticipantT34, you honestly believe your side hasn’t regressed? Seriously?
April 1, 2013 at 11:35 pm #746481
wakefloodParticipantT-34, please continue with real solutions of the next steps beyond, “nobody says anything bad about the other side”.
April 1, 2013 at 11:50 pm #746482
wakefloodParticipantOK,T-34, so you don’t have anything to add. I’ll throw one out. How about we regain the consensus that we HAD AT ONE TIME, ACROSS BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE that we’re dramatically changing the climate – and not for the better?
Think you can swing that as a starting point for your team?
Cuz, if we’re not starting with that, we gots nothing to discuss, right? We’ve tried overwhelming amounts of good science that USED to be sufficient to marginalize the few skeptics and the monied FF interests. Now, not so much.
Or maybe you have another starting point?
April 2, 2013 at 12:09 am #746483
DBPMemberAgreed with you again, Mr. Flood. On the bus thing, that is.
I think Metro should be totally free to ride. According to what I read, fares don’t cover even 40% of operating costs (to say nothing of capital expenses) and that’s after several rounds of hefty fare increases.
http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/future/funding-gap.html
In an enlightened world, the City would just “eat” that 40% and give people a free ride.
People would take the bus to work more.
They’d would go downtown to shop more.
They’d go sight-seeing around town more.
They’d go visiting friends.
And they’d leave their cars at home.
Taxpayers who took the bus would feel like they were getting their money’s worth from the City, which would motivate people to ride even more.
The bus system is a public good, like parks and schools. It should paid for from the till.
April 2, 2013 at 12:22 am #746484
wakefloodParticipantI hear you DBP. The whole concept of the Public Commons has been shrunk to a mere fraction of what it once was. As you’ve noted many times here, people want their cake, eat it, and never actually pay for it.
Well, they pay Tim Oy-man a very nice sum to make that concept a political reality. Until it comes home to roost. Like when they have no buses, for instance.
April 2, 2013 at 12:29 am #746485
DBPMemberMy advice on saving energy and carbon:
Don’t be like me. Don’t go home solar. It was a good move for me personally, because I had inherited some money and cutting emissions was a HUGE deal for me. But otherwise, it does NOT pencil out.
If you really wanna go solar electric, buy shares in some public utility that’s putting up solar arrays out in the desert somewhere. Solar makes sense in Sunnyland, but not here.
In the meantime, the best-best-BEST thing you can do energy-wise if you’re a homeowner or landlord is to get a heat-pump system installed, which I also did.
Like the panels, the heat pump was expensive up front, because I have a forced-air system and 1500 square feet to heat. But the heat pump heats the house MUCH better than the stankin’ old oil furnace did. And it does so efficiently.
Since it’s electric, and we’re on hydro power, it is a zero-emission system. And since electricity is so damn cheap here, it makes great sense economically. It pushed up my winter electric bills by maybe $30 a month: BFD. Meanwhile, I no longer have to shell out staggering $$$ for obscenely priced heating oil.
The heat pump will pay for itself inside of ten years. The solar system never will.
Not in my lifetime.
On the other hand, I’ll die with a great big solar-powered grin on my gob. Yessirree-bob. And I’ll probably also die with more money in the bank than I would’ve saved anyway, by NOT buying a solar electric system.
You do the math on that one my friend.
“offensive to dead people”
April 2, 2013 at 12:35 am #746486
Talaki34ParticipantRegression? All I did was copy and paste your entry. I said absolutely nothing about regression one way or the other. You answered for me.
You asked a question wakeflood and I answered it. You wanted to know how we can all get back to the table. I believe until people stop trying to show everyone how right their side is and how wrong the other side is, meaningful change will not happen.
On that note, I will withdraw from this conversation.
April 2, 2013 at 12:38 am #746487
DBPMemberTalaki, please don’t leave. What would it take to keep you in the discussion?
An apology?
wakeflood, apologize and I’ll send you some free electrons
April 2, 2013 at 12:46 am #746488
wakefloodParticipantI’m trying to understand your logic, T-34.
If one side doesn’t believe there’s a problem, why would they ever come to a negotiating table in the first place?
THAT’S my question. And you’ve answered it with…”can’t we all just get along?”
OK then.
April 2, 2013 at 4:02 am #746489
JoBParticipantTalaki34
“I believe until people stop trying to show everyone how right their side is and how wrong the other side is, meaningful change will not happen.”
the trouble is that there are no sides to evidence.
it’s either there or it isn’t.
shooting the messenger may dealy the conversation but it doesn’t change the evidence
April 2, 2013 at 1:29 pm #746490
AARParticipantHow about this for an alternative? No more foreign oil. Let our domestic oil companies – who have had RECORD profits – shell out R&D money for alternative fuel consumption. You can bet they will have solutions and products in record time so as not to lose too much money.
Actually, solutions are out there, but not as widely communicated, thanks again to big oil and their congressional mouthpieces. DBP has put in place some solutions. Goodness, did anyone see “Who Killed the Electric Car” and take a look at Ed Begley Jr’s house? Now that is one dedicated zero-carbon emitter! If I remember correctly, he would ride a stationary bike, which was hooked up to something that generated enough electricity for the day’s need.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.