Climate Change

[TheLeviathan]

 

Not to sound pretentious, but people use bottled water for all sorts of reasons ranging from taste of rusting pipes they have no means to replace, to deep, institutional trust issues that go back centuries (or only go back a couple years, in the Flint case).

 

Or, as I've found in the short time here in Phoenix, you either by a big, expensive machine to fix your water or you drink a combination of chlorine and sand in your tap water.  (I think I can literally chew the water at times)

 

I hate bottled water and it looks like it's now become a necessity.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Or, as I've found in the short time here in Phoenix, you either by a big, expensive machine to fix your water or you drink a combination of chlorine and sand in your tap water.  (I think I can literally chew the water at times)

 

I hate bottled water and it looks like it's now become a necessity.

 

Bummer....if only there was a really big organization that was funded by everyone that could fix that if properly funded.....

 

I always took it for granted in MN. Now that I am in Portland area.....I am still pretty confident. But then, it turns out the schools are serving leaded water.....

[PseudoSABR]

 

in the short time here in Phoenix.

Speaking of global warming, should be a nice weekend!

[Mike Sixel]

 

Speaking of global warming, should be a nice weekend!

 

supposed to be 100 here, in OR, in June.....unreal.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Or, as I've found in the short time here in Phoenix, you either by a big, expensive machine to fix your water or you drink a combination of chlorine and sand in your tap water.  (I think I can literally chew the water at times)

An alternative solution is for Arizona to pull its collective head out of its ass and put enough money into infrastructure to deliver clean, drinkable water to its populace.

 

I understand how it's frustrating to you (and being new to the state, it's certainly not your fault) but that's the real solution to the problem... But Arizona gets a lot wrong about a lot of things. They're pretty much an honorary Southern State at this point.

[TheLeviathan]

 

An alternative solution is for Arizona to pull its collective head out of its ass and put enough money into infrastructure to deliver clean, drinkable water to its populace.

 

I understand how it's frustrating to you (and being new to the state, it's certainly not your fault) but that's the real solution to the problem... But Arizona gets a lot wrong about a lot of things. They're pretty much an honorary Southern State at this point.

 

I agree, but part of the problem is the west/southwest has been in a drought for some time.  That's complicating matters.

 

But, yeah, the rest is right.  Politically I feel like I'm in Mississippi compared to Minnesota.

[Squirrel]

 

This is one situation where I think the government could have had a big effect by taxing gasoline when the price started to drop in 2012 or 2013.

 

People were buying smaller cars when gas was $3+ per gallon. The moment it started to drop, people resumed buying pickup trucks and SUVs.

 

My heart sank when that happened. It didn't surprise me but it certainly disappointed me.

There already is a tax on gas ... in some states. Illinois has a pretty hefty tax on gas. They lessened it when gas was really high not so long ago, but it's full force again.

 

But, yes, putting a tax on gas might help some, but it would depend on what you use the tax for. Or, perhaps more incentive is a tax break for purchasing certain vehicles (which they do now).

[Squirrel]

 

No, it won't entirely fix the problem but it's a big step in the right direction.

 

My point at large is that we can't continue to make ****ty decisions and defend them because they're easy and make us comfortable. Everyone has to chip in a little and if someone is resistant to doing that, they need to take a good long look at why they're resistant to making the world a slightly better place to live.

 

I don't expect everyone to go plastic-free and grow 50% of their food in their back yard but if we all make small efforts here and there to conserve, it'd make a difference to the world.

This. It's about what people find convenient or not. In my building we collect recycling separate from garbage. Each chute room on each floor has a recycling bin and there is a list on the wall of what all is and is not accepted. NOT accepted are #6 plastics, plastic bags (even if they have a recycling mark on them), paper towels, facial tissue, pizza boxes, etc. It's not really a long list, but it does require people to distinguish one from the other. Do they do that? No. So when the building maintenance crew comes daily to collect recycling, if they see that in someone's bag left in the bin some of these NOT items, that whole bag gets tossed. It's not that difficult to distinguish what is and is not and to separate accordingly. We're also supposed to rinse cans and jars otherwise we get charged by the company more for this. Again, not that hard. I keep a small waste receptacle under my kitchen sink and I rinse and toss my (acceptable) plastic containers, jars and cans, then take it to the chute room when its full. Not so hard. But people won't even do this little bit. And for things not accepted by our building's recycler, the city has drop off locations for tons of other stuff. And the city's website provides information about a host of other places to drop stuff. But, again, it requires a bit of time and isn't always super convenient ... but it's just not that difficult. If only people would just do this little bit. Many do ... but many don't.

[Vanimal46]

Don't get me started on apartment building garbage/recycling etiquette... You're right ChiTown, it's not hard at all to rinse out your jars and cans before you recycle them. It takes very little time to break down the box that your 60" flat screen came in. Do people do it? Nope.... Instead the apartment community takes a larger hit because of people throwing away spaghetti sauce cans with sauce still left over on the bottom. The TV boxes sit idle in the chute room for weeks on end. For other people, it's their world and we're just living in it.   

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I can't wrap my head around the idea that consumer choices can't impact things positively.

 

Americans consume over one gallon of gasoline per day per capita.

 

Cut that by only 25% and that means we consume nearly 40 billion fewer gallons of gasoline per year. Every year.

 

How can that not make a difference? Sure, China may make up the difference through poor regulation and increased wealth but we can't take the moral high ground and enact global change if we refuse to do it ourselves.

 

I'll say what I said before.  There is no correlation that any of this will actually affect climate change.  The planet has been warming since the last ice age, and simply blaming it on mankind ignores plenty of simple truths while shoving aside the very real problem that there's not nearly enough data to allow a rational person to make this conclusion.  You need to get beyond that before you can convince consumers to get out of their gas guzzling SUVs and into more fuel efficient vehicles.

 

That really gets back to the root of the problem and why it is I have so little respect for the folks on the left side of the political spectrum (not that I respect the ones on the right side either, but for different reasons). You're all gung ho on telling everyone else how we should be living their lives, citing a problem that quite frankly you don't know nearly enough about to jump to those conclusions.  But something HAS to be done, so we run to a corrupt, self-serving organization and figure out a way to get them to force your idea of a lifestyle on everyone.  If you're that serious about it, the only way to truly do it is to leave this country and go somewhere where you're forced to consume less.  We talk about over consumption and don't realize that those of us that consume the least in this country still far over consume in comparison to the rest of the world.  You do that every time you go out to eat, drive to work, buy groceries, etc.

 

I'm all for reducing gas consumption.  I already do far more than my fair share there, but if you want to reduce waste and overconsumption, then I suggest you start praying for that economic crisis.  That will do far more to reduce overconsumption than any regulation will ever do.

 

[/END RANT]

[PseudoSABR]

 

That really gets back to the root of the problem and why it is I have so little respect for the folks on the left side of the political spectrum (not that I respect the ones on the right side either, but for different reasons). You're all gung ho on telling everyone else how we should be living their lives, citing a problem that quite frankly you don't know nearly enough about to jump to those conclusions. 

Well, you're painting your lack of respect brush awfully broadly -- as I certainly don't consider Brock a lefty, the main proponent of shaping consumer choice; and as a lefty myself, I agree with you on this particular point about the effect of consumer choice on climate change.  It doesn't take a liberal to believe in human-caused climate change, so I'd drop the lack-of-respect rhetoric because its needlessly confrontational.  (And really, if you can't respect people with whom you disagree, I just feel bad for you.)    And the notion that liberals are the ones telling people how to live their lives ignores the reality of modern politics.  

 

I wonder what kind evidence would convince you that mankind is a chief cause in global warming.   If no amount of proof will change your position (as you can continue to argue that we can't preclude it's a natural phenomenon), well, it means you're argument is ideological not empirical--and deserves as much respect as any tinfoil hatter.

 

Again, if there's a side that has a vested-interest to be dishonest about climate change, it's the side that stand to lose the most money.  As much as there are faux-environmental organizations that are propped up by causes their existence is a but a drop in the bucket of wealth that is the industrial complex.  I mean come on.

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

It's not like pollutants from cars and coal cause other issues, like cancer and death from smog......it's not like plastic isn't killing animals in the oceans.....it's not like mining isn't causing minor earthquakes, soil pollution and water pollution....it's not like oil spills don't kill animals and people.....there are lots of reasons to change our behaviors inre: all these areas, whether you believe the scientists or not.....

[Craig Arko]

I'll say what I've said before, too, since it seems to be the modern thing to do.

 

Ultimately, Geologically speaking, this is a self-correcting phenomenon. I for one welcome our new insect overlords.

[Squirrel]

It's not like pollutants from cars and coal cause other issues, like cancer and death from smog......it's not like plastic isn't killing animals in the oceans.....it's not like mining isn't causing minor earthquakes, soil pollution and water pollution....it's not like oil spills don't kill animals and people.....there are lots of reasons to change our behaviors inre: all these areas, whether you believe the scientists or not.....

I liked this 4 times because, well, there isn't a 'really, really like' button.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You're all gung ho on telling everyone else how we should be living their lives, citing a problem that quite frankly you don't know nearly enough about to jump to those conclusions. But something HAS to be done, so we run to a corrupt, self-serving organization and figure out a way to get them to force your idea of a lifestyle on everyone. If you're that serious about it, the only way to truly do it is to leave this country and go somewhere where you're forced to consume less.

Jesus H Christ.

 

Okay, here we go.

 

1. I have NOT told people how to live their lives. In fact, I've said that people often have reasons to "overconsume" in certain regards and that's okay. My point is that we, as a SELF-SERVING PEOPLE, should VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to consume less because it's in our best interests.

 

2. In no way, shape, or form have I even hinted that I support the creation of some hydra-esque governmental institution to force Americans to comply. Christ almighty.

 

3. Ignoring that you're implying I don't know enough about this subject to speak about it but you know enough to tell me I'm wrong, there are so many benefits to consuming less that climate change is only a slice of the reasoning.

 

Consume less oil and plastic, prop up fewer horrible Middle Eastern regimes!

 

Consume less electricity (and coal by default), get cleaner air and water!

 

Consume less natural gas, maybe less Texans can light their tapwater on fire and Oklahomans will suffer fewer earthquakes!

 

In short, I'm sorry I implied that it's in humanity's best interest to look beyond our own noses once in awhile.

[formerly33]

 

You're all gung ho on telling everyone else how we should be living their lives, citing a problem that quite frankly you don't know nearly enough about to jump to those conclusions.

The only people who came to any conclusions are the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the environment. Obviously, the conclusions they have formed thus far in their research have raised legitimate concerns among other citizens, and in result of that, politicians picked up the theme. I don't know why you, someone who probably hasn't taken any science beyond your college generals, assume that you know more than these scientists.

 

Furthermore, the bible makes it pretty clear that God wants us to be good stewards of the earth. A lot of evangelicals like to ignore this because they like their big trucks and don't want to change their lifestyle for a greater cause. And, quite frankly, they don't like agreeing with liberal scientists, ignoring that if God is real, he clearly created science - something which anyone, regardless of their faith, is capable of studying. On the other hand, if he isn't real, science is basically God. Again, this doesn't mean only atheists would be capable of coming to logical solutions regarding the subject. Science is, well, science. It's what we understand about nature.

 

The science course I took throughout high school strongly emphasized that most scientists come to their conclusions based on philosophical assumptions. It always failed to point out that no matter which side you take, you're going to base some of your ideas off of exactly that. And yes, it's due to philosophical assumptions that most conservatives don't believe humans are contributing to what's known as climate change, for no one really knows beyond a doubt whether or not there is a god and who that/those god(s) is/are. You may think you do, but you don't. That's why it's called belief.

 

So basically, I think your statement about people jumping to conclusions about problems they know nothing about is arrogant and even offensive, as is your comment about not respecting people you disagree with. If I couldn't respect people I didn't agree with, I would have no respect for a single person in the world. That could, of course, have devastating results. I won't even go there.

 

This is, of course, said in all due respect.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Well, you're painting your lack of respect brush awfully broadly -- as I certainly don't consider Brock a lefty, the main proponent of shaping consumer choice; and as a lefty myself, I agree with you on this particular point about the effect of consumer choice on climate change.  It doesn't take a liberal to believe in human-caused climate change, so I'd drop the lack-of-respect rhetoric because its needlessly confrontational.  (And really, if you can't respect people with whom you disagree, I just feel bad for you.)    And the notion that liberals are the ones telling people how to live their lives ignores the reality of modern politics.  

 

I wonder what kind evidence would convince you that mankind is a chief cause in global warming.   If no amount of proof will change your position (as you can continue to argue that we can't preclude it's a natural phenomenon), well, it means you're argument is ideological not empirical--and deserves as much respect as any tinfoil hatter.

 

Again, if there's a side that has a vested-interest to be dishonest about climate change, it's the side that stand to lose the most money.  As much as there are faux-environmental organizations that are propped up by causes their existence is a but a drop in the bucket of wealth that is the industrial complex.  I mean come on.

 

In fairness to Brock, I wasn't targeting him specifically.  My apologies there. You're right, he's not exactly a lefty in politics and I didn't mean to target him.   As for my lack of respect, to be clear, I have plenty of issues with the right as well.  I said as much before and I'll say it again.  That issue comes down to both sides deciding that they have a better idea as to how you and I should live our lives.  But to address your bigger point:

 

Whether or not people believe in human caused climate change misses the point.  There's not nearly enough evidence for anyone to be able to reasonably reach that conclusion.  The planet has been warming since the last ice age, we don't have nearly enough weather data to even correlate whether you are dealing with natural weather patterns, something manmade, or something different altogether.  We have what, 100 years of reasonably accurate weather data on a planet that is supposedly 4.5 billion years old?  That's pretty much the definition of small sample size and yet we are running to the conclusion that it's human made, despite believing that this planet has gone through 5 major ice ages, and by default, warmed up after every one of them.  Add to it that these same folks screaming man made global warming were only 30 years ago screaming man made global cooling.  The reason they had to change the moniker to "climate change" was that they had to dump global warming after a number of successive cooler years.  This smacks of running to a solution long before anyone understands the problem (or if there even is one).

 

I'm not saying don't take care of the environment.  I am saying though that if this is something that you truly care about, you need to start with you. Get rid of your car.  Stop using gas/electricity.  Grow your own food and use animals for transportation.  Pretty much stop buying anything other than what you need to survive.  If climate change is man made, then the only way to stop it is for man to start living without the very technology it has created to survive.

 

As for agendas, this again goes back to my lack of respect (on both sides), as apparently no one can see the hidden agendas by those on the other side.  You're quick to point out the resistance of those with the most to lose, and you completely ignore that there are plenty who fall under the "most to gain" who have just as much of a vested interest to be dishonest as those who have something to loose.  At the base of all this debate is greed.  Nothing more, and nothing less.  This is about shifting wealth in the industrial complex.  That's why all of the proposals to solve the problem don't involve simple actions like requiring all of those cheap imports to maintain the same standards that we already make our manufacturers follow.  That alone would do more to address pollution than any of the proposed deals on the table right now. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Jesus H Christ.

Okay, here we go.

1. I have NOT told people how to live their lives. In fact, I've said that people often have reasons to "overconsume" in certain regards and that's okay. My point is that we, as a SELF-SERVING PEOPLE, should VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to consume less because it's in our best interests.

2. In no way, shape, or form have I even hinted that I support the creation of some hydra-esque governmental institution to force Americans to comply. Christ almighty.

3. Ignoring that you're implying I don't know enough about this subject to speak about it but you know enough to tell me I'm wrong, there are so many benefits to consuming less that climate change is only a slice of the reasoning.

Consume less oil and plastic, prop up fewer horrible Middle Eastern regimes!

Consume less electricity (and coal by default), get cleaner air and water!

Consume less natural gas, maybe less Texans can light their tapwater on fire and Oklahomans will suffer fewer earthquakes!

In short, I'm sorry I implied that it's in humanity's best interest to look beyond our own noses once in awhile.

 

Your right in that I unfairly targeted you Brock.  I apologize on that.  I can get behind any voluntary things as I already do much of that myself.  My problem is that this debate never starts or ends there. 

[diehardtwinsfan]

quote name="always33" post="495182" timestamp="1465425970"]

The only people who came to any conclusions are the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the environment. Obviously, the conclusions they have formed thus far in their research have raised legitimate concerns among other citizens, and in result of that, politicians picked up the theme. I don't know why you, someone who probably hasn't taken any science beyond your college generals, assume that you know more than these scientists.

/quote]

 

This just isn't true. Plenty of people have come to conclusions about it. Plenty who have studied this their entire lives don't agree with plenty of other people who have studied this their entire lives. This isn't about assuming who does and doesn't know more. This is about looking at the conclusions and being able to recognize that the sample of data people are working on doesn't allow for them, and it doesn't take a higher level degree to figure that out. I pointed this out before, but this planet has (according to scientists) experienced 5 ice ages... FIVE. After each one, the planet warmed up. Was all this man made? How so if mankind wasn't even around for most of these?

 

 

Furthermore, the bible makes it pretty clear that God wants us to be good stewards of the earth. A lot of evangelicals like to ignore this because they like their big trucks and don't want to change their lifestyle for a greater cause. And, quite frankly, they don't like agreeing with liberal scientists, ignoring that if God is real, he clearly created science - something which anyone, regardless of their faith, is capable of studying. On the other hand, if he isn't real, science is basically God. Again, this doesn't mean only atheists would be capable of coming to logical solutions regarding the subject. Science is, well, science. It's what we understand about nature.

I wholeheartedly agree on the being good stewards of the earth. This has nothing to do with liberal scientists, atheists or what not. I suggest you look a bit closer at my posting history. I'm most definitely not some died in the wool Christian conservative Republican who hates all things liberal or agnostic. It has nothing to do with whether or not science has a place in the world. I do however recognize that science is not some altruistic field. It is vulnerable to the same pitfalls that every other field is susceptible to (including religion I might add) when money and power come into play.

 

 

The science course I took throughout high school strongly emphasized that most scientists come to their conclusions based on philosophical assumptions. It always failed to point out that no matter which side you take, you're going to base some of your ideas off of exactly that. And yes, it's due to philosophical assumptions that most conservatives don't believe humans are contributing to what's known as climate change, for no one really knows beyond a doubt whether or not there is a god and who that/those god(s) is/are. You may think you do, but you don't. That's why it's called belief.

Everyone has a belief or assumptions. The problem is not that they have them. The problem is failing to recognize them and a general human failure of being willing to put them aside when there is reason to do so. Case in point right here, as I'm apparently being lumped into "most Conservatives". I'm not really conservative (at least by it's current definition), but your repsonse indicates that you believe I am such. The problem is that these beliefs suddenly become 'fact' and these 'facts' suddenly become something that we must all live our lives by. This really isn't any different than forcing your morality on others at least in terms of methodology, and I think our society has plenty of examples from both our past (racism, slavery, prohibition) and present (gay marriage) that should tell us that it never ends well. Your choice to hold to a belief (or not to, I'm not really sure) on climate change is yours. And if this is important to you, then by all means choose to live your life accordingly. No one is saying that you cannot or should not. I am saying though that anyone who is really serious about this should probably take a real close look at just how much they don't live this in their current lives. It's practically impossible to live in the US in any capacity and not be a hyprocrite if you believe in man-made climate change. Everything that we do from our jobs to our standard of living would have to change in order to be consistent with those beliefs.

 

quote name="always33" post="495182" timestamp="1465425970"]

So basically, I think your statement about people jumping to conclusions about problems they know nothing about is arrogant and even offensive, as is your comment about not respecting people you disagree with. If I couldn't respect people I didn't agree with, I would have no respect for a single person in the world. That could, of course, have devastating results. I won't even go there.

/quote]

 

This is nothing to do with me not respecting people I don't agree with. You're the one jumping to that conclusion. I simply said why it is I have problems respecting those on the left and listed a few reasons as to why. That's a far cry from simply not having respect for people b/c we don't agree. There is a distinct difference there, and I think you understand that. And like it or not, jumping to conclusions about problems one knows nothing about is the height of arrogance, as it pays no respect to what you don't know, and in this field, there's plenty of that.

 

quote name="always33" post="495182" timestamp="1465425970"]

This is, of course, said in all due respect.

/quote]

 

[Steve J]

 

And I always laugh when climate-change-deniers suggest there's an overwhelming vested interest in promoting a global warming myth.  If we want to trace the dollars, there's far more money and interest to deny global warming than to promote it.   

 

Where is your data on this?  I think it's laughably untrue.

[Steve J]

 

I think you're both right.

 

I also dislike the use of the term "elites" but it's pretty obvious the modern GOP has mastered the art of distracting their own constituency with shiny baubles that don't really matter to the average person. They routinely get people to vote for them despite the GOP's plans to vote directly in opposition to that person's best interests..

 

This is arrogant lecturing -telling me what my interests are and letting me know that I am not voting properly, as if the Left's political formulae was somehow a rousing success [it isn't].

 

 

 

It will ultimately end with the demise of the current GOP - we're already most of the way there, IMO - but seeing how the GOP has double downed on this idea repeatedly over the past 15 years to the point where America has reached absurdist levels, it's hard to deny "distraction" is a real tactic in use in politics all in the name of the weird social environment we've seen manifest over the past three decades

 

Wait, I thought 2008 was supposed to be the year of the death of the GOP?  It now holds Congress and will likely win the Presidency, even with a candidate as historically bad as Trump.

 

And "wierd social environment"???

 

 

please

[Craig Arko]

[Squirrel]

Moderator note: We have an election thread to get all political. While I understand the overlap here, let's keep the politics here at least related to the topic at hand before we have two threads that are basically the same thing.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Moderator note: We have an election thread to get all political. While I understand the overlap here, let's keep the politics here at least related to the topic at hand before we have two threads that are basically the same thing.

Good point, thanks for the reminder. I actually thought I was in the election thread.

[Steve J]

 

Yes, a weird social environment where the GOP has become so enchanted with obstructionism that they've actually stopped listening to their own leaders. Boehner tried to get Congress back on track several times and failed. He was so frustrated he quit the job. Paul Ryan made a bold commitment to poverty reduction and Congress was so against any kind of advancement, he ended up with a plan so neutered that it does virtually nothing and manages to say even less.

 

 

 

 

Why shouldn't they be obstructionist?  This current administration has been horrible.  Neither Boehner nor Paul has up to this point looked all that serious about the debt or opposing Executive Overreach.   

 

 

 

And that's not even bringing up the truly bizarre bathroom argument. It's as if the GOP and its constituency just figured out six months ago that transgender people exist. What bathroom do you think they've been using all this time?

 

The GOP are not the bizarre ones here.  And I agree it hasn't been much of a problem until now, but you seem to misremember the GOP as being the ones to start this corner of the culture war.  The Federal Government has been the one recently deciding and pushing the ideal that providing a safe bathroom environment for women now amounts to "discrimination"

 

"The Senate can't even be bothered to do their Constitutional duty and at least hear the nominee for SCOTUS. They can shoot him down all they want but it's their obligation to listen and vote. They can't even be bothered to do that."

 

This is a gross distortion of the Senates duties.  They have zero obligation to hold hearings.  If Obama wants to earnestly move forward with this, he can nominate someone who's not a rubber stamp for Democrat ideals

 

"When the last time Congress passed a bill with real significance? When was the last time Congress didn't try to block even the most mundane actions by the President?"

 

When is the last time the President did something that wasn't in violation of his oath? 

 

BTW, here is a list of things this Congress has passed

 

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?status=28,29,32,33&sort=-current_status_date

 

 

[Squirrel]

Why shouldn't they be obstructionist? This current administration has been horrible. Neither Boehner nor Paul has up to this point looked all that serious about the debt or opposing Executive Overreach.

 

 

 

The GOP are not the bizarre ones here. And I agree it hasn't been much of a problem until now, but you seem to misremember the GOP as being the ones to start this corner of the culture war. The Federal Government has been the one recently deciding and pushing the ideal that providing a safe bathroom environment for women now amounts to "discrimination"

MODERATOR WARNING: I'm going to tell you again ... move it to the election thread to talk this kind of politics. This thread is about climate change. While I understand the overlap politics can play in this discussion, please keep it to topic or your posts will be removed.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Where is your data on this?  I think it's laughably untrue.

You think there's more money in writing scientific papers on global warming and  in climate-change advocacy groups then there is in corporations not having to regulate their externalities/pollutants?  I'm not talking about simply funding studies, I'm talking about the overall economic interests of the parties involved.  

[Steve J]

As for actual money's invested into the scientific proposition of anthropomorphic climate change, I absolutely do think there is far greater funding available, which is the relevant point. The government is only funding one side of this debate.

[PseudoSABR]

 

As for actual money's invested into the scientific proposition of anthropomorphic climate change, I absolutely do think there is far greater funding available, which is the relevant point. The government is only funding one side of this debate.

Why would the government be interested in perpetuating the myth of global warming?  More regulation means less profits for corporations and a smaller tax base for the government...take off your tin foil hat.

 

Science needs funding, typically government grants don't have strings attached that try to steer the results of scientific studies.  Pure research still exists, and its contemptible to suggest that majority scientist somehow lack integrity to produce fair results on this issue.  Corporations put their money, not in the science  but in trying to curtail Agency regulation through notice-and-comment proceedings, and through the lobbying of legislatures.  A question you should be asking is: if global warming really is a myth that could be demonstrated through scientific research, why isn't the industrial complex spending hand-over-fist to get those results out?  Probably because scientific studies don't produce results compelling enough to pay for (i.e. science demonstrates the reality of global warming, not its myth).

 

Again the industrial complex stands to make boatloads of money if we accept their premise that global warming is a myth; however, if we accept that global warming is real,  who exactly would be making this comparable boatloads of money?  (Those damn greedy folks at the SIERRA club!). 

 

What's especially terrifying for me, is that by the time some people are willing to accept the evidence showing man's contribution to global warming, it will be too late to doing anything about it, if it isn't already.  Trust me, being "right" at that point will give the rest of us little solace. 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

A question you should be asking is: if global warming really is a myth that could be demonstrated through scientific research, why isn't the industrial complex spending hand-over-fist to get those results out?

Yes, all sorts of this.

 

The climate change argument reeks of the tobacco argument from the 60s and 70s. If there was a way to disprove man-made climate change, we'd already have the data in hand. There are literally trillions of dollars on the line in this debate. If a corporation could spend $10 billion - an ungodly amount - to disprove it, they would have done it years ago.

 

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the current scientists are right, either. We constantly flub scientific discovery and circle the truth for years before we finally figure it out. I personally believe in man-made climate change but I try to keep an open mind about it. Science sometimes gets it wrong before they get it right.

 

But to accuse the scientists and government of rigging the game? No, man. You're just building a Reality Distortion Field, plugging your ears, and yelling "LALALALALALALA" at that point. This research has been going on for decades across dozens of disciplines and tens of thousands of scientists funded by both private organizations and dozens of independent countries. Are the Swedes corrupt, too? What about the Brits? The French? And the Germans, too? Well, ****... At that point, who isn't corrupt in your eyes? You have to toss Bill Gates in there as well. He obviously stands to gain a lot by funding climate research. What a jerk, that Bill Gates. He may be well on the way to eradicating polio but I just know he's screwing us on this climate thing.

 

There is no way to make the logic leap that energy producers - who stand to lose trillions - are benevolent about this subject while individual scientists - who stand to lose *maybe* a grant - are corrupt and intentionally skewing results.

 

It's sheer lunacy.