NASA Scientist: Last Chance (Global Warming)

#76
#76
jamesd1628 said:
All of these "systems" have the same purposes, to enrich the government and cripple our economy. They are all a methodology for expanding Socialism. No such system should be adopted in any form.
Click to expand...

I was actually in another post and asked you a question, but this helps clarify. I think your stand on Socialism is a little too black and white. Capitalism free of any restraints leads to things like the Great Depression and our current housing bust. Now, many may say -- "I pay my bills and can afford my home so who cares about the idiots who took exotic loans, speculated, or purchased beyond their means". Well -- you should care -- because the ripple effect is immense. Without going into too much of a tangent, government intervention is absolutely propping our economy from ruin (hence the emergency Fed cuts in January). Without some level of regulation corporate greed erodes true wealth (which is a balanced economy) and leads to many negative externalities. Some levels of regulation does not equal Socialism. There is a line -- it's just finding it.
 
#77
#77
VolByBirth said:
I was actually in another post and asked you a question, but this helps clarify. I think your stand on Socialism is a little too black and white. Capitalism free of any restraints leads to things like the Great Depression and our current housing bust. Now, many may say -- "I pay my bills and can afford my home so who cares about the idiots who took exotic loans, speculated, or purchased beyond their means". Well -- you should care -- because the ripple effect is immense. Without going into too much of a tangent, government intervention is absolutely propping our economy from ruin (hence the emergency Fed cuts in January). Without some level of regulation corporate greed erodes true wealth (which is a balanced economy) and leads to many negative externalities. Some levels of regulation does not equal Socialism. There is a line -- it's just finding it.
Click to expand...

Personal responsibility be damned huh? Amazing...

and there were so many other things that led to the great depression that putting it all on capitalism is just absurd. The gov't and banks had more to do with it
 
#78
#78
kptvol said:
It's just he fact that he's asking for others to change their lives or make sacrifices in the name of global warming. He sure doesn't seem like he's leading by example. I had made up my mind about global warming before I heard about all Al stood to gain from its hysteria. However, these kind of things certainly don't make me doubt myself.[/QUOTE]

That's a little misleading. Gore's financial interests in this field are from this decade. Gore has been voicing his concern about this since the 80's.

The way I look at it is this: EVERYONE has an agenda (yes, you do to and so do I -- on some level). As for people screaming this is a scam, I always look at Big Tobacco whenthere many, many assertions that tobacco does not cause lung cancer. They had many MD's and PhD's on their side asserting their claim as well. I think common sense should have prevailed -- you're pouring smoke into your lungs and your initial reaction is to cough immensely -- your body is trying to tell you something.

It's a loose analogy, but in the same vein, stick your face in front of an exhaust pipe for a few moments and see what happens. Not good (and for the record -- any kids reading this -- don't do that, you can die). There is no arguing that the enormous amount fo carbon dioxide we are pouring into the air MIGHT have some negative impact. Is it warming the Globe? Is it doing something else? All-in-all -- my gut tells me it's certainly hurting something and definitely not helping. Do I have to buy in to all the many possible ramifications? No. But like when smoking was contested -- common sense should prevail. There can't be anything good that comes out of pouring these fumes into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
 
#79
#79
utvolpj said:
Personal responsibility be damned huh? Amazing...

and there were so many other things that led to the great depression that putting it all on capitalism is just absurd. The gov't and banks had more to do with it
Click to expand...

Do you trust the people? I think we've proven time and time again that if given free reign greed will prevail with a vengeance. Greed creates these issues.

And are banks not part of capitalism? They're the backbone of it.
 
#80
#80
VolByBirth said:
kptvol said:
It's just he fact that he's asking for others to change their lives or make sacrifices in the name of global warming. He sure doesn't seem like he's leading by example. I had made up my mind about global warming before I heard about all Al stood to gain from its hysteria. However, these kind of things certainly don't make me doubt myself.[/QUOTE]

That's a little misleading. Gore's financial interests in this field are from this decade. Gore has been voicing his concern about this since the 80's.

The way I look at it is this: EVERYONE has an agenda (yes, you do to and so do I -- on some level). As for people screaming this is a scam, I always look at Big Tobacco whenthere many, many assertions that tobacco does not cause lung cancer. They had many MD's and PhD's on their side asserting their claim as well. I think common sense should have prevailed -- you're pouring smoke into your lungs and your initial reaction is to cough immensely -- your body is trying to tell you something.

It's a loose analogy, but in the same vein, stick your face in front of an exhaust pipe for a few moments and see what happens. Not good (and for the record -- any kids reading this -- don't do that, you can die). There is no arguing that the enormous amount dioxied we are pooring into the air MIGHT have some negative impact. Is it warming the Globe? Is it doing something else? All-in-all -- my gut tells me it's certainly hurting something and definitely not helping. Do I have to buy in to all the many possible ramifications? No. But like when smoking was contested -- common sense should prevail. There can't be anything good that comes out of pooring these fumes into the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

Gore and Clinton sure didn't seem to be too concerned with emissions during their 8 years in the White House. As for the tobacco industry, I'm sure they had some guys on their side that stood to benefit from smoking not being linked to cancer. On the global warming issue, there are quite a few scientists with nothing to gain that are criticizing the theory. At the very least, the endorsers of global warming are being reckless and irresponsible with the events they attribute to global warming.
Click to expand...
 
#81
#81
kptvol said:
VolByBirth said:
Gore and Clinton sure didn't seem to be too concerned with emissions during their 8 years in the White House. As for the tobacco industry, I'm sure they had some guys on their side that stood to benefit from smoking not being linked to cancer. On the global warming issue, there are quite a few scientists with nothing to gain that are criticizing the theory. At the very least, the endorsers of global warming are being reckless and irresponsible with the events they attribute to global warming.
Click to expand...

They are certainly being sensationalists. I'll give you that. But at the same time, so are the detractors who claim that our carbon emissions will have zero impact on the environment.
Click to expand...
 
#82
#82
VolByBirth said:
kptvol said:
They are certainly being sensationalists. I'll give you that. But at the same time, so are the detractors who claim that our carbon emissions will have zero impact on the environment.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I hear anyone saying pumping stuff into the air will have zero impact on the environment. I hear more about how there will be a negligible effect on global temperatures. Regardless, I'd say that behavior is more ethical than listing scientists as promoters of the global warming theory in a UN report without asking those scientists for permission.
Click to expand...
 
#84
#84
there's still no evidence that this "global warming" is man made, or even aggravated by man's activities.

Since there are only 30 years of satellite data, is there any other evidence that the polar ice has never done this in the past?
 
#85
#85
MG1968 said:
there's still no evidence that this "global warming" is man made, or even aggravated by man's activities.

Since there are only 30 years of satellite data, is there any other evidence that the polar ice has never done this in the past?
Click to expand...

I know the ice over Antarctica has increased in both volume and density in the last 20 years.
 
#86
#86
oklavol said:
I think global warming is more serious then many people want to believe, and scientists are not basing their conclusions on politics but on evidence.

For example there are 50-50 odds there won't be any ice on the North Pole this year.

Exclusive: No ice at the North Pole - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent
Click to expand...

The "scientist" that wrote that article went to school for zoology. He probably should stick to writing about zebras. While he does quote a couple of guys that are knowledgable in the field (Mark Serreze and Ron Lindsay), the thing about 50-50 chances isn't from either of those guys. It's pretty much the author's own opinion.
 
#87
#87
#88
#88
kptvol said:
The "scientist" that wrote that article went to school for zoology. He probably should stick to writing about zebras. While he does quote a couple of guys that are knowledgable in the field (Mark Serreze and Ron Lindsay), the thing about 50-50 chances isn't from either of those guys. It's pretty much the author's own opinion.
Click to expand...

Yet, many of the anti-AGW scientists that sign the "famous" petitions are biologists.....
 
#89
#89
TennTradition said:
Yet, many of the anti-AGW scientists that sign the "famous" petitions are biologists.....
Click to expand...

The fact that he's a zoologist means he's likely aligned himself with environmentalist groups and would therefore be more likely to support global warming theories.
 
#90
#90
kptvol said:
The fact that he's a zoologist means he's likely aligned himself with environmentalist groups and would therefore be more likely to support global warming theories.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily...many of the scientists you referred (I think that it was you) earlier as not wanting to be referenced in the IPCC report are biologists.
 
#91
#91
TennTradition said:
Not necessarily...many of the scientists you referred (I think that it was you) earlier as not wanting to be referenced in the IPCC report are biologists.
Click to expand...

I never said they were credible sources... Anyway, that argument goes both ways. If they weren't credible, then they never should have been considered for the report. I'm not really sure if many of those guys have come out as strong opponents of global warming theories, they just didn't want to be supporters. Either way, it was pretty dishonest to falsely assign their endorsement.
 
#92
#92
kptvol said:
I never said they were credible sources... Anyway, that argument goes both ways. If they weren't credible, then they never should have been considered for the report. I'm not really sure if many of those guys have come out as strong opponents of global warming theories, they just didn't want to be supporters. Either way, it was pretty dishonest to falsely assign their endorsement.
Click to expand...

I agree...if those scientists didn't want to be included in the report, they shouldn't have been listed. The interesting part is that it can go both ways...those that didn't want to be listed could have felt the report didn't go far enough...just as much as they felt that it went to far. It's hard to say what the disagreements were....(and I think that it a real issue...not just some point to obfuscate the matter).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top