Climate Change

[PancaKe]

I hate starting these topics because I'm just so indifferent on issues unless they affect me directly (like most of the world) but I figured a few of you politically minded people might have something to say about climate change.

Where does TPM stand?


I heard the other day that a scientest has been saying that climate change is merely a part of a cycle that happens to the earth, using icebergs or something as evidence. And I've heard from several people that this same scientist was saying that its good to have more carbon dioxide in teh world cos it makes trees grow quicker.

Where do you stand on climate change?
Do you think we should be doing more, or do you think it is all a scam?

[mr_pikachu]

Based on the "HARRY_READ_ME.txt" file in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), which noted that much of the original data on which researchers based the global warming/climate change theory was subsequently dumped (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece), I'm inclined to follow the beliefs I've held for almost a decade and say that "climate change" is a joke. Analysts are still poring over a slew of E-mails and other files, but it appears that, even though some bloggers are arguing that most of the original data was still available elsewhere (http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030), even the CRU itself didn't use it (http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20TheDevilsKitchen%20(The%20Dev il%27s%20Kitchen)) when creating further models which now undergird current (and likely future) national and international policies.

Yeah, I've officially thrown down the gauntlet on this one. Let the games begin!

[Roy Karrde]

Right now the evidence that it is a scam is greater than ever before, that doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up our ways and take care of our planet. But right now I am leaning toward it being a scam, or that many scientists have tried to heighten the problem for either ideological or economic means. Those in the Man Made Global Warming field have lost alot of credibility, and may never get it back after "Climategate" as it is being dubbed. And Global Warming, or as we are dealing with currently Global Cooling, is a progressing science, we get new information in every day about it, what we know now probably wont be true five or ten years down the line. Personally I am all for working to clean up the world, but to start from scratch with the science, as right now it cant be trusted.

[mr_pikachu]

Those in the Man Made Global Warming field have lost alot of credibility, and may never get it back after "Climategate" as it is being dubbed.

I agree with every part of your post except for this sentence. The media, by and large, will ignore the evidence, so by the time midterm elections roll around next year, 98% of the population will have forgotten all about this incident -- if they ever heard about it in the first place. They'll be too busy trying to decide which American Idol contestant is cuter. (Given that American Idol is a singing competition, that should demonstrate the general public's aptitude for... well, thinking.)

[Telume]

I actually heard that the predictions of Climate change may not be as bad as originally forecast. They say that between the release "An Incovenient Truth" and now, the global temperature has actually DROPPED by 1 degree. So that means we're doing something right, I don't quite remember where I read that though. Had I actually saved the article I could show it to you. I just remember reading it.

[mr_pikachu]

Well, that's why they changed the theory from "global warming" to "climate change." When your initial guess is proven blatantly incorrect, switch to a hypothesis that can't possibly be wrong!

To think of it another way, when was the last time you read a headline that said, "Temperature Slightly Different Than This Time Last Year"? Oh, wait, that's right. You just read that, because that's the theory of climate change: over time, things won't stay exactly the same. Well, no shit. :P

[Master Rudy]

Well, that's why they changed the theory from "global warming" to "climate change." When your initial guess is proven blatantly incorrect, switch to a hypothesis that can't possibly be wrong!

I think Pika's line here sums up the arguement pretty well. The people who were screaming "GLOBAL WARMING" a decade ago are the same ones screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE" now.

As for my thoughts on the matter I'm calling bullshit on global warming. When it comes to climate change however the bottom line is this: if you think the weather pattens and average tempature of ANY planet is going to remain the same forever then frankly your an idiot. All in all the planet isn't going to blow up tommorow. It's no excuse to not take care of it mind you. However it's also insane to think we're going to be fucked in X years if we don't do Y in Z timeframe. The bottom line is that the Earth has been around for a long time and survived quite a bit. Short of a large scale natural or man made incident causing severe changes I wouldn't worry too much.

Besides if said large scale incident does happen then chances are the tempatures going up or down a few degrees may be the least of our worries. I'm willing to bet that most of you don't know that Yellowstone is one of the largest volcanoes in the world. It'd most likely be the end of the world if that fucker blew :o

[PancaKe]

My dad, who had a few too many beers tonight, said this to me:

"Climate change? They can't even tell me if it will rain tomorrow or not!"


Ah I love my dad

[Heald]

Climategate has certainly lost the climate change lobby a great deal of credibility, but does that mean we should go back to our old ways of relying on non-renewable fuels and inputs, go back to pumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and polluting our rivers? We've come a long way since then. Even if climate change turns out not to have been a big deal after all, pollution still is. It'd be sad to let the sceptics who were only sceptical because their political party told them to be undo all the hard work that has been done so far.

[Jeff]

I applaud advances in new and cleaner energy sources. Clean air is nice, and plants and animals that we rely on for food can benefit, which means we benefit as well. What annoys me is when people attach slogans like "lower your carbon footprint" or "think of the polar bears" to being environmentally conscious when scientists know very little about the connection between human activity and changes in global temperatures.

I also find it really disturbing that these "scientists" are manipulating the data to back up their claims. A real scientist collects all the data and makes predictions based on all of that data and only that data. If the data doesn't agree with your predictions it means your prediction is wrong, not the data.

[MToolen]

It was a good wake-up call to things that we just weren't thinking about since the early 90's (see also: Ferngully, Captain Planet).

But seriously, I live right next to an oil refinery and it sometimes gets tiring hearing "pollution is bad" when you hear about it so often and so close to home. The global warming scare may not have revolutionized all power and policy, but people around the world have been making small changes. I know of far more people that recycle now, and I wouldn't have thought to unplug un-used appliances if I hadn't heard of the idea. I'd say that, while the whole thing was a sham, it brought about some change that makes people better and that's nothing to complain about.

I'm calling this the Ozymandias theory.

[Roy Karrde]

And of course Heald there are those that support Global Warming and to introduce radical climate bills because their party told them to.

That being said it as the UK Telegraph notes today, It is all unraveling now, especially after the vote last night in which Australia voted wisely to reject Cap and Trade. I have a feeling the same legislation is now dead in the US Senate atleast for the next year because of Climategate.

Meanwhile we in DFW woke up to our own dusting of Global Warming this morning. (http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Snow-moves-in-to-parts-of-North-Texas-78307397.html)

[Heald]

The political parties that supported climate change legislation were basing their support on what was to be believed as legitimate scientific evidence that if we didn't change our ways, the planet's atmosphere and the environment would be irreversibly damaged.

The political parties that tried and continue to try to destroy climate change legislation are doing so because the pockets of their biggest financiers are about to get a lot lighter thanks to climate change legislation.

Now, believe what you want about climate change, but trying to make the planet a better place is a whole lot better than trying to make supernormal profits at the expense of the environment.

Furthermore, cap and trade legislation is perfectly acceptable. People and families have been urged to recycle, cut down consumption and to be green for decades now, yet industry and corporations have been trying to find new and exciting way to destroy the planet. Corporations don't have the right to pollute the environment just because there isn't a law limiting their pollution output, yet they continue to act like they have the right to.

[Roy Karrde]

Well for one that isn't exactly fair as there is ALOT of money to be made in the passing of Climate Change Legislation, for example Al Gore has significant shares in companies that would profit heavily if Cap and Trade were to pass in the United States. And as the WSJ noted yesterday, there is billions of dollars out there in Government Grants and Industry Grants for those that support Man Made Global Warming. Second there is significant science data out there to show that Man Made Global Warming does not exist, even before Climate Gate struck, so trying to portray one party of just being opposed to it because of big industry is wrong.

I also have to disagree with you on Cap and Trade, it is a scam at best, and a economy killer at worst, and as has been shown by numerous studies, it will not even reduce CO2 in any significant way unless it is passed by China and India, both of whom are not looking to slow their industry.

Also I have said all the time that cleaning up the environment is good, doing so on what is now conceivably the faulty science of Global Warming is wrong, as is doing it in a radical way that could kill a country's economy and workforce.

[RedStarWarrior]

I've heard reports that climate change is worse than expected and reports that there was evidence that statistical data was altered in many reports.

I really don't know because I plan to be living on the Moon soon.

[Heald]

I agree the problem of climate change belief can go both ways, and both parties can be equally problematic. You have the sceptics who don't actually use scientific evidence to back up their beliefs that there is no climate change, instead saying stupid things such as 'God wouldn't cause climate change' or having their beliefs spoonfed to them by liars and fear mongers such as Glenn Beck, Rush, Bill O'Lielly etc. On the other hand, celebrities and other tools who come out after every single natural disaster and claim it is caused by global warming are as equally problematic in spreading mistruth. We recently had a flood or two in the UK, which is really not that uncommon at this time of year, but as soon as one town's bridge collapsed, some celebrity (can't remember who) came out all arms swinging screaming that global warming was to blame, which is, well, stupid and irresponsible.

As for Al Gore investing in green companies, well, he would come under equally strong fire if he hadn't personally invested in renewable energy, since that would show he isn't willing to put his money where his mouth is. Plus, his investments in green companies only make up a small part of his extensive portfolio, and all the profits he has made from his personal investments have been donated to the Alliance for Climate Change, a non-for-profit awareness group.

If cap-and-trade isn't the answer, it still leaves the question of how to control pollution unanswered. Without legislation, corporations will still have free reign to pollute the atmosphere, a right they simply do not have, and left unchecked it will leave an irreparable scar on the planet. We cannot afford not to take action.

[Roy Karrde]

I am not saying we shouldn't have the EPA or legislation toward pollution and making sure that we don't turn into China where companies dump into the latest river bed. The problem is that Cap and Trade is so draconian, so dangerous, to just the overall economy, and it accomplishes nothing. That above all else should keep us from passing it, this isn't a one or the other scenario, you can have reasonable pollution laws with out going nuclear in the form of Cap and Trade. As for Al Gore, he has about a billion dollars tied up in Green Companies that stand to make a killing if Cap and Trade is passed, that above all else should be something to question his motives.

And hey I agree with you there are idiots on both sides of the isle that have no idea what they are talking about.

[Crystalmaster Mike]

I saw the SG1 movie Ark of Truth on Sunday. Vala said something (about the Book of Origin) which summarizes my opinion on the matter. Parafrased:

I'm not denying there's a lot of wisdom in [the measures]. I would just leave out [the part where you're pointing fingers at one another].

I haven't heard anything Climategate yet in the news, but I expect/hope to soon. Though I'm leaning towards what mr. pikachu said, that it might very well be hushed up.

Personally, I'm all for more green. Nevertheless, I ride my fuel-powered car to work each day because it's just that, a means for me to get at my work the fastest and easiest (I've got a bridge, a couple of schools, and a few busy roads to cross).
I read a news article today about a private company researching how to generate electricity from plants.
It's these measures that might hold the most benefit for the future. That is, if the news about the oil lakes drying up isn't a spoof too.

[mr_pikachu]

Oil supply limits: I've talked with a few petroleum engineers about this, and the consensus among my informal sample is that we won't run out for at least 100 years. With that said, every "oil" company of any significant size is diversifying by developing alternative forms of energy. After all, once the market really starts transitioning from petroleum to something else, no one wants to be caught with all their eggs in one basket.



Pollution/Climate Change: I agree that we still need organizations like the EPA to control pollution, or else we will damage the planet. That goes without saying. However, a radical change of policy would be ill-advised if based only on obviously flawed science. At this point we basically have to completely backtrack and restart all analyses from the beginning if we want to determine, with any degree of reliability, how our actions are affecting the condition of our planet. In the meantime, we should retain our current policies to limit pollution for the sake of both the environment and public health.



Rhetoric: The whole reason I strongly oppose many environmentalist movements is because I've suspected that the science has been faulty for quite some time. Over the past decade, many researchers have disagreed with the theories of global warming and climate change, but this has seen little attention in the mass media. Instead they have spouted arguments about the "incontrovertible" scientific evidence, which, as we all know, goes completely against the very nature of scientific inquiry. Further, all the talk about "reduce your carbon footprint," etc., etc. sounded like a massive guilt trip built upon this metaphorical house of cards.

In short, I'm more inclined to stop eating beef so that cows can produce that much more CO2 into the atmosphere than to make any effort to reduce my carbon footprint.

[Blademaster]

I think Pika's line here sums up the arguement pretty well. The people who were screaming "GLOBAL WARMING" a decade ago are the same ones screaming "CLIMATE CHANGE" now.
I called global warming a year ago and I'm calling it now. It'll be the end of all of us, I say! Repent! REPENT!


Besides if said large scale incident does happen then chances are the tempatures going up or down a few degrees may be the least of our worries. I'm willing to bet that most of you don't know that Yellowstone is one of the largest volcanoes in the world. It'd most likely be the end of the world if that fucker blew :o

SUPERvolcano, Rudy. It's called a SUPERvolcano. Didn't you watch 2012? You'd have learned all about geological stuff like that if you did. :v

[mr_pikachu]

Regarding the media bias, I'd just like to note Yahoo's main page (http://www.yahoo.com/). Of the 34 national stories/topics currently featured, not one of them even mentions climate change. (To put this in context, article #19 reports that the infamous shoe-thrower recently had a shoe thrown at him. #13 addresses a new iPhone app, "The Chad Ochocinco Experience." Big news, people.) Of course, my version of Yahoo! does include a local article from the Indianapolis Star... about veterans who are pushing in favor of the climate change bill.

Even the online media are covering up what they don't want to report. :/

[Roy Karrde]

I think alot of those would be the AP, which of course wouldn't run a critical story on Global Warming unless they were dragged to it. But to be fair the news did break over a week ago so it could have ran it's course on top Yahoo News Stories. On the other hand it has been on the top page of Drudge Report which tends to be one of the go to places for News Stories outside of the usual pages, and Fox News has been running with it, and Jon Stewart did a segment on it. It's funny after the Obama and ACORN scandals this summer, a curious trend has emerged when it comes to these stories.

Right Wing Websites -> Fox News -> Jon Stewart -> Rest of the News Media

In terms of who runs the story first to last. It got so bad I believe it was the NY Times finally agreed to have some one that would monitor Cable TV to figure out what stories were coming up that they should look for.

[Master Rudy]

SUPERvolcano, Rudy. It's called a SUPERvolcano. Didn't you watch 2012? You'd have learned all about geological stuff like that if you did. :v

Oh the horror......I forgot to toss in the word super. I'm glad your here to clear these things up Blade :lol:

In regards to Al Gore I'm not surprised. I disagree with the fucker on so many points. However I'd find it more odd if he WASN'T invested in alternate energy research. As much as I can't stand him I think it's more a case of the guy being a true believe in a cause than a case of looking for ways to get rich quick. Only in this case being the believer in a cause can potentially make him a very rich man if certain things pass.