|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| The defining characteristic of religious belief is 'blind faith'. The dominant characteristics of people defending their religious ideas are 1) use the bible to justify the bible (circular logic) and label the messenger as blasphemous in an attempt to discredit the argument. |
Well, yes, that's the same argument used by creationists to claim that evolution is 'religion'. But do you really think that majority of the scientific establishment is operating on blind faith? And do you not recognise that denying global warming does serve some very powerful governmental and corporate agendas? After all, we know that the US government ahs been putting pressure on scientists to downplay their findings:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070131/1a_coverside31.art.htm |
There is evidence for evolution and none for "creationism". There is also evidence for climate change (though not much for global warming) but the causes of this event are totally up for debate.
Yes, questioning "global warming" does serve some interests. But blindly following it serves agendas as well. This is a cover for a massive power grab by the state and multilateral institutions, which is why they universally support the theory. The biggest loser, outside of us all inevitably losing liberty whenever these things are overblown, will be those people on our planet who actually need resources to help their problems.
But it doesn't matter who benefits. What does matter is the evidence that is out there, and my reading of this evidence leads me to believe that the very minor changes are likely part of a natural cycle, or a natural (but not cyclical) event.
That doesn't mean we should all buy Hummers. It does mean that are time and attention (and money) will be better spent working on more important problems. Like HIV, hunger, malaria, slavery and good governance in developing nations, to name a small few. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| This is a cover for a massive power grab by the state and multilateral institutions, which is why they universally support the theory. |
Wow, that's a pretty impressive meta-narrative you've got running there. Do you have evidence for it? (And nation states and multilateral institutions universally support the theory? Do they really?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GAJ, that is retarded. We both know that environmental regulations both domestically and internationally are being expanded, or will be expanded due to this ordeal.
Do you need me to post links about how enviromental laws strengthen government? Really? Have you been following this at all? Do you know of the "precautionary principle"? Every cry about mother gia is followed by another cry for mommy government to fix it.
Which states do not openly support the theory? Which agencies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| GAJ, that is retarded. We both know that environmental regulations both domestically and internationally are being expanded, or will be expanded due to this ordeal. |
You're the one who seems to think - against the evidence - that it's a government conspiracy. Sounds like standard libertarian paranoia to me.
In any case, I'm in favour of governments having much stronger controls over environmental regulations. Better accountable governments than unaccountable corporations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It isn't a conspiracy. The self-proclaimed "enviromental activists" are clear in their desire, as you have just articulated, to have the state further regulate and control our lives. How is that a conspiracy? It is all public. Nobody is hiding their intentions. You just said you wanted it! Where am I paranoid? I'm responding to the stated preferences of people like you, and their paranoia towards firms.
About your USA Today link. I'm aware of how the Bushies have tried to stifle science in every sphere. It is despicable that they do it. But maybe you need to be reminded that even the Devil himself, GWB, is making reference to "global warming". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| It isn't a conspiracy. The self-proclaimed "enviromental activists" are clear in their desire, as you have just articulated, to have the state further regulate and control our lives. How is that a conspiracy? It is all public. Nobody is hiding their intentions. You just said you wanted it! Where am I paranoid? I'm responding to the stated preferences of people like you, and their paranoia towards firms. |
Are you not aware that the reason that people support government environmental regulations is because the evidence is that environmental damage is BAD FOR PEOPLE?
| BJWD wrote: |
| About your USA Today link. I'm aware of how the Bushies have tried to stifle science in every sphere. It is despicable that they do it. But maybe you need to be reminded that even the Devil himself, GWB, is making reference to "global warming". |
Perhaps because ignoring the mainstream scientific consensus as he had been was becoming an embarrassment to the administration? Lucky the Czech Republic is standing up for corporate interests! It's a dirty job but someone has to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| BJWD wrote: |
| It isn't a conspiracy. The self-proclaimed "enviromental activists" are clear in their desire, as you have just articulated, to have the state further regulate and control our lives. How is that a conspiracy? It is all public. Nobody is hiding their intentions. You just said you wanted it! Where am I paranoid? I'm responding to the stated preferences of people like you, and their paranoia towards firms. |
Are you not aware that the reason that people support government environmental regulations is because the evidence is that environmental damage is BAD FOR PEOPLE?
| BJWD wrote: |
| About your USA Today link. I'm aware of how the Bushies have tried to stifle science in every sphere. It is despicable that they do it. But maybe you need to be reminded that even the Devil himself, GWB, is making reference to "global warming". |
Perhaps because ignoring the mainstream scientific consensus as he had been was becoming an embarrassment to the administration? Lucky the Czech Republic is standarding up for corporate interests though. |
People support government regulations because 1) they are told to and 2) they don't know of the non-governmental alternatives. People have been whipped into a hysteria about the environment in the same way they are hysterical about drugs, or terrorism or whatever. What the people believe is not a good example for what is right.
Environmental damage is bad for people. But you've moved past the issue and are too general now. I'm not opposed to all enviromental regulation. The point is that there is a good amount of evidence that global warming is false. And if the theory is false, we should look to other enviromental problems to fix. Real problems.
Corporate interests? The corporations will do fine. They will move to states like China that don't require them to respect the environment. This will just move the pollution around, as has already happened. If government was serious about this, they would be funding new, cleaner technology far more than they do rather than attempting to stop people (who can't just pick up and move to China) from using the technology available to them.
All of these coming regulations will move pollution, jobs and wealth from West to East. The pollution will remain the same. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BJWD wrote: |
| The global warming debate is starting to get very religious in tone. Much like the socialist debate 70 years back. And those who made the arguments for socialism are now the same people pushing for greenism. |
Bullshit. This kind of comment adds nothing to the debate. Say something of use, or just be quiet. Since you're not going to shut up, please post the links that show EVERY PERSON concerned about global climate change and believes the speed of change is being primarily affected by human activity is a socialist. For chrisake, man, most scientists I know of or have read about are hardly clerics or communists.
Tripe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, be quiet. The disposition of a crazy leftie.
But no, I'm not going to shut up. I've never met a hardleft person in my life who doesn't act like you. Bitter old fool.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm
| Quote: |
Believe it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?
Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.
Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.
It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.
However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it�s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.
This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.
Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.
Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat.
"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.
The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.
Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was getting a bigger pay packet than him.
If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.
In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.
Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.
His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.
Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory. Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.
Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=07407be3-1f9f-4f41-a16a-5a286a5b374c&k=53926
| Quote: |
The green fervour
Is environmentalism the new religion?
Joseph Brean, National Post
In his new book Apollo�s Arrow, ambitiously subtitled The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything, Vancouver-based author and mathematician David Orrell set out to explain why the mathematical models scientists use to predict the weather, the climate and the economy are not getting any better, just more refined in their uncertainty.
What he discovered, in trying to sketch the first principles of prophecy, was the religious nature of modern e nviron-mentalism.
This is not to say that fearing for the future of the planet is irrational in the way supernatural belief arguably is, just that � in its myths of the Fall and the Apocalypse, its saints and heretics, its iconography and tithing, its reliance on prophecy, even its schisms � the green movement now exhibits the same psychology of compliance as religion.
Email to a friendEmail to a friendPrinter friendlyPrinter friendly
Font:
* *
* *
* *
* *
Dr. Orrell is no climate-change denier. He calls himself green. But he understands the unjustified faith that arises from the psychological need tomake predictions.
�The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone�s still really interested in it. It�s sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can�t make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can�t make long-term predictions of the climate,� Dr. Orrell said in an interview. After all, he said, scientists cannot even write the equation of a cloud, let alone make a workable model of the climate.
Formerly of University College London, Dr. Orrell is best known among scientists for arguing that the failures of weather forecasting are not due to chaotic effects � as in the butterfly that causes the hurricane � but to errors of modelling. He sees the same problems in the predictions of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which he calls �extremely vague,� and says there is no scientific reason to think the climate is more predictable than the weather.
�Models will cheerfully boil away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even with pre-industrial levels of Co2,� he writes in Apollo�s Arrow . And so scientists use theoretical concepts like �flux adjustments� to make the models agree with reality. When models about the future climate are in agreement, �it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modelling community than it does about global warming and the economy.�
In explaining such an arcane topic for a general audience, he found himself returning again and again to religious metaphors to explain our faith in predictions, referring to the �weather gods� and the �images of almost biblical wrath� in the literature. He sketched the rise of �the gospel of deterministic science,� a faith system that was born with Isaac Newton and died with Albert Einstein. He said his own physics education felt like an �indoctrination� into the use of models, and that scientists in his field, �like priests... feel they are answering a higher calling.�
�If you go back to the oracles of ancient Greece, prediction has always been one function of religion,� he said. �This role is coveted, and so there�s not very much work done at questioning the prediction, because it�s almost as if you were going to the priest and saying, �Look, I�m not sure about the Second Coming of Christ.� �
He is not the first to make this link. Forty years ago, shortly after Rachel Carson launched modern environmentalism by publishing Silent Spring, leading to the first Earth Day in 1970, a Princeton history professor named LynnWhite wrote a seminal essay called �The Historical Roots of our Ecological Crisis.�
�By destroying pagan animism [the belief that natural objects have souls], Christianity made it possible to exploit nature in a mood of indifference to the feelings of natural objects,� he wrote in a 1967 issue of . �Since the roots of our trouble are so largely religious, the remedy must also be essentially religious, whether we call it that or not.� It was a prescient claim. In a 2003 speech in San Francisco, best-selling author Michael Crichton was among the first to explicitly close the circle, calling modern environmentalism �the religion of choice for urban atheists ... a perfect 21st century re-mapping of traditional JudeoChristian beliefs andmyths.�
Today, the popularity of British author James Lovelock�s Gaia Hypothesis � that the Earth itself functions as a living organism � confirms the return of a sort of idolatrous animism, a religion of nature. The recent IPCC report, and a week�s worth of turgid headlines, did not create this faith, but certainly made it more evident.
It can be felt in the frisson of piety that comes with lighting an energy-saving light bulb, a modern votive candle.
It is there in the pious propaganda of media outlets like the, Toronto Star, which on Jan. 28 made the completely implausible claim that, �The debate about greenhouse gas emissions appears to be over.�
It can be seen in the public ritual of cycling to work, in the veneer of saintliness on David Suzuki and Al Gore (the rush for tickets to the former vice-president�s upcoming appearance crashed the server at the University of Toronto this week), in the high-profile conversion (honest or craven) of GeorgeW. Bush, and in the sinful guilt of throwing a plastic bottle in the garbage.
Adherents make arduous pilgrimages and call them ecotourism. Newspapers publish the iconography of polar bears. The IPCC reports carry the weight of scripture.
John Kay of the Financial Times wrote last month, about future climate chaos: �Christians look to the Second Coming, Marxists look to the collapse of capitalism, with the same mixture of fear and longing ... The discovery of global warming filled a gap in the canon ... [and] provides justification for the link between the sins of our past and the catastrophe of our future.�
Like the tithe in Judaism and Christianity, the religiosity of green is seen in the suspiciously precise mathematics that allow companies such as Bullfrog Power or Offsetters to sell the supposed neutralization of the harmful emissions from household heating, air travel or transportation to a concert.
It is in the schism that has arisen over whether to renew or replace Kyoto, which, even if the scientific skeptics are completely discounted, has been a divisive force for environmentalists.
What was once called salvation � a nebulous state of grace � is now known as sustainability, a word that is equally resistant to precise definition. There is even a hymn, When the North Pole Melts, by James G. Titus, a scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is not exactly How Great Thou Art, but serves a similar purpose.
Environmentalism even has its persecutors, embodied in the Bush White House attack dogs who have conducted no less than an Inquisition against climate scientists, which failed to bring them to heel but instead inspired potential martyrs. Of course, as religions tend to do, environmentalists commit persecution of their own, which has created heretics out of mere skeptics.
All of this might be fine if religions had a history of rational scientific inquiry and peaceful, tolerant implementation of their beliefs. As it is, however, many religions, environmentalism included, continue to struggle with the curse of literalism, and the resultant extremism.
�Maybe I�m wrong, but I think all this is wrapped up in our belief that we can predict the future,� said Dr. Orrell. �What we need is more of a sense that we�re out of our depth, and that�s more likely to promote a lasting change in behaviour.�
Projections are useful to �provoke ideas and aid thinking about the future,� but as he writes in the book, �they should not be taken literally.�
The �fundamental danger of deterministic, objective science [is that] like a corny, overformulaic film, it imagines and presents the world as a predictable object. It has no sense of the mystery, magic, or surprise of life.�
The solution, he thinks, is to adopt what the University of Toronto�s Thomas Homer-Dixon calls a �prospective mind� � an intellectual stance that is �proactive, anticipatory, comfortable with change, and not surprised by surprise.�
In short, if we are to be good, future problem solvers, we must not be blinded by prophecy.
�I think [this stance] opens up the possibility for a more emotional and therefore more effective response,� Dr. Orrell said. �There�s a sense in which uncertainty is actually scarier and more likely to make us act than if you have bureaucrats saying, �Well, it�s going to get warmer by about three degrees, and we know what�s going to happen.�� |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html
| Quote: |
Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world
Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming
David Adam, science correspondent
Friday August 19, 2005
The Guardian
Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.
The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.
The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures.
Article continues
Dr Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer, in Yokohama, said: "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement. A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension."
To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017.
If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about �5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.
The bet is the latest in an increasingly popular field of scientific wagers, and comes after a string of climate change sceptics have refused challenges to back their controversial ideas with cash.
Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.
No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only �200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms.
In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a �5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks.
Most climate change sceptics dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which suggest that human activity will drive global temperatures up by between 1.4C and 5.8C by the end of the century.
Others, such as the Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, argue that, although global warming is real, there is little we can do to prevent it and that we would be better off trying to adapt to living in an altered climate.
Dr Annan said bets like the one he made with the Russian sceptics are one way to confront the ideas. He also suggests setting up a financial-style futures market to allow those with critical stakes in the outcome of climate change to gamble on predictions and hedge against future risk.
"Betting on sea level rise would have a very real relevance to Pacific islanders," he said. "By betting on rapid sea-level rise, they would either be able to stay in their homes at the cost of losing the bet if sea level rise was slow, or would win the bet and have money to pay for sea defences or relocation if sea level rise was rapid."
Similar agricultural commodity markets already allow farmers to hedge against bad weather that ruins harvests. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Sceptics denounce climate science 'lie'
Thunderstorm Noaa
The critics say climate predictions are "unknowable" (Noaa)
test hello test
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
line
A group of scientists in the US and the UK says the accepted wisdom on climate change remains unproved.
They say rising greenhouse gas emissions may not be the main factor in global warming. They argue that temperature rise projections this century are "unknown and unknowable".
They claim it is "a media myth" to suppose that only a few scientists share their scepticism.
The scientists, a group convened by the American George C. Marshall Institute, first published their report in the US.
'Political conclusions'
It has been republished in the UK by the European Science and Environment Forum (Esef), entitled Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection.
Traffic in snow PA
Projections of climate change are based on models and assumptions
Esef says it is "the result of an extensive review by a distinguished group of scientists and public policy experts of the science behind recent findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)".
The US group included a former CIA director and defence secretary James Schlesinger, and Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The report says the IPCC's conclusions "have become politicised and fail to convey the underlying uncertainties that are important in policy considerations".
Its detailed criticisms of the IPCC include:
* projections of climate change based on models and assumptions which "are not only unknown, but unknowable within ranges relevant for policy-making"
* models which "do not adequately characterise clouds, water vapour, aerosols, ocean currents and solar effects"
* a failure "to reproduce the difference in trends between the lower troposphere and surface temperatures over the past 20 years".
The authors conclude: "The IPCC simulation of surface temperature appears to be little more than a fortuitous bit of curve-fitting rather than any genuine demonstration of human influence on global climate."
Accused of lying
Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the University of London, is a prominent British climate sceptic.
Wind turbines BBC
"No need" for green energy
He said: "The authors challenge the key contradiction at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate agreement - that climate is one of the most complex systems known, yet that we can manage it by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions. Scientifically, this is not mere uncertainty: it is a lie."
Professor Stott told BBC News Online: "The problem with a chaotic coupled non-linear system as complex as climate is that you can no more predict successfully the outcome of doing something as of not doing something. Kyoto will not halt climate change. Full stop."
Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, used to work at the State Department and helped to shape US climate policy.
Heavyweight backing
She told BBC News Online: "This report dismisses the findings of the IPCC as alarmist, yet they are widely accepted as representative of the current state of scientific knowledge.
"A panel of the US's own National Academy of Sciences (which included Richard Lindzen) expressed general agreement with the IPCC's finding that warming is occurring, and that it is at least partly caused by humans.
"Uncertainty cuts both ways. Some of the IPCC's scenarios have been criticized as unduly pessimistic, others as unduly optimistic.
"What is important is that they reflect a balance of reasonable futures, and that the scientific findings should be based on the peer-reviewed literature. The IPCC has been able to accomplish exactly that.
"And Kyoto was only intended to be a first step in a long journey." |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1833902.stm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Compunction Junction
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your whole article is saying "Listen, we haven't done enough research to make a claim one way or the other".
Fine.
How about going to any other site where glaciers ARE retreating...there are hundreds after all.
Or what if you just took a stroll up (or down) to the ice cap. That oughtta clear something up.
| Quote: |
What the people believe is not a good example for what is right.
|
Nobody is arguing that popular pleb opinions are a good indication of the truth. It is the SCIENTISTS that are convincing us.
| Quote: |
| People support government regulations because 1) they are told to and 2) they don't know of the non-governmental alternatives. |
nope, I think you are wronger. I'm thinkin' GAJ is a bit more on top of common sense when he writes:
| Quote: |
| because the evidence is that environmental damage is BAD FOR PEOPLE |
It should be noted that in GAJ's example he refers (sensible in the vein of this discussion) to ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS wheras BJ goes for the more broad "government regulations".
Two different cans o' worms.
And in regards to the "non-governmental alternatives" for regulating industries that are heavy polluters: Why would a board, populated by companies hell bent on making a profit, EVER pass ANY sort of regulation that has the potential to cost them money? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, you're spamming mostly op-eds and trivia now - but the last one was interesting. I mean, presumably you're aware that the George C. Marshall Institute has just been described in a report by the Union of Concerned Scientists as an ExxonMobil-funded "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians", right? http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf
Of course, bias doesn't matter to you as long as it agrees with your worldview, right?
I am interested in the non-governmental methods for dealing with environmental damage, however. Introducing an environmental damage tax seems like a great way for corporations to save money on legal bills and to write the cost of their environmental abuses into their prices. What are the other ways? You agree that the only responsibility of a business is to increase profits for shareholders, right? So what are the other options?
And as for corporations moving to China etc, that's the point of multilateral agreements, silly! If China or wherever else is part of the agreement big business has to suck it up no matter where it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is all about me.
I don't care about bias as long as I know what that bias is. As an adult, with an adult mind, I am able to read something and put it into proper context provided I know the bias. I can read something written by someone with whom I often disagree and still agree with what he has written. As I do with Lomberg, who agrees with the climate change theory but says we have more important issues to worry about.
The other articles were actually the most interesting -- especially the stuff about solar flares ---, but you ignore that, because it is easier to cry BIAS!!!!!! than actually think about the content when you disagree with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
