This is too funny!

[ARogueTrader]

20 Saudi's got lucky (or did they) and any connection to Iraq is purey theoretical.

We spend 100's of billions because 20 Saudi's got lucky and caught us asleep?

Follow the money.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Global warming didn't blow up the World Trade Center. Any danger from it is purely theoretical.


The only damage global warming has done is to the careers of academic and government scientists who have voiced skepticism.

 

[ArchAngel]

Here are some factors to chew on for the sake of argument:

1. Average global temp is increasing - that's fairly well documented. But there's no conclusive evidence as to the cause.

2. Since detailed records don't go back more than about 120 years, scientists don't know if this warming phase is part of a longer term oscillating pattern. Remember that in the not too distant past (~10,000 years), glaciers covered most of North America. Is this part of a grand planetary oscillation??

3. In the mid-70s, the El Nino Southern Oscillation shifted. This shift plays a substantial part in the temperature and climate shifting seen over the last almost three decades. While unusual within the century or so of weather instrument-based records, it is not unusual within the context of thousands of years. There is evidence suggesting that similar oceanic current shifts produced changes in the weather of Central America causing droughts ultimately leading to the evacuation of multiple major Mayan population centers.

4. Carbon dioxide, freon, etc. are often mentioned as principal causes of global warming - plain old water vapor is the largest component of "green house gases" and also plays a direct role in climate.

5. Note that temperature and climate in the Midwest has experienced clear changes in the last couple of decades but a recent university study tracked the cause to higher concentrations of water vapor generated by corn and other crops resulting from the success in achieving higher crop densities.

6. With all the greenies hyping hydrogen power and vehicles - they haven't considered the potential environmental impact from the potentially huge increase in atmospheric water vapor it would produce.

The discussion over global warming is somewhat like the discussion over the "hole in the ozone" - scientists found the so-called "hole" over the South Pole, but they don't know if it's always been there and whether its size fluctuates naturally due to geomagnetic or other fluctuations.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from aphexcoil:

Even if global warming is occurring, how do we know that this isn't just a normal long-range oscillation of regular weather patterns on earth?

This is where the real argument is. And there is good evidence that we are exacerbating the problem with CO2 emmissions. So, many feel that it would be wise to address the issue rather than wait and see. Given the consequences, this does not seem like a bad idea. Of course, if you're my age you can take the view that it probably won't effect me, so who gives a damn. I'll let my kids worry about it. This seems to be the administration's policy.

m

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

Would someone explain why the much feared "polar melting" will raise sea levels. If ice melts in a glass of water, the glass doesn't overflow.

Do you have any idea how much ice there is ON Antarctica, Greenland and other land masses? I don't either, but I suspect that is where the problem lies.

m

 

[ARogueTrader]

So, we don't know.

On which side should we err?

On the side of science that indicates problems, or on the side of science that wants to wait until the problems are unsolvable?

It just doesn't stand to reason, given all we know about living organisms, given all we know about ecosystems, given all we know about pollution, to think that pollution isn't dangerous near and long term.

What does this really boil down to?

We think nothing of spending 100s of billions on phony science and trumped up charges to invade Iraq.

Why is that? Because it is profitable in the long run to corporate America.

On the other hand, forcing corporate America to clean up the air and water is expensive, and hurts their bottom line.

So, following the money, we can see that business cares little about the environment.

Have we a precedent of corporations using phony science, or hiding scientific studies to support production of known harmful chemicals? Yes, of course we do.

So why put the burden of proof on the environmentalists, why not have the burden of proof on the corporations who dump chemicals into our environment....to have them prove it is safe? Who stands to benefit financially? Who has the greatest motive to lie?

Why do we allow corporate America to get the "innocent until proven guilty" status, when we know they are not innocent?

Because we don't want to change our lifestyle. We don't want anyone to tell us how to live. We want to spend and waste, spend and waste, pollute and destroy unabated if we damn well feel like it.

Our history in this country is that of stealing the land from the Indians, our "manifest destiny."

That same thinking applies to the environment. We take what we want, as long as it is profitable to do so, and in the short run feeds our materialism.

Aphie mentioned that this is a political issue. I think it goes much deeper than that. It has to do with our relationship to the world we live in, and our attitude that we can do no wrong, that the earth is here to plunder, and that capitalism should advance unbridled no matter what the dangers to future generations.

 

[BloodTrader]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

So, we don't know.

On which side should we err?

On the side of science that indicates problems, or on the side of science that wants to wait until the problems are unsolvable?

It just doesn't stand to reason, given all we know about living organisms, given all we know about ecosystems, given all we know about pollution, to think that pollution isn't dangerous near and long term.

What does this really boil down to?

We think nothing of spending 100s of billions on phony science and trumped up charges to invade Iraq.

Why is that? Because it is profitable in the long run to corporate America.

On the other hand, forcing corporate America to clean up the air and water is expensive, and hurts their bottom line.

So, following the money, we can see that business cares little about the environment.

Have we a precedent of corporations using phony science, or hiding scientific studies to support production of known harmful chemicals? Yes, of course we do.

So why put the burden of proof on the environmentalists, why not have the burden of proof on the corporations who dump chemicals into our environment....to have them prove it is safe? Who stands to benefit financially? Who has the greatest motive to lie?

Why do we allow corporate America to get the "innocent until proven guilty" status, when we know they are not innocent?

Because we don't want to change our lifestyle. We don't want anyone to tell us how to live. We want to spend and waste, spend and waste, pollute and destroy unabated if we damn well feel like it.

Our history in this country is that of stealing the land from the Indians, our "manifest destiny."

That same thinking applies to the environment. We take what we want, as long as it is profitable to do so, and in the short run feeds our materialism.

Aphie mentioned that this is a political issue. I think it goes much deeper than that. It has to do with our relationship to the world we live in, and our attitude that we can do no wrong, that the earth is here to plunder, and that capitalism should advance unbridled no matter what the dangers to future generations.

Yes, I quoted the whole damned thing....just to say GREAT POST, Rogue!

m

 

[ArchAngel]

Quote from ARogueTrader:
So why put the burden of proof on the environmentalists, why not have the burden of proof on the corporations who dump chemicals into our environment....to have them prove it is safe?

Separate your arguments - toxic chemical pollution should clearly be targeted, as should insisting on a rapid time table for radically increasing the gas mileage of vehicles out of Detroit (why the hell is anyone letting Hummers on the road with 10 MPG).

However, the arguments that apply to those things are not applicable to the global warming issue.

 

[ARogueTrader]

I disagree. The issue of global warming is inclusive all emissions.

I find it tragic that 911 has produced no emphasis by the current administration on:

1. Fuel conservation, decreasing our dependency on Arab oil.

2. Tax incentives for those who purchase more energy efficient cars which pollute less.

3. Tax incentives for those who purchase electric cars and/or hybrid cars.

4. Tax incentives for businesses that develop alternative fuels.

5. Tax incentives for those who sell/market energy efficient and or electric/hybrid automobiles.

Instead our "tax cut" comes in the form of dividend savings, which do nothing to free us from the grip of Arab oil.

Quote from ArchAngel:

Separate your arguments - toxic chemical pollution should clearly be targeted, as should insisting on a rapid time table for radically increasing the gas mileage of vehicles out of Detroit (why the hell is anyone letting Hummers on the road with 10 MPG).

However, the arguments that apply to those things are not applicable to the global warming issue.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

I disagree. The issue of global warming is inclusive all emissions.

I find it tragic that 911 has produced no emphasis by the current administration on:

(etc.)

Yes, but you can't possibly find it surprising!

Better luck to us ALL next time!!

Peace,
RS

 

[resinate]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

So, we don't know.

On which side should we err?

On the side of science that indicates problems, or on the side of science that wants to wait until the problems are unsolvable?

It just doesn't stand to reason, given all we know about living organisms, given all we know about ecosystems, given all we know about pollution, to think that pollution isn't dangerous near and long term.

What does this really boil down to?

We think nothing of spending 100s of billions on phony science and trumped up charges to invade Iraq.

Why is that? Because it is profitable in the long run to corporate America.

On the other hand, forcing corporate America to clean up the air and water is expensive, and hurts their bottom line.

So, following the money, we can see that business cares little about the environment.

Have we a precedent of corporations using phony science, or hiding scientific studies to support production of known harmful chemicals? Yes, of course we do.

So why put the burden of proof on the environmentalists, why not have the burden of proof on the corporations who dump chemicals into our environment....to have them prove it is safe? Who stands to benefit financially? Who has the greatest motive to lie?

Why do we allow corporate America to get the "innocent until proven guilty" status, when we know they are not innocent?

Because we don't want to change our lifestyle. We don't want anyone to tell us how to live. We want to spend and waste, spend and waste, pollute and destroy unabated if we damn well feel like it.

Our history in this country is that of stealing the land from the Indians, our "manifest destiny."

That same thinking applies to the environment. We take what we want, as long as it is profitable to do so, and in the short run feeds our materialism.

Aphie mentioned that this is a political issue. I think it goes much deeper than that. It has to do with our relationship to the world we live in, and our attitude that we can do no wrong, that the earth is here to plunder, and that capitalism should advance unbridled no matter what the dangers to future generations.

I agree Mackle... this is a truly genius post.

And so key.... the burden of proof as rogue said above. The idea that digging up, rapidly burning, and then dumping into the air millions of years worth of compacted organic waste (fossil fuels) could have negligible effect on our atmosphere beyond maybe a political one seems outright delusional.