We have been gored by Gore!

[INRM]

I don't want to pollute the planet. I just have a problem with scientists manipulating data, and fearmongering

 

[Thunder]

most people I have met, who do not believe in AGW, don't give a **** about pollution, clean air, trees, open space, preserving natural areas, or clean water. All they care about is their $$$.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

most people I have met, who do not believe in AGW, don't give a **** about pollution, clean air, trees, open space, preserving natural areas, or clean water. All they care about is their $$$.

Parky76>

I will honestly admit that I am skeptical about AGW, but...but I believe cutting pollution, setting the highest standards for clean air, increasing forestation, working for an open space environment, definitely preserving natural areas, and making our water clean is not only a good idea; but should be the focus. To put it in the most simple way, while I am not sure about all the research at this time, I can think of no reason why we should not do things to preserve the Earth as if it turns it does exist. Again I am on the fence, but I don't understand the anti-AGW argument for ignoring changes that are 100% better regardless of the truth.

You get what I am writing? There is no good reason to ignore what you listed, because no matter what the truth is those things make for a better environment.

 

[Thunder]

Parky76>

I will honestly admit that I am skeptical about AGW, but... To put it in the most simple way, while I am not sure about all the research at this time, Again I am on the fence, but I don't understand the anti-AGW argument for ignoring changes that are 100% better regardless of the truth.

that's fair. true AGW Deniers hold their beliefs due to politics, and not science. Just like Holocaust deniers and 9-11 Truthers. its not about facts...its ALL about politics.

but yes, many of the changes that folks want to make to fight global warming, would be very good for our planet and human health, even if AGW turns out to be bogus.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

that's fair. true AGW Deniers hold their beliefs due to politics, and not science. Just like Holocaust deniers and 9-11 Truthers. its not about facts...its ALL about politics.

I agree. It is stupid nonsense to excuse pollution, and building needless crap every which way. To be honest it is merely a way to excuse the excess that they want to protect.

but yes, many of the changes that folks want to make to fight global warming, would be very good for our planet and human health, even if AGW turns out to be bogus.

Which is where I don't understand the deniers. Making sure we have more trees (even tree farming for paper) makes a great impact on CO2 levels. Building wind farms, solar plants, and even nuclear helps us get out from under oil; which is a major cause of pollution (even if you don't believe it warms the Earth) that has a negative effect on our environment.

Hell, all I need to side with the improvements the AGW proponents support is to be around engines spewing out pollution. It is more a matter of human and general environmental wellbeing for me, and which is why I don't get many of the anti-AGW crowd. I see myself on the fence, and still thinking "This is a good idea" while they just want to ignore the human and general environmental cost of their actions.

Personally I just want to present a perspective of someone who is unsure, and use my position to say that I think they (anti-AGW) are wrong in their position that nothing should ever be done. Many of these improvements proposed by the AGW crowd should be carried out for their own sake. There is nothing but benefit to come from it, which is why I actually support these things.

I do agree that many people use the "questioning" position to oppose every positive change, which is stupid.

EDIT: I will also admit I am not a denier, just unsure.

 

[Thunder]

Hell, all I need to side with the improvements the AGW proponents support is to be around engines spewing out pollution. It is more a matter of human and general environmental wellbeing for me, and which is why I don't get many of the anti-AGW crowd.

EDIT: I will also admit I am not a denier, just unsure.

wind power...is FREE energy. solar power...is FREE energy.

tide power..is FREE. and yet, AGW deniers seem to be against all of these things. I don't think they are being shills for the fossil fuel industries, I think they are just:

#1. afraid of large-scale change.

#2. associate clean or even cleaner energy with Greens/Hippies/Commies/NYers/Gays...etc etc etc.

trust me. I have met these people. this is how they think.

they believe that fossil fuel usage, pollution, smog, and filthy water, is part of God's covenant with Abraham..or something.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

wind power...is FREE energy. solar power...is FREE energy.

tide power..is FREE. and yet, AGW deniers seem to be against all of these things. I don't think they are being shills for the fossil fuel industries, I think they are just:

#1. afraid of large-scale change.

#2. associate clean or even cleaner energy with Greens/Hippies/Commies/NYers/Gays...etc etc etc.

trust me. I have met these people. this is how they think.

they believe that fossil fuel usage, pollution, smog, and filthy water, is part of God's covenant with Abraham..or something.

Exactly.

I remember watching Jerry Falwell on Politically Incorrect saying that global warming wasn't real by saying that the Bible never mentioned it. It sickened me, and is an example of the "well it can't happen" belief among the AGW deniers. My thing is that with them it isn't science, it isn't doubt, it is merely a wish to simply believe it isn't happening. Preservation of the environment is a good idea regardless. I take my example from Teddy Roosevelt, who could have kick Chuck Norris' butt any day.

 

[varwoche]

You know, the kind of cooling that's killing all the southern US citrus crops unexpectedly. Ahem, ahem. Unless you want to posit that warming did that.

Ah, so you hit some cold weather -- a stunningly meaningless factoid.

Why is it when faced with evidence that leading AGW scientists are performing bad science and screwing up basic scientific procedures, all the AGW people can do is spin spin spin?

You consider a diatribe by an agenda-driven opinion writer as weighty evidence? I consider it a steaming pile of Kevin Bacon.

 

[DC]

There are plenty of good reasons to reduce pollution. "Because it's pollution", for example, is an easy, obvious, and scientifically settled reason. Al Gore could have gone with that, and nobody would have complained (though they might have expected him to set a good example in not polluting).

actually Copenhagen showed that humans are not smart enough to take action, they cant or dont want to see the results of our actions, we will realize what we have done when it is to late. then we have also some idiots in denial mode that will not relize it while they are on a vacation trip to New York where most taxidrivers work as gondoliere meanwhile
its just human stupidness, gratz.

 

[lomiller]

Phil Jones co-published that research paper (referenced in the OP) with a Chinese-American researcher in 1990. Now, for some reason, it's hard to find when his term actually began at CRU - but if it did before 1990, that would be CRU actually taking in raw data from weather stations.

Are you trying to claim the CRU is responsible for Chinese Weather stations circa 1990?

It seems far more likely they received the raw data from Chinese Authorities rather then producing it themselves...

 

[Sporanox]

Ah, so you hit some cold weather -- a stunningly meaningless factoid.


You consider a diatribe by an agenda-driven opinion writer as weighty evidence? I consider it a steaming pile of Kevin Bacon.

Ah, we shouldn't consider little things like the temperature anymore. You are beyond parody.

Are you trying to claim the CRU is responsible for Chinese Weather stations circa 1990?

It seems far more likely they received the raw data from Chinese Authorities rather then producing it themselves...

Well, it pains me a little, but you are right. Wei-Chyung-Wang received the temp data from a Chinese colleague.

Which is where I don't understand the deniers. Making sure we have more trees (even tree farming for paper) makes a great impact on CO2 levels. Building wind farms, solar plants, and even nuclear helps us get out from under oil; which is a major cause of pollution (even if you don't believe it warms the Earth) that has a negative effect on our environment.

I used to believe in AGW until quite recently - when the email scandal hit. I was always uncomfortable with its advocacy, though, because on a personal level, AGW-prevention measures hit the richest the least. They are the ones that maintain their jet-setting lifestyle with expensive carbon credits, the ones who plant 40,000 trees somewhere in Southeast Asia to offset their new album, and the ones that can afford the hybrid/electric vehicles.

Now, I try not to be too resentful of the rich - their money is theirs to spend - but the effort to accommodate every aspect of their extravagant lifestyles in the "green" campaign is not beneficial to the environment on the whole and suggests something dishonest about the cause. It suggests that anti-AGW measures are feel-good aloe vera substituted for tangible help to the environment. This shows up elsewhere in the AGW umbrella, as well - Time had an article the other day about a couple of greenies pushing range-fed cattle as acceptably low greenhouse gas producers. That is ridiculous; it has been well known for years that one of the best ways to cut down on your personal greenhouse gas production is essentially becoming a vegetarian. To me, that shows that most people under the net are comfortable changing their (and other's) lifestyles up to a point, beyond which they invent rationalizations to maintain a certain level of comfort.

This brings up the other reason I dislike the campaign against AGW. I feel it encourages an unhealthy obsession with greenhouse gases at the detriment of actual environmental action. For example, there was a report in Nature a while back on a newly invented machine that could capture vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. All well and good, but that does nothing to limit pollution in general. Similarly, as long as one can buy carbon credits for all the wasteful activities they engage in, that keeps things "green," but does nothing for the effects of pollution visible in the present day. Does anyone really believe that all those trees Coldplay arranged to plant in SEA will affect the pollution they cause elsewhere? No, it won't. It will only affect a heretofore unseen temperature increase in a very, very, very slight manner.

 

[Sporanox]

I might also add that the main drive for AGW action at the national level (in the US, in any case) is to handicap our economy and increase everybody's electric bill by way of cap-n-trade or a carbon tax. Alternative energy/freedom from oil dependency itself is largely thrown by the wayside if one takes a look at the stated top priorities for this administration.

 

[DavidJames]

I might also add that the main drive for AGW action at the national level (in the US, in any case) is to handicap our economy and increase everybody's electric bill by way of cap-n-trade or a carbon tax. Alternative energy/freedom from oil dependency itself is largely thrown by the wayside if one takes a look at the stated top priorities for this administration.

I think you will find your ideas much more at home in the conspiracy theory forum.

Except for the idea where you ignore/reject the 2009 warming data from NASA in favor of your cherry picked observations of some cold weather in a few parts of the country.

That belongs in the personal dogma and political bias prevents critical thinking forum.

 

[Cleon]

Ah, we shouldn't consider little things like the temperature anymore.

Temperature != climate.
Localized temperature definitely != climate.

 

[lomiller]

I might also add that the main drive for AGW action at the national level (in the US, in any case) is to handicap our economy and increase everybody's electric bill by way of cap-n-trade or a carbon tax.

Fear mongering IMO.

At present releasing CO2 is an externality, a component whose consequences are not paid by the people involved in the transaction. Not having to pay for the effects of your economic activity is in fact a form of government subsidy, and is a distinctly ani-free market way to do things.

The alternatives on the table for pricing this externality back into the price of goods and restoring the free market are a) a carbon tax and b) cap and trade. The latter is less subject to government intervention as it allows the market to set pricing on CO2 emissions.

The irony, IMO, of cap and trade is that Libertarians have a great deal of difficulty coming to terms with the imposition of ownership rights on something (CO2 emissions) that previously had no clear owner. Meanwhile they gloss over the problems of how land becomes private property. I guess they simply assume land has always been private property.

 

[Sporanox]

I think you will find your ideas much more at home in the conspiracy theory forum.

Except for the idea where you ignore/reject the 2009 warming data from NASA in favor of your cherry picked observations of some cold weather in a few parts of the country.

That belongs in the personal dogma and political bias prevents critical thinking forum.

I don't mean that the cap-n-trade proponents actually want to screw up the economy.

Temperature != climate.
Localized temperature definitely != climate.

Hence, why I posted that article about a possible cooling trend earlier.

At present releasing CO2 is an externality, a component whose consequences are not paid by the people involved in the transaction. Not having to pay for the effects of your economic activity is in fact a form of government subsidy, and is a distinctly ani-free market way to do things.

Who, exactly, should we pay for these consequences? And why should we pay in the first place when we could do something that has a much more immediate effect, e.g. replacing our energy sources?

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Isn't it cute how they squeeze Al Gore into every single one of their arguments as if he's some sort of magic word that'll make all of us nasty sceptics go away? It's like a Catholic drawing a cross whenever she enters church or something.

 

[lomiller]

Who, exactly, should we pay for these consequences?

The person who produces the CO2 needs to be the one who pays. If they are a manufacturer they pass that on in their pricing, just as they do with all legitimate expenses.

And why should we pay in the first place when we could do something that has a much more immediate effect, e.g. replacing our energy sources?

Which energy sources get used an dhow much of them get used is a function of market forces. If one, in this case fossil fuels, doesn’t required it’s users to pay for all it’s associated costs it will be artificially cheaper and therefore be used in preference to alternatives even when a true free market would dictate otherwise.

It functions as a subsidy in the sense that it encourages the use of an otherwise less competitive product. This is the exact opposite of what you get in a functioning free market

 

[Sporanox]

The person who produces the CO2 needs to be the one who pays. If they are a manufacturer they pass that on in their pricing, just as they do with all legitimate expenses.

I asked who should we pay.

It functions as a subsidy in the sense that it encourages the use of an otherwise less competitive product. This is the exact opposite of what you get in a functioning free market

That logic assumes that there are hidden costs passed to the consumer. An analogy would be the tax money that goes to subsidizing Amtrak. Where exactly are these hidden costs, and, for that matter, how would a consumer switch sources in an electric grid? And why do you think that consumers would be more likely to push for new energy sources instead of just repealing cap-n-trade, which would be far easier?

 

[lomiller]

I asked who should we pay.

That depends on which scheme you adopt. Since everyone is harmed under a carbon tax you pay the community as a whole as represented by the (hopefully) elected government.

Under cap-and-trade you pay the person who owns the CO2 emission rights.

That logic assumes that there are hidden costs passed to the consumer.

No, it assumes there are costs that are being paid by someone other then the producer of consumer.

When such costs exist, as they do with CO2 emissions, it will artificially lower the price of the product, artificially increase it’s usage and artificially increase it’s desirability in relation to comparable products. All of this goes counter to what a free market should be doing.