Global Warming Poll

[Moose]

What does that say about how their economic ideology conflicts with facts that make it difficult to make money on big oil and other industry that produces CO2?

There are a lot of questions here, but we should be clear that being a member of a political party does not Cause you to support or deny Anthropogenic Climate Change, but there is a Correlation. . .

I would suggest your (and your party's) dislike of big corporations like Big Oil came long before talk of Global Warming was mainstream.

So while this may not "cause" you to reach certain conclusions, perhaps it "persuades" you - without you even being aware that it does. And the correlation in his case is so strong, that it effectively has the same outcome as "cause." So it's really just semantics.

Shocking to me how some learned people could vote the way they did. Perhaps political followings can turn an intelligent person into a ...

[_Keith]

Infallible modern science - refuted by infallible modern science.

Ending the War on Fat

For decades, it has been the most vilified nutrient in the American diet. But new science reveals fat isnt whats hurting our health

http://time.com/2863227/ending-the-war-on-fat/

And again, I am not taking a position on climate change in this post. I think there is some very credible evidence, but I question the ability of science to access it to the degree of accuracy that justifies some of the proposed actions. I believe in sustainability. I preach it and I practice it to the degree that is possible for me. I believe in leaving things better than you found them. But I understand practicality and timing, too.

And no, you will find no label on me of conservative or liberal, or the associated parties.

[Bill H2DB]

Well....since my last post on this thread , 7days ago , over One Billion and 400 Million BOE's have been placed

into our environment .

1,400,000,000 BOE's at 42 gallons equiv. per barrel .

Kind of like discharging a battery that took a week to charge up , in a second or two .

(BOE just puts oil, coal , natural gas etc into one basic unit .)

[Funkthulhu]

What does that say about how their economic ideology conflicts with facts that make it difficult to make money on big oil and other industry that produces CO2?

There are a lot of questions here, but we should be clear that being a member of a political party does not Cause you to support or deny Anthropogenic Climate Change, but there is a Correlation. . .

I would suggest your (and your party's) dislike of big corporations like Big Oil came long before talk of Global Warming was mainstream.

So while this may not "cause" you to reach certain conclusions, perhaps it "persuades" you - without you even being aware that it does. And the correlation in his case is so strong, that it effectively has the same outcome as "cause." So it's really just semantics.

I don't have a party, so don't lay that action on me.

What caused me to reach my current assertions on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change was being a scientist and looking at the research on a level that is barely skimmed in mass media. If you look at the facts (the real ones, not the ones on faux news or denier websites) there is only one conclusion: Global Warming is real, and it is being caused by human activity.

Everything to the contrary is just noise, or as the Bard put it: "It is a tale told by and idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Dypsisdean]

I don't have a party, so don't lay that action on me.

Well, we can continue to bicker over semanitics if you want. So let me refine my comment about "party."

While you may not officially have a party, I will bet your politcal views strongly mirror one of the two major parties over the other. And if you vote, your votes align overwhelmingly with one party. So you may claim to "have" no party, but my point is still valid.

But I will change my comment to, "I would suggest your (and those sharing your political persuation) dislike of big corporations......." But that doesn't change the point I was trying make, even a little bit.

Note that I have not really addressed or denied that Global Warming is happening, or that it may be accelerated due to human activity. My point addresses the fact that certain political "groups" have siezed any supporitive evidence like a savior, and at every turn promote the agendas that they have held dear long before they grabbed Global Warming as an ally in their respective causes.

Why do any proposed solutions center almost exclusively on more regulation, laws, and control, and higher taxes - and "punishing" those evil corporations? Why do all the "solutions" place more power, more influence, and subsequently more money in the pockets of the few politicians in Washington? And why doesn't that bother you as it does me?

[Funkthulhu]

Dypsisdean, on 18 Jun 2014 - 3:21 PM, said:

Funkthulhu, on 18 Jun 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

I don't have a party, so don't lay that action on me.

Well, we can continue to bicker over semanitics if you want. So let me refine my comment about "party."

While you may not officially have a party, I will bet your politcal views strongly mirror one of the two major parties over the other. And if you vote, your votes align overwhelmingly with one party. So you may claim to "have" no party, but my point is still valid.

But I will change my comment to, "I would suggest your (and those sharing your political philosophies) dislike of big corporations......." But that doesn't change the point I was trying make, even a little bit.

Note that I have not really addressed or denied that Global Warming is happening, or that it may be accereralted due to human activity. My point addresses the fact that certain political "groups" have siezed any supporitive evidence like a savior, and at every turn promote the agendas that they have held dear long before they grabbed Global Warming as an ally in their causes.

Why do any proposed solutions center almost exclusively on more regulation, laws, and control, and higher taxes - and "punishing" those evil corporations? Why do all the "solutions" place more power, more influence, and subsequently more money in the pockets of a few politicians in Washington? And why doesn't that bother you as it does me?

I think I can explain how it looks like large corporations are being targeted by regulations. It's because they are. In my work regulating hazardous waste we have different levels of waste generation. The largest generators of waste are regulated more strictly than those at lower levels because it is at the volumes of waste that they create that there is the most chance for harm. On the other hand, the lowest level waste generators are producing so little waste that they are very lightly regulated and a lot of their hazardous waste ends up in landfills (because it's easy to do and easy to contain in that way).

So, as far as "Big Oil", a large polluter like BP will vent more CO2 and methane into the atmosphere in a month than dozens of smaller businesses will in their entire lifetimes. The easiest way to reduce total emissions is not to regulate every Mom & Pop shop around the country, but to target those industries that do the most harm. It's just a law of numbers. Furthermore, a large (and very very profitable) company like, say, Exxon, has the resources to not only address new regulations they can't weasel out of, but has the motivation to implement those regulations as cheaply and quickly as possible (and this drives innovation in those fields).

If you take that viewpoint one level up to those who own and invest in those larger companies, regulations of the sort that are intended to reduce carbon emissions are expensive and time consuming and they can take a (relatively minor) chunk out of profits. So, if you could spend a fraction of that regulatory money to convince the public that those regulations are not needed (or at least spread enough misinformation to muddy the waters) and your motivation is purely profit, why not do that? As for political corruption, if I can convince those making the laws that what I do to make money is A-Okay, why would I not dump a relatively small sack of money in front of their door? Corruption spreads among the corruptible. It is a very rare thing to see a politician being "bought" so they will vote for more regulations. It is your perceived "punishment" of large polluters with new taxes and new regulations that is leading directly to the creation of corrupt politicians by those same polluters hoping to buy some exemptions to those new laws and taxes, or to negate them entirely.

I don't dislike big corporations, I dislike greed. Greed is what leads an industry like a stereotypical "big oil" to put their profit margin above the health and well-being of their customers and their environment. Show me a company that tries to go green or "do no harm" as some do, and I'll show you a company I'd probably invest in. At the same time, there are small-timers consisting of a single guy who will go out and dump stuff they know is deadly and they know that's it's wrong to do so, but screw everybody anyway. I despise them just as much as any larger polluter. It's not the size of the industry, it's what they do as an industry and how they go about doing it. It just so happens that the big guys can do the most damage and get the most attention.

As for my party. You are correct, I do tend to side with one side over the other, but mostly because they keep the party I dislike the most in check rather than for anything they actively do for me. This is because I don't have a "Party", no independent really meets all of my requirements, and those who do make it into office have no party power to back them. But also because the other side is notoriously associated with those who would rather undermine facts and the safety of future generations to make a profit. (again, correlation, not causation) And, while occasionally useful, the party I end up voting for a lot is (outside of social advancements) more known for doing nothing than doing anything.

So my choices are:

1. People who more or less align with my political ideas (but have no real power and can almost never get elected),

2. People who actively try to undermine pretty much anything they can to make a profit and keep the lumbering economy rolling slowly uphill, or

3. people who oppose the second group and occasionally do something useful but have no spine to speak of.

There really is no right answer, and arguably all of them are varying degrees of wrong.

I think the reason that the issue of Global Climate Change is so polarizing is not about the fact of the matter. The idea is Scary. It's scary to admit it is happening. It is scary to think we might have done it to ourselves. And it is scary that, to admit this to ourselves, we also have to admit we are responsible for trying to fix it. The world is so big that it feels like more than any one person can do. When you compound it with political drama, radical uprisings around the world, war, poverty, social injustice. . . It all become a layer of painful background noise.

[Dypsisdean]

To "dislike" greed is to dislike human nature. We are all "greedy" for something. It doesn't have to be money.

And I don't blame Big Oil anymore than I blame prostitutes, or drug dealers. They are only supplying products and services that consumers demand. You demand and are "greedy" for a warm house, modern electronics, easy fine food, medicine, etc. - all of which would be impossible today if not for Big Oil. So blame human nature and the consumer (you) if you must blame someone.

I prefer to look at profit, millionaires/billionaires, and successful corporations as more of the solution than the problem. Sure they are not perfect, but I would suggest they have added way more in benefits to society than any problems they have contributed to.

I have been closely following one of those vilified under-taxed greedy millionaires, amassing more wealth than he "needs." He has created a few innovative under-taxed greedy corporations, that don't even use union labor - even more evil and greedy. One of those one percenters hated by many. Yet he has used his profits and capital to pick up the ball that NASA was unable to carry, and picked up the ball that the old unionized auto companies have dropped.

He is talking about going to Mars in 10-12 years and launching satellites for the government at a fraction of the cost that they do now. And he is improvising solar power collecion/distribution, and electric vehicles single handedly. He recently released all his pantents for anyone to use. And the more profit he generates, the more doors he will open for the advancements in technology that have always solved our problems and advanced mankind.

So please explain to me why he should be vilfied as being too rich/greedy, or why the Government should tax more of his working capital to spend as they see fit? Or why they should tell him how he must run his corporations, pay his employees, or regulate him to the extent that certain satelittes are off limits for him to launch, or forbid him from selling cars directly to the public - all because it would infringe on the sweetheart deals the politicians have worked out with certain special interests.

We have seen it in history many times, how one "greedy" man, creating one "greedy" corporation, with the motivation and an idea can change the world. But many of these men would tell you that they could not do the same today.

[Xerarch]

I remember a few years ago when Exxon recorded the largest profit ever for any corporation, everyone was throwing a fit about it, or at least the media was trying to make it look like everyone was supposed to be throwing a fit about it. Anyway while this was going on, it was quietly reported that their profit margin was about 9% for the year. I thought, 9%? Are you serious? I was working in the landscape industry at the time and we would get our butts kicked by upper management if our profits dared come in any less than 10% for the year. What a difference a little perspective makes.

[enigma99]

This thread won't last much longer

I don't think it is fair to tie GW opinion to a party because its not 100% always true. But for that reason these GW threads can quickly get out of hand with political comments.

I guess it's sheeple vs conspiracy theorists. All the arguing here isn't going to change one mind, so it's pointless to try. Once you realize that, it's pretty hard to keep these discussions going.

[Funkthulhu]

To "dislike" greed is to dislike human nature. We are all "greedy" for something. It doesn't have to be money.

And I don't blame Big Oil anymore than I blame prostitutes, or drug dealers. They are only supplying products and services that consumers demand. You demand and are "greedy" for a warm house, modern electronics, easy fine food, medicine, etc. - all of which would be impossible today if not for Big Oil. So blame human nature and the consumer (you) if you must blame someone.

I prefer to look at profit, millionaires/billionaires, and successful corporations as more of the solution than the problem. Sure they are not perfect, but I would suggest they have added way more in benefits to society than any problems they have contributed to.

I have been closely following one of those vilified under-taxed greedy millionaires, amassing more wealth than he "needs." He has created a few innovative under-taxed greedy corporations, that don't even use union labor - even more evil and greedy. One of those one percenters hated by many. Yet he has used his profits and capital to pick up the ball that NASA was unable to carry, and picked up the ball that the old unionized auto companies have dropped.

He is talking about going to Mars in 10-12 years and launching satellites for the government at a fraction of the cost that they do now. And he is improvising solar power collecion/distribution, and electric vehicles single handedly. He recently released all his pantents for anyone to use. And the more profit he generates, the more doors he will open for the advancements in technology that have always solved our problems and advanced mankind.

So please explain to me why he should be vilfied as being too rich/greedy, or why the Government should tax more of his working capital to spend as they see fit? Or why they should tell him how he must run his corporations, pay his employees, or regulate him to the extent that certain satelittes are off limits for him to launch, or forbid him from selling cars directly to the public - all because it would infringe on the sweetheart deals the politicians have worked out with certain special interests.

We have seen it in history many times, how one "greedy" man, creating one "greedy" corporation, with the motivation and an idea can change the world. But many of these men would tell you that they could not do the same today.

You're still missing the point. Be a millionaire, or a billionaire, it doesn't matter to me. It's what you did to get that money, and what you do with it after you have it that counts.

Using your prostitute as an example. Let's say 2 identical sex workers charge the same rate. One practices safe sex, contraception, uses fluid barriers, gets tested regularly and practices the best customer satisfaction. The other is all wham-bam-thank you mam, take the money and run with no mind toward health and safety, and now you probably have HIV. . . Which is more going to get more negative attention?

Elon Musk is made of awesomesauce, not because he's a billionaire, but because of what he does with his money and how he goes about doing it. If you want "Big Oil" to stop getting picked on, maybe they should try harder to not suck.

[Gtlevine]

Stupidity is a universal problem man has been prone to from the beginning of time. Belief in this Hoax of man causing climate change is the ultimate in moronic loonacy.

Glad to see 29 people are not buying into this ridiculous hoax. Only 15 people have the giant fish hook buried deep in their skull.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Gtlevine

[Xerarch]

Oh boy, I think I'm officially done commenting here, things are going nuclear.

[Mats]

Stupidity is a universal problem man has been prone to from the beginning of time. Belief in this Hoax of man causing climate change is the ultimate in moronic loonacy.

Glad to see 29 people are not buying into this ridiculous hoax. Only 15 people have the giant fish hook buried deep in their skull.

"Anyone who wants to debate a science denier often needs a thick skin, especially concerning topics like global warming. They often hurl words like leftist, socialist, communist, fascist, sheeple, useful idiot, and worse at you.

The vast majority (97-98%) of scientists who actually work and publish on climate related subjects, and nearly all published papers, support the science behind anthropogenic global warming.

Due to the sheer amount of supporting evidence not a single national academy of science the world over has denied anthropogenic global warming, the vast majority have formally declared that human-induced climate change is real and have urged nations to reduce greenhouse gasses. Independent unions, professional associations, societies, institutes, federations, and other organizations of international standing of scientists and engineers, all have released statements accepting anthropogenic climate change." source

.

[Gtlevine]

Stupidity is a universal problem man has been prone to from the beginning of time. Belief in this Hoax of man causing climate change is the ultimate in moronic loonacy.

Glad to see 29 people are not buying into this ridiculous hoax. Only 15 people have the giant fish hook buried deep in their skull.

"Anyone who wants to debate a science denier often needs a thick skin, especially concerning topics like global warming. They often hurl words like leftist, socialist, communist, fascist, sheeple, useful idiot, and worse at you.

The vast majority (97-98%) of scientists who actually work and publish on climate related subjects, and nearly all published papers, support the science behind anthropogenic global warming.

Due to the sheer amount of supporting evidence not a single national academy of science the world over has denied anthropogenic global warming, the vast majority have formally declared that human-induced climate change is real and have urged nations to reduce greenhouse gasses. Independent unions, professional associations, societies, institutes, federations, and other organizations of international standing of scientists and engineers, all have released statements accepting anthropogenic climate change." source

science-consensus-97-percent.jpg

.

Thats all a complete lie you have bought into. The 97%, the science, the whole bit. You just have not heard or failed to listen to the majority of science that says it's full of BS. I don't care about the looney left, looney right, or anyone inbetween. This is just stupidity. If you read the IPCC report from the paid propagandists, you would find they don't talk about the facts in their own report that don't even fit with their own conclusions. Just nonsense, I feel like i'm debating people who claim they were abducted by aliens and had sexual experements done on them.

[Mats]

You just have not heard or failed to listen to the majority of science that says it's full of shit.

Exactly where is this "majority of science that says it's full of shit"?

Surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and the opinions of experts consistently show a 97–98% consensus that humans are causing global warming.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

... looney left

...I feel like i'm debating people who claim they were abducted by aliens and had sexual experements done on them.

"Anyone who wants to debate a science denier often needs a thick skin, especially concerning topics like global warming. They often hurl words like leftist, socialist, communist, fascist, sheeple, useful idiot, and worse at you."

[enigma99]

Sigh.. If I had the ability to lock this thread, I would.

[Gtlevine]

I agree, Palm Mod, lock this thread. I can't listen to these Automatons any longer. It is one thing if your under 30, I understand your leftist professor's have filled your heads with this mush. But if your over 30 and you still buy into Government propaganda so easily, well it's too late. But if your that easily swayed, I have a nice Zombie package I can sell you also?

And by the way. Why do any of you GB automatons even care? Forget the debate for a minute, who cares if New York is under water in 2000 years if this BS is true? You don't care one bit! How do I know that, because you all keep voting politicians who are indebting future generations. You don't care about the 17 trillion debt, tens of trillions in future liabilities to our great grand children. Screw them, their on their own. So you don't give a rats ass about floods in 200 years, nor do the politicians. This is political propaganda for the environmental whackos who want to get rid of the evil oil companies , and the politicians who want to line their pockets with the spoils. Come on and open your eyes, why are the political hacks pushing this garbage on us? Do you really think they care about Global Warming? No chance.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Gtlevine

[PALM MOD]

This thread won't last much longer

You got that right.

Again, I'm only going to close it and not delete it. That way it will serve as a living example of why we don't allow political discussions here. And why even topics that touch on politics eventually deteriorate to something I'm sure nobody wishes to read when they come here.

So, I think we have all gotten our Global Warming two cents in and I don't see anything useful that could be added regarding this subject in the near future.