Right-wingers who think global warming is a lefty plot

[MobBoss]

Errr. Why would worse consequences make you happy? Cause last I checked, worse consequences would effect you as well.

 

[ainwood]

Not all cow (or animal) farting is attributable to humans.

We even engage in unsustainable farming in order to generate more cows, with their cow farts.

Cows farting are part of the mechanism as well. /shrug. Humans being part of the mechanism doesnt mean they are the sole or even the defining part of the mechanism either.

Wild buffalo farts are a different beast than cow farts, since their diets are different.

By the way - its not the cow (or buffalo) farts, its belching. The majority of the methane comes out the front end, not the rear.

Certainly not all of them. But when people employed by the energy industry are reporting findings which favor the energy industry, a conflict of interest should be assumed. There are people who are paid to gather data and figure out what that data means. Among that group there is disagreement. And there are people who are paid to support positions that benefit their employers. There's notably less disagreement in that camp.

What you are actually saying is that peoples' ethics depend on who their employer is. Seeing as I have worked in the energy industry for 15 years, I disagree with you. As a matter of note, I disagree with the views of the company that I work for on global warming.

I would also point out to you that with oil being a commodity with few substitutes, the "obvious" argument that oil companies are funding anti global warming research to protect their market breaks down somewhat: Costs of dealing with emissions are simply passed-on to the consumers. And this is how many cap & trade systems are set-up to function.

Would you agree that any global warming research that has any funding links to James Hansen, Al Gore or the IPCC should also come with a conflict of interest warning?

 

[El_Machinae]

I would also point out to you that with oil being a commodity with few substitutes, the "obvious" argument that oil companies are funding anti global warming research to protect their market breaks down somewhat: Costs of dealing with emissions are simply passed-on to the consumers. And this is how many cap & trade systems are set-up to function.

Your 'obvious' counterpoint is somewhat reduced by the real-world "CO2 We call it Life" commercial that was funded and aired. Deliberate obfuscation is actually being funded.

 

[ainwood]

Your 'obvious' counterpoint is somewhat reduced by the real-world "CO2 We call it Life" commercial that was funded and aired. Deliberate obfuscation is actually being funded.

Well, Exxon are pretty stupid (in my opinion) for doing that one. I suspect it was a market-share issue (with the likes of stopexxon), but there are differences between advertising and manipulating research (which is what cutlass was effectively suggesting).

And obfuscation? The IPCC and Al Gore do that as well. There are not "thousands" of scientists who contributed to critical AGW chapters of the IPCC reports; reviewers of those chapters were largely not independent of the authors; climate 'projections' are breathlessly portrayed as forecasts (without any attempt to explain / note the difference).

 

[El_Machinae]

We've seen manipulating research before, with Big Tobacco. Anyway, the point that they wouldn't benefit by using manipulation is counter-pointed with the fact that they tried to obfuscate the issue. So, they clearly thought they'd benefit.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

We've seen manipulating research before, with Big Tobacco. Anyway, the point that they wouldn't benefit by using manipulation is counter-pointed with the fact that they tried to obfuscate the issue. So, they clearly thought they'd benefit.

Blame that on the advertising industry, the public relation agencies, corporate lawyers, lobbyists in Washington who represent their clients, and the people who hires them.

These are the causes of why many ill-informed individuals oppose any significant environmental policy changes.

 

[ainwood]

We've seen manipulating research before, with Big Tobacco. Anyway, the point that they wouldn't benefit by using manipulation is counter-pointed with the fact that they tried to obfuscate the issue. So, they clearly thought they'd benefit.

Right. So the IPCC and Al Gore think that they'll benefit from their obfuscations, too.

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe. Big Oil has a legal obligation to obfuscate, though, so sometimes it's not really fair to directly compare the two groups.

 

[ainwood]

Big Oil has a legal obligation to obfuscate.

Cite.

Any appropriate statute will suffice.

 

[Cutlass]

What you are actually saying is that peoples' ethics depend on who their employer is. Seeing as I have worked in the energy industry for 15 years, I disagree with you. As a matter of note, I disagree with the views of the company that I work for on global warming.

I would also point out to you that with oil being a commodity with few substitutes, the "obvious" argument that oil companies are funding anti global warming research to protect their market breaks down somewhat: Costs of dealing with emissions are simply passed-on to the consumers. And this is how many cap & trade systems are set-up to function.

Would you agree that any global warming research that has any funding links to James Hansen, Al Gore or the IPCC should also come with a conflict of interest warning?

Last point first, yes, if there is a conflict of interest, or the possibility or perception of one, it should be said loud and clear.

To the other points, oil my not be too substitutable in the short run, but conservation efforts as well as alternatives have the potential to hurt profits. So they've never been much for them. Over hear, the coal industry is even worse. Coal does not want to be cleaned up, and will do anything in their power to prevent it. A further point is that in the US, which may or may not be true in other nations, we have a long tradition of industry based science telling spectacular lies, often for decades on end. Cigarette smoking is good for your health. Lead in gasoline never hurt anyone. Asbestos is harmless. Synthetic morphine is not habit forming.

Seriously, people outside the US might be able to trust some companies on science, but an American who did so needs to have their head examined.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I remind you there used to be millions upon millions of buffalo on the plains of the USA. Not all cow (or animal) farting is attributable to humans.

Also, volcanos are also part of the 'natural process' as well. These can also effect the climate on a global scale, and have nothing to do with humans.

Actually, the high Bison population is attributable in large part to humans, at least according to the book 1491.Mann claims that Bison, passenger pigeons, and other animals had much smaller populations until the arrival of Europeans destroyed the natural equilibrium, and that North America was much more scarcely forested then too. The books seems to do a very good job of explaining how humans (especially in the Americas) have been causing climate change for thousands of years, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse.

 

[Death_Machine]

I don't come here to change anyone's mind and I sure as heck aren't trying to persuade you.

You wondered: Ok, so why did the planet get hot & experience ice ages before we as humans industrialized? and claimed: What is so hard to understand that the planet has been hot before and had ice ages long before anything we are doing now was around. If the planet gets warmer or more cool it is because of what the sun is doing, not anything we're doing down here.

With that last sentence you make a positive absolute claim. I simply provided some options.

For somebody not trying to persuade you sure come across that way. Sure there are other ideas you have presented, and maybe they are valid, but the bottom line is that man made activity wasn't a factor before I don't believe it is now.

Thanks to those of you who brought cow farts into this.

 

[BasketCase]

These are the causes of why many ill-informed individuals oppose any significant environmental policy changes.

Oooohhhh, do I ever call bullcrap on this one!

I am immune to the advertising industry, the public relation agencies, corporate lawyers, lobbyists in Washington who represent their clients, and the people who hire them. I reached my conclusion about climate change (which is "undecided") by studying a wide variety of scientific web sites and viewing actual statistics. Here are the conclusions I've reached:

#1: It is not conclusive that the planet is warming significantly.

#2: It is not conclusive that it's CO2 that controls the planet's temerature (I've found a lot of evidence that it could be temperature that controls CO2!)

#3: It is known that the Earth is overdue for a very severe cold snap (on the order of eight degrees Celsius), and it is very likely that human greenhouse gas emissions stopped it cold (pun intended).

#4: Such a cold snap would be far, far worse than global warming.

#5: Global warming would have a wide variety of effects--some bad, and some good. In fact, some necessary in light of human population growth.

 

[Death_Machine]

#3: It is known that the Earth is overdue for a very severe cold snap (on the order of eight degrees Celsius), and it is very likely that human greenhouse gas emissions stopped it cold (pun intended).

I welcome it down here in the South. We could use a break from the heat.

 

[Dachs]

I welcome it down here in the South. We could use a break from the heat.

Heat's fine. Humidity is the killer. I was perfectly happy at Ft. Irwin in the Mojave, but when in Alabama, it was not nearly so fun. (Louisiana is the exception because the awesome outweighs the humidity.)

 

[Death_Machine]

Heat's fine. Humidity is the killer. I was perfectly happy at Ft. Irwin in the Mojave, but when in Alabama, it was not nearly so fun. (Louisiana is the exception because the awesome outweighs the humidity.)

Of course the humidity will still whip my ass, but a few degrees cooler certainly won't hurt.

 

[BasketCase]

Uhhhh......it really would, Death Machine.

Yeah, the cooler weather might be comfy--until you began to starve to death. The real problem with a cold snap is that it would decimate the planet's food supply.

 

[Narz]

Uhhhh......it really would, Death Machine.

Yeah, the cooler weather might be comfy--until you began to starve to death. The real problem with a cold snap is that it would decimate the planet's food supply.

Georgia could survive a 8-degree celsius drop but not a 8-degree celsius rise.

Of course either would cause to mass social/political choas & climate refugees invading from either North or South but, forgetting all that, Georgia would be better off cooler. Also, with cooling you don't have to worry about oceans rising & wiping out the coasts where, IIRC, half of humanity lives.

This is all assuming we get to "choose our own adventure", of course.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

We're not overdue for an ice-age. And even if we were, it's far easier warming the planet by mass emiting CO2 than it is cooling the planet reducing CO2 levels. The worst that can happen in the overdue-iceage scenario is that we'll have a global Drive Your Suv All Day day.

 

[Death_Machine]

Uhhhh......it really would, Death Machine.

Yeah, the cooler weather might be comfy--until you began to starve to death. The real problem with a cold snap is that it would decimate the planet's food supply.

The planet's food supply may be screwed, but we have enough good land here that we can overcome.

Of course either would cause to mass social/political choas & climate refugees invading from either North or South but, forgetting all that, Georgia would be better off cooler.

Damn, we'd be getting Canadians instead of Mexicans!