Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues

[Hobgoblin]

I understand that's how prominence works, but you have to understand that that is the reason why you can't really use prominence to make your case here.

Scientists have been wrong before, the consensus of scientists have been wrong before. That's why I completely rejected social controls and economic controls - even the most brilliant and expert people can be wrong.

So because experts have been wrong in the past, you "completely reject" what they say? Throw out the baby with the bath water much?

 

[chaseter]

A little too simplified...but yeah. I see the melting arctic and I say "well there ya go"

Yes, the Earth does go through cycles. Some due to the Earth doing what it does, and some due to large disasters like the asteroid killing off the Dinosaurs. Humans have had some sort of impact on the Earth's climate, perhaps we've accelerated the cycle, we just don't know yet

So if you don't know if a snake is venomous or not yet, do you keep poking it?

We have an impact, it is crazy to think that we have no impact. What we don't know is the extent. But, why not err on the side of caution? What is the worst case scenario with trying to be more green?

 

[Alex The Great]

I do agree that humans have impact. But how much?

P.S. I do believe in Global Warming. I just don't really know what's going on

 

[StorminNorman]

So because experts have been wrong in the past, you "completely reject" what they say? Throw out the baby with the bath water much?

Because experts have been wrong in the past, I am not going to assume them to be infallible and I am not going to assume the dissenting minority is wrong because the majority says so.

Also you quote me out of context. I do not "completely reject" anything an "expert" has to say simply because experts have been wrong in the past. I completely reject social and economic planning (socialism, corporatism, "state capitalism", progressivism, fascism etc.)

Furthermore, the tactics used by the Global Warming crowd only further my distrust. I don't like the first thing many of the advocates did was the ludicrous gigantic scam of carbon credits. I don't like the fact that the sessions to clear the Global Warming community of misconduct with the leaked email bit were less than thorough. I don't like that Al Gore claims we are destroying the environment by living luxuriously while living luxuriously and claims it's 'aight because he pays tax credits. I don't like how the Progressives try to use Global Warming as a stimulus to a War Economy.

The degree of enthusiasm Progressivism have for Global Warming forces me to be skeptical because Progressivism in the past as shown a tendency to take advantage of such incidents to implement powerful control. Progressives did it in WWI. Progressives did it in WWII. Progressives did it after 9/11.

 

[StorminNorman]

I do agree that humans have impact. But how much?

P.S. I do believe in Global Warming. I just don't really know what's going on

Which makes you the most honest poster here.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Because experts have been wrong in the past, I am not going to assume them to be infallible and I am not going to assume the dissenting minority is wrong because the majority says so.

Also you quote me out of context. I do not "completely reject" anything an "expert" has to say simply because experts have been wrong in the past. I completely reject social and economic planning (socialism, corporatism, "state capitalism", progressivism, fascism etc.)

Furthermore, the tactics used by the Global Warming crowd only further my distrust. I don't like the first thing many of the advocates did was the ludicrous gigantic scam of carbon credits. I don't like the fact that the sessions to clear the Global Warming community of misconduct with the leaked email bit were less than thorough. I don't like that Al Gore claims we are destroying the environment by living luxuriously while living luxuriously and claims it's 'aight because he pays tax credits. I don't like how the Progressives try to use Global Warming as a stimulus to a War Economy.

The degree of enthusiasm Progressivism have for Global Warming forces me to be skeptical because Progressivism in the past as shown a tendency to take advantage of such incidents to implement powerful control. Progressives did it in WWI. Progressives did it in WWII. Progressives did it after 9/11.

I hope that you show such skepticism with conservative ideas. Besides, you are making it a political issue. Dont listen to Al Gore or other politicians. Listen to the scientists. Not listening to them is like going to doctor after doctor when you are sick for opinion after opinion and still deciding that you are fine because doctors have been wrong in the past.

 

[Marx]

So if you don't know if a snake is venomous or not yet, do you keep poking it?

We have an impact, it is crazy to think that we have no impact. What we don't know is the extent. But, why not err on the side of caution? What is the worst case scenario with trying to be more green?

Well said Chase.

 

[StorminNorman]

I hope that you show such skepticism with conservative ideas. Besides, you are making it a political issue. Dont listen to Al Gore or other politicians. Listen to the scientists. Not listening to them is like going to doctor after doctor when you are sick for opinion after opinion and still deciding that you are fine because doctors have been wrong in the past.

I do. Note that I listed conservative reaction to 9/11 as an example.

Furthermore, I do listen to scientists. Scientists on both sides of the debate.

Your doctor analogy is flawed because the doctors that are telling me I am sick were the same doctors that were wrong in the past.

 

[StorminNorman]

Well said Chase.

No it's not. The "well it doesn't hurt to give it a try" bit ends when the government starts getting involved and regulating the lives of individuals.

I am all aboard the whole "be green" bit. When I have the ability to walk to places, I use cloth bags and I recycle (easy to do in Orlando, not so easy in North Florida). No one on any side is saying that we shouldn't do those things (at least no one to take seriously).

What the problem is is the government banning lightbulbs and taxing me for emitting carbon. The problem is the moral highground taken by those being green.

 

[Marx]

No it's not. The "well it doesn't hurt to give it a try" bit ends when the government starts getting involved and regulating the lives of individuals.

I am all aboard the whole "be green" bit. When I have the ability to walk to places, I use cloth bags and I recycle (easy to do in Orlando, not so easy in North Florida). No one on any side is saying that we shouldn't do those things (at least no one to take seriously).

What the problem is is the government banning lightbulbs and taxing me for emitting carbon. The problem is the moral highground taken by those being green.

It seems to me that there is a enough 'moral highground' being taken by both sides of the argument.

 

[chaseter]

No it's not. The "well it doesn't hurt to give it a try" bit ends when the government starts getting involved and regulating the lives of individuals.

I am all aboard the whole "be green" bit. When I have the ability to walk to places, I use cloth bags and I recycle (easy to do in Orlando, not so easy in North Florida). No one on any side is saying that we shouldn't do those things (at least no one to take seriously).

What the problem is is the government banning lightbulbs and taxing me for emitting carbon. The problem is the moral highground taken by those being green.

It isn't "well it won't hurt to give it a try," it is lets "err on the side of caution." This isn't about the government, this is about Earth and our future on it. We can fight the government and idiotic policies.

I have a pretty good metabolism but that isn't going to make me eat whatever I want whenever I want because there are possible future consequences like diabetes and bad health from poor nutrition. That is the problem with our country...we look to the temporary instead of the long term. We affect this planet no matter what anybody says to the contrary and the more we put off this debate the closer we get to the precipice.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I do. Note that I listed conservative reaction to 9/11 as an example.

Furthermore, I do listen to scientists. Scientists on both sides of the debate.

Your doctor analogy is flawed because the doctors that are telling me I am sick were the same doctors that were wrong in the past.

I cant understand your logic. If 97% of doctors tell you that you have cancer, you're going to give equal credence to the less experienced 3% that say you dont? The 97% may be wrong sometimes, but they are right the majority of the time.

 

[StorminNorman]

It isn't "well it won't hurt to give it a try," it is lets "err on the side of caution." This isn't about the government, this is about Earth and our future on it. We can fight the government and idiotic policies.

I have a pretty good metabolism but that isn't going to make me eat whatever I want whenever I want because there are possible future consequences like diabetes and bad health from poor nutrition. That is the problem with our country...we look to the temporary instead of the long term. We affect this planet no matter what anybody says to the contrary and the more we put off this debate the closer we get to the precipice.

Then it is up to PRIVATE RESPONSE. I am all for private moves to reduce carbon, it must be understand that only through such means can you have successful change. The government trying to regulate carbon isn't the answer. The government telling me I can only buy one sort of lightbulb isn't the answer.

I cant understand your logic. If 97% of doctors tell you that you have cancer, you're going to give equal credence to the less experienced 3% that say you dont? The 97% may be wrong sometimes, but they are right the majority of the time.

But we aren't dealing with those sort of numbers.

 

[chaseter]

I disagree. The government needs to step in but not overstep its bounds. Otherwise, we would be Bejing 2.0 and we would still be using hairspray that eats away at the ozone and driving cars that emit pollution at 10x the rate they do now. We need the government to regulate, not to force. If corporations were let loose without regulation, our rivers and oceans wouldn't be safe to be in...like in Bejing.

 

[StorminNorman]

I disagree. The government needs to step in but not overstep its bounds. Otherwise, we would be Bejing 2.0 and we would still be using hairspray that eats away at the ozone and driving cars that emit pollution at 10x the rate they do now. We need the government to regulate, not to force. If corporations were let loose without regulation, our rivers and oceans wouldn't be safe to be in...like in Bejing.

What are some examples?

 

[chaseter]

Examples of what I think or what has been done?

For you, there would be no better example of the oil spill you worked to clean up. That industry is regulated and rightfully so. Imagine if the oil industry had no government regulation. We would be seeing oil spills left and right.

 

[Hobgoblin]

But we aren't dealing with those sort of numbers.

From this sample group, yes we are.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/june/climate-change-doubters-062510.html

 

[Carcharodon]

These top, most respected scientists called it "global warming" for years...until the evidence became clear that the earth is actually going through a cooling trend, and that the trends show that the earth has always gone through warming and cooling periods...so they changed the term to "climate change" which can describe the changing seasons, the morning dew, a cooling trend, a warming trend, or anything else.

Well then are our actions making the world colder, or warmer? 5 years ago everyone was claiming the world was going to get hotter, but now it's getting colder. So did the scientific community accidentally print up their graphs upside down?

First of all, I'd love to see your sources.

Secondly, if the world is indeed cooling, then that actually exacerbates the problem of ocean acidification...a virtually undeniably anthropogenic phenomenon (also caused by carbon emissions) which warrants our close attention and, in my opinion, an increased effort to curb carbon emissions. Either way you look at this, we're still shooting ourselves in the foot.

 

[StorminNorman]

Examples of what I think or what has been done?

For you, there would be no better example of the oil spill you worked to clean up. That industry is regulated and rightfully so. Imagine if the oil industry had no government regulation. We would be seeing oil spills left and right.

See, that's your problem. I think you actually believe that.

Oil Spills are caused by bad companies. Bad companies manage to fail in spite of government regulations (BP). Good companies don't succeed in preventing spills because of the motivation of government regulations but because oil spills are bad for business.

That's why the entire notion that we need government to tell businesses to treat employees right and to not sell bad products is asinine, immature and the cornerstone of the Progressive movement. Businesses will eventually treat employees right, for example, because it's in their interest to (happy employers are more productive and typically more talented as the best employees will always seek the most enjoyable workplace).

 

[Carcharodon]

See, that's your problem. I think you actually believe that.

Really? So removing the only disincentive to cutting costs and attempting bolder, more dangerous drilling feats for increased profits would be a good idea, huh?

Sorry. I don't see it. BP, a company that was responsible for the worst spill in American history, is really no worse for wear after this ordeal. That should illustrate a massive flaw in your reasoning about consumers weeding out the irresponsible companies.

That's why the entire notion that we need government to tell businesses to treat employees right and to not sell bad products is asinine, immature and the cornerstone of the Progressive movement. Businesses will eventually treat employees right, for example, because it's in their interest to (happy employers are more productive and typically more talented as the best employees will always seek the most enjoyable workplace).

So you're arguing that there wasn't a problem before regulations started being put in place?

 

[Anita18]

See, that's your problem. I think you actually believe that.

And you don't think that the oil companies wouldn't take shortcuts or pressure the oil riggers to take shortcuts that compromise safety?

I'm quite sure that if we didn't have regulations in science labs, everyone would go to work in flip flops and shorts and eat their lunches and drink their Cokes at the bench next to dangerous chemicals. Never underestimate the stupidity/folly of what people can do if they could get away with it.

Heck, someone putting a bottle of alcohol next to a Bunsen burner (and melting part of the bench that exploded) necessitated a campus-wide email from Safety reminding us not to do such a thing. People are STUPID.

 

[Carcharodon]

And you don't think that the oil companies wouldn't take shortcuts or pressure the oil riggers to take shortcuts that compromise safety?

I'm quite sure that if we didn't have regulations in science labs, everyone would go to work in flip flops and shorts and eat their lunches and drink their Cokes at the bench next to dangerous chemicals. Never underestimate the stupidity/folly of what people can do if they could get away with it.

Heck, someone putting a bottle of alcohol next to a Bunsen burner (and melting part of the bench that exploded) necessitated a campus-wide email from Safety reminding us not to do such a thing. People are STUPID.

My girlfriend and her friend got in lots of trouble for putting elemental Sodium into some water. Loooooots of trouble.

 

[Anita18]

See, that's your problem. I think you actually believe that.

Oil Spills are caused by bad companies. Bad companies manage to fail in spite of government regulations (BP). Good companies don't succeed in preventing spills because of the motivation of government regulations but because oil spills are bad for business.

That's why the entire notion that we need government to tell businesses to treat employees right and to not sell bad products is asinine, immature and the cornerstone of the Progressive movement. Businesses will eventually treat employees right, for example, because it's in their interest to (happy employers are more productive and typically more talented as the best employees will always seek the most enjoyable workplace).

The thing is that even though oil spills are bad for business, the companies will still try to get away with what they can, because 99% of the time, it'll turn out all right.

It's when a situation falls within the unlucky 1% that we're talking about, and that 1% event can be catastrophic, as we saw with the BP spill. I bet they got away with such a thing dozens of times, but it finally caught up with them.

Again, an example from lab. I always wear googles and gloves with handling phenol. I have never gotten any phenol on me, and I've used it dozens of times. But on the off chance that I DO get some on me, I want to be wearing gloves and goggles because a phenol burn is seriously nasty.

Most of the time, people handle even dangerous chemicals totally fine and you don't hear about accidents. Thus, training becomes lax. And when someone sets herself on fire handling one of these dangerous chemicals, people FINALLY wake up and reassess the need for proper training. We got an email about such an incident too, and although it wasn't our campus, I had a connection to the girl involved (we went to the same college) and I knew she wasn't stupid. She just wasn't trained properly by her superiors, which again is a serious problem in science labs because normally people get away with it. She died in the hospital from major burns to 80% of her body. This is why we have regulations and safety training.

 

[maenalus]

The thing is that even though oil spills are bad for business, the companies will still try to get away with what they can, because 99% of the time, it'll turn out all right.

It's when a situation falls within the unlucky 1% that we're talking about, and that 1% event can be catastrophic, as we saw with the BP spill. I bet they got away with such a thing dozens of times, but it finally caught up with them.

Was that really catastrophic? They've been finding out that the ocean can handle it. Just as has handled past oil spills just fine. It seems to me that it was hysterically hyped by the environmentalist left to demonize Big Oil, and by Republican party hacks to demonize Obama as fiddling-while-Rome-burned.

 

[Anita18]

Was that really catastrophic? They've been finding out that the ocean can handle it. Just as has handled past oil spills just fine. It seems to me that it was hysterically hyped by the environmentalist left to demonize Big Oil, and by Republican party hacks to demonize Obama as fiddling-while-Rome-burned.

Even if the environmental effects aren't as catastrophic as people were hyping them to be, don't forget that 11 men DID die on that rig in a hellish fiery blaze.

I'm sure nobody wants a repeat of that...