It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 9:40 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PatGreen
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:00 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Pat Green, I was basing that opinion on the post where you told me that encouraging people to watch Gasland was not responsible of me.

well i was upset because you're a teacher and what you present is often called fact. without presenting both sides, it's unfair to those learning. and anyone can tell you (and i'm sure you'll admit) gasland is very biased. i agree with most of it, but it just isn't the whole, real, story. some gas people are awesome. occidental has heeded every. single. one. of my advice points WITHOUT QUESTION, and it may have cost them 10-15k extra to do- but they WANT to be good, and they have outright told me they want to mitigate their environmental impact. they shrunk over 200 miles of pipeline into 17!!!! my fault that i made you think i wasn't a conservationist anymore. i'm as pure as pure can be.

Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Yes, "insignificant" is a subjective word, but I'm not sure anybody knows what is significant or not as far as what causes global warming. Not to the point of knowing "x amount of carbon emissions equals x rise in average temperature".

Other countries have to do with the issue because they all affect the overall climate. Should the US make drastic changes that long term are good for the environment when other countries refuse and greatly reduce the effects of the US's effort, especially when that effort causes a huge shake-up and shift in our economy that results in business and jobs lost? It might be the "right" thing do to on one perspective, but it might really crush large regions of the country that depended on a certain type pf economy. BTW, somewhere a year or two ago I read about China and Russia being 1-2 in industrial pollution and/or carbon emissions, with the US 3rd. That might not be totally accurate but I'm sure it's not too far off, at least for the purpose of making a general point about other countries nullifying efforts to reduce global warming.

But, if trying means an economic upheaval with regulations put into law by power/money motivated politicians that punitively punish certain industries and give to others in order to buy votes, all while putting large quantities of people out of work, there should be some definite caution in how to proceed.

I don't really suspect faulty science with green technologies, I suspect there will be some very rough transitions in how the market takes advantage of them. What businesses can use certain new sources of energy? Can they afford the overhead? Who loses/gains jobs in the process? Efficiency means less maintenance, so the manuel laborer probably loses out while the techno geek gets an upper hand. Oh wait, the US doesn't have enough techno geeks so where do they come from?

i get that your argument holds more water than this, but it sounds like you think we have no social responsibility or anything. just because other people don't do it doesn't mean we shouldn't. we have stupid tax breaks and grants for a lot of things, and there's no reason none of that funding can't go towards mitigating the cost of retrofitting old equipment with green equipment. there's no reason EVERY government building isn't required to have solar panels and CFL bulbs in them. there's a million cheap things that could be done to be more green, from reducing trash to using cleaner greener energy sources.

Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Pretending that there's more biased science supporting global warming than there is biased science calling it into question is just plain inaccurate. The VAST majority of science for YEARS has supported global warming, only a small fraction of scientists think there's even the smallest question of it. So by choosing to highlight things the way you are, you are trying to make it seem like the science supporting global warming is as biased as the science denying it. And that's just plain false and insulting, not only to our intelligence, but to the entire scientific community which you are basically discounting the work of.

yes, i agree with this. i find it insulting that most other scientists don't have their findings scoffed at, yet when i say things, it's suddenly not as concrete fact.

Stuuuuuuu wrote:
And to rephrase this a little, global warming is an issue that the scientific community on the whole decided upon decades ago. This was before there was any kind of "green" industry and really even before the word environmentalist became everyday lingo. Anyway, back then, scientists decided that global warming was a fact, and that humans contributed to it. It was printed in the science textbooks that I learned from in New York schools in the 70's and 80's. They called in the greenhouse effect. What greedy self-interests were these thousands of scientists serving by coming to that conclusion? What would be the motivation for anyone to say, "hey, you know the things that we do as a country and species that are cheaper and easier for everybody? Yeah, well we should stop doing those things and work hard and sacrifice." Where's the self-interest in that? Just to get those FAT RESEARCH GRANTS? No, I don't think so. I think that's insulting to the scientific community.

agreed. the first earth day was in the last 70's, and all i remember hearing about was the hole in the ozone layer and "reduce reuse recycle". i get it.

Stuuuuuuu wrote:
I'm such a fucking nerd. But anyway, you should say "I'm an athiest", becuase the first time I read that what came across to me was "I'm a Theist", which has a quite different take-home message.

i'm a theist and a scientist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:41 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
PatGreen wrote:
i'm a theist and a scientist.

Just makes you even more cool in my eyes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PatGreen
PostPosted: Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:43 pm 
Offline
PP Quarterback

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 8:55 pm
Posts: 1836
well that's the first time i've heard anything like that concerning the premise.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:06 am 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
It's a tough line to toe, some might say impossible. I will never give science the ultimate nod, because it's a human endeavor, and no human, or collective human knowledge, is perfect. Science is great at explaining the how, but not the why. Don't get me wrong, I don't think I'll ever claim to know much about the why. And let me be clear that I pretty much despise organized religion. But I will say I find it hard to believe that all this wonderful stuff: you, me, my wife, my family and friends, the Sabres, the way music make me feel, the other board members, my cats, Letchworth State Park... I find it hard to believe that all that is some weird coincidence born from chance and primordial sludge.

Fuck I'm sorry for going there.


Top
 Profile  
 
NYIntensity
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:25 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 2:11 pm
Posts: 4463
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
It's a tough line to toe, some might say impossible. I will never give science the ultimate nod, because it's a human endeavor, and no human, or collective human knowledge, is perfect. Science is great at explaining the how, but not the why. Don't get me wrong, I don't think I'll ever claim to know much about the why. And let me be clear that I pretty much despise organized religion. But I will say I find it hard to believe that all this wonderful stuff: you, me, my wife, my family and friends, the Sabres, the way music make me feel, the other board members, my cats, Letchworth State Park... I find it hard to believe that all that is some weird coincidence born from chance and primordial sludge.

Fuck I'm sorry for going there.


Image

_________________
ksquier89 wrote:
Holy fucking fuck...Boyes couldn't suck a dick if it landed in his mouth.


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:10 am 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:13 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
It's not a stupid question to try and answer and it's an easy one: the right is dead wrong on this issue and they are the ones propagating much more false science. To argue otherwise is to distort the situation. This is not an issue where you can say "both sides have their points". No way.


What an objective viewpoint.


Top
 Profile  
 
BlueandYellow
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:25 pm 
Offline
Hart Winner
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:42 pm
Posts: 9770
Location: Buffalo, NY
Agnosticism ftw

_________________
"Counting all the assholes in the room, I'm definitely not alone!" ~ Michael Poulsen, Volbeat, Still Standing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:13 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Sabresfansince1980 wrote:
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
It's not a stupid question to try and answer and it's an easy one: the right is dead wrong on this issue and they are the ones propagating much more false science. To argue otherwise is to distort the situation. This is not an issue where you can say "both sides have their points". No way.


What an objective viewpoint.

I don't hear any of our scientists (or anyone else for that matter) stepping up to tell me how I'm wrong. You pretty much laid out the right's talking points and I and others have answered them one by one. There's more motivation for Big Oil to manipulate science, check. Big Oil has FAR more money and influence than the green lobby, check. Yes, it's true that we don't know how much CO2=how much temperature rise, but we know there's a direct relationship. So while the big question is answered (that we need to reduce CO2), you're over there saying we don't know the exact numbers and we don't know how much it'll help if we sacrifice, then accusing OTHERS of "spliting hairs". Bullshit. Every one of those arguments is YOU spliting hairs trying to sully something that's not in question. Don't pretend to claim the mantle of objectivity.


Top
 Profile  
 
Sabresfansince1980
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:32 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:45 pm
Posts: 3021
Location: So far away
I haven't accused anyone of splitting hairs. That's totally false and I don't know where you come up with that. If you want to say that looking into as much detail and all factors possible when it comes to climate change is "splitting hairs" on my part...well that's just ridiculous. No scientist would think that way. All manner of variables are a challenge in researching the extent of human caused warming and what to can be done to affect change. You think we can all wipe our hands and say, "yeah, we know everything just throw ALL financial backing toward any/all green technology regardless of the economic consequences". "Bullshit". Sure, you have all the answers so there's no sense in having a conversation or debate. As for objectivity, the right supposedly claim it's all a hoax and fossil fuels will rule forever. The left supposedly think fossil fuels is the end of the world and we need solar and wind everywhere yesterday. So yeah, I would think that acknowledging global warming without having all the answers yet, and wanting to proceed with green technologies with caution in regard to our economic world standing without politics infecting the process is pretty damn well near the middle.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:44 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Saying "we don't have all the details yet", while true, really in the end boils down to dragging our feet on the issue. We know enough, and have for years. There are economic reasons for dragging our feet, but no other reasons. And ultimately it's NOT to the benefit of our economy to favor short term gains that come with long term damage over short term sacrifices that come with long term benefits. So I won't even buy he economic argument because it's so short-sighted. I don't claim to have all the answers, but we never will. So ultimately, in advising caution, what you're really doing is serving the interests of Big Energy and no one else.


Top
 Profile  
 
daz28
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
Star Sniper

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:31 pm
Posts: 3363
Not knowing what color you're going to paint the house is no reason to delay the construction(this pretty much goes for everything the Repubs say 'no' to). Sure ALL the facts aren't in, but I think any fool can see the longer you wait, the worse it will probably get. All Stuu is trying to say is that the right wing lobbyist for oil are dragging our feet on the issue, and don't care about the consequences, because the last of their dirty greed money will already be spent on their mausoleums.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
One more time with the doctor ananolgy. You're not feeling well and you go to the doctor. The doctor says you've got a big fucking nasty tumor the likes of which medical science has never seen before. They don't know what causes it, could be your food, could be genetic, could be something in the water. Plus they don't know how fast it will grow since they have never seen anything exactly like it before, but they all agree it looks bad. So, 1980, what you're telling me is that in that case you'd wait to get all the answers first, before starting treatment or scheduling surgey?


Top
 Profile  
 
Displaced Fan
PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 5:07 pm 
Offline
Superstar Goalie
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:34 am
Posts: 4097
They are using the same tactics tobacco companies used. Instead of being concrete they duck and weave. They simply say that the evidence needs more study or that more research needs to be done. It's blatant misdirection. They stand to lose money anytime emission standards get more rigid or green technology makes an advance and of course they will use their deep pockets to try and keep that from happening. It's pretty shitty.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
daz28
PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:38 am 
Offline
Star Sniper

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:31 pm
Posts: 3363
Fuel economy standards could help dramatically starting tomorrow. I don't have the stats, but I heard one of the Kennedy's talking about the numbers on tv(the one who talks funny, not sure if it's Joe). Anyways, I'm sure they're easy to google(well, Bing. I've already switched;don't want to be profiled, but that's a new topic for when this one gets boring).


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:01 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
I just wanted to pop back in here and point out some of the assumptions and assertions made previously in this thread were completely wrong.
Specifically over the amount of tax subsidies provided to "Big Oil" and to the "green" companies.

According to the CBO, in 2011:
Big Oil and Big Coal received $3.4 billion in tax subsidies.
Big Green received $24 billion in tax subsidies. (Also, between 2009 and 2012, the DOE provided $25 billion in loans to green companies)

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43040
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012 ... to-greens/

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Squanto
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:18 pm 
Offline
Carlos Spicy-Wiener
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:31 am
Posts: 9240
Location: FAP TURBO
While this is a good point, the more important point about 'big oil' and 'big coal' is that neither NEEDS tax subsidies.

Exxon Mobil ALONE clears about $10B in profit per quarter. All of the other fossil fuel companies are also profitable. Why are we subsidizing extremely profitable companies at all?

(And I agree that $24B in subsidies to big green is over the top too. That should be reduced. The difference is that big green doesn't make nearly the money big oil does.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Crosscheck
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:27 pm 
Offline
Sober enough to run a server
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:10 am
Posts: 7475
Location: 2,568 miles from the F'n arena
Well if you read that article, most of the subsidies claimed by the fossil fuel industry are generic subsidies that are enjoyed by any number of industries...excluding ones for exploration etc.
I'd argue we shouldn't be subsidizing any of them when we're fucking broke.

If your green idea is so great, there's a billionaire out there who would love to make more money off it.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:53 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
Crosscheck wrote:
I just wanted to pop back in here and point out some of the assumptions and assertions made previously in this thread were completely wrong.
Specifically over the amount of tax subsidies provided to "Big Oil" and to the "green" companies.

According to the CBO, in 2011:
Big Oil and Big Coal received $3.4 billion in tax subsidies.
Big Green received $24 billion in tax subsidies. (Also, between 2009 and 2012, the DOE provided $25 billion in loans to green companies)

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43040
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012 ... to-greens/

I couldn't find numbers form 2111 when I looked before. Interesting to see just how much the trend appears to be changing from the CBO numbers. I would point out that $24 billion did NOT go to Green from those numbers. That's the TOTAL for ALL energy subsides, of which granted renewable got the Lion's share. But not $24 billion, that was for fossil, renewable, and nuclear combined.


Top
 Profile  
 
Stuuuuuuu
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:55 pm 
Offline
Franchise Defenseman
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
Posts: 2876
Location: Portland, Oregano
quote: "How Much Has the Federal Government Provided in Support for Developing and Producing Fuel and Energy Technologies?

In 2011, federal support totaled an estimated $24 billion, which was provided in the following ways"


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 110 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron