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.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
