U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 10-17-2009, 12:54 PM
 
18,820 posts, read 8,291,093 times
Reputation: 5933
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
He's saying that a bunch of smarty pants with Ph.D.s (whose funding relies on a perception of inevitable doom) claim it's global warming, so therefore their followers say it's global warming.
No, he's saying that whatever the most guilty offenders such as big oil and the plastic industry tells them to believe, they believe. Sure, I would take their information on the issue as gospel because they have no vested interest.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2009, 02:20 PM
 
1,358 posts, read 1,136,444 times
Reputation: 478
Quote:
they have no vested interest.
Really? sickofnyc

Stimulus Plan: Non-Existent Unemployed Climate Modelers Get $140 Million » The Foundry
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Marietta, GA
7,681 posts, read 9,713,116 times
Reputation: 3209
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
No, this is the point people just shake their heads and walk away, saddened by the inability of people unable to understand the difference between global climate and local weather.
Yeah, and the point where I shake my head at all the people who can't understand the difference between large natural changes to climate that take place over millions of years and happen in cycles, and short term variances or extremes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 02:45 PM
 
9,999 posts, read 8,681,985 times
Reputation: 3544
Quote:
Originally Posted by trappedinNM View Post
Both sides have failed in the debate. The liberals have used some bad science to support and further their political agenda. The conservatives have focused on the prospect of new taxes and potential limits on personal freedom while ignoring the economic potential. Just because the science is not perfect does not mean the message should be ignored.

The issue should not be political but rather economic. The environmentalists should have marketed climate change it in a manner that appealed to the fiscally conservative nature and business interests of conservatives. If the federal government were to invest billions in constructing good local and regional public transportation, it would have a greater impact in the reduction of CO2 than cap and trade would. We would also have a tangible product in the end, and it would create jobs.

I think Obama's vision of a national or even regional train is flawed. We need fast, efficient transportation at the local level in the cities with the largest populations. If the twenty largest cities (after New York and excluding San Francisco which already have such systems) were to invest and implement usable public transportation that could get just 50% of the cars off the road, it would effectively reduce the total number of miles driven in the US by 11%. That is like taking one in ten cars off the road.

Liberals: a ten percent reduction would take billions of tons of CO2 out of the air.

Conservatives: think of all the money you could make building such a system.

If we want to use taxes to affect social policy and change, then we should use them in a manner that actually affects change, much the way they do in Europe with the gas tax. If we made it harder for families to own two cars, they might adapt and switch to public transportation. One way to do this would be to tax a second vehicle at a much higher rate than the first vehicle. A second might be to raise the gas taxes by several dollars per gallon and then give a credit back each year based on the average miles driven and average MPG. We could account for rural areas in the process. Commercial vehicles would have similar credits. This would be an equitable way to affect change. We have progressive income taxes. Progressive fuel taxes could also work.

Cars will always be important, and are central to our way of life. If we are serious about the environment, we must provide people an option other than a car. Outside of a few cities, we still do not have viable alternatives. It is hard for us to expect results when we have not provided anybody any other option. Cap and trade will do little to actually lower CO2. That is why I oppose it. It does not actually do anything for the environment. I would rather they just raise the gas tax by $2 per gallon. It would be more honest, and it would change behavior. People would drive less, reducing demand for fuel and increasing demand for public transportation.

We should work toward the day that every family can get by with just one good family-type car (or SUV if they need it), and maybe having a spare for those occasions when they simply can't take the bus or train.

I am less worried about global warming and more worried about the environment in general. But I also have a financial interest that overrides my political interest. Fuel is a precious resource that will only become more scarce in the future. The sooner we can adopt and adapt the better the country will be 100 years from now.

Cleaner air and lower overall household budget expenditures on fuel and vehicles is something both sides should agree on.
I agree with you. I don't understand why there are conservatives who seem to spend their every waking minute fishing up the latest "gotcha" article or looking out their windows and seeing weather anomalies (more extreme temperatures in both directions have always been a known result of global warming) and liberals who try to use climate change to enact taxation.

It's such an extraordinary opportunity for economic development and innovation and new lifestyles. That's what is great about Obama. He really gets that and, perhaps controversially, is using the levers of government to help those industries launch and to foster more sustainable lifestyles in the same way federal spending of the highway system fostered the suburban dream so many, ironically adhere to as the pinnacle of American freedom. It was created by federal spending just like we are creating transit-oriented development in the 21st century.

Another transportation revolution is underway in the more progressive communities and it's great to see.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 02:57 PM
Status: "The ends DO NOT justify the means." (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: The ends DO NOT justify the means!!!
3,100 posts, read 1,454,226 times
Reputation: 795
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 03:03 PM
 
5,155 posts, read 3,354,295 times
Reputation: 2375
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
He's saying that a bunch of smarty pants with Ph.D.s (whose funding relies on a perception of inevitable doom) claim it's global warming, so therefore their followers say it's global warming.
Can you point to anything to back up your assertion that scientists' funding relies on advancing a perception of doom?

You say you are pursuing a PhD in AI. If you do obtain that, do you expect you'll be publishing research on an impending Skynet, lest you go unfunded?

Are you so smug about all scientists, or just ones you disagree with?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Appalachian Trail Homeless, USA
436 posts, read 537,336 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbobobbo View Post
You say you are pursuing a PhD in AI.
Well, sounds like AI program might want to assign more journal club to their phd program student, and give them more enthusiasm than discouraging.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 09:36 PM
 
13,074 posts, read 6,615,909 times
Reputation: 2586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemeatball View Post
Sound like you are ready to repeat what dinosaur had been through without regret.
Scientist have done research on global warming long before a guy call Gore to step in and make it a bit political to you.
Actually Gore did no science, in fact his "science" is actually the work of Hansen and Mann (remember seeing the nifty hockey stick graph in Gores display?) among others. Hansen has been pushing hard for the AGW theory since the 70's and Mann's work is also equally leaning (well, his math and data methodology does anyway) to a conclusion for that benefit. You know James Hansen don't you? He is that rocking dude who was arrested recently with Darryl Hanna at an environmental protest rally.

Anyway, their work has been debunked over and over. Oh, you probably didn't know this, but umm... Those two with another scientist who we shall nickname "Secret Agent Man Jones" because he loves to hide the data are one of the leading authors for the IPCC's assessments to which AGW is claimed.

Though I am sure you knew this already as every AGW supporter is intricately involved with the "scienzezs".

Anyway, you might want to catch up on your talking point sites so you can see what it looks like when people are swimming up a certain creek without a paddle because the entire AGW position is currently in, pardon me while I use a complicated climate science term, deep doodoo.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 10:46 PM
Status: "Hitoribotchi no yoru" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Maryland about 20 miles NW of DC
4,597 posts, read 2,075,204 times
Reputation: 1621
Quote:
Originally Posted by HookTheBrotherUp View Post
After the snow, it will melt and there will be great floods, and the Statue of Liberty will only be recognized by the crown and arm extended out of the water...

Isn't this what was hinted at in The Day After Tomorrow?

BA-HA-HA!

There is a scientific basis for what was shown in that movie,. about 9000 years ago rapid melting of the Ice Sheet that covered most of Canada and much of the NE and Great Lakes region caused the ocean currents in the Atlantic to stop. Even though the world was warming up, the temperatures in the region around the N. Atlantic were decreased by 5-10 C and conditions were more like that in the previous Ice Age for nearly 500 years. Cold dry climates in N America and Europe didn't moderate until the ocean currents began again. This period is now called the Younger-Dryas (after a small flower found in the Tundra of Canada). Now today another large ice mass in Greenland is melting and putting large amounts of fresh water into the N. Atlantic. Just like the Laurentian Ice Sheet in Canada did 9000 years ago during the warm up at the end of the Ice Age.

The moral of the story is heating something up can lead to localized cooling.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 11:27 PM
 
17,557 posts, read 6,908,929 times
Reputation: 4034
Quote:
Originally Posted by trappedinNM View Post
Both sides have failed in the debate. The liberals have used some bad science to support and further their political agenda. The conservatives have focused on the prospect of new taxes and potential limits on personal freedom while ignoring the economic potential. Just because the science is not perfect does not mean the message should be ignored.
Not many people are saying to ignore it, but they end up ignoring it because the al Gore types conflate science into a frantic call for drastic and draconian changes to our society and economy, with the spectacular threat of doom & gloom and the destruction of mankind.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top