A question about global warming
Ok, I'm going to try not to take sides here because standing purely on position never helps a debate. I'm currently 24, raised by parents who some would consider "hippies". They taught me nothing about global warming or our impact as a race on our planet, simply that we should be respectfull of our planet. I'm no scientist so I cant verify the accuracy of the data presented over the decades, nor can any of you for that matter (unless ofcourse youve spent your entire life studying the matter). So I guess what I'm asking is why so much pressure on whether or not our data is accurate? Aren't we doing enough damage that can be tracked with 100% accuracy that we should be focusing on decreasing our impact anyway?
Comments56
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
You would think people would have this sense of logic. Instead they make it into a political issue.
The earth doesn't choose American partisans... It's gonna do what it's gonna do and it don't care if you're a rightwing republican.
The earth doesn't choose American partisans... It's gonna do what it's gonna do and it don't care if you're a rightwing republican.
There is nothing wrong with taking care of our planet.
However, with that said, we should not be forced to do so under the current LIE that is known as MAN MADE climate change.
Man made climate change is a hoax, a lie, a silly notion that nut burgers like Al Gore are using to get their way, because honesty and facts isn't producing the reaction they want.
The ends do not justify the means.
However, with that said, we should not be forced to do so under the current LIE that is known as MAN MADE climate change.
Man made climate change is a hoax, a lie, a silly notion that nut burgers like Al Gore are using to get their way, because honesty and facts isn't producing the reaction they want.
The ends do not justify the means.
"So I guess what I'm asking is why so much pressure on whether or not our data is accurate?"
Because if the data is 100% accurate and if the majority of scientists are right, then it means that we have to change our economic models (or perish). That's something that the corporations, wealthy businessmen and governments don't want to do. Extracting resources and burning up fossil fuels is making some people very wealthy and powerful. That's not something they are willing to give up easily. So there will always be individuals who question the data, because scientific research is never 100% accurate. And because they are corporate lackeys.
Because if the data is 100% accurate and if the majority of scientists are right, then it means that we have to change our economic models (or perish). That's something that the corporations, wealthy businessmen and governments don't want to do. Extracting resources and burning up fossil fuels is making some people very wealthy and powerful. That's not something they are willing to give up easily. So there will always be individuals who question the data, because scientific research is never 100% accurate. And because they are corporate lackeys.
Well, if we're spending billions of pounds dollars euros roubles rupees pesos yen yuan lira and dirhnams on cutting emissions it is reasonable to require, if not proof of imminent disaster, at least a shedload of evidence. By a shed-load I would mean actual equations of the level of emissions verses the temperature increase, and for those equations to be rooted in rigorous scientific tests. The most I have actually seen so far is a few very alarming graphs, and some convincing but not compulsive theory.
Personally, I'm still far more worried about the implications of us running out of gas and oil in a few decades than any of the impacts of climate change.
Personally, I'm still far more worried about the implications of us running out of gas and oil in a few decades than any of the impacts of climate change.
Ok, I'm going to try not to take sides here because standing purely on position never helps a debate. I'm currently 24, raised by parents who some would consider "hippies". They taught me nothing about global warming or our impact as a race on our planet, simply that we should be respectfull of our planet. I'm no scientist so I cant verify the accuracy of the data presented over the decades, nor can any of you for that matter (unless ofcourse youve spent your entire life studying the matter). So I guess what I'm asking is why so much pressure on whether or not our data is accurate? Aren't we doing enough damage that can be tracked with 100% accuracy that we should be focusing on decreasing our impact anyway?
Well it's pretty obvious your parents did too many drugs because you're obviously not paying attention to anything.
I guess Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes always had high mercury levels.
All those chemicals we flush down the toilet everyday, they don't do anything.
Oh don't you worry about all those factories lined up along our rivers, they're pouring happyness into the water.
We build dams and kill entire river systems only because the beavers couldn't do it.
LA's air has always been bad for your health and full of manmade toxins, even before man existed
Chernobyl wasn't that bad. The radiation will all be gone in a few centuries, so what's the fuss about?
Dip shit.
Because people want an excuse to keep their cars, I guess. I've seen some logical criticisms of global warming theories, so I'm not sure whether to believe them or not. I just do the basic stuff for now (recycle, take the school bus, etc.) since it'll help either way. I'll have to figure out what to do about products with dangerous chemicals and such once I'm living on my own...
Because:
A) There is a conspiracy of climatologists who hate GDP growth.
B) No big company cares shit about the environment and just want to make quick money and skullfuck their grandchildren.
If you average those two variables, you get some semblance of sense.
A) There is a conspiracy of climatologists who hate GDP growth.
B) No big company cares shit about the environment and just want to make quick money and skullfuck their grandchildren.
If you average those two variables, you get some semblance of sense.
Hahaha, Fuck yeah.
I love how companies use the green-movement to rape bitches into buying their shit. While charging you more and costing them less.
I love how companies use the green-movement to rape bitches into buying their shit. While charging you more and costing them less.
The only thing that makes the bigwigs care about the environment is an immediate death for themselves or a significant proportion of their shareholders. All the renewable technologies that are or could be available are bought up by energy companies and smothered to death, if there's less profit in it, then they will avoid it with tooth and claw until they have no more options, at which point they'll try to market it. More money is spent on researching new ways to acquire fossil fuels than their replacements, because fossil fuels run out and can be sold at top dollar, something that is sustainable has no real supply and demand factor, because it's not limited people aren't going to scramble for it at whatever inflated price one charges. Hell the customer may even be able to produce it themselves; imagine if more research was put in to solar power, if everyone had solar panels and it was made to be more efficient, cheaper to produce and durable then there would be no power problems at all. But then there would be no energy market any more, everyone would be better off except businessmen.
According to basic principles of economics nothing is unlimited and everything has a cost. I think your corporate conspiracy theory indicates you have not ever held a professional level job, much less a corporate job.
I'm not talking about a conspiracy... I'm just making pessimistic assumptions about oil companies buying up the patents for the renewable energy methods.
Its a market economy. Patent ownership is tricky business. I have a patent on something that may or may not impact a variety of markets. As I see it here are my opinions:
A) Convince the entity, that I have released ownership to, to sell it for amazing amounts of quick cash.
B) Hold it and allowing licensing upon it so that revenue may be generated though derivative services and service regulation.
C) Hold the intellectual property in order to block competition but open its adopting liberally to direct technology futures and thereby dependent business futures.
Considering those options it is wisest for most IP holders to sell their patents immediately to potential devaluation. Devaluation is probable for most inventors as they lack sufficient business access to the necessary supply chain product/service developers through the hierarchy of their concerned industry to influence or direct propensity towards adoption. I fortunate to have created IP in a market of easy access, significant value, and few patents of value in a market otherwise flooded with patents.
It is in the interest of a competing entity to always expand their patent portfolio, if they are so willing to expend the costs associating with maintaining that portfolio, within their given field in order to prevent legal limitations to their business. A patent is nothing more than the exclusive right to block competition. It is more valuable for a multi-billion dollar energy company to buy IP for a significantly smaller amount than they potential harm to their business down the road. Additionally, many oil companies are actually energy conglomerates investing research into many aspects of the energy industry, including renewable energy. If an IP may benefit their research then the value of that IP speaks for itself. Also, owning patents allows one company to block competition from another.
It is not likely that oil companies would be investing money in IP ownership only to silence renewable energy development. There are rational reasons to buy patents for business exploration and competition as prior explained. Considering how expensive it is to maintain protection upon the life of a patent and how divested many energy companies are I highly doubt such practices represent any sort of a conspiracy to push oil at the expense of alternatives.
A) Convince the entity, that I have released ownership to, to sell it for amazing amounts of quick cash.
B) Hold it and allowing licensing upon it so that revenue may be generated though derivative services and service regulation.
C) Hold the intellectual property in order to block competition but open its adopting liberally to direct technology futures and thereby dependent business futures.
Considering those options it is wisest for most IP holders to sell their patents immediately to potential devaluation. Devaluation is probable for most inventors as they lack sufficient business access to the necessary supply chain product/service developers through the hierarchy of their concerned industry to influence or direct propensity towards adoption. I fortunate to have created IP in a market of easy access, significant value, and few patents of value in a market otherwise flooded with patents.
It is in the interest of a competing entity to always expand their patent portfolio, if they are so willing to expend the costs associating with maintaining that portfolio, within their given field in order to prevent legal limitations to their business. A patent is nothing more than the exclusive right to block competition. It is more valuable for a multi-billion dollar energy company to buy IP for a significantly smaller amount than they potential harm to their business down the road. Additionally, many oil companies are actually energy conglomerates investing research into many aspects of the energy industry, including renewable energy. If an IP may benefit their research then the value of that IP speaks for itself. Also, owning patents allows one company to block competition from another.
It is not likely that oil companies would be investing money in IP ownership only to silence renewable energy development. There are rational reasons to buy patents for business exploration and competition as prior explained. Considering how expensive it is to maintain protection upon the life of a patent and how divested many energy companies are I highly doubt such practices represent any sort of a conspiracy to push oil at the expense of alternatives.
"why so much pressure on whether or not our data is accurate?"
You mean aside from the obvious notion that inaccurate data is worthless for all intents and purposes? While I get the motivation and I recognize that one shady report doesn't mean the end of all climate change research, I don't appreciate the risk this group of scientists took nor the fuel it added to the fires of those who are willing to ignore or try to discredit the problem. While I'd say that the relevance of this one case is being exaggerated, I'd also say I'm not pleased that it happened, either.
"Aren't we doing enough damage that can be tracked with 100% accuracy that we should be focusing on decreasing our impact anyway?"
This is the crux of the matter, and why so many people seem to be gleefully jumping up and down with excitement about a group of scientists being shown to be distorting their data. There is a lot of blatantly obvious evidence that's visible to everyone who cares to look showing inarguably that humanity has been a really shitty steward of the environment we inhabit. It's blatantly obvious that when the Cuyahoga River catches fire, something's amiss, and it ain't natural. It's because it is obvious in so many ways that we're doing something wrong that even the slightest chink in the armor of that knowledge appears to be cause for celebration for those who don't want to believe that humanity is having a negative impact on our world.
You mean aside from the obvious notion that inaccurate data is worthless for all intents and purposes? While I get the motivation and I recognize that one shady report doesn't mean the end of all climate change research, I don't appreciate the risk this group of scientists took nor the fuel it added to the fires of those who are willing to ignore or try to discredit the problem. While I'd say that the relevance of this one case is being exaggerated, I'd also say I'm not pleased that it happened, either.
"Aren't we doing enough damage that can be tracked with 100% accuracy that we should be focusing on decreasing our impact anyway?"
This is the crux of the matter, and why so many people seem to be gleefully jumping up and down with excitement about a group of scientists being shown to be distorting their data. There is a lot of blatantly obvious evidence that's visible to everyone who cares to look showing inarguably that humanity has been a really shitty steward of the environment we inhabit. It's blatantly obvious that when the Cuyahoga River catches fire, something's amiss, and it ain't natural. It's because it is obvious in so many ways that we're doing something wrong that even the slightest chink in the armor of that knowledge appears to be cause for celebration for those who don't want to believe that humanity is having a negative impact on our world.
I see human impact at a rather small scale compared to what the whole planet is. Mother nature in my opinion is causing this change not us. Mother nature is in control, not us. Yes we do pollute, but not to the extent that we are causing the earth to react in the manner that we are being fed.
This planet has gone through many hot and cold spells, and I don't see any difference in what is happening now. I put my faith in mother nature/God to do what is right.
This planet has gone through many hot and cold spells, and I don't see any difference in what is happening now. I put my faith in mother nature/God to do what is right.
So mother nature/God decided to melt the ice caps to what... punish the polar bears for being too pagan?
No just so people like yourself could have something to bitch about.
Ice caps melt and grow, they have before and they will again, and if animals die then it's what nature dictates.
"punish the polar bears for being too pagan?"
That the same type comment I might expect from a junior high school kid in my neighborhood.
Do you want me to explain to you about the birds and the bees junior?
Ice caps melt and grow, they have before and they will again, and if animals die then it's what nature dictates.
"punish the polar bears for being too pagan?"
That the same type comment I might expect from a junior high school kid in my neighborhood.
Do you want me to explain to you about the birds and the bees junior?
Junior High kids don't even know what "pagan" means, so let's not kid ourselves.
When ice caps melt to the point that the sea level threatens human settlements, then you got problems for humans, not just polar bears. When Amsterdam's levies fail and the Netherlands goes under the water, is that just "what nature dictates" or do you think maybe we humans can do something?
When ice caps melt to the point that the sea level threatens human settlements, then you got problems for humans, not just polar bears. When Amsterdam's levies fail and the Netherlands goes under the water, is that just "what nature dictates" or do you think maybe we humans can do something?
"Junior High kids don't even know what "pagan" means, so let's not kid ourselves."
What you talking about guss, you know what a pagan is and your as close to a junior high kid I've seen here. If the shoe fits wear it Cunuck.
"When ice caps melt to the point that the sea level threatens human settlements, then you got problems for humans, not just polar bears. When Amsterdam's levies fail and the Netherlands goes under the water, is that just "what nature dictates" or do you think maybe we humans can do something?"
That is what nature dictates, and if humankind can deal with it they will survive, if not, then death will take us all. Well not all some will stay and some will go, but you wouldn't understand that now would you?
What are you worried about guss, life deals with us each, and we can either deal with our circumstance and we survive, or we die it's as simple as that.
I don't worry about death, we have little or no control over the inevitable. One can be blessed and live a long wonderful life, or a short full life, or one can piss and moan all the way to the grave, either way death comes to us all.
I tell you what why don't you get out there and stop mother nature from doing what it has been doing since before humans walked on this planet, instead of whining as though the waves of death are lapping at your doorstep.
I choose mother nature and what ever she has in store for us, you choose your own path.
What you talking about guss, you know what a pagan is and your as close to a junior high kid I've seen here. If the shoe fits wear it Cunuck.
"When ice caps melt to the point that the sea level threatens human settlements, then you got problems for humans, not just polar bears. When Amsterdam's levies fail and the Netherlands goes under the water, is that just "what nature dictates" or do you think maybe we humans can do something?"
That is what nature dictates, and if humankind can deal with it they will survive, if not, then death will take us all. Well not all some will stay and some will go, but you wouldn't understand that now would you?
What are you worried about guss, life deals with us each, and we can either deal with our circumstance and we survive, or we die it's as simple as that.
I don't worry about death, we have little or no control over the inevitable. One can be blessed and live a long wonderful life, or a short full life, or one can piss and moan all the way to the grave, either way death comes to us all.
I tell you what why don't you get out there and stop mother nature from doing what it has been doing since before humans walked on this planet, instead of whining as though the waves of death are lapping at your doorstep.
I choose mother nature and what ever she has in store for us, you choose your own path.
Wow, in that case, I can stop looking both ways when I cross the street, nature dictates if I get hit by a car. 
We could only wish, but then global warming as you call it doesn't dictate that you should look both ways when crossing the street, that's called common sense which it's obvious your lacking.
Me thinks you have your wires crossed cunuck, nature dictates natural events, crossing a street takes the ability to know when to cross and when not to, have you got that much figured out?
Me thinks you have your wires crossed cunuck, nature dictates natural events, crossing a street takes the ability to know when to cross and when not to, have you got that much figured out?
View all replies
HELL YEAH that's what I've been saying all along!
I mean, we non -scientists can argue the science every which way, but the simple fact is that AIR POLLUTION IS BAD. Ask someone who lives next to a power plant or industrial manufacturing! You can debate whether the earth's climate is getting warmer or not, or whether it's because of human influence or not, but you can't say we're not polluting the atmosphere with enormous amounts of industrial chemicals and various emissions and stuff that's really no good for anyone, and if we can cut down on that (preferably while cutting back on production as little as possible) well that would be just great. Governments should be taking the lead by supporting a market where 'clean' development is highly incentivized.
I mean, we non -scientists can argue the science every which way, but the simple fact is that AIR POLLUTION IS BAD. Ask someone who lives next to a power plant or industrial manufacturing! You can debate whether the earth's climate is getting warmer or not, or whether it's because of human influence or not, but you can't say we're not polluting the atmosphere with enormous amounts of industrial chemicals and various emissions and stuff that's really no good for anyone, and if we can cut down on that (preferably while cutting back on production as little as possible) well that would be just great. Governments should be taking the lead by supporting a market where 'clean' development is highly incentivized.
but the simple fact is that AIR POLLUTION IS BAD.
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. What people disagree about is how CO2 is bad, since it is not actually a pollutant.
I don't think anybody disagrees with this. What people disagree about is how CO2 is bad, since it is not actually a pollutant.
ah, but air pollution makes people money. And people like money...
I tend to believe that people who complain about making money are either unemployed teenagers or unemployed college students. Which camp do you fall into?