DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... MIT scientist: Global warming believers are a hysterical cult

You clearly don't get it. Still.


The earth cools and heats on its own natural. So OFCOURSE theres a such thing as global warming or climate change. The earth has done that for millions of years.

But it's also a fact that we have SOME, no matter how insignificant it might seem to others, Some small effect on climate.

I really don't understand why people are so opposed to just taking care of a planet we LIVE on.

You're absolutely right. I love inhaling polluted air and drinking polluted water. I get my jollies on it.

Anyone that believes that others who want economic progress have a willingness to breathe polluted air and drink polluted water are living in a dreamland of their own mind.

your continuous exaggerations are simply astounding.

I think this point gets lost the most...we live on a planet that has limited natural resources that will not last forever..we - many top industrialized countries - over consume and over populate in areas that were not meant to have the population densities that we create. Developing countries are trying to race up to 1st work status at the expense of their culture and natural resources. No longer can each country look to it's own natural resources as its own - now most food supplies world-wide are interconnected. I fear this will at some point be the justification for industrialized countries to run these food countries to ensure the safety of their food supply..

There may be a tipping point somewhere in future...maybe 25 maybe 100 maybe 500 years where population and pollution reach critical mass. Throw in a climate shift / change [man made / natural occurring ] and maybe 'the worst parts of the Bible of the bible" will be happening.

Consequently, it seems like we cannot have healthy constructive debates anymore - just divisive narratives to prove one side is right or wrong and that that pieces of them both are the more true reality... I see too many 'scientists' claiming absolutes instead of 'with what we know now' and open to real dialogue..Thanks to fear and media hype, we no longer seem to look at things objectively but need to take a hard stance one way or another and defend it to the death...often because of who is suggesting and political distrust. Data is just data...the scientists i have had the pleasure to work with openly welcome any opposition of their results - mainly because it opens the door to more discovery.

I was pondering 'truth' the other night and the question I came up with for myself - "in what I consider to be truth, if it were indeed false, would I have the ability to recognize the real truth and alter my belief in the false truth'.... I'm still pondering

You can't stop people from littering and you expect them to give a rats butt about an idea so complex that scientists can't even agree on the data, how to collect it and how it apply it?

In today's society people are bombarded with so much information they can't digest it quickly enough to keep up. So they naturally filter it down to their own valued basics. Climate science is on very few of those filtered lists. We need to tackle some smaller projects first, like littering, and build up to things like saving the planet from ourselves.

SUPER SERIAL, GUYS.

You are a deeply thoughtful person and I am glad for this so I don't have to think so hard myself.

BUT...

Your worries about the earth in 500 years is to me like being up to my butt in alligators and you trying to drain the swamp.

I would liken it more to the national debt. There are circumstances where an increase in the national debt is necessary, but we don't want to leave any more debt to the next generation than is absolutely necessary.

We should constantly think about how to protect the earth, but we have balance that against also protecting people, and their standards of living, lives and livelihoods.

You have a good point. It's something I took notice of years ago, when talking about environmental issues. There's a disconnect with lots of people when this subject comes up in conversation. As a result, I've taken a different tack in talking about it. Some folks have even told me- "You know- I've never thought of it that way..."


I try to boil it down to basics whenever this conversation comes up. Here's the argument I usually go with:

"Imagine you have a really nice home out in the sticks, with a beautiful pond in your backyard. You have a nice garden near the pond, and you grow tasty food that supplies you with food for your dinner table. You have animals that you raise as livestock, and hunt to supplement your food supplies. Would you dump your household garbage and kitchen scraps in that pond? Would you take daily baths in that pond? Would you walk outside your beautiful house, and take a dump 3 feet offshore? Would you bury your used batteries, empty disinfectant bottles and bald tires in a plot at the edge of your garden? Would yo try to kill off most of the wildlife that came near your property, whether you could consume them or not? Well... that's exactly what we're doing on a national and global scale, when we do what we've been doing for the past 1,000 years."

For me, it's never been a 'global warming' issue, per se. It's always been about stewardship of the planet, because right now, we still have no place else to go. Until such time as we can take ourselves to another planet for a fresh start, we're all stuck with each other on this lonelyazz spinning ball. I for one, don't want to keep crapping in my own pond, especially considering that "my family" continues to grow past my property's ability to sustain them.

Common sense dictates how my stock portfolio is structured. It's diversified for a reason. If all my eggs are in one basket, I'm SOL if that basket develops a hole. Our dependence on fossil fuels is just that- a basket full of eggs that have a well-defined shelf life. Animals and plants can't die and decay fast enough to keep these out-of-date energy sources available in perpetuity.

To bring this picture back to the homeowner's scale, I'll frame it this way... in terms of landscaping:

"The best time to plant a tree in your front yard is twenty years ago."

In other words, the best time to get started on alternative energy sources is already way past due. "Cost effectiveness" is the eternal excuse. It's also the bane of almost ALL start-ups... but it's also the same reason why "he who gets there first gets rich first."

No entrepreneur ever got rich by being risk-averse... and way too much of our world's economy is linked to a slavish dependence on a 150-year old technology which is a direct result of Big Black actively seeking to stall, delay and contain efforts to diversify our energy supplies.

The law of supply and demand is gonna catch up with all of us, sooner or later. As demand rises and supply dwindles, Big Black will be priced right out of the general market. IMHO, it's stupid, short-sighted and foolhardy to continually allow Big Black to lobby greedy congressmen into dancing to the tune they fiddle. If they're scared of a little competition, maybe they should have taken a sliver of those insane profits they've been making, and dedicating a li'l bit of their own R&D toward getting out in front of this thing.

In 1980, I was invited (along with about 20 other blue collars) to a 'directional meeting' on the other side of the gate at the refinery where I worked. When we were asked about Std. Oil's future direction, some of my homeys suggested upgrades to plant working conditions. Some talked about safety concerns. I mentioned diversifying their approach to include R&D for solar, wind and geothermal energy applications. It took about 10 full seconds for the laughter in that board room to die down. Even my homies were part of the derisive laughter. When everything calmed back down, they simply moved on without so much as a moment's worth of consideration.

That was 35 years ago, and still America crawls at a snail's pace. We're now being routinely beaten on these new frontiers by countries who used to look to US for The Next Big Thing.

Look, I don't blame them for laughing at me,, way back then. After all the word "oil" was actually in the company's name. But I STILL think they missed a golden opportunity to wean themselves from Rockefeller's model, and become "Standard Energy" waaaay ahead of the curve.

Now, they are part of BP... the Deepwater Horizon folks we've all come to know and love.

I'm not naive. I know it will take decades and more to find a way off this dependency. I also know that it will always be here in some capacity: you can't make a milk jug out of sunlight. I also know that manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines and other alternative energy resources will produce by-products and toxins of their own. Each of these issues will be ongoing problems to grapple.

However, I'm equally sure about this: If I'm still alive when it's possible to plug my car into a socket in my garage, and have the solar panels on my property charge me up for tomorrow's commute... YOU DAMNED SKIPPY my old azz will be jumping at that chance. And I'll still be pressing onward to see that the parts in my car, the solar panels on my property, and even the roads I drive on pollute our natural environment as little as possible.

It's essential that progress be continually made ON ALL FRONTS. Adherence to 'the old ways' for the sake of expedience/profit margin is no longer an option. At least not until we colonize a distant planet... and start this stuff up all over again.

Clemmy= ZERO emissions. It's something I can actually DO for us all, on a personal level.
Yeah... I like that idea.
I'd rather be one who helps to keep the pond clean, instead of being the asshat who willingly craps in it.


.02




"We build machines that we can't control, then bury the aste in a great big hole."
-Sting, 1985

"Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake- and a basic understanding of how the world works."
Carl Sagan

Ill admire t to not knowing much about the science of it..

But this year by January 7th, it had only snowed TWICE in Akron.

The climate has changed drastically in my lifetime..

The entire history of the glacial pace of Human Progress, summarized in one short sentence.

Absolutely brilliant- if unknowingly.


'Deep Thinkers' move this world. 'Parasites' enjoy the fruits of their production, while producing nothing (or little) of value in return.



Bet you never thought of yourself as a "slacker" before today, didya?


A 'lazy mind' is an abomination of intellect. IMHO, you should honor your fellow poster with something of a higher caliber that what you typed. Our time on this planet is finite. Do you really want to spend your 'hard earned' writing stuff like this?

----------------


My Pops was a master at generating his own version of Will Rogers-type wisdom on any given day. I hung on his hip from the time I could walk, until the day I left the house to go to college. I loved hearing those 'turns of phrase,' because My Moms taught me how to read at age 4... and made sure I understood the Power of Words. It's never been a mystery to me why they were attracted to each other (beside the fact that they were both gorgeous-looking Human Beings)

Your tossed-off post reminds me of a one-off My Pops dropped on me when I was about 15-16 years old... and thought I'd just "scored a debate point":


"Boy... there's a difference between being smart, and being just another smartass. The difference is in those last three letters. Less is more."

I wish you'd known My Parents.
In these EE threads, I REALLY wish that you had known them...

Yet last year it snowed a lot, and it was cold all season long.

This year it didn't get really hot/humid till the end of August.

Just goes to prove the axiom about NE Ohio weather. If you don't like the weather today, stick around a few days and it will be completely different.

Last winter, Youngstown had 90 inches of snow. Our norm is 67 inches per winter.

I don't know how much snow we've had so far this year, but it can't be more than a foot. IIRC, we had only one light snow before Christmas, and a couple of light snows since.

Watch a US Senator Cite the Bible to Prove That Humans Aren't Causing Global Warming

The continued science denying should stop. The republican policy has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money from lobbyists.

The Keystone pipeline is another length of pipeline added to an already incredible number of pipelines that already exist. The "added jobs" are temporary while the pipeline is built.

Do you suppose Moms and Pops realized you would use that word knowledge and education to write a post insulting a man of lesser knowledge?

I can not be brought to thinking or caring about 500 years in the future when the day to day requires most of my attention. I don't litter or do things I know will hurt the environment. I resent being taxed to pay for technology just to be the first to do it while we run $18 trillion in debt. I resent the "Deep Thinkers" who have brought this down on me, my children, grand children, great grand children, .......

Hopefully this will be acceptable to you.

When a man of lesser knowledge goes around shouting uninformed opinions without thought, in a manner that suggests those who disagree with him just aren't comprehending, over and over and over, learning nothing from the process, then, yes, he will most certainly get mocked.

Instead of running around shouting parroted talking points over and over and over, why not approach things with being more mindful that you're not very well informed?

And an educated man would understand that this statement...

"I can not be brought to thinking or caring about 500 years in the future when the day to day requires most of my attention. I don't litter or do things I know will hurt the environment. I resent being taxed to pay for technology just to be the first to do it while we run $18 trillion in debt. I resent the "Deep Thinkers" who have brought this down on me, my children, grand children, great grand children, ......."

Can more simply be said...
"You are a deeply thoughtful person and I am glad for this so I don't have to think so hard myself. (because there are others doing the futuristic deep thinking)

BUT...

Your worries about the earth in 500 years is to me like being up to my butt in alligators and you trying to drain the swamp.
(Because I am busy with the here and now)

Wise guy NO!
Realist YES!

I read that statement, and I understood it.

It's a childish sentiment, and one that concludes, 'screw it, let someone else deal with it'.

And this is coming from a guy who talks constantly about 'parasites' and 'being an adult'.

As Clem was pointing out to you, when you say 'screw it, I don't have the time to think about the future', it's you who are being a childish, irresponsible parasite.

The last time this subject came up, you tried to argue that alternative energies weren't viable for a capitalist society, using plagarized sections from a state study that determined investing in alternative energies was a viable and profitable goal for the future.

People mocked you for it, and then you...didn't learn a thing.

Listen and think. Don't just shout what Hannity told you over and over.



Yeah, the guy who thinks the GOP is a fiscally responsible agent of change is a realist.

If we want to find the reason behind most things in politics, a great axiom to adhere to is: "Follow the money."

This Keystone XL thing has been going on for years. The facts tell us that the tar sands oil it will be transporting won't even be used by US refineries. The facts tell us that Canada will be reaping the profits from its sale. So why are Republicans (notice I DIDN'T say conservatives) so hot for this? Why have they been so relentless, when there have been other important issues to be wrestling?

Here's a quote that may shed some light:

"The biggest leaseholder in Canada's oil sands isn't Exxon Mobil or Chevron. It's the Koch brothers."
- Washington Post, 2014

MIT released a study in the 70's (that's been very accurate tracking it to today) that stated that overpopulation will occur in the years around 2030.



Realistically, it's probably too late to change anything long term so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As I was growing up all the great and Learned higher thinkers were touting the Dinosaur collection at the Smithsonian and how the bones were discovered and put together brilliantly. Then years later it turned out they had the wrong head on the Brontosaurus. sigh.

I grew up during the Great Global Cooling years when the great ones warned of our demise! Spread coal dust on the Poles was the call! It will absorb the suns heat and save us all!

Then The Scientific community announced there was no such thing as a Brontosaurus at all!

But no problem as they taught all those wrong things in school and I have fond memories of the plastic Brontosaurus I had as a kid, with his cute little head.

Remember when we came from monkeys and developed into Neanderthals and finally Humans? Oops! Neanderthal was a different thingy entirely.

I have learned to be cautious about how smart the Great Thinkers really are. I have learned to cover my wallet with my hand when they come around with their revolutionary ideas.

But hey, what do I know.

It's almost like you're asking for PDR to respond to you with comments like that.

You don't even have to be that old to have remembered when Pluto was a planet ... and then it wasn't.

Your Right!

Now just imagine the terrible things those High Thinkers must have called the poor guy who had to tell them they were full of it.
woob woob woob nuk nuk nuk

Pluto's status as a planet was determined by facts that weren't available when it was first labeled as a planet.

GW has been determined by facts that are currently available and denied by people like Donald Trump who denies global warming in the same way he denies he's bald.

Depends on who you ask.

No he's definitely bald.

Depends on your understanding of bald.
If a man has one long hair and combs it around to cover his head, he is not truly bald. Unless of course if it is a nose
hair.

BP says CO2 emissions unsustainable, warns on global warming

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsb...al-warming.html

In its Energy Outlook 2035, BP predicts that CO2 emissions will exceed levels which scientists says pose a threat to climate change unless coordinated action is taken



Huh, they're probably just biased -- right?

Yes they are absolutely biased...do you think they would make such a pronouncement to their own detriment? They have to come out and say it first so they can be the standard bearer.

Which companies do you think will become the new "leaders" and "experts" in the more-expensive and more-profitable "alternative energies? Companies like Solyndra and other failed boondoggles?

They are simply following the money...not hard to understand really.

God is in control of everything

I guess that means that if I shoot somebody, it shouldn't be called murder -- because God could have just jammed my gun.

It is that gross oversimplification of policy matters that is more detrimental to us than anything else.

Blind faith leads to apathy.

Yes, BP is very biased. They have invested over $8 billion in alternative energy over the last 10 years or so. Yet BP is pulling back it's investment in alternative energy while Exxon and Chevron are increasing their investment..

So why would the CEO of BP make such a declaration just as his company is reducing it's investment in alternative energy?

I suspect a lot of people will be somewhat surprised as the world slowly shifts from a fossil fuel based economy to a renewable resource based economy but the names of the energy providers do not change.... these guys are walking the line of maximizing the technology, the resources, the investment they already have in place, while planning their own transition to control whatever the next wave of energy is, whether it's solar or wind or whatever...

Senator Calls For Investigation Into The Climate Change 'Denial-For-Hire Scheme'

WASHINGTON -- Recently released documents show that fossil fuel interests paid more than $1.2 million to fund the research of a prominent climate change-denying scientist affiliated with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Now, a Democratic senator is calling for an investigation into whether other coal and oil companies are funding climate deniers.

The New York Times reported this weekend on documents that Greenpeace obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that show that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, has accepted funding from Southern Company, Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Soon's research suggests that variations in the sun, not the burning of fossil fuels, is causing the climate to warm. Soon has testified before Congress on his claims, and climate-change deniers inside and outside of Washington frequently note his work.

That Soon has taken funding from fossil fuel interests is not news; his funding from Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch foundation have been reported on in the past. But the documents highlight the relationship between Soon and his funders, with the scientist describing his research to fossil fuel interests as “deliverables." The documents also show that Soon published at least 11 papers in academic journals since 2008 without disclosing the source of his funding.

The revelations have increased calls from proponents of climate action for more disclosure on who is funding contrarian climate science.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told the Boston Globe Sunday that he will seek information from other fossil fuel companies and trade organizations about their funding of science that would undermine the finding that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the climate to warm. He called for an investigation into what he described as a "denial-for-hire scheme" perpetrated by "the anti-climate action cabal."

"For years, fossil fuel interests and front groups have attacked climate scientists and legislation to cut carbon pollution using junk science and debunked arguments," said Markey in a statement to the Globe. “The American public deserve an honest debate that isn’t polluted by the best junk science fossil fuel interests can buy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/23/willie-soon-_n_6736656.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

Is he also going to investigate funding of pro-climate change research?

I have no idea. It was just an article I saw which I felt contained the subject matter of this thread.