General Climate Discussion

[lazs2]

I see.. so you admit that the whole global warming thing due to man made Co2 was a horrific hoax but that was still a good idea to perpetuate it to get us going toward alternate energy?

The end justifies the means eh comrade?

Point is.. supply and demand will force change..  and that is good..  lying scumbag politicians and unethical "scientists" are not the right way to do it.

lazs

[bozon]

Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?

That is the lamest argument I keep hearing. Do you know any of these scientists ? Can you even tell the difference between "No global warming", "Not CO2" related", "Not man made" types of opposition? Which one is funded by oil companies? BS

The actual situation in the academy is that it is FAR easier to get funds for research that supports GW or that deals with human influence on GW than a research which is aimed to prove the current predictions are wrong. It is also very hard to publish papers against GW in scientific journals - and they are not rejected on the basis of "bad science" report. Today, to support man made GW means going with the flow.

I know some of these people. After decades in the academy, they get the salary of an out-of-university software engineer and sit in a tiny room with old furniture. If they are getting any money from oil companies it is either a ridiculous sum, or that they just hide the money very well.

[Angus]

There is no particular economical benefit for governments in funding GW research. There however is a great benefit for the big oil to fund GW denying.

And Lazs, I have stated over and over that I think that the CO2 effect is overpublished, and sadly overshadowing other issues too much. However the effect is in some way positive, for there is no way mankind is going to be pumping on as now for as much of some 100 or even 200 years. We will run out of fossil fuel unless we both save energy and find an alternative source. Carry on to the cliff's end and you will plummet down. Sort of an industrial revolution....backwards.
Your great grand-children will have a donkey instead of a Harley

[alskahawk]

Back in the 1800's and early 1900's as a people we burned LOTS of coal. The emissions from coal are a lot worse then nat gas or gasoline. Why are things different now?

  Population, too many peoples doin the nasty. Population is now near 300 million. 200 million in 1960s, 150 million 1930s(?)

[WWhiskey]

Reminds me of that "scientist" who kept saying cigarettes don't cause cancer as he took big tobacco money to line his pockets.

Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?

hmmmmmmmmm

name please??

[Holden McGroin]

There is no particular economical benefit for governments in funding GW research.

Of what economical benefit is the funding of say, the National Drug Intelligence Center [NDIC].

One administration official described the NDIC as “slow to delineate a unique or useful role within the drug intelligence community,” and therefore the President requested nearly $16 million in his 2008 budget to cover the costs of shutting down the facility. Instead, this congressional earmark directs $39 million to expand NDIC operations in 2008.

Using government spending to justify scientific standing is putting the cart before the horse.

[Angus]

Some things don't happen by themselves. That's why one has governments and institutions.
There is not always good business in what they do, but things are being done because it's belived that they need to be done and the business world is thinking differently.

[Holden McGroin]

... but things are being done because it's belived that they need to be done and the business world is thinking differently.

Agreed, but it is the 'believed that they need to be done' part that is the nature of this thread.

If someone in the US government in say 1994, say a Vice President, convinces enough legislators to pass something funding research into how to stop AGW, well then the 'believed that it needs to be done' can be traced to one VP and his college professor.

So government funding can be as slanted as funding from private foundations or business.
   

[Angus]

Well, nothing is perfect. Governments spend lots of money on utter rubbish. But you have the point.
Without government aid and/or institutions for research there would be a lot of things that we don't know. Including completely useless stuff, which some day isn't that useless....

[lazs2]

angus.. the business of government is to grow itself and become more and more a part of everyones lives.. to regulate and control.

Now, you tell me a better way to do it than to create a crisis.. or to buy into one  and then play yourself off as the only hope for mankind.

I did not think that you were so naive.

lazs

[Angus]

Lazs, the business of a businessman is often to make as much money for himself within his lifespan. That's where many slip, for they don't care squat what's going to happen once they're dead.
To achive this goal, it's better to be a businessman than a politician, however vanity is sometimes more satisfied with the starlit political career.
Many of our most loved politicians back in history made decisions that were completely non-profit. And many of a grabbing block of businessmen have been stopped to avoid catastrophy, since there were maneuvers in hand that don't hold water in the long run.
This of course can apply to governments too.
But simply, today, business has more power than politics, and we're heading for the wall.
Never thought that you were that...naive...

[lazs2]

Sure seems like the EPA and IRS and all their enforcement people have a lot more power than business to me.

They create a crisis to get funding.   A perfect example is "earthquake studies"..  the funding was cut in half... within 24 hours of them knowing that...

These "scientists" predicted a MAJOR quake that would kill millions.. maybe billions.. no..trillions within the next 50 years..  only more funding could save us.

lazs

[lasersailor184]

Lazs, the business of a businessman is often to make as much money for himself within his lifespan. That's where many slip, for they don't care squat what's going to happen once they're dead.
To achive this goal, it's better to be a businessman than a politician, however vanity is sometimes more satisfied with the starlit political career.
Many of our most loved politicians back in history made decisions that were completely non-profit. And many of a grabbing block of businessmen have been stopped to avoid catastrophy, since there were maneuvers in hand that don't hold water in the long run.
This of course can apply to governments too.
But simply, today, business has more power than politics, and we're heading for the wall.
Never thought that you were that...naive...

This is where you go wrong.  First, it is perfectly admirable to make as much money as possible.  That "Evil Businessman" is matching his whit, his meddle, his intelligence and his guts against other men to do the best FOR YOU.  If he isn't doing the best FOR YOU, then he won't become a good businessman.  He won't make any money at all.

The catch is that no politician's decision in the history of all man kind has been not for profit.  Ever.  Ever, ever, ever.  All a politician does is something to benefit himself.  While this is admirable in the business world, it is not in the political world.  Businessmen trade in sales.  Politicians trade in mandatory taxes.  At no point will a business man show up at your door with ninja clad soldiers to enforce his decisions upon you.

All a politician does it take power and money he hasn't earned to do with what he pleases.  Then he convinces you that THIS is the right way to do it.  This is way more noble then the "Cutthroat capitalists."

Politicians hate choice.   


"The urge to save humanity is always a false face for the desire to rule it." Mencken

"Anyone who wants power is not to be trusted with it."

[Angus]

Sure seems like the EPA and IRS and all their enforcement people have a lot more power than business to me.

They create a crisis to get funding.   A perfect example is "earthquake studies"..  the funding was cut in half... within 24 hours of them knowing that...

These "scientists" predicted a MAJOR quake that would kill millions.. maybe billions.. no..trillions within the next 50 years..  only more funding could save us.

lazs

What will save you is them knowing early enough to warn you.
Since I live on a highly geolocically active area, this is everyday's reality.
We had some nice quake in 2000, - it was predicted to be "due", just like a pregnant woman will give birth, but you cannot tell the day....(sheeeshhh). Once the data from the quake had been compiled ,a warning for a similar one was issued, due in within 12 days, probably within the week. It did come, in 4 days. Data was compiled, and a warning issued that we'd get a similar one in a span of 6-12 years. We had a similar one in may this years, so it was 8 years. They're still compiling the data from the last one, but the word is that there is some more energy "left in the pipes"
In short, the researchers, armed with modern technology, are homing in on more and more accuracy in the geological field, and this is not an easy task. Kinda makes me sour to see ignorance in its pure sticking the tongue out on it....

[lazs2]

sooo... it didn't seem the least bit "convienient" to you that the moment funding was cut in half..  we were told that there was a big one coming soon and only they could save us?

And how could they save us?  as you say.. by evacuating the entire... well.. they really didn't say but.. whatever they could warn us.. all it takes is us giving them grant money.

That doesn't sound like every grant grubbing little dweeb crying man made C02 hell to you?

This is the kind of ignorance that bothers me.

lazs