quote:

Originally posted by Fledz I've said it before and I'll say it again, you wouldn't go see a gynaecologist or endocrinologist if you had a heart problem, you would go see a cardiologist

You might see an endocrinologist, actually.

___________________
Quarantine Classics Brunello di Montalcino (In Transit) Edition [Progressive Classics] (August 2020)
Quarantine Classics - Puligny-Montrachet Edition [Progressive Classics] (April 2020)
What Is Progressive Anyways? [Progressive House Classics] (November 2019)

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss The believers have it drilled into their heads that disaster is looming, and only politicans can save us (in 1988 Gore said we had 16 years left). But this is how it's always worked for centuries with politicians: drum up some sort of populous furor that crisis is imminent, and decree that only by enlisting the help of our distinguished selfless political class can we be saved (via our tax dollars)... for they are the champions of all that is good for the masses.

sounds to me like you're the biggest believer of all. everything you've said to this point is a political talking point recited from the conservative media blogosphere (an amalgamation of heavy industry, oil and coal mining interests). you're right about one thing though: you can't trust a political dialogue, not like you can a scientific one. i suggest you heed those words if you truly consider yourself to have a curious and independent mind. search for the actual science rather than the conclusions of the fingerpointers. the fingerpointers don't know what the hell they're talking about. they know how to identify a chink in the armor and build a universe of drama and suspicion around it. it's how *they* make money. they make you think in petty, myopic blame gaming terms. you seem to have bought into it all too. "al gore was discredited, phil jones was discredited, ha! that means the whole system is a lie!".

i couldn't care less about how these people try to sell the idea to the stupid masses. it's common knowledge that the stupid masses need certain ideas packaged for them in a certain way to hop on board. hard science is just too nebulous for a alcoholic trailer hick to absorb. because a couple of popular torchbearers chose to cross an ethical line doesn't mean the entire movement they stand behind is every bit as questionable. you and i know the oil and coal industries have carried out similar if not worse deceptions. so if all you trust is the pundits and fingerpointers, where does that leave you on the issue? cynical. ultimately clueless and cynical of the whole dialogue.

so for your own sake stop latching on to the paranoid belief that every movement with a political backing (even those that started as a scientific one) is a conspiracy to take your money and your freedom. your old paradigms and cynical attitude do nothing to help you or the world you live in. stop using them to impede any chance of progress towards a cleaner, better future. one day it'll occur to you you were fighting the wrong battle. even if it didn't matter that you were, why be that guy?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lews You might see an endocrinologist, actually.

Actually shit, you're right. I should have probably paid closer attention to which ones I posted

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4

even if the vast majority of the scientists in the modern age are wrong about climate change, what would be the effect of a positive political movement on the climate change front?

let's see, a carbon taxation system would be implemented and major carbon dioxide polluters--which also happen to be the biggest air and ground water polluters of lead, mercury, arsenic, nickel, barium, chromium, aluminum, etc--would be forced to scale back expansion projects and start digging into their deep moneybags to curtail such pollution or start investing heavily into the new economy of clean energy.

the revenue collected from the tax would ostensibly be used to combat dramatic changes in weather and environmental hazards and/or subsidize basic research at the institutional level. the price of dirty energy would rise pushing producers to develop cheaper methods and causing wasters to reevaluate their lifestyles.

the energy market--which for over a century has been reliant on extraction of a reserve source of energy--would undergo a technological revolution leading to a goal of energy independence and then perhaps carbon-neutrality. the industrialized world would no longer rely on commerce with repressive regimes as their source of economic fuel. we would probably lose all political will and incentive to meddle in their regional affairs and sever the main source of extremist propaganda. ultimately i foresee a completely diffused and independently operated energy grid whereby every building powers itself rather than a central plant feeding a grid through inefficient utility-operated transmission lines.

a new economy independent from burning of fossil fuels would mean we all have a reserve source of cheap energy in case we ever bomb ourselves back into the middle ages or face some other massive, crippling catastrophe. i just don't see the merit of this status quo economy whereby we all race to see who can suck the most oil out the ground and burn it faster than the next guy.

i can't say enough about how bad burning coal is for the environment. carbon is considered the glue of life because it's able to bond to almost anything, including heavy metals. the coal in the ground traps a lot of heavy metals that would poison the blood and brain of any living thing that consumes it. when you burn the coal, you release the heavy metals back into the biosphere. not just in the air, but in the water. coal plants suck massive amounts of water for cooling and filtration. this is tap water that farmers and families could use. instead that water becomes a toxic slurry that must be managed, but in the mining process it often runs off into local water supplies. when it contaminates the water supply, that supply is good as done. even if you don't directly consume these metals, they bioaccumulate in the things you eat and the things they eat. it keeps cycling through the biosphere for generations until it is once again trapped in a bed of carbon well below the water table. carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide are another byproduct of burning coal. sulfure dioxide ruins forests, crops, lakes, buildings and lungs, harming virtually all plant and animal life. if not for climate change, there's a couple more reasons why you should care about our carbon economy.

___________________

The reliance on anecdotal evidence as foil is frustrating.

quote:

What I've been thinking about for a while is how it is that very few people doubt physicists or oncologists when it comes to their areas of specialty even though theories come and go in those fields as well. There's little doubt, for instance, that physicists at the end of this century will know a lot of things today's scientists got wrong or don't know. And they'll know how many things today's physicists believe that are just wrong. Still, I'm pretty confident nuclear warheads will go off, even if, as far as I know, one's never been tested on the tip of an ICBM. Perhaps more to the point, medical science today clearly has only a very limited understanding of cancer. But how many oncology skeptics do you know who choose to take a pass on chemo or radiation if they get sick?

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/12/i_was_raised_by_a.php

It all goes back to the point made earlier. You're pointing to the "mastermind" of the global warming scientific agenda, who apparently is remarkably good at controlling the world's scientific grants to verify his own personal conclusions ever since he personally switched from global cooling to global warming - but what about the evidence of people like the oyster guy? You really think that good scientists are part of some vast global conspiracy to sell an agenda they don't even profit from?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Domesticated However, it was something along the lines of "fig trees were grown as far north as current day Manchester during the time of the Roman Empire."

Well, it's nothing as recent as the Roman Empire, but we definitely know that the climate has been much, much warmer for large slices of the Earth's history. For instance, there are Alligator fossils in England from as recently as the Miocene epoch.

In the Early Eocene, alligators, land tortoises, small primates, and palm trees thrived in a moist, subtropical climate near the north pole. During the coldest month of the year, the average temperature remained above 10 degrees celcius, despite six months of darkness...

That's our future. I know I'm in the minority, but I think it's great.

I can see there are a lot of Global Warmists here.
But one thing gets me here with this graph of Co2 levels.

I might be wrong , but isnt hawaii a very volcanic active area with high levels of Co2 being spewed out of the ground?

As again i might be wrong but i see that graph as taking the average temp of a house with one point of measurement being in a turned on oven.

___________________

Bring on my soundcloud ya!

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov The reliance on anecdotal evidence as foil is frustrating. It all goes back to the point made earlier. You're pointing to the "mastermind" of the global warming scientific agenda, who apparently is remarkably good at controlling the world's scientific grants to verify his own personal conclusions ever since he personally switched from global cooling to global warming - but what about the evidence of people like the oyster guy? You really think that good scientists are part of some vast global conspiracy to sell an agenda they don't even profit from?

I certainly don't think every scientist is in on a conspiracy, including Oyster Guy.. a lot of them probably believe it's real, and I can't fault them for doing what they actually believe is a noble cause. But they take their cue from the top... a la Phil Jones and the findings of UEA/IPCC. There lies the problem IMO; a single authority who tries to crush/discredit dissent on the downlow. How can you say they don't profit from it? Speeches, books, etc. that come from a position of power like that; it's similar to how Al Gore and Clinton didn't make much while in office, but made millions on the lecture circuit after leaving.

I found a comparison that parallels with this so well (but on a smaller scale)... the whole thing is just like the bogus "radon" scare perpetuated by the EPA which created scores of new bureaucracies, regulations, expenses, etc. It spawned an entire billion dollar industry out of bullshit. Sure, there are plenty of people who perform radon testing who are on the up and up... but it's all borne from a fake crisis. Look:

quote:

Every structure that is sold in the United States is generally required to undergo a "radon inspection." This inspection is intended to detect the presence of an odorless, colorless, invisible gas that government bureaucrats claim is harmful to humans. According to the EPA, "Exposure to radon in the home is responsible for an estimated 20,000 lung cancer deaths each year and it is a health hazard with a simple solution." Also featured prominently on the EPA's website is a 2005 statement from the Surgeon General that states, "Indoor radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the United States... It's important to know that this threat is completely preventable." But is radon truly a menace? Or is it simply a made-up industry populated with bureaucrats, inspectors, manufacturers and distributors all of whom profit from the regulations? If you sell a home and the resulting radon inspection yields a reading of 4 picocuries (pCi) per liter of air, you'll probably be on the hook for the "abatement". This means having a licensed installer rig up some PVC pipe, a vent and an electric fan in your basement while charging you a grand or two for his troubles. But where did this magical 4 pCi figure come from? Curiously, a 1994 EPA report called Facts Concerning Environmental Radon stated that, "it has not yet been possible to generate convincing data on increased risk at or below 4-8 pCi/liter." Furthermore, the EPA's proclamation that radon represents the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking is misleading at best. Consider these two quotes from the public summary of the EPA report Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VI (also known as BEIR VI): quote: The BEIR VI committee's preferred central estimates... are that about 1 in 10 or 1 in 7 of all lung cancer deaths-amounting to ... about 15,400 to 21,800 per year in the United States- can be attributed to radon among ever-smokers and never-smokers together... quote: ...The number of radon-related lung cancer deaths resulting from (our analysis) could be as low as 3000 or as high as 32,000. Most of the radon-related lung cancers occur among ever-smokers, and because of the synergism between smoking and radon, many of the cancers in ever-smokers could be prevented by either tobacco control or reduction of radon exposure. "Ever-smokers" represents anyone who has ever smoked, regardless of age, duration/intensity of their smoking, or how long ago they quit. The second quote highlights the reality behind the "preferred central estimates": most deaths pinned on radon actually were related to tobacco usage! Put simply, "the obvious but unstated conclusion of the EPA's BEIR VI report is clear... they don't know if there is a quantifiable risk to healthy people from the levels of radon they suggest are dangerous." There have never been tests of the effects of varying amounts of radon in a typical home setting. The only tests originated in mine shafts in which radon was simply one of several dozen radioactive elements present. Based upon these measures, an arbitrary threshold of 4 pCi was established by bureaucrats who extrapolated the miners' environment to those found in homes. In other words, there has never been a verified case where home radon was linked to an occurrence of cancer. Not one case. Even a 2001 long-term study in Sweden, published in Epidemiology, concluded that "among never-smokers residential radon exposure may be more harmful for those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke." In other words, it was difficult to characterize risk for radon along as opposed to second-hand smoke. While the EPA crows that radon is the second-leading cause of cancer and that thousands die each year from radon, it is virtually impossible to tell whether radon or exposure to tobacco caused lung cancer. And from these fabrications sprung countless regulations, bureaucrats, businesses, inspectors and agencies. A billion-dollar-plus industry. All to solve a problem that you can't see or smell and that no one ever knew existed until 1984..

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/20...radon-scam.html

21,000 people per year in the US die from Radon? LOL! It's in your granite counter tops for christ's sake.

Ok so The17sss, what would you do? If it was your decision to make, what would you do? Who would you believe? Who would you commission to do a study?

FYI - "Nothing" is the wrong answer.

___________________
Like Progressive and Deep House? Grab my latest mix below
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...s=#.UAv1rbRo3h4