Is anyone actually worried about global warming? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

retsuki03 · 02-24-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

I take it you're not a scientist, or you wouldn't be speaking like that. Please, indicate what information is erroneous. Being that we're speaking of a complex aspect of the FUTURE, I guess we can't really know what would be erroneous or not, now do we?

The erroneous informantion refered to and linked to twice:

Quote:

There are three published studies out on long term changes in solar radiation (or "global dimming" if preferred). All use the same data sources. Solar radiation has been measured at weather stations worldwide since about 1956-57. As with many other measurements most of the data are from the Northern Hemisphere and all are taken on land. A reduction in downward solar radiation of about 4% or about 7W/m2 from 1961 to 1990 was found at stations worldwide by Gilgen et al., (1998). Gilgen et al. did a quick analysis and used all the available data with increasingly shorter records for their trend statistics. Stanhill and Cohen (2001) calculated a stronger reduction of about 8% per decade. The reason for the discrepancy might be that only 30 records were used in the latter study and it seems only the ones with the declining trend. My own analysis was based on 110 continuously recording stations worldwide from 1961 to 1990 (Liepert 2002). I confirmed Gilgen et al.'s estimate of a reduction of about 4% in three decades. Since the late 1980s a recovery seems to be occurring but the studies demonstrating this are not yet published.

Quote:

I believe the article said "predictions", which in my book would not single out computer models, but all predictions made. It seems to me that you're taking a general statement about the accuracy of predictions in general and applying it specifically to computer models, which seems to suit your position in this debate quite nicely.

Excuse me. Let's review what you said about computer models:

Quote:

Oh, let me guess... You're not going to believe anything it concludes because it's a simulation. Well, how else are we going to do climate prediction?

Well, gee. I would have to agree with you there. It does suit my little debate to agree, that as inaccurate as computer models have proven to be, they seem to be the most scientific way of guessing. You seem to agree as well. That being said, what other predictions did you think the article was talking about?

Quote:

Would apply to this magazine and Dr. Jaworowski's article as well, wouldn't it?

I will admit he is biased. All scientists are. The have an agenda- to convince people that they are right. But so far, I have not seen any blatent attempt to mislead the reader. This probably explains why Stanhill was met with a "sceptical response from other scientists." Jaworowski point of view is different than Stanhill's. That alone does not make it wrong, nor does citing articles from Discover or Nature magazines. If you want to make a case against Jaworowski's article, make it. However, it is a fallacy to state that because he has an agenda and cites articles, he therefore is using erroneous information. So, the part about:

Quote:

So basically your article is a demonstration of how erroneous information can be used to develop often entirely wrong climate predicting computer models in conjunction with yellow journalism to convince people that there is a cataclysmic change pending in the environment all the while getting people to watch the BBC and arousing a "sceptical response from other scientists."

Yes. That would apply to the Jaworowski article if you can find some erroneous information used as a fundamental part of his arguement AND suggestion of a cataclysmic change in the environment occuring in the near future AND prove it gets people to watch the bbc.

Quote:

I know you're being sarcastic, but I just want to make a comment about the WWF's use of the article. The WWF's goal is to save the animals, and shit the bed every time something with fur dies. I think most of us would agree that they can go overboard in many situations (and perhaps this is one of them) but the purpose of my bringing it up is merely to indicate the possibility for severe climate change, and perhaps one could also derive from that how a high rate of climate change could, over a not-too-long time frame have an adverse effect on the environment which humanity would also feel the effects of. Trust me, the LAST people that I would take my environmental position from is the WWF, as they also have quite a well-defined agenda... or could I call that a crusade? Haha...

The fact that they use misinformation, lies, and hyperbole to push their agenda is what bothers me. I agree with their goals. Saving animals is great. Caring about the environment is a good thing. But the means with which they attempt to achieve those goals is condemnable. Honestly, if the problem was really so urgent, should they have to lie?

jorgelito · 02-25-2005, 12:20 AM

QUOTE: Honestly, if the problem was really so urgent, should they have to lie?

Isn't that everyone though? Doesn't everyone lie or exaggerate things? Remember the "Willie Horton" campaign enciting fears of blacks or how about WMD? Did they or didn't they? If there's a report on the news saying don't swim to day cause of sharks to you say, "nah, they're lying, go ahead kids, swim to your hearts content."

I think we have to decide for ourselves what to believe. I don't trust any one of those sources.

But if I read a report citing toxic level of "whatver toxin" in the water supply, I would err on the side of caution and procure alternate water supply. I wouldn't gamble on whether or not the report was a "lie", especially if I had kids etc.

I dunno, something like that.

C4 Diesel · 02-25-2005, 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

The erroneous informantion refered to and linked to twice...

Gotcha. I thought you were referring to erroneous information in the article that we were discussing at the time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4171591.stm).

...I'm going to disagree with you on two things here. First off, I don't believe all scientists have an agenda, specifically those that work at universities (such as Dr. New) since very, very few universities have a scientific agenda. Most universities just like to see results and grant money, regardless of what the findings are.

Also, I'm not convinced that the WWF is lying, per se, as I'm not so sure that they're statements are totally untrue or their intent is to decieve. Are they being selective in the information that they are using? Probably. Would they like to influence other people's opinions? Definitely. But again, the issue they are addressing (future climate changes) would be nearly impossible to verify with current scientific methods one way or the other, so saying that they're lying is a little extreme in my opinion.

highthief · 02-26-2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

First of all, the rest of the world does not agree. However, even if they did- would that make them right just because they all agree?
Does the rest of the civilized world include India or China? The same people who bitch about Kyoto would bitch about unemployment or a stagnant economy that would result if we agreed to it.

It seems to me that they just haven't thought the full implications through.

Many assume that Bush hates the environment and loves corporations, just because he is a Republican. Bush is not the elitist. The people who condemn him as being an idiot are the elitists and the real idiots. The envirnmental effects of the implementation of Kyoto vs. the economic impact make the decision of whether or not to participate staggeringly easy.

As over 140 countries, last i checked, had ratified Kyoto, I'd say that accounts for most of the "rest of world".

As for the economic arguments, I see economic opportunity in developing, implementing and supporting cleaner technologies - rather than your citizens making 6 bucks an hour as McDonald's workers and Wal-Mart clerks, how about an opportunity to work in a growing, technologically advanced and better paying environment? Or do you think the 75% of Americans (or Canadians or whatever) working in a service environment is truly good for the economy?

Change is not a bad thing.

nofnway · 02-26-2005, 08:27 PM

Doom and gloom are big business....Kyoto will cost the nations of the world billions to affect the global temp a billionth of a degree.

Funny stuff.

Here the Timetable of doom http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_32a.html

nofnway · 02-26-2005, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

Those reasons are, I think, enough to warrant taking the foot off the gas pedal of global warming - and it appears the rest of the civilized world agrees, outside the US.

Australia didn't sign either

retsuki03 · 02-27-2005, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

As over 140 countries, last i checked, had ratified Kyoto, I'd say that accounts for most of the "rest of world".

When I said the rest of the world, I was not refering to nations, but people, and not so much people, but scientists.

But you bring up a good point. With 140 countries signing on, the US would have had to pay 2/3 of the Global cost. That is $517 billion. In addition, we would be giving other countries billions in dollars in return for emissions permits. The idea is insane. There is no way the US is going to spend that kind of money for such meaningless results.

Even if excess CO2 was causing global warming, the Kyoto Treaty would not be an effective way to combat it.

The Kyoto Treaty is a scam. People who don't know anything about it assume the US (and that cowboy Bush) are diplomatic retards. The reality is it is completely counter to the US interests. THAT is why we aren't going to sign it.

EDIT: forgot source. http://titan.iwu.edu/~econ/ppe/2002/alexis.pdf

raveneye · 02-27-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

The Kyoto Treaty is a scam. People who don't know anything about it assume the US (and that cowboy Bush) are diplomatic retards. The reality is it is completely counter to the US interests. THAT is why we aren't going to sign it.

How can you possibly know this with such dogmatic certainty?

In order to come to this conclusion, you would have had to:

--know the magnitude/rate of global warming;
--know the causes of global warming;
--know fully what the ecological impacts of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--know fully what the direct economic impacts of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--know fully what the toll in human lives and health of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--make a calculus that converts the human toll into current economic marginal value;
--make a calculus that converts the ecological toll (incl. species extinctions) into current economic marginal value;
--know fully what the current economic cost of the Kyoto treaty will be.

In the absence of this detailed knowledge, I think the appropriate attitude is open-minded scepticism, with respect and willingness to synthesize and evaluate opposing points of view.

retsuki03 · 02-27-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

How can you possibly know this with such dogmatic certainty?

From everything I read, I believe my comment is a fair characterization of the Kyoto Treaty. It is just my opinion, relax.

Quote:

In order to come to this conclusion, you would have had to:

--know the magnitude/rate of global warming;
--know the causes of global warming;
--know fully what the ecological impacts of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--know fully what the direct economic impacts of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--know fully what the toll in human lives and health of global warming will be in the near and distant future;

Ok, In order for all these things to be necessary, one would have to prove global warming was related to GHG emissions, namely CO2. Can you find any proof that shows a correlation between CO2 and rising global temperature? Provided you can actually prove global warming exists and is caused by CO2? Then can you even attempt to argue that the Kyoto Treaty is remotely effective at combating global warming.

For Instance:

Quote:

The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on the climate would be minuscule, even if it were implemented in full. A model by Tom Wigley, one of the main authors of the reports of the UN Climate Change Panel, shows how an expected temperature increase of 2.1°C in 2100 would be diminished by the treaty to an increase of 1.9°C instead.
source: http://www.economist.com/displayStor...tory_ID=718860

That doesn't seem very effective to me. Especially if the United States is slated to spend over 500 billion dollars.

Quote:

--make a calculus that converts the human toll into current economic marginal value
--make a calculus that converts the human toll into current economic marginal value

And I have to throw this in there for all the bleeding hearts.

Quote:

Yet, the cost of Kyoto, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world's single most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Such measures would avoid 2m deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill.
source: Ibib.

I'll let you do the calculus. Your the one who wants to convince me, right?

Quote:

--know fully what the current economic cost of the Kyoto treaty will be.

Here is a guess.

Quote:

the global cost of Kyoto estimated to total $828 billion.

source: http://titan.iwu.edu/~econ/ppe/2002/alexis.pdf

Quote:

In the absence of this detailed knowledge, I think the appropriate attitude is open-minded scepticism, with respect and willingness to synthesize and evaluate opposing points of view.

I would be happy to synthesize and evaluate your viewpoint. I do have an open mind. I am not uninformed. Perhaps you might need more "detailed knowledge" but I have read enough.

raveneye · 02-27-2005, 04:17 PM

Quote:

I'll let you do the calculus. Your the one who wants to convince me, right?

Actually no. I have no doubt that you've already made up your mind.

But if you want to convince me of your point of view (i.e. that Kyoto is a "scam") then you'll have to do a lot more than you've done here.

Manx · 02-27-2005, 04:33 PM

I can't imagine arguing that damaging the environment is not a cost-effective issue to address.

It would be easy to argue that, however. For every report or study, someone has done another report or study showing almost the opposite result.

So, although I could sit here and claim that there is "no evidence" that anyone should be concerned with pollution, global warming and the overall negative impact of industrialization on the environment - I just can't imagine why anyone would. It seems like far too much of a common sense issue: pollution is something we want to limit.

jorgelito · 02-27-2005, 04:42 PM

There you go: Manx that is what I have been trying to say but couldn't figure out how.

In a way, science is always in dispute, and if we're relying on science, is it any wonder why we have so much disagreement? But I agree, doesn't matter your political affiliation, I mean no one os "Pro-pollution" right? There's no Pollution Party.

I also don't think it's necessarily a zero-sum game. Is Kyoto really bad for the economy? Is conservation so ruinous? I suppose that is where the math comes in.

Manx · 02-27-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Is Kyoto really bad for the economy?

I would say it is just the opposite, which is why the U.S. will, sooner or later, find itself joining the treaty. As with most international trade agreements, which Kyoto assuredly is, there are typically plenty of negative consequences but in regards to the global economy, they are a boon.

The U.S. will eventually find it is not in contention for certain aspects of trade due to its' self-exclusion from the treaty. When nearly all the rest of the West is making agreements with China and India, as those two countries explode with industrialization, the U.S. is going to be losing a lot of money.

jorgelito · 02-27-2005, 10:55 PM

To paraphrase the above statements, there are just as many economists saying it's good as there are economists saying it's bad. Might as well toss a coin *groan*

I believe it may cost a bit more in the short/near term, but will most definitely yield benefits in the long term (no proof guys, just my opinion). However, in the same spirit or to be consistent, I also think that China and India need to be a part of it as well.

Suave · 02-27-2005, 11:03 PM

I'm more worried about using up all of our natural resources (primarily energy resources) and pollution than global warming. They are supposedly connected though, so I guess being concerned about one would beget being concerned about the other.

retsuki03 · 02-28-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manx

I would say it is just the opposite, which is why the U.S. will, sooner or later, find itself joining the treaty. As with most international trade agreements, which Kyoto assuredly is, there are typically plenty of negative consequences but in regards to the global economy, they are a boon.

What international trade agreements are related to Kyoto apart from the emissions credits trading program? How are they a blessing to the global economy?

I don't see the US join ever joining a the Kyoto or a treaty like it. If the US decides to limit or lower emissions, it will be on its own terms without regard to international treaties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

To paraphrase the above statements, there are just as many economists saying it's good as there are economists saying it's bad. Might as well toss a coin *groan*

I was curious if you had any reading saying that Kyoto was good for the US economy? Assuming that their are conflicting reports on the economical impact of Kyoto, I think it would be best to read them, and then make a decision (rather than flipping a coin

) I know you were just kidding, but I would like to read anything you have.

One thing that I find interesting is how I saw many reports on the day Kyoto went into effect titled, "Kyoto Starts Despite US Boycott." I realize that the US CO2 emissions amount to about 30% of the total global emissions, but I think the real reason for this framing is to perpetuate an anti-american sentiment. I don't believe the papers in the UK and France are actively or maliciously trying screw the US, but I believe they are catering to their audience. Much like conservatives read the WSJ and liberals the NY Times.

Regardless of my little theory, I did notice that most the articles I read did not mention Australia, China, or India.

Manx · 02-28-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

What international trade agreements are related to Kyoto apart from the emissions credits trading program? How are they a blessing to the global economy?

I don't see the US join ever joining a the Kyoto or a treaty like it. If the US decides to limit or lower emissions, it will be on its own terms without regard to international treaties.

There are probably no other trade agreements that are directly related to the Kyoto treaty, nor did I suggest that there were - but they all are affected by the Kyoto treaty.

When most of the world forms an agreement on trade, the global economy becomes entwined in that agreement. If you are not part of that agreement, you are limited in how efficiently you fit in with the global economy. Countries that are part of the agreement will have far more compatibility in negotiating trade of all kinds than countries that are not part of the agreement. As the U.S. has decided not to become a part of this significant aspect of the future global economy, it will suffer. Until it decides to put its head down and accept the terms that every other country requires.

Quote:

=retsuki03]One thing that I find interesting is how I saw many reports on the day Kyoto went into effect titled, "Kyoto Starts Despite US Boycott." I realize that the US CO2 emissions amount to about 30% of the total global emissions, but I think the real reason for this framing is the perpetuate an anti-american sentiment. I don't believe the papers in the UK and France are actively or maliciously trying screw the US, but I believe they are catering to their audience. Much like conservatives read the WSJ and liberals the NY Times.

Regardless of my little theory, I did notice that most the articles I read did not mention Australia, China, or India.

It seems naive to suggest that the absence of the single most polluting country on the planet would not make the headline, and to then "blame" the presence of that country in the headline on anti-Americanism. Also, China and India are part of the treaty - they have simply been afforded the understandable, and temporary, leeway in meeting the requirements of the treaty as their infrastructure is built. There is no logical explanation that could be made to require them to hinder their infrastructure development considering most of the other countries in the agreement have already been afforded that priviledge, particularly if that explanation is coming from the largest polluting nation on the planet.

retsuki03 · 02-28-2005, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manx

There are probably no other trade agreements that are directly related to the Kyoto treaty, nor did I suggest that there were - but they all are affected by the Kyoto treaty.

But you said?

Quote:

Originally Posted by manx

As with most international trade agreements, which Kyoto assuredly is...

I think you suggested that Kyoto was an international trade agreement.

Regardless, I think the US will suffer much less negative effects by not signing the treaty, than by signing it. Other countries will begin to see the problems and ineffectiveness of Kyoto, and wish they had done as the US.

Quote:

Originally Posted by manx

There is no logical explanation that could be made to require them to hinder their infrastructure development considering most of the other countries in the agreement have already been afforded that priviledge.

The idea that they should get a pass is absurd to me. Fair is fair, but when considering the population size of China and India, the overall supposed goal of reducing global emissions, the sharp competition with the US, Indian, and Chinese economies, and the absolute cost ineffectiveness of the treaty- it should surprise no one that the US would not sign this rag.

Quote:

China, for example, will pass the U.S. in annual emissions of CO2 by 2013, according to Boas professor of international economics Richard N. Cooper. Another projection suggests that, by 2050, China's cumulative contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere will exceed those of the United States.
source:http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/1102199.html

And I was curious, are you a fan of Malik el-Shabazz?

jorgelito · 02-28-2005, 05:58 PM

If you are referring to his avatar, it looks like a jazz piano player like Herbie Hancock or Thelonious Monk or something. It does look a bit like Malcolm X but if you look closely I think he's playing th piano. I dunno, that's what it looks like to me.

So how about it Manx, who's the guy in your avatar?

As for any reading to Kyoto being good for the economy, let me get back to you and see if I can find any related articles. I thought I read something somewhere (you know how it is). I'm gonna have to start flagging everything I read so I can cite them. Man, it's like writing a paper...

Manx · 02-28-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

But you said?

I think you suggested that Kyoto was an international trade agreement.

Not only did I suggest it, I flat out stated it was. The Kyoto treaty is an international trade agreement. I did not state that it was directly related to other trade agreements.

Quote:

The idea that they should get a pass is absurd to me.

I don't see any rational basis for that opinion. Probably the entirety of the West has completed the progression through industrialization. As a result, the environment of the planet suffered. You are suggesting that simply because China and India have not yet progressed as the West, they should be penalized for that exact same progression, even while the West was not penalized for that progression. I don't see why the time line of progression is even a factor in determining who should and should not be penalized, other than as a concern that Western economies will suffer - which, even if true (though I already stated I do not agree with that analysis), is irrelevant to the concept of global responsibility coupled with fairness.

Quote:

And I was curious, are you a fan of Malik el-Shabazz?

I am a great fan of Malcolm X. Jorgelito, yes, my avatar is a young Thelonius Monk playing piano.

NCB · 02-28-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

I don't see any rational basis for that opinion. Probably the entirety of the West has completed the progression through industrialization. As a result, the environment of the planet suffered. You are suggesting that simply because China and India have not yet progressed as the West, they should be penalized for that exact same progression, even while the West was not penalized for that progression

Well, at least someone is honest about Kyoto's true intention.

Also, shouldn;t the third world counties in Africa and Central and South America be forced to pay a price too? Afterall, their slash and burn practices have harmed the enviroment more so than the West's industrialization

jorgelito · 02-28-2005, 06:45 PM

I think China and India don't need a "pass" because (I believe) they don't need to go through the same exact process that the West (Industrial Revolution) had.

I believe they have an advantage as it would be relatively "cheaper" to upgrade their facilities as the infrastructure they have in place is rather old or non-existent.

So, if China and India are in the throes of construction (which they are) then essentially they are starting from scratch.

So, why not build it right the first time? They already have a cost advantage so why not? No need to build a brand new "old school" factory - why not build a new, efficient, less-polluting etc factory? It may be a bit more costly now, but shouldn't it pay off down the line? Sounds like good business to me.

I guess what I am trying to say is I don't believe that China and India have to go throught the same process that the West did. They have an advantage, our experience and the learning curve. They stand to gain from our knowledge, experience and tech advances.

Manx · 02-28-2005, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Also, shouldn;t the third world counties in Africa and Central and South America be forced to pay a price too? Afterall, their slash and burn practices have harmed the enviroment more so than the West's industrialization

No. They've been raped by the West for centuries. Their slash and burn practices were and are at the behest of and benefit of the West.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I think China and India don't need a "pass" because (I believe) they don't need to go through the same exact process that the West (Industrial Revolution) had.

I believe they have an advantage as it would be relatively "cheaper" to upgrade their facilities as the infrastructure they have in place is rather old or non-existent.

I absolutely agree that they will have an easier relative time of it than the West did due to the progress in efficiency from the West breaking that ground. But they are not given a complete pass - they have a time limit, and it is exceptionally short in comparison to the time frame that the West took to industrialize.

NCB · 03-01-2005, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

No. They've been raped by the West for centuries. Their slash and burn practices were and are at the behest of and benefit of the West.
.

Raped by the west?? Their slash and burn policies have been praciticed because they do nont know how to cultivate properly. The West has poured gobs of money and education programs into these areas, but they still practice slash and burn. You know why? Because it's easier that rotating crops to replenish the soil. ie...laziness

And as far as the west raping these countries, if it weren't for the generosity and compassion of the west (especially the American people), they would be in far more shitty condition.

03-01-2005, 05:32 AM

I don't understand many of the opinions and motivations here. I believe that conservation is not only the ethical thing to do, but it is also preferrable on political, economic and social grounds as well.

Who gets to design all the new energy efficient stuff? Who gets to live in more pleasant surroundings? Who gets to shed the yoke of over dependancy on Middle Eastern Oil? Exactly in what way would failure to sign up to Kyoto be bad for a country?

Sorry, but whinging on about climate models not being 100% accurate is unhelpfull and itself and expression of bad scientific principles. There never ever has been any such thing as 100% proof until after the even occurs. I could build a number models that would suggest that running across a highway during rush hour would result in an accident, and you could (quite rightly) argue that because I don't know all the variables etc, that my model is flawed and that my results inaccurate.

If you are such a good analysist of the facts, then please explain what detremental effects there are involved in having more efficienct and better technology, better living conditions and in curbing the rampant and unsustainable stripping of resources that we engage in today?

Manx · 03-01-2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

Raped by the west?? Their slash and burn policies have been praciticed because they do nont know how to cultivate properly. The West has poured gobs of money and education programs into these areas, but they still practice slash and burn. You know why? Because it's easier that rotating crops to replenish the soil. ie...laziness

And as far as the west raping these countries, if it weren't for the generosity and compassion of the west (especially the American people), they would be in far more shitty condition.

I wish I could believe that.

Even better, I wish it were true.

03-01-2005, 08:07 AM

The reason it is profitable to slash and burn is that the western model of capitalism promotes getting rich quick - it's perfectly acceptable in the western model to make a fast buck and move to Hawaii - who cares what you leave behind?

Likewise, it's perfectly acceptable for the US to not enter the Kyoto treaty and continue in its own lazy way towards an effective global slashing and burning. Why NCB is it that wehn the US acts like this, it's economically reasonable, but when another country does it, it's because they are lazy? Believe it? - It doesn't even make sense.

flstf · 03-01-2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

If you are such a good analysist of the facts, then please explain what detremental effects there are involved in having more efficienct and better technology, better living conditions and in curbing the rampant and unsustainable stripping of resources that we engage in today?

I guess it is like anything else we might consider beneficial it depends on the costs involved. The original post asked if anyone is actually worried about global warming. If you really believe that global warming is going to destroy the planet then no amount of money is too much to spend. If you believe that global warming is junk science and not a problem then any amount is too much. If you are somewhere in between and are not sure then maybe the $700 billion (or whatever the latest estimate is) Kyoto price tag is justified. There is nothing detremental in newer and better technology cleaning up the environment other than the cost/benefit judgement.

03-01-2005, 08:22 AM

This cost/benefit argument is a false one as well - Where does the money go? Where does it come from? It's not all government funds being collected off the populace and buried underground. All the money goes into developing existing and new forms of technology to do what we do currently but better. That means new jobs and a boost to the economy - not the opposite. In addition it means that there will be a number of products that will be developed with environmental issues in mind. These will be freely tradable (and desirable) in the countries under the Kyoto treaty. Those countries outside will find their more polluting products harder to sell.

Do I believe that global warming could happen? Yes I do. Greenhouse gasses do trap solar energy. That the amount of solar energy coming directly from the source has a greater effect is important, but it doesn't negate the fact that greenhouse gasses (CO2, Methane, CFCs etc) all have a warming effect. I like the warm - If my home country had been warmer, I might never have left it - but I'd like to see us attempt to build a future where we have a greater chance of dealing with this issue if it ever does become a problem (i.e. when the solar luminance cycle turns round and we REALLY start warming up) and the best way to do that is to develop the appropriate technologies. The best way to do that is to skew the international market in favour of non-polluting technology. It really isn't complicated at all.

Manx · 03-01-2005, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zen_tom

This cost/benefit argument is a false one as well - Where does the money go? Where does it come from? It's not all government funds being collected off the populace and buried underground. All the money goes into developing existing and new forms of technology to do what we do currently but better. That means new jobs and a boost to the economy - not the opposite. In addition it means that there will be a number of products that will be developed with environmental issues in mind. These will be freely tradable (and desirable) in the countries under the Kyoto treaty. Those countries outside will find their more polluting products harder to sell.

Well said.

The momentum behind the cost/benefit argument comes from industrial lobbyists who know that they will either have to spend money to adapt their technology to come out on top again or end up being replaced by their competitors who will spend money to adapt their technology to come out on top.

If you're already on top, you don't want new rules that require you to face more risk through competitive innovation.

NCB · 03-01-2005, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I wish I could believe that.

Even better, I wish it were true.

So you believe that third world countries would have a better standard of living if it were not for the West? .

Manx · 03-01-2005, 12:04 PM

Undoubtedly.

3rd world countries are used as effective slave labor for Western corporations. In the process of paying pennies for manual labor, tyrannical gov'ts are propped up to provide more favorable trade regulations.

As a result, Western corporations can offer a gallon of pickles for $3 and glow-in-the-dark toothbrushes. They spend pennies producing it off the labor of someone who can still barely afford to feed their family (let alone receive healthcare, vacation and other benefits) and make millions in profit back home in the States.

That's the "generosity and compassion" you were speaking of.

NCB · 03-01-2005, 01:02 PM

Well, what can I say. The fact is, the West has given more to help people's lives in 3rd world countries. If it weren't for us and the tech advancemet from the West, they'd still be in the 10th century. Why you hold this amount of hostility to a culture that has afforded you a lifestyle that your African brethern would die for (I'm assuming you're black, of course) is just puzzling to me.

Manx · 03-01-2005, 01:15 PM

If it weren't for them, the tech advancement in the West would be nearly non-existent. It's an eco-system of wealth redistribution - both sides require the others present state to exist. We take their resources and provide next to nothing in return.

Of course African's would "die" for my lifestyle. I am part of the society that has effectively stolen from them. Who wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of profit?

There is no doubt that 3rd world countries have advanced due to technology provided by the West. But they have not advanced in proportion to the work they produce whereas the West has advanced beyond the work it has produced. This is the nature of moving manual labor to countries that do not have our employment regulations and are governed by despots, who work directly with the Western corporations and Western governments to ensure their own mutually satisfying profit.

Essentially all of the technology that has been provided to 3rd world countries is specifically to maximize the ability for the Western corporation to earn money off the resources of those countries. It most certainly is not the good will you would have me believe.

Why you hold no hostility towards yourself and the society you excuse and promote, while your Caucasian brethren continue to rape and limit 3rd world countries (I'm assuming you're white, of course) is beyond me.

And no, I am not black. That's just an avatar.

03-01-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

If it weren't for us and the tech advancemet from the West, they'd still be in the 10th century.

I'd take issue with this statement - the happy position that the west occupies at the moment is largely based on the huge wealth built up during the great Imperial days of Europe. Empires that were built on the back of exploiting distant regions for their human and natural resources.

It should be us thanking them, not the other way around.

03-01-2005, 01:20 PM

Sorry Manx, you said it first - one of those cross-post situations there.

NCB · 03-01-2005, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Of course African's would "die" for my lifestyle. I am part of the society that has effectively stolen from them. Who wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of profit

You still haven't addressed where the third world would be without the west. Better off? Worse off?

Quote:

And no, I am not black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Why you hold no hostility towards yourself and the society you excuse and promote, while your Caucasian brethren continue to rape and limit 3rd world countries (I'm assuming you're white, of course) is beyond me..

The irony!! You're white and I'm Latino (Mexican father/Cuban mother).

Quote:

I'd take issue with this statement - the happy position that the west occupies at the moment is largely based on the huge wealth built up during the great Imperial days of Europe. Empires that were built on the back of exploiting distant regions for their human and natural resources.

It should be us thanking them, not the other way around.

No, the tech advances of the West precede the imperial age.

Manx · 03-01-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

You still haven't addressed where the third world would be without the west. Better off? Worse off?

I already addressed that. It is a silly question, ultimately - the state of one does not exist without the state of the other - the West is on top because the 3rd world is on the bottom. And I addressed that aspect as well.

Quote:

No, the tech advances of the West precede the imperial age.

Some tech advances preceded the imperial age. Sure. The West raped its own people and land enough that it became cost effective to travel greater and greater distances to rape new people and new land.

NCB · 03-01-2005, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

I already addressed that. It is a silly question, ultimately - the state of one does not exist without the state of the other - the West is on top because the 3rd world is on the bottom. And I addressed that aspect as well.
Some tech advances preceded the imperial age. Sure. The West raped its own people and land enough that it became cost effective to travel greater and greater distances to rape new people and new land.

The West has raped this people, the West has raped that people, the West has raped it's own people.

Feeling guilt does not constitute an argument. I guess we'll just agree to disagree

Manx · 03-01-2005, 01:54 PM

You should understand it's nothing personal. If, in the long ago past, the present day 3rd world countries had been just a little more ruthless to their own people than the West was to theirs, it would have been these 3rd world countries that would have advanced more rapidly and been able to travel greater distances to take advantage of the less advanced, present day, Western societies. In which case, you and I both would be suffering and you'd finally realize your mistake.

I'm not going to congratulate the West for its ruthlessness, even though I have benefitted (in comparison) due to its ruthlessness.

02-26-2005, 08:27 PM	#45 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	Doom and gloom are big business....Kyoto will cost the nations of the world billions to affect the global temp a billionth of a degree. Funny stuff. Here the Timetable of doom http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_32a.html __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

02-27-2005, 11:03 PM	#55 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	I'm more worried about using up all of our natural resources (primarily energy resources) and pollution than global warming. They are supposedly connected though, so I guess being concerned about one would beget being concerned about the other. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

02-28-2005, 05:58 PM	#59 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	If you are referring to his avatar, it looks like a jazz piano player like Herbie Hancock or Thelonious Monk or something. It does look a bit like Malcolm X but if you look closely I think he's playing th piano. I dunno, that's what it looks like to me. So how about it Manx, who's the guy in your avatar? As for any reading to Kyoto being good for the economy, let me get back to you and see if I can find any related articles. I thought I read something somewhere (you know how it is). I'm gonna have to start flagging everything I read so I can cite them. Man, it's like writing a paper... Last edited by jorgelito; 02-28-2005 at 05:59 PM.. Reason: grammar

02-25-2005, 12:20 AM	#42 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	QUOTE: Honestly, if the problem was really so urgent, should they have to lie? Isn't that everyone though? Doesn't everyone lie or exaggerate things? Remember the "Willie Horton" campaign enciting fears of blacks or how about WMD? Did they or didn't they? If there's a report on the news saying don't swim to day cause of sharks to you say, "nah, they're lying, go ahead kids, swim to your hearts content." I think we have to decide for ourselves what to believe. I don't trust any one of those sources. But if I read a report citing toxic level of "whatver toxin" in the water supply, I would err on the side of caution and procure alternate water supply. I wouldn't gamble on whether or not the report was a "lie", especially if I had kids etc. I dunno, something like that.

02-27-2005, 04:33 PM	#51 (permalink)
Manx Loser	I can't imagine arguing that damaging the environment is not a cost-effective issue to address. It would be easy to argue that, however. For every report or study, someone has done another report or study showing almost the opposite result. So, although I could sit here and claim that there is "no evidence" that anyone should be concerned with pollution, global warming and the overall negative impact of industrialization on the environment - I just can't imagine why anyone would. It seems like far too much of a common sense issue: pollution is something we want to limit.

02-27-2005, 04:42 PM	#52 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	There you go: Manx that is what I have been trying to say but couldn't figure out how. In a way, science is always in dispute, and if we're relying on science, is it any wonder why we have so much disagreement? But I agree, doesn't matter your political affiliation, I mean no one os "Pro-pollution" right? There's no Pollution Party. I also don't think it's necessarily a zero-sum game. Is Kyoto really bad for the economy? Is conservation so ruinous? I suppose that is where the math comes in.

02-27-2005, 10:55 PM	#54 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	To paraphrase the above statements, there are just as many economists saying it's good as there are economists saying it's bad. Might as well toss a coin groan I believe it may cost a bit more in the short/near term, but will most definitely yield benefits in the long term (no proof guys, just my opinion). However, in the same spirit or to be consistent, I also think that China and India need to be a part of it as well.

02-28-2005, 06:45 PM	#62 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I think China and India don't need a "pass" because (I believe) they don't need to go through the same exact process that the West (Industrial Revolution) had. I believe they have an advantage as it would be relatively "cheaper" to upgrade their facilities as the infrastructure they have in place is rather old or non-existent. So, if China and India are in the throes of construction (which they are) then essentially they are starting from scratch. So, why not build it right the first time? They already have a cost advantage so why not? No need to build a brand new "old school" factory - why not build a new, efficient, less-polluting etc factory? It may be a bit more costly now, but shouldn't it pay off down the line? Sounds like good business to me. I guess what I am trying to say is I don't believe that China and India have to go throught the same process that the West did. They have an advantage, our experience and the learning curve. They stand to gain from our knowledge, experience and tech advances.

03-01-2005, 05:32 AM	#65 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	I don't understand many of the opinions and motivations here. I believe that conservation is not only the ethical thing to do, but it is also preferrable on political, economic and social grounds as well. Who gets to design all the new energy efficient stuff? Who gets to live in more pleasant surroundings? Who gets to shed the yoke of over dependancy on Middle Eastern Oil? Exactly in what way would failure to sign up to Kyoto be bad for a country? Sorry, but whinging on about climate models not being 100% accurate is unhelpfull and itself and expression of bad scientific principles. There never ever has been any such thing as 100% proof until after the even occurs. I could build a number models that would suggest that running across a highway during rush hour would result in an accident, and you could (quite rightly) argue that because I don't know all the variables etc, that my model is flawed and that my results inaccurate. If you are such a good analysist of the facts, then please explain what detremental effects there are involved in having more efficienct and better technology, better living conditions and in curbing the rampant and unsustainable stripping of resources that we engage in today?

03-01-2005, 08:07 AM	#67 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	The reason it is profitable to slash and burn is that the western model of capitalism promotes getting rich quick - it's perfectly acceptable in the western model to make a fast buck and move to Hawaii - who cares what you leave behind? Likewise, it's perfectly acceptable for the US to not enter the Kyoto treaty and continue in its own lazy way towards an effective global slashing and burning. Why NCB is it that wehn the US acts like this, it's economically reasonable, but when another country does it, it's because they are lazy? Believe it? - It doesn't even make sense.

03-01-2005, 08:22 AM	#69 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	This cost/benefit argument is a false one as well - Where does the money go? Where does it come from? It's not all government funds being collected off the populace and buried underground. All the money goes into developing existing and new forms of technology to do what we do currently but better. That means new jobs and a boost to the economy - not the opposite. In addition it means that there will be a number of products that will be developed with environmental issues in mind. These will be freely tradable (and desirable) in the countries under the Kyoto treaty. Those countries outside will find their more polluting products harder to sell. Do I believe that global warming could happen? Yes I do. Greenhouse gasses do trap solar energy. That the amount of solar energy coming directly from the source has a greater effect is important, but it doesn't negate the fact that greenhouse gasses (CO2, Methane, CFCs etc) all have a warming effect. I like the warm - If my home country had been warmer, I might never have left it - but I'd like to see us attempt to build a future where we have a greater chance of dealing with this issue if it ever does become a problem (i.e. when the solar luminance cycle turns round and we REALLY start warming up) and the best way to do that is to develop the appropriate technologies. The best way to do that is to skew the international market in favour of non-polluting technology. It really isn't complicated at all.

03-01-2005, 12:04 PM	#72 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Undoubtedly. 3rd world countries are used as effective slave labor for Western corporations. In the process of paying pennies for manual labor, tyrannical gov'ts are propped up to provide more favorable trade regulations. As a result, Western corporations can offer a gallon of pickles for $3 and glow-in-the-dark toothbrushes. They spend pennies producing it off the labor of someone who can still barely afford to feed their family (let alone receive healthcare, vacation and other benefits) and make millions in profit back home in the States. That's the "generosity and compassion" you were speaking of.

03-01-2005, 01:02 PM	#73 (permalink)
NCB Junkie Location: Tobacco Road	Well, what can I say. The fact is, the West has given more to help people's lives in 3rd world countries. If it weren't for us and the tech advancemet from the West, they'd still be in the 10th century. Why you hold this amount of hostility to a culture that has afforded you a lifestyle that your African brethern would die for (I'm assuming you're black, of course) is just puzzling to me.

03-01-2005, 01:15 PM	#74 (permalink)
Manx Loser	If it weren't for them, the tech advancement in the West would be nearly non-existent. It's an eco-system of wealth redistribution - both sides require the others present state to exist. We take their resources and provide next to nothing in return. Of course African's would "die" for my lifestyle. I am part of the society that has effectively stolen from them. Who wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of profit? There is no doubt that 3rd world countries have advanced due to technology provided by the West. But they have not advanced in proportion to the work they produce whereas the West has advanced beyond the work it has produced. This is the nature of moving manual labor to countries that do not have our employment regulations and are governed by despots, who work directly with the Western corporations and Western governments to ensure their own mutually satisfying profit. Essentially all of the technology that has been provided to 3rd world countries is specifically to maximize the ability for the Western corporation to earn money off the resources of those countries. It most certainly is not the good will you would have me believe. Why you hold no hostility towards yourself and the society you excuse and promote, while your Caucasian brethren continue to rape and limit 3rd world countries (I'm assuming you're white, of course) is beyond me. And no, I am not black. That's just an avatar.

03-01-2005, 01:20 PM	#76 (permalink)
zen_tom Guest	Sorry Manx, you said it first - one of those cross-post situations there.

03-01-2005, 01:54 PM	#80 (permalink)
Manx Loser	You should understand it's nothing personal. If, in the long ago past, the present day 3rd world countries had been just a little more ruthless to their own people than the West was to theirs, it would have been these 3rd world countries that would have advanced more rapidly and been able to travel greater distances to take advantage of the less advanced, present day, Western societies. In which case, you and I both would be suffering and you'd finally realize your mistake. I'm not going to congratulate the West for its ruthlessness, even though I have benefitted (in comparison) due to its ruthlessness.