10 years ago, "scientists" said the effects of global warming will be irreversable

[bladefd]

I wonder how many of those that are so worried are doing the small things in their lives that may help combat this crisis...such as biking/walking to work....not utilizing electricity unless needed....no A/C or heater....etc

Just got solar panels installed in our house. That alone will be huge because it will power up whole house without reliance on any coal/centralized electric system, just the power of the sun. Took out a loan, which will pay for itself within 6yrs.. No electric bill, federal and state incentives (SREC) plus solar metering so we sell extra electricity to the local power company. After 6yrs, we are off the grid and loan paid off.

We just don't have the money for electric cars so that will have to wait few years.

Next goal is to fix house insulation to limit energy waste. Warm air just being drained out due to crap insulation in 40yr old house

[MaxFly]

I dunno if all that is true. Long, stream of consciousness etc... sure. I don't have any trouble understanding what anybody is saying unless I'm too tired to read and I miss out on essential words (like a masquerading 'not.')

I gotta stand up for KBlaze here. You two are already insulting each other, tho, so it's over... it's sad that such things happen, if not the person then the style of the person's debate, which is in effect the same thing. I feel like at some point you should look through your own posts, especially if you paste them out, like 8 posts in a row, your post, their response, your post... and put ME for your posts, put THEM for their posts. Then put it in a word document and look at it with the same critical eye you use to look at his posts. Don't get so caught up on single words.

Read it like an interview or a debate. You'll find a lot of people say the same things over and over and a lot of these 'debates' are like people doing a dance they always do, just hooking arms and doing their thing.

-Smak

Yea, I'm not insulting him. As I said in my post, "I'm not attacking you. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from."

Look, we're on a web forum, so all we have in terms of judging where someone stands or understanding what someone is saying regarding a topic is what they have typed out. We don't have any of the other markers of communication; tone and body language are impossible to perceive here. This is why I generally repeat what posters have said back to them, often say, "it sounds like you are saying," or in many cases, ask outright what they are trying to communicate. I also go back and read my own posts to make sure I effectively communicated what I was trying to say and to make sure there was as little room for ambiguity as possible.

[MaxFly]

I wonder how many of those that are so worried are doing the small things in their lives that may help combat this crisis...such as biking/walking to work....not utilizing electricity unless needed....no A/C or heater....etc

Yeah, we generally get through the summers with no AC and use heat as sparingly as reasonably possible during the colder months. That is especially difficult to do in the Northeast, but we make it work. We have energy saving windows, LED lighting; we turn lights and electronics off when we leave a room; we have energy efficient appliances; we're careful with our water consumption; tend to wash clothing on eco cold; we recycle faithfully. We're blessed to live in an area where we can easily walk to get errands done and with great access to public transportation. Our utility ranks our energy usage compared to that of our neighbors and others who are pretty conservative and we almost always best the most conservative energy users by a significant margin.

Here's the thing... I've approached almost all of these habits form a saving perspective first, with a mind on the environmental impact second. It turns out that in many cases, it's cost effective to be environmentally friendly.

[MaxFly]

Just got solar panels installed in our house. That alone will be huge because it will power up whole house without reliance on any coal/centralized electric system, just the power of the sun. Took out a loan, which will pay for itself within 6yrs.. No electric bill, federal and state incentives (SREC) plus solar metering so we sell extra electricity to the local power company. After 6yrs, we are off the grid and loan paid off.

We just don't have the money for electric cars so that will have to wait few years.

Next goal is to fix house insulation to limit energy waste. Warm air just being drained out due to crap insulation in 40yr old house

I just helped a friend move into a house he bought that came with relatively new panels. I encouraged him to get a Powerwall or two if his finances allow for it. They are quite expensive, but with the tax credit, it could be worth it to further cement power savings.

[CelticBaller]

The areas suffering the most from drought, disease, and food shortages aren't making much money off of oil. The areas that do have significant oil deposits but find themselves dealing with those issues have other larger issues to deal with before those problems can be effectively addressed.

Lol @ dismissing Bill Gates as just another privileged white guy. Guy is spending billions of his own dollars to address disease and a lack of clean water in developing countries round the globe.

Yet they wll now, I literally posted a link where african countries are now getting more into the oil business

if the U.S continues to decrease their carbon emissions, china, india and these african countries wont

and yeah, you guys are privileged whites thinking ya can tell other people what to do

[bladefd]

I just helped a friend move into a house he bought that came with relatively new panels. I encouraged him to get a Powerwall or two if his finances allow for it. They are quite expensive, but with the tax credit, it could be worth it to further cement power savings.

Power wall not necessary if your state has solar metering so you can sell excess solar energy to the local power company. You get credit for it and then you pull electricity off that credit when you use it. Not every state has solar metering though.

[bladefd]

Yet they wll now, I literally posted a link where african countries are now getting more into the oil business

if the U.S continues to decrease their carbon emissions, china, india and these african countries wont

and yeah, you guys are privileged whites thinking ya can tell other people what to do

So does that mean we should do nothing and keep up our carbon emissions?

Remember we use 25% of total energy so we have a responsibility as well. If other countries don't comply, you bring it up as part of future trade negotiations and make them accountable

[CelticBaller]

So does that mean we should do nothing and keep up our carbon emissions?

Remember we use 25% of total energy so we have a responsibility as well. If other countries don't comply, you bring it up as part of future trade negotiations and make them accountable

Except we

[bladefd]

[QUOTE=CelticBaller]Except we

[CelticBaller]

Yeah, we are doing well.

What was your point then? You said if US decreases carbon emissions, other countries won't. So what's your point relating the two?

I have been consistent in my point

You fools fall for the government using the climate change topic. All they’re doing is pushing their own political agenda(mostly control over the economy and private entities) by selling the climate change fear

One of the prominent ways to sell fear is to tell people they’re dying. Again you fools are falling for it

[ILLsmak]

Yea, I'm not insulting him. As I said in my post, "I'm not attacking you. I'm simply trying to understand where you're coming from."

Look, we're on a web forum, so all we have in terms of judging where someone stands or understanding what someone is saying regarding a topic is what they have typed out. We don't have any of the other markers of communication; tone and body language are impossible to perceive here. This is why I generally repeat what posters have said back to them, often say, "it sounds like you are saying," or in many cases, ask outright what they are trying to communicate. I also go back and read my own posts to make sure I effectively communicated what I was trying to say and to make sure there was as little room for ambiguity as possible.

Was just saying my piece. Imo you gave a pretty scathing "critique" of his posting. Didn't seem like, despite your saying, "I" am "simply trying" to understand, it doesn't seem like you are bearing any of the burden for that misunderstanding.

Writing is kind of an art. There are things like body language and tone that are perceived in words. Think of how many words you've written and read in your life. You have to know that.

Just like you can misinterpret someone's body language, you can misinterpret their writing. Doesn't mean there is no rule book or that peopld don't communicate more than their literal words are saying. Just my 2c.

I feel like there's a lot you don't yet know about yourself and what drives your behavior haha. Isn't it fun to exchange ideas and understand? Or is it just about being right? Does it usually end with someone being right or is it just one person finally leaves after pulling out their hair?

Thoughts...

-Smak

[Kblaze8855]

So basically every time a victim of a crime or a tragedy speaks out about that crime or a tragedy, and a larger issue connected to that crime or tragedy, it's simply emotional manipulation on their part. They are simply trying to manipulate other people into agreeing with them by making them feel bad. It's not that they are trying to change people's minds on the issue, appeal to their common sense, or even appeal to their conscience and empathy. Rather, as you have framed it, they are emotionally manipulating people and playing the game because that's the only way to win that fight. Emotional manipulation... that's what the Sandy Hook parents are doing right now? Trayvon Martin's parents? That's how you would frame it?

How I would frame it based on my personal beliefs and what it is are not the same. People crying to congress are not there to educate them or explain something they have never heard. The personal touch is strictly emotional manipulation even when it has a good cause.

The 9/11 guys Jon Stewart brought to congress to cry with him were not there to give anyone in congress new facts. The facts can hardly be disputed. They are numbers. People dont care about those. They are easily ignored. A guy explaining that his best friend died for trying to save people from a terrorist attack and then not getting medical coverage from his country as his lungs fell apart from the dust is there to hurt feelings and make you look bad to not vote his way. His friend is dead and the people hes talking to already have those numbers. But him standing there teary eyes with a celebrity gets attention. Its emotional by design.

Theres nothing wrong with it morally...and nothing wrong with telling the truth about what it is.

The ridiculously vast majority of scientists dealing with ecology, climate science and the like are saying the same thing about climate change. Earlier you said that scientists tend to speak about these issues in raw numbers, data, and facts. That's true... but over the last few years, they have become increasingly vocal about the effects of climate change and their interpretation of the numbers, data and facts as it relates to what we should expect regarding climate change. Scientists don't conduct studies, publish peer-reviewed reports, and lend their names and reputations to fallacies and exaggerations. I don't believe you are naive enough to think that 11,000 scientists signed on in agreement to the findings of this study simply because a PR firm told them to.

No I wouldnt put it that way. Id say its like a teachers union. You can say "30,000 teachers say...." because as a group they do. But its the people framing the message for pay who are actually saying it on their behalf. Ask yourself this...

How do you get 11,000 people to sign something? It isnt a personal endeavor. Its coordinated by a central group. Its people sending emails and getting a hold of people using organizations they are involved with. They arent taking individual input from 11,000 people. There is someone writing a press release....and a firm getting all the names they can signed on for gravitas.

And I promise you....it isnt a guy taking readings from the top of some mountain in New Hampshire writing it out and getting 11,000 people from every corner of the globe to e-sign or acknowledge they can use their name(not that anyones even gonna investigate the names anyway).

These are professional manipulators for whom its a job.....its a client.

That doesnt mean they are evil....it doesnt even mean I dont agree with their goals.

But that doesnt make it wrong to admit what it is. Its all politics. You need votes to do these things. Scientists dont whip votes. Paid lobbyists do. This is their work. You DONT get things on this scale done without them.

Blaze, let's cut through the foolishness. Do you believe scientists are lying when they say we are facing a "climate emergency?" Do you believe they are exaggerating... stretching the truth... deceiving people... all in service to the green lobby?

I think "emergency" is too subjective to say they are lying. I think someone paid to influence politics writes every real statement made on behalf of large groups...so I dont pin the wording on any particular scientist. And I dont think id say its in service to the green lobby. They are the green lobby. Not(in my opinion at least) for financial gain but because they believe something should be done. But I dont think they are above manipulation to get it done. I think if you could get a group together and get honest answers...they would say the situation is dire enough that if exaggeration gets the planet on the right track its the right thing to do.

And maybe it is. But calling it what it is? Still fine.

You seem to be critical of the green lobby while ignoring the fact that scientists are saying many of the same things the green lobby is. NASA is saying many of the same things the green lobby is... on their federally funded website and in their federally funded reports.

What(non subjective) thing that they say...do you think I dispute?

I dont dispute the information. I take issue with where the information suggests we should place our priorities. And that is not a matter that a scientist decides. Being a scientist involved in climate studies does not give you more right to a vote on climate vs cancer research or military spending.

You add your take....with an obvious bias on where the attention should go much like an oncologist would for his field or a general for his. Then the world decides how to divide the pie.

When the pie is trillions of dollars you hire someone to manage the lobbying while you do your true work. The people talking for a living arent in the field. You might bring someone from the field for emotional gravitas in a hearing or attach names to a paper none of them write or edit but they arent personally responsible for the tone of the political argument.

Thats why you dont see me say the scientists are wrong.....I take issue with the messaging.

Political messaging is manipulation by design. It just is.

I dont have to pretend not to see it when I fundamentally agree with the goal.

Being able to see and be honest about both sides being somewhat full of shit is among my.....things. Admitting your side is full of shit is hard.....but its true. Its ALWAYS true.

[MaxFly]

I feel like there's a lot you don't yet know about yourself and what drives your behavior haha. Isn't it fun to exchange ideas and understand? Or is it just about being right? Does it usually end with someone being right or is it just one person finally leaves after pulling out their hair?

Thoughts...

-Smak

Lol, I'm pretty sure I know myself quite well and know what drives my behavior. As I mentioned, I take pains to understand what other posters are trying to communicate, because if there is confusion, it serves no one to jump to a definitive conclusion as to what someone has said before they're given a chance to elaborate on what they were trying to say. If you question that, jump back a few pages and read some of the preceding posts.

I think it's also important to note that we don't live in a world where there is ambiguity and ambivalence in every debate point. There are quite literally people who think the earth is flat, who believe we didn't set foot on the moon and who believe climate change is a complete hoax. It serves no one to pretend there is legitimacy in those arguments for the sake of taking a general "well, I can kind of see what he/she is saying..." approach to every discussion.

[MaxFly]

How I would frame it based on my personal beliefs and what it is are not the same. People crying to congress are not there to educate them or explain something they have never heard. The personal touch is strictly emotional manipulation even when it has a good cause.

The 9/11 guys Jon Stewart brought to congress to cry with him were not there to give anyone in congress new facts. The facts can hardly be disputed. They are numbers. People dont care about those. They are easily ignored. A guy explaining that his best friend died for trying to save people from a terrorist attack and then not getting medical coverage from his country as his lungs fell apart from the dust is there to hurt feelings and make you look bad to not vote his way. His friend is dead and the people hes talking to already have those numbers. But him standing there teary eyes with a celebrity gets attention. Its emotional by design.

Theres nothing wrong with it morally...and nothing wrong with telling the truth about what it is.

Yeah, I think we've gone down a seriously dark rabbit hole when we frame the advocacy of survivors and those affected by tragedy as emotional manipulation. It certainly is emotional - I imagine anyone who has lost a child or is forced to deal with a chronic disease as a result of simply doing their job would find themselves in an emotional place - but framing their advocacy as emotional manipulation is beyond the pale. I think that kind of interpretation misses what actual emotional manipulation is.

[QUOTE]What is Emotional Manipulation:
Manipulation is essentially the use of unclear agendas in attempts to get another person to do what you want. Both the manipulator and the person being manipulated may be unaware that this is occurring.

Let

[RoseCity07]

Why do so many people find it hard to believe co2 emissions are ruining our climate? Scientists knew this in the 1950 when the goverment was starting to build interstate freeways. They predicted it would be a problem and it has been.

It's not a lie. It's a well understood problem. Too much co2 in our atmosphere is bad. We have to find ways to produce energy with minimize co2 production. This needs to be a consideration in all manufactuing and engineering practices going forward.