An inconvienent Truth and Global warming

[timwhit]

Newsweek article on global warming being overstated or a good thing.

Seems to reek of bias. Opinions?

 

[udaman]

[quote-sech]Is there global warming? YES
Is it bad for people? YES
Is there something that we can do to mitigate or stop it? YES
Does the source matter? NO

I'm not sure I agree 100% with you on number 3. We have identified things which may help mitigate/stop/reverse global warming but I don't think there is any conclusive proof that they will... We should certainly try, especially since many of the things identified will likely be helpful regardless of their affect on global warming (or lack thereof) but I think at this point we still need to avoid making the assumption that we have all of the answers.
I don't know if there really is any way to scientifically study the issue and come up with conclusive solutions without actually attempting them, there may be just too many factors to consider. I definitely agree, however, that denying responsibility and resigning ourselves to being powerless to change things is a terrible idea.[/quote]

I'll agree with Sol on those points (even if Sol's a Nazi soup ranter ...Seinfeld joke ). All of the things that could and should be done, must of course be done on a global level, Kyoto accord is meaningless in that regard if the two largest 3rd world economies, India & China (who will shortly surpass the USA and Euro communities in the next few decades of this century...blink of an eye in global time periods, as the largest polluters/consumers of non-renewable resources) are not part of the solution. If you ask me, the pollutants are far more health detrimental than pure global warming effects, not really even 'hidden' 'silent' killers, we know that they are bad, yet we do little to curtail that.

If livestock causes 18% of methane emissions in the USA, then just stop eating so much damned meat. Poor Chinese have subsisted on small amounts if meat in their diet for thousands of years. Soyburgers, anyone ?

On another note, SD will find this link (biased too, but still as a counter point to the highly charged emotionalism of Gore and others in the zealot debate about 'global warming') 'interesting'

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

The Ice age is coming! The
Scientists will tell you, so you must believe them or you're an idiot...Tannin? Just like it's done before, every 10k years or so. Sheets of ice will cover the global landscape, assuming we still exist as a species in the next centuries or 10k years or so; our ancestors (what it the opposite of ancestors...?) will be able to walk from Siberia to N.America...w00t.

Wow, can Clocker just be a little more cynical about the 'land of the rising sun' (eh, Coug?). China with it's economic miracle boom (USA, per recent Time magazine article, hit all time record trade deficit with China, importing the lions share of all Chinese made goods to the tune of 200 Billion dollars worth...say Clocker, must be those damned USA citizens who need to take a good look at their own responsibility for buying all those cheap goods, and) allowing for China's 7 most polluted cities in the world, causing well known to the Chinese gov. a significant cost to the GDP in rising national health costs.

The Chinese are aware of the problems they face even if you don't read up on them and their plans, they are just like our own anemic USA politicians---communist/democratic...it's a bureaucratic nightmare, eh? (the link is gone, but I had a thread link to a PBS Nova special on the changing world, economic tiger of China & India over on SR a few years ago), they are planning/researching via General Motors Chinese division (you know them Clock?) to be the 1st country to leap frog to fuel cell powered automobiles. yeah Clock, you, me and everyone else who buys Chinese & Indian goods are in part responsible, same for Tannin (we can also blame corporate USA greed, like Wal-mart, the world's largest corporation that built it's empire via cheaply manufactured/higher profit margin goods made in China)! So go whine and slap your own 'disgusting' selves, eh Coug?, upside the head for your own hypocrisy .

As always, it's easy to play the blame game and start pointing fingers, difficult to get worldwide changes (hell our own gov. is stagnant on most internal issues, like our own medical healthcare crisis).

I like jtr's fantasy dream of hundreds of thousands (it would require that many to effectively reduce the percentage of personal vehicle ownership, not to mention massive screening security costs you don't have with personal vehicles, muggers-*Bernard Getz* jtr?, terrorist plots, jtr?) 'failsafe' 400mph maglev trains crossing the continents, running on minature fusion engines. Only need to rob the world's entire bank accts. to the tune of penta dollars to fund R&D, and then manufacturer such a project. Then we'll reduce 1/2 of emissions, and live in utopia...not.

Population control, simply has to be addressed on a worldwide scale before you'll even get any 'solutions'. All the other measures are just fingers in the dike, won't do much until we get a control on population growth, and irresponsible, unexpected childbirth (*cough*).

 

[Picard]

This all reminds of Chicken little.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

 

[mubs]

You won't have time to laugh when it does fall on your head.

 

[jtr1962]

I like jtr's fantasy dream of hundreds of thousands (it would require that many to effectively reduce the percentage of personal vehicle ownership, not to mention massive screening security costs you don't have with personal vehicles, muggers-*Bernard Getz* jtr?, terrorist plots, jtr?) 'failsafe' 400mph maglev trains crossing the continents, running on minature fusion engines. Only need to rob the world's entire bank accts. to the tune of penta dollars to fund R&D, and then manufacturer such a project. Then we'll reduce 1/2 of emissions, and live in utopia...not.

Just to correct a few misconceptions:

I'm not advocating ONE solution to all our problems. In fact, one reason we're in this mess to begin with was the reliance on the auto to fill nearly every transportation role. Autos can serve many niche roles, no doubt about it. They're good to run errands, shuttle to train stations, basically any fairly short trips along varying routes, possibly with intermediate stops. They're really not that great on long trips. They're uncomfortable, slow, noisy, basically just ill-suited for any trip lasting more than 30 minutes.

For intermediate distances, such as commuting to work, a far better solution is rail (either commuter rail or subway). The car can serve as a shuttle to the train if walking isn't convenient, provided parking facilities are available. Intercity distances can be served by high-speed rail integrated with local transit to provide transport to the final destination. I honestly don't see much role at all for the kind of maglev you mentioned for distance travel. Maglev running in open air still bumps up against the same energy constraints which limit speed of conventional trains. 300 or so mph is about the economic limit for maglev because of energy use and noise. This makes it not much faster than conventional high-speed rail, which will eventually run at up to 250 mph. One role maglev may excel in is commuter service because of it's quick acceleration. The new Shanghai maglev is an example of this.

Where I do see use for maglev is in evacuated tubes running at up to a few thousand mph, spanning continents and oceans. However, no need for hundreds of thousands of these. Trunk lines spaced on a gird of perhaps 300 miles will suffice, along with one or two lines crossing each major ocean. No point in the US would be more than 150 miles from a maglev station. High-speed and/or conventional rail could feed the maglev stations. A hypothetical trip from a small town might start out as a 20 or 30 mile drive to the park-and-ride at the nearest high-speed rail station. The train ride to the nearest maglev trunk line might take an hour or so. From there maybe the person would board a maglev going to Europe. It might stop at New York first, taking perhaps 45 minutes to get from the midwest to NYC, and then another 90 minutes to cross the Atlantic. Probably the whole thing will get you door to door in five hours, small-town midwest USA to Europe. It would probably take two or three times as long nowadays between airport security plus traffic getting to the airport. And no, you don't need ultra-tight security on one of these things since nobody can commandeer one to fly in into a building. Planes are inherently dangerous so they need the ultra-tight security. Maglevs carry no fuel, run on a fixed guideway, get their power from the guideway (not miniature fusion engines). If there's trouble, just cut the power in the control room and the thing comes to halt.

Probably the best word to describe all this is an integrated transportion system where each mode is used in the role most suited to it, not shoehorned into every possible role as has been the case with autos. Is the purpose of such a plan to cut global warming? Absolutely not. It's merely to improve over the poorly functioning network which exists today. Besides making travel faster/more convenient, you would have clean air, no need to import fossil fuels, and reclaimed land in cities from airports/highways. If global warming turns out to be for real, then the reduction in greenhouse gases will be just icing on the cake. In not, it would have still been worth building. Cost? I'd hazard a guess that the subsidies would be the same order of magnitude that we're presently spending on auto/air travel, not much more, perhaps less. Not utopia by a long shot, but much, much better than what we have today, which in most parts of the US is basically a choice between auto and, um auto.

 

[Stereodude]

You won't have time to laugh when it does fall on your head.

We'll be waiting...

 

[mubs]

Kubler-Ross' stages of grief are applicable here (slightly edited by me). Some of you are in the first stage, looks like.

* Denial (this isn't happening!)
* Anger (why is this happening?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

 

[Howell]

This all reminds of Chicken little.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

It is the end of the Chicken Little story that is concerning.

 

[Howell]

jtr, It would be more accurate to view the auto as the lowest common denominator. Autos are flexible and generally resilient. They are also wasteful and expensive. There is a place for the auto but there are more sophisticated solutions for general purpose use.

 

[Howell]

Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

 

[Mercutio]

From my regular visits to Fark.com, I can tell you that most of the crap on WorldnetDaily comes from people who think Fox News is too liberal; it's on about the same level with Newsmax.com or FreeRepublic.com in terms of its shrill and biased hard right viewpoints.

In other words, nothing on that site is worth more than that proverbial spit.

 

[Stereodude]

From my regular visits to Fark.com, I can tell you that most of the crap on WorldnetDaily comes from people who think Fox News is too liberal; it's on about the same level with Newsmax.com or FreeRepublic.com in terms of its shrill and biased hard right viewpoints.

In other words, nothing on that site is worth more than that proverbial spit.

So you can ignore his links, and he'll ignore all yours with the same justification, but mirrored. I'm sure you'll meet in the middle sooner or later.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't ever expect to have any level of agreement with you or Howell on most topics. I felt it was important for others who might read that article to be aware of the linked source's rather heavy-handed biases.

 

[ddrueding]

Perhaps we could first come to an agreement about what (if any) relatively 'neutral' sources there are out there, then use them as a source? Sticking to more major outlets might be a good start; as soon as I saw the url (worldnetdaily? never heard of them), I didn't bother to go further.

 

[Mercutio]

NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz), the Christian Science Monitor and probably the Financial Times of London.

Most news organizations in the US are far too compromised with the concept of info-tainment to be reliable sources for news, unless the only things you care about are the latest thing to crawl out of Paris Hilton's crotch and the hidden dangers of Microwave Popcorn. That is even setting aside the immense corporate interests of the major media outlets (Knight-Ridder, the Tribune Company, Viacom, Westinghouse etc) and overt political interests of others (News Corp).

 

[Howell]

Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

 

[Mercutio]

I think anything which shows up on WorldNetDaily can safely be discounted in any argument where facts might need to play a part. WND is at best an opinion site which masquerades as news in service of a right wing worldview.
Same for Fox News. In either case, the media oonsumer should seriously discount it as a source.

 

[ddrueding]

Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

I just don't have that kind of time. Each story from an untrustworthy source would need to be verified by other sources, and those would need to be verified.

Blogging and "news" websites have become such a haven for fud-incest and astroturfing that I give them practically no credibility. At least if the BBC or CBS release a bogus story, there is enough attention to call them out on it (eg. Fox news).

 

[Stereodude]

I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

Don't worry you're not alone... However, some people apparently aren't able to do so.

 

[Handruin]

At what point do you begin to trust any of the sources? Has anyone here personally confirmed any of the information they've provided over the years, and done so on a regular basis to deem them trustworthy?

I think ddrueding made a good point about agreeing on neutral sources but how can anyone definitively say which sources are neutral (or even correct)? What makes "NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz)" so neutral when we can't even confirm first hand the information is correct?

 

[ddrueding]

Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

Don't worry you're not alone... However, some people apparently aren't able to do so.

I have another minute or so, so I'll bite.

How?

Do you already have first-hand knowledge of the event?
Did you originally hear it from a "known good" source?
Does it pass a "smell test" based on other information?

If you don't know that the source you are reading is trustworthy, what good information can you get from it?

 

[Handruin]

I guess we thought the same thing.

 

[Howell]

It took me 5 minutes to find the original source and another 10 to read and digest the executive summary. That is the original, <u>peer reviewed</u> report soon to published in The Journal of Geophysical Research. <b>Peer reviewed.</b> You can't expect to get more reliable scientific information in a field you are not an expert in.

There is a big difference between reporting and editorializing. If you know what you are reading you know what to expect.

 

[Howell]

I just don't have that kind of time. Each story from an untrustworthy source would need to be verified by other sources, and those would need to be verified.

Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.

 

[Howell]

I think anything which shows up on WorldNetDaily can safely be discounted in any argument where facts might need to play a part. WND is at best an opinion site which masquerades as news in service of a right wing worldview.
Same for Fox News. In either case, the media oonsumer should seriously discount it as a source.

You are certainly free to think as you want. I think really care about that particular website one way or the other but I'm not going to immediately discount it as a source of news or op-ed just because its scary.

 

[ddrueding]

Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.

There is a difference between being told how to think and being given reliable information. Were we to talk issues, I doubt some of our opinions would vary as much as you think; I am a small-government fiscal conservative. I just think you are sticking your chin out a bit too far, perhaps looking for a fight?

And I agree, peer-reviewed and published papers are the best there are. After it and the rebuttals come through, I will be more trusting of the story.

 

[Stereodude]

I have another minute or so, so I'll bite.

How?

Do you already have first-hand knowledge of the event?
Did you originally hear it from a "known good" source?
Does it pass a "smell test" based on other information?

If you don't know that the source you are reading is trustworthy, what good information can you get from it?

Please... Don't tell me you're that stupid... You do this each and every day in lots of other areas. How do you determine the trustworthiness of anything you read online? Why is this any harder than anything else you read? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse?

 

[ddrueding]

Please... Don't tell me you're that stupid... You do this each and every day in lots of other areas. How do you determine the trustworthiness of anything you read online? Why is this any harder than anything else you read? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse?

Abusive and evasive...brilliant (or not )

One of the easiest ways to determine the trustworthiness of a source is to look at their motives. Another good way is to have a long track record with the source. The third would be to have extensive knowledge of the material.

In politics, everyone has a hidden agenda. Some (like myself) even declare a political agenda, but it isn't entirely what I believe, it is said to further my goals.

So, with all things political, there must be a significant amount of skepticism. Second tier web-only news sources don't have a long enough track record or enough oversight to be trustworthy. Particularly on a topic where I am not an expert.

Now, if you could demonstrate some willingness to debate by answering the original question, we could continue.

 

[Stereodude]

Now, if you could demonstrate some willingness to debate by answering the original question, we could continue.

Your argument assumes some sort of false dichotomy. Since I don't accept the premise of the questions I sure am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of your questions.

I will say however that you can ask your same 3-4 questions of everything I read online whether it's a video card review, or a story about all the hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. How come you can make those calls for other things?

 

[ddrueding]

Your argument assumes some sort of false dichotomy. Since I don't accept the premise of the questions I sure am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of your questions.

The options I provided were simply the ones that came to mind. Please feel free to explain your own reasoning outside of that framework.

I will say however that you can ask your same 3-4 questions of everything I read online whether it's a video card review, or a story about all the hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. How come you can make those calls for other things?

Very, very true. Which is why I only read articles from the most popular sites, and (importantly) I'm sure to read the comments as well. Slashdot seems to be the most successful of these; within hours of a story making the front page, many informed responses taking different positions and citing sources can be found in the comments. The amount of traffic keeps a more balanced perspective.

Further, with highly politicized subjects, I am very unlikely to really trust any single news source. Instead I follow the story through and get a feeling for the range of general consensus. 'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide' clearly falls outside of that range. When it is published, and run through the news machine, we will see what kind of response it gets.

 

[Mercutio]

What makes "NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz)" so neutral when we can't even confirm first hand the information is correct?

That kind of touches on something fundamental about the nature of journalism, but one of the first things I consider is what outside entities could have an influence on reporting and how pervasive that interest might be. Most news reporting in the US is done by media conglomerates with ties (through advertising) to other multinational corporations. This will, by necessity affect what news is covered and how. This unfortunately makes a lot of mainstream sources untrustworthy on at least some issues.

The second thing I'm very wary of is journalists who are in any way vocal about their own opinions in treatment of news stories while they are acting as journalists. To some extent, this can't be avoided (say, in investigative pieces or coverage of human tragedy), but if I have cause to worry about a reporter's professional objectivity, that person has ceased to be a journalist. This is something that comes up *all the freaking time* with bloggers and Fox News employees, and greatly devalues the services they supposedly provide.

Beyond that, I don't like the idea of reading "news" that exists solely to rebut or cast aspersions upon accepted mainstream coverage. There are a whole legion of right-wing/fundamentalist christian echo chamber "news" organizations which serve both to confirm a certain type of groupthink and also to create doubt as to the trustworthiness of more mainstream news sources (there are some leftist sources as well, certainly). Jeff Gannon, homosexual prostitute and member of the White House Press Corps, supposedly works for one of these organizations; WorldNetDaily is another such source. Reading news from a source like WND is like getting health news about smoking from the Tobacco Industry and anyone with the ability to reason should immediately discount it as a source of reliable information.

There's a lot of interesting information on this topic at FAIR.org.

 

[Mercutio]

Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.

Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.

Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society. I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?

I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.

 

[Stereodude]

Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.

Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society. I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?

I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.

Yes because the gov't does things so well. Look at how well the run medicare, welfare, social security, securing our borders, the whole Katrina situation, Amtrak, the postal service, etc, etc, etc. Clearly we need to put the same bunch of idiots in charge of more stuff.

 

[ddrueding]

Yay, I get to argue with someone else (I re-arranged some of the subjects for my response, if you feel this altered your points, I apologize)

First off, where we agree:

Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.

Agreed! Corporations having the rights of individuals makes no sense.

I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.

Also agreed! A large group of is incredibly powerful! This is not a good thing!

Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society.

Totally disagree! I know somewhere it says that the government is supposed to act in the public good, but in reality it is worse than those corporations you speak of. The amount of power entrusted to the federal government practically insures corruption, and many of those same protections that make the corporations so foul are just as bad or worse here.

I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?

Every church and every non-profit are simply more corporations, with their own agendas that do not always (if ever) line up with the "public good"

What is the "public good", anyway? Is it the same for you and for me? Do we really want the same things? Are the same things "good" for us all? Hell no. Is it in my best interest to pay for the rebuilding of homes below sea level or in a place with the word 'tornado' in the name? Hell no. It is in my best interest for all those people to not exist. That is why I shouldn't be in power.

To believe that anyone out there is going to act outside their own best interest is setting yourself up for failure. Small groups of people (congress, supreme court, exec. branch, multinational corps, etc) need less power, not more.

 

[Mercutio]

Medicade works. The Interstate Highway system works. Our Military works. Rural Electrification would never have happened if some jerkoff had said "We'll let the market handle it!"

Our borders are more than secure enough. I'm not afraid of evil Mexicans "competing" for jobs Americans don't want to do, and frankly I don't think there's any way to stop teh ebul turrurusts from getting in without restricting the liberty of millions of other people.

FEMA works just fine when it's run by disaster management professionals instead of Republican Commissars.

 

[Stereodude]

Medicade works. The Interstate Highway system works. Our Military works. Rural Electrification would never have happened if some jerkoff had said "We'll let the market handle it!"

A few of them may work, but they don't work well, or efficiently. The solution should be less gov't, not more gov't. The gov't gets involved and things go downhill in a hurry. Just look at how well the public education system in the US works.

 

[Mercutio]

A few of them may work, but they don't work well, or efficiently. The solution should be less gov't, not more gov't.

That doesn't work. What we end up with is a situation where a non-governmental body ends up regulating some large and important part of our lives, or else that non-governmental body chooses not to because it's not profitable. I'd rather place my faith in a governmental body that I theoretically have some control over as a citizen in a democratic country than in what a corporate board of directors feels like doing on a given day.

Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. The current mortgage lending crisis should be proof of that.

The gov't gets involved and things go downhill in a hurry. Just look at how well the public education system in the US works.

It works better than you think it does, obviously. Particularly when you realize that a lot of the material now taught at the high school level used to be reserved for college level instruction.

 

[Stereodude]

Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. The current mortgage lending crisis should be proof of that.

The current mortgage crisis is the result of the gov't involvement and interference in the mortgage industry, not a result of their being hands off.

It works better than you think it does, obviously. Particularly when you realize that a lot of the material now taught at the high school level used to be reserved for college level instruction.

The test score sure don't show it. The US ranks dead last in industrialized nations despite being number 1 on per student spending.

 

[Mercutio]

The current mortgage crisis is the result of the gov't involvement and interference in the mortgage industry, not a result of their being hands off.

I rather suspect it wouldn't've happened with proper regulation and government oversight.

The test score sure don't show it. The US ranks dead last in industrialized nations despite being number 1 on per student spending.

This country is rather more heterogeneous than the average European or Asian nation, too.

 

[Stereodude]

I rather suspect it wouldn't've happened with proper regulation and government oversight.

See, the problem is that the gov't is interfering with the mortgage industry by offering gov't backed loans which artificially suppress the interest rates that people who are credit risks would otherwise pay. As a result the non gov't backed lenders have to compete with the gov't and provide lower interest rates than they otherwise would...

See the gov't already failed the industry. I think they need to get out of it, and you think they need to get further into it.