|
Post by henry on Jun 2, 2007 16:39:30 GMT -5
By selling hybrid cars and a myriad of other "eco-friendly" products.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 2, 2007 18:04:40 GMT -5
I see what you mean with the 'greenhouse effect,' but as was mentioned it's still open ended.
The other issue I want to bring up is about pollution as a whole. Whether it causes global warming or not, there is still a layer of rather unpleasant smog that blankets LA. This is not healthy by any means, and air quality control certainly won't hurt it.
And no conspiracy theories please, those have far less merrit than the issues you've been arguing against.
|
|
|
Post by Paveltc on Jun 2, 2007 18:18:58 GMT -5
If you supress conspiracy theories outright for being conspiracy theories, you will eventually be the blind victim of a conspiracy, as you surely have been in the past. Dissent is a healthy part of government and society. What do you mean by it being open-ended? (Um, fuck. This is henry posting from pavel's house)
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jun 2, 2007 18:34:46 GMT -5
Conspiracy theories are fine if they're well backed up with evidence, which is actually something this thread has been lacking in general.
Open-ended was reffering to the split beliefs whether or not humans contributed, which was alluded to earlier. Untill we see some propper evidence to disprove it, it is open-ended.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 2, 2007 23:57:35 GMT -5
First of all, while there have been a lot of anti-global warming "scientists" and theories cropping up, I think Ive read multiple times that most of the respected scientists (within the climatology branch) believe in global warming. As you say henry, it hasnt been proved that global warming has a human factor, but the data indicates a large probability. To say then that there is a 10% chance that we do not cause Global Warming and then to not act based on that chance is ridiculous. I also think that global warming has other factors than greenhouse gases. Thats my view on the matter anyway.
If you think Global Warming research might be financially supported and biased by environmentalists and eco-friendly product manufactuers, you might be right, there probably is some bias involved. But remember that Global Warming became an issue before Hybrid Cars really started being produced, so that global warming created the market for Eco products, eco products did not create global warming.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 3, 2007 22:11:34 GMT -5
Nobody is objecting to the directly observable fact that there is global warming. The fact that we all agree that there is global warming in no way supports the notion that humans are causing it. The data indicates a reasonable probability, and the risks associated with not jumping to conclusions and acting immediately are high: this is why everybody seems to think it is fact that we are the cause. Also, it is tempting to believe that we are the cause, as this implies that we can actually effect a change. Yeah, I agree. I am doing my part by not owning a car and not driving. What're you doing? (i'm just fucking around ) Yeah. Notice, however, that global warming only gained mass media attention (from large corporations) AFTER hybrid cars became profitable to large corporations. (in the US, that is. I'm told that the Japanese started long ago) I think this is an interesting coincidence, to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 4, 2007 0:25:42 GMT -5
I think it is equally tempting to believe we are not the cause since that excuses us from things that would be terribly inconvenient. If we are not the cause, then we won't have to feel guilty for using up 1/4 of the world's energy usage or collecting big houses and lots of material goods or using AC or heaters less etc.
I still think there is a greater financial incentive to not believe in global warming. Hybrid cars are one item, but the net gain in the economy from it would be small compared to continuing to grow consumer culture and energy usage. Furthermore, not buying as much gas would be a good incentive already even without global warming. I think hybrids got more popular when gas prices rose, but I don't have a citation.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 4, 2007 1:00:15 GMT -5
I would rather believe that I could save the world and feel guilty than be helpless and doomed to horrible things but feel pure.
There is a great potential for financial gain through energy consumption for some people who are invested in certain corporations. For other people (Al Gore and japanese hybrid manufacturers), there is money in encouraging fear. There are people who will profit off of global warming, and the existence of people who will not does not require their non-existence.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 4, 2007 1:03:42 GMT -5
But there are more people who profit from not doing anything. Thus more lobbyists, and more influence. The fact that there are a small amount of those who profit from Global warming means little. You could say they are profiting from environmentalism in general which started a long time before global warming was mainstream.
Also your personal opinion is a good one to have but I'm not sure how much it represents the mainstream. I think most people would rather duck out of responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 4, 2007 1:06:52 GMT -5
Why does it matter that there are people on both sides? I'm talking about the people on the pro global warming fear side. They exist regardless of the other side. It's not like everyone in the worl d seeks money from the source that is biggest.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 4, 2007 1:10:31 GMT -5
I never denied their existence, but the government is influenced by those who have more money. It simply makes sense to pay more attention to your largest industries and your wealthy contributers and such.
Also it doens't matter that not everyone seeks money from the biggest source. But enough of them do to make a difference. The presense of people who don't doesn't mean that no one does.
I don't deny that support of global warming does have influence over the government. Let's be clear on that point. But there is more money to be made attacking than supporting it. And so more businesses would be anti-global warming fear than pro.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Jun 4, 2007 15:34:04 GMT -5
My gripes with global warming are a bit less significant, but more personal. Thanks to the government working to lower emissions, the Albuterol inhaler was taken off the market. The FDA considered the propellant used in the medicine to be too harmful, and therefore took the most widely used and most effective asthma inhaler away from the people who use it.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jun 4, 2007 15:48:56 GMT -5
I think we have become confused, Jeff. Or at least I have. For the sake of clarity, I will restate my position and reasoning.
I am saying this:
There are people who stand to make significant gains from global warming. Some are politicians who can gain (or have gained) public support by supporting efforts to decrease it. They have a motive to encourage fear and to encourage the idea that they have a solution.
Also included in this group are various large corporations who stand to profit by selling expensive low-emission/eco-friendly products. After these products started to become widely available, there was a massive increase in media attention to the dangers of global warming and in media support for the notion that buying certain products and passing certain laws will decrease these dangers.
Like most of the material produced by mass media, much of this employs propagandistic devices.
The corporations that own mass media are massive, as are many corporations that produce the aforementioned products.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to consider that the media, these corporations, and politicians might work together behind the scenes.
..................................
That said, I believe that global warming is occurring/has occurred. I believe that, most likely, human activity has played a significant role. I believe that whether it has is made somewhat irrelevant by the massive risk involved.
I still do not trust the media, politicians, and people who want to sell me expensive products that are actually nowhere near as eco-friendly as they claim to be (did you know that eco-friendly compact fluorescent bulbs contain mercury?). They are all profiting heavily from the fear that they perpetuate. When people put logical arguments largely aside and try to appeal to emotion, it is a red flag to me.
I do trust the used bicycle salesman, however.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on Jun 4, 2007 18:18:09 GMT -5
Thank you henry. Youve got most of it right. Many producers of "eco-friendly" products have hardly even tried to limit the pollution they create to make the products themselves. There are politicians, large corporations and media trying to capitalize on Green, and who should not be trusted. But, I think thats the case with anything popular, or big. There will always be people who care more about profiting and capitalizing on issues than the issues themselves. But you cant let selfish profiteers undermine the issue, or else they win.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on Jun 4, 2007 22:17:33 GMT -5
Oh, in that case, I agree as well. I think sometimes eco friendly products are over hyped. The government is making a big deal about florescent lights. Although they do save a lot of energy (and I would recommend them) they are not nearly the highest energy user in houses or industry. Heating and cooling play a larger role. Insulation would help energy usage a lot especially during winter or summer months. Light is just the most visible usage.
|
|