Future Environmental Disasters

[hobbes]

People don't kill people, icebergs kill people.

[j2k4]

QUOTE (j2k4)
I see indications these independents are funded by agenda-driven interests.

This is probably the most important issue here. We know that the studies produced by the oil companies have an obvious agenda. $$$'s

And, as I said, the independents operate under the constraints of their benefactors, who themselves have an agenda.

These studies are not underwritten by groups who suffer all-encompassing altruism.

What agendas do you suspect these independents of having? Specifically, what do they stand to gain from arguing that global warming is a man made reality? Couldnt they make an easier and larger profit by working for the oil companies instead?

By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".

QUOTE (j2k4)
The only thing I feel up to adding at the moment is my belief that those who work in the industries have a vested interest, yes, but more inclined toward honesty in most cases-after all-if they were trying to fudge figures or lie, outright, there are plenty of "private", or "impartial" studies out there aimed directly at proving them wrong, yes?



I'm not sure if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly here.

Your saying the industry funded scientists are more likely to be honest because there are many independent studies trying to prove them wrong?

What I'm saying is that industry studies are often rejected out-of-hand, as they are most often presented in defense of a perceived wrong, and are inarguably also presented in defense of industry.

"Evil Industry" is often not allowed to defend itself except in a court of law, as the court of public opinion is the exclusive province of their opponents.

Couldnt you also argue that in the opposite direction?

Certainly. I am merely expressing an opinion based on my perceptions.

That there are well funded industry driven scientists ready to jump on any lies or fudged figures as evidence of the independents wrongdoings and the non-existance of man-made global warming?

Yes, but I find any attempt at rebuttal is usually given short-shrift by the media, and rejected on it's face or ignored by the "agenda-driven interest".


From a laymans point of view I'm always sceptical of industry driven studies. The tobacco firms being one of the more obvious examples.

I grant your point as to the tobacco companies; they knew from the start of the dangers of their product, and moved to counter the fact by insinuating themselves into the monetary fabric of the U.S. by meekly allowing the government to tax tobacco products to the point tobacco "addiction" achieved a whole new meaning.

And when I look at a factory belching out thick black smoke, it seems hard to imagine that it is having little or no effect or, as that study you provided claims, is actually helping the environment by encouraging tree growth.

"Thick black smoke" is becoming rarer by the day, at least in the U.S. The legitimate environmental concerns are having an effect, and I'm sure any actual benefit to the environment such as indicated by the study I noted is likely to be accidental, rather than intentional.

I suppose it really comes back to 'how independent are the independents' and why are they not supporting the industry view. Could you describe these agendas-driven interests the independents are funded by?

No, I won't take the time, because I haven't got enough. Suffice it to say they exist in great number.

Okay, just one: Greenpeace.

They shuffle money around and fund all sorts of "activities", and they brag about doing it.

And no, I won't google it for you.

BTW-If we are going to continue this thread in the way others have gone, can we agree to forego the "mass" copy and paste tactic?

It is incredibly tiresome to respond to, and to expect others to read them is in itself oppressive.

I'm fucked enough for time as it is.

[leftism]

Originally posted by j2k4
By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".

This seems extremely far fetched to me and could be considered a classic conspiracy theory

If you genuinely believe that then you have to come to one of these conclusions.

1. The independent scientists being funded by these groups are unaware of this anti-(insert your list here) agenda. (which will be referred to from this point as either an "ultra radical ideology" or "the conspiracy" because thats a big list to type ) yet they are producing evidence that supports it.

2. The independent scientists are aware of this ultra radical ideology that motivates the groups that fund their work and they fully support it.

If its conclusion 1, I dont think scientists, of all people, are that stupid to be used as pawns in this conspiracy and I dont understand how they could be unaware of it, yet examine evidence independently and end up wrongly supporting it. So logically it must be conclusion 2.

If it is conclusion 2, I think its verging on a pure conspiracy theory that all the independent scientists have this ultra radical political agenda. Its not like they're crackpots on the fringes of their profession. Many of these people are well established and a reasonable amount probably own shares in corporations i.e. they both support and gain from the capitalist system.

Even if this agenda is what you say it is, and I dont think it is, what do these groups have to gain from pursuing it? They spend an awful lot of money on these campaigns so it seems logical to assume that these gains are, at the very least, equally as large.

Isn't it far more realistic to assume that these groups genuinely care about the environment?

That doesnt automatically make them correct in their assertions mind you, but I think that explaining their movement in terms of this ultra radical ideology you describe is leaning towards science fiction and is, if I may say this without causing offence, an easy and opportunistic way to discredit their findings.

btw, I'm more than happy to look at any evidence you can show me to illustrate that these groups are really motivated by this radical ideology and not a genuine concern for the environment. You have alluded to such details but not provided them.

I sincerely hope you do provide such evidence because, imho, this is a fundamental question that needs to be addressed before we can 'progress' in this debate

PS

I hope quoting one sentence doesnt constitute a mass copy n paste tactic

edit: numerous grammatical errors, my bad!

[j2k4]

I don't think there is progress to be made, nor a proper debate to be had, as we are much too far separated in our beliefs and though processes to even agree on format, lefty.

In other words, I do not believe you are open to being convinced you might be wrong, no matter your words to the contrary.

If I offer proof, and you deny it's validity, asking for more, better, real proof, studies, etc., then there is no help for it.

Your policy of deny, deny, deny is unbeatable, and I won't try.

Personally, I prefer to rely on my own reasonings and common sense, while you cry for "proof", in the form of a googled, cut and paste mish-mash of whatever you can dig up, instead of relying on your own brainpower.

Mine tells me that no matter how I try, I cannot imagine what motivates scientists with Luddite philosophies; oxymorons engaged in oxymoronic behaviors-the use of high-tech to destroy high-tech.

Orwell or Rand would have a ball writing about them.

I suppose it will end up as one of the great mysteries of our time.

[leftism]

j2k4,

What is the point in discussing a topic if you're not willing to provide any evidence or even any logic to back up your assertions? I think a quote from Biggles put this across quite nicely in another thread.

Originally posted by Biggles
The purpose of reasoned debate is to highlight where there is a breakdown of logical reasoning. Simply saying someone is arguing in ignorance proves nothing. You must pose questions which the person you arguing with either counters or concedes a point. Through slow and reasoned debate one or the other will demonstrate the worth of their argument

Everyone could say "well have a great logical argument and plenty of evidence but you wouldnt believe it so Im not going to tell you", but it would make for a rather farcical debating forum would it not?

Your idea of common sense may be that organisations such as Greenpeace are "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great", but I'd be very surprised if it made sense to anyone else.

Requesting an explanation of this assertion, which most people would find quite absurd, is hardly unreasonable. It's not like I'm asking you to explain something obvious that the majority of people know via common sense.

[alpha]

j2k4-
You would rather believe that a person is "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-'everything that made America great'." than believe that he/she is altruistic?
What a sad little world you live in.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by alpha@13 January 2004 - 07:44
j2k4-
You would rather believe that a person is "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-'everything that made America great'." than believe that he/she is altruistic?
What a sad little world you live in.

I do not, in fact, believe that.

It is a wonder, however, that otherwise sane people lose all semblance of reason when discussing the U.S.

It's the same premise that, in the event of, say, a natural disaster somewhere in the world (Iran?) would prompt some form of aid from the U.S., which is then met by a singularly counter-intuitive refusal of same (Iran?).

We here seem to be a special case.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by leftism+13 January 2004 - 06:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 13 January 2004 - 06:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>j2k4,

What is the point in discussing a topic if you&#39;re not willing to provide any evidence or even any logic to back up your assertions? I think a quote from Biggles put this across quite nicely in another thread.

<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles
The purpose of reasoned debate is to highlight where there is a breakdown of logical reasoning. Simply saying someone is arguing in ignorance proves nothing. You must pose questions which the person you arguing with either counters or concedes a point. Through slow and reasoned debate one or the other will demonstrate the worth of their argument

Everyone could say "well have a great logical argument and plenty of evidence but you wouldnt believe it so Im not going to tell you", but it would make for a rather farcical debating forum would it not?

Your idea of common sense may be that organisations such as Greenpeace are "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great", but I&#39;d be very surprised if it made sense to anyone else.

Requesting an explanation of this assertion, which most people would find quite absurd, is hardly unreasonable. It&#39;s not like I&#39;m asking you to explain something obvious that the majority of people know via common sense.[/b][/quote]
Let me try to make this very simple for you, lefty:

If I say it&#39;s a reason, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.

If I say it is logical, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.

Your natural deficit as to both reason and logic dictates you adopt this as a tactic, then scream for a debate, the rules of which are entirely yours to define.

I suggest, therefore, that you give up any pretense of terming what you attempt to do here as debate.

That&#39;s all there is to it.

[alpha]

Originally posted by j2k4+13 January 2004 - 17:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 January 2004 - 17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-alpha@13 January 2004 - 07:44
j2k4-
You would rather believe that a person is "anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-&#39;everything that made America great&#39;." than believe that he/she is altruistic?
What a sad little world you live in.

I do not, in fact, believe that.

It is a wonder, however, that otherwise sane people lose all semblance of reason when discussing the U.S.

[/b][/quote]
This, if Im not mistaken, isnt a discussion about the U.S.
Or have I missed something

[vidcc]

you know as i read some of these posts i ask myself this....does it actually matter one little bit if global warming is caused by mans polution ?
The fact is that we polute the world far more than we need to and the main reason NOT to cut back is purely financial.
Shouldn&#39;t we go with the worst case scenario "just in case"?.
We have the tech. to produce cars that emit little polution (i believe saab did a good job on this). we have the tech. to filter poluting emmissions from industrial sources etc. etc. etc.
what we also have is a first world greed where profit comes before the enviroment and even before man. GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.
Denial of the possiblilty of mans polution harming the ozone because there is "no solid link" is like playing russian roulette.