All Things Environment

[seacoaster]

Perfect; a little story to tell your grandchildren:

"Sorry 72, I could not get past the first sentence to already know everything that follows is all UN sheepdip. I didn't have to read it to know it has zero credibility. Hey at least you tried. IMO the UN is right up there with DJT in the credibility department. I will stick to common sense that still tells me that science can't predict what will happen in 50 or 100 years. Understanding the arrogance deeply imbedded in so many scientists I can understand why they would believe they think they have the power. In a strange way so many of these scientists share a common trait with DJT... ain't no way in hell you folks could ever admit the possibility that you could ever be wrong.."
"

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders ... 264142.php I love the last sentence... " the experts always agree, and they're always right" I am reminded of a skit from the Smothers Brothers from long ago. Dicky is talking about the fact that we live in America where your free to say what you want. Tommy Smothers sarcastically adds... and you better say what you suppose to say. evil1

[jhu72]

C&S is free to think what he likes. Doesn't keep him from being wrong. Won't keep him from changing his story when lying to grand kids. Human nature.

[jhu72]

Will become and every day story.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Will become and every day story.

Did the article mentioned where all the wealthy people with their multi million dollar homes in that area are moving to? Fatty might be interested.

[cradleandshoot]

C&S is free to think what he likes. Doesn't keep him from being wrong. Won't keep him from changing his story when lying to grand kids. Human nature.

We are talking about a serious conflict of interest here 72. The UN scientists you linked to work for an organization that has tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars resting in the balance. You casually don't say diddly squat about that troublesome little issue. I agree with you in one respect... 72 is also right to his opinion. That also means that you are not right as well. Your PhD does not give you god like powers of infallibility. That means in simple terms like everybody else.. you are perfectly capable of being wrong. I understand that is a really tough pill for a guy like you to swallow. I suggest an extra tall glass of water.

[cradleandshoot]

C&S is free to think what he likes. Doesn't keep him from being wrong. Won't keep him from changing his story when lying to grand kids. Human nature.

What I will tell my grandkids is to read and understand as much knowledge on whatever subject is at issue. I will let them come to their own informed conclusions based on what makes the most sense to them. One thing this grandfather will never do is force them to believe anything else other than what their own informed conclusions tell them. That does seem to be something that the chicken little brigade teaches to their own kids. Fear and paranoia seems to be the lesson of the day. Taught in very loud doses I might add.

[jhu72]

C&S is free to think what he likes. Doesn't keep him from being wrong. Won't keep him from changing his story when lying to grand kids. Human nature.

We are talking about a serious conflict of interest here 72. The UN scientists you linked to work for an organization that has tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars resting in the balance. You casually don't say diddly squat about that troublesome little issue. I agree with you in one respect... 72 is also right to his opinion. That also means that you are not right as well. Your PhD does not give you god like powers of infallibility. That means in simple terms like everybody else.. you are perfectly capable of being wrong. I understand that is a really tough pill for a guy like you to swallow. I suggest an extra tall glass of water.

I disagree with your characterization of the "UN scientists" and their motivations. In fact your calling them "UN scientists" indicates to me how little you understand about the process and the organizing of the scientific effort. You are commenting on technical subject matter where you have little known (and freely admitted by yourself) expertise; about a common consensus discovery and building process that you similarly have no experience; about people who are trained to suppress certain undesirable "human traits" in an effort to find the truth. You are relying totally on your experience to judge a situation which is totally foreign to any of your life experiences.


There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.


I am sorry if this seems condescending, it really is not meant to be. I actually admire your reliance on your own experience to analyze situations. I do this myself. It does however lead to a certain stiff neckedness in the individual (trust me, I know). This self reliance however can sometimes lead an individual pretty far off the mark. This is your current position.

[CU77]

We are talking about a serious conflict of interest here 72. The UN scientists you linked to work for an organization that has tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars resting in the balance.

Wut? Where are these hundreds of billions of dollars that the UN has?

The UN is dependent on contribution of cash, goods and services from its member states to finance and help its activities in the form of voluntary and assessed contributions. Voluntary contributions are left to the discretion of each member state and are used for relief and development work. Assessed payments depending on each country's paying capacity. This ranges from a maximum of 22% to a minimum of 0.001% of the UN's budget and is used for peacekeeping missions and core UN activities.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top ... tions.html

[cradleandshoot]

We are talking about a serious conflict of interest here 72. The UN scientists you linked to work for an organization that has tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars resting in the balance.

Wut? Where are these hundreds of billions of dollars that the UN has?

The UN is dependent on contribution of cash, goods and services from its member states to finance and help its activities in the form of voluntary and assessed contributions. Voluntary contributions are left to the discretion of each member state and are used for relief and development work. Assessed payments depending on each country's paying capacity. This ranges from a maximum of 22% to a minimum of 0.001% of the UN's budget and is used for peacekeeping missions and core UN activities.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top ... tions.html

Wut? Where are these hundreds of billions of dollars that the UN has? You must not be paying attention very well to what the UN wants to do.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.livetradingnews.com/paris-a ... DkV-fZFzIU The money is not there yet thank goodness, but the UN sure as hell wants it badly. That is sorta kinda where the conflict of interest comes in. UN scientists giving the UN folks the justification via their scientific conclusions to extort billions from the wealthy countries to give to poorer countries. IMO a reputable scientist would understand the conflict and step away from what the UN is doing. On the other hand it could just be that they are a group of scientists in it for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. That would be very cynical of me to think that way isn't it. These scientists are way to far beyond reproach to ever be in it for the money...

[CU77]

Your best evidence for this claim is an unsupported quote from a right-wing nutjob published in the newsletter of an investment company in Singapore?

Okey-dokey. We can only hope that your grandkids have better discernment of how and where to get useful info.

[holmes435]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

[RedFromMI]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

They may not answer, but I will give it a stab. In the case of some of these older debates, the companies tried hard to discredit the research, provide alternatives, etc. Claire Patterson, the man who correctly measured the age of the Earth/solar system (4.5 billion years) using lead fought for years to remove tetra-ethyl lead from gasoline and lead from paint, etc. He was vilified, had research money removed and all sorts of dirty tricks pulled on him, but ultimately was successful. The cigarette industry proved to have big enough pockets that they got eventually caught up with by lawyers and had no choice but to settle with the states. But the science side of the petroleum industry is amazingly separated from normal science. They had plenty of information confirming plate techtonics, but because everything they find is held onto so tight for competitive reasons it really never made it into mainstream geology, and that helped to lead to a much slower adaption of the (correct) science - first proposed in the early 1920s and not fully accepted as good science until the 1960s/1970s.

Because of that separation I think the motivation to influence the work is more minimal, and maybe the companies have some credible fear of mass lawsuits ala the tobacco industry. That is not universal (think Koch), but the alternate attempts at "science" and "skepticism" re climate science seems to be more politically driven (Heritage Institute, etc).

[Typical Lax Dad]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

My wife just watched a program on thalidomide....

[cradleandshoot]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

Only one response from me... BFS when you folks get all pissy and whiny about anyone that questions your religion you all act just like you do now. Go and stew in your environmental paranoia. IMO you are all full of sheepdip. I will repeat what I believe... anybody that believes in predictions of what will happen 100 years from now is a freaking idiot. I only wish some of you had enough common sense to ask yourselves... does this make sense to me. The one thing all of us should agree on... a hundred years from now we will all be dead and gone.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

My wife just watched a program on thalidomide....

"Call the Midwife"?
Terrific show, 7 seasons.

[MDlaxfan76]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

Only one response from me... BFS when you folks get all pissy and whiny about anyone that questions your religion you all act just like you do now. Go and stew in your environmental paranoia. IMO you are all full of sheepdip. I will repeat what I believe... anybody that believes in predictions of what will happen 100 years from now is a freaking idiot. I only wish some of you had enough common sense to ask yourselves... does this make sense to me. The one thing all of us should agree on... a hundred years from now we will all be dead and gone.

cradle, but our grandchildren will he here, hopefully.

I happen to have some Christian religious beliefs and think that God (whatever that means) has called mankind to be good stewards of His gifts, to care for the Earth and our fellow inhabitants. Not just for our immediate use but for eternity.

You can reach that calling through any number of religious, moral, or ethical perspectives.

But in my tradition God gave us our brains and consciences, both, to be used for the greater good.

So, we utilize or brains, collectively and iteratively, to advance scientific understanding of our world and how it works. We respect that learning but are constantly challenging it to advance further. And we use our consciences to make judgments about role and responsibilities to use that learning as best we can to safeguard these gifts.

The 'know nothings' have always existed, and always will, but hopefully we will not again see a Dark Age.
.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

My wife just watched a program on thalidomide....

"Call the Midwife"?
Terrific show, 7 seasons.

It was a documentary. I will get the name.

[cradleandshoot]

I've repeated this every few pages, but C&S and others never seem to respond.

The money in climate change, much like it was in the cigarette debate, the leaded gasoline debate, thalidomide, and dozens of other similar fights to make the world a better place, is much more concentrated with the status quo and with large corporations. You've got 6 of the top 10 biggest companies in the world involved in oil and gas and energy. Their r&d budgets dwarf any money going into proving anthropomorphic climate change. If you had proof that climate change was questionable, you'd be making 10-100x more than you could in academics or for .gov research money anywhere else.

There are conflicts of interest throughout the scientific community, but none more so than for promoting climate change denial.

Only one response from me... BFS when you folks get all pissy and whiny about anyone that questions your religion you all act just like you do now. Go and stew in your environmental paranoia. IMO you are all full of sheepdip. I will repeat what I believe... anybody that believes in predictions of what will happen 100 years from now is a freaking idiot. I only wish some of you had enough common sense to ask yourselves... does this make sense to me. The one thing all of us should agree on... a hundred years from now we will all be dead and gone.

cradle, but our grandchildren will he here, hopefully.

I happen to have some Christian religious beliefs and think that God (whatever that means) has called mankind to be good stewards of His gifts, to care for the Earth and our fellow inhabitants. Not just for our immediate use but for eternity.

You can reach that calling through any number of religious, moral, or ethical perspectives.

But in my tradition God gave us our brains and consciences, both, to be used for the greater good.

So, we utilize or brains, collectively and iteratively, to advance scientific understanding of our world and how it works. We respect that learning but are constantly challenging it to advance further. And we use our consciences to make judgments about role and responsibilities to use that learning as best we can to safeguard these gifts.

The 'know nothings' have always existed, and always will, but hopefully we will not again see a Dark Age.
.

I am a firm believer in being a good steward of our planet. I practice it myself to the best of my ability. The GW/CC movement is not about being good stewards of the plane. It is about a group of radical extremist environmentalists bastardizing a good cause to advance an agenda that has nothing to do with saving the planet. What do you think George Carlin meant when he said the planet doesn't need to be saved? The planet will be fine, it's the people claiming to want to save it that are all f***ed up.

Everybody on this forum knows where I stand. We can't save the planet. That is where good people get confused. If a major volcanic eruption happens in Yellowstone next month, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it. If a major underground volcanic eruption causes a horrific cataclysmic tsunami that kills millions and destroys huge areas of land, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it. If 5 years from now one of those mini bus size little buggers come screaming into the planet at 50,000 thousand MPH, there is not a damn thing we can do to stop it. There is a difference between being good stewards and fooling ourselves that we have the power to change what the planet will do. I am not against renewable energy and more fuel efficient and electric vehicles and reducing co2 and wanting cleaner air and cleaner water. IMO it is not and never will be a magic bullet to change whatever course our planet is on. That is where so many of you get pissed off at me. You all believe that by implementing a certain number of programs that humans can stop what is happening and reverse the cycle already in the works.

In case you have not noticed many of the up and coming third world nations are not following the script. China, India and a large number of countries are trying to jump start their industrial capacity to compete in a modern world. Coal power is the cheapest means for them to do that. They don't really give a damn about CC/GW. They have large populations of very poor starving people that they are trying to make a better life for. Renewable energy is a dog gone pipe dream for them. The ability to provide cheap and reliable energy you can run factories on and keep the light bulbs burning is something most of these countries have never know ever. This a world wide situation that many of us just don't understand. These countries are trying to get to where the USA was over a hundred years ago. It becomes very complicated. Do we demand of these countries that to save the planet they need to stay in the stone ages? IMO most of these up and coming brand new developing nations do not care. What they want is to provide a better life for the people that live there. Even at the sake of the planet, if that really even is an issue.