bluewave Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Thanks for presenting the video. The story it contains speaks for itself and pretty much answers your question in the negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 No problem. I thought the documentary did a great job of illustrating how things got to the way they are today. It's just a shame that conservative, free market ideologues felt the need to attack the science and scientists rather than to become part of the solution in helping to develop a mutually compatible strategic approach. Is that because they really do believe AGW to be a leftist political ploy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I thought Hansen opposed it because he wanted something tougher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csnavywx Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 I thought Hansen opposed it because he wanted something tougher? He didn't like it because, in his words, it was "greenwash". He favors a fee and dividend type system where 100% of the collected fee from CO2 emitters/producers is passed back as a dividend to the people. This would create an incentive to use less CO2 intensive products and services and offset price increases due to a rising fee. Sounds like a good idea, but it would need a serious discussion to make sure it would actually work as good in the real world as it sounds on paper. Past history suggests that people will find ways to game the system somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csnavywx Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 It's just a shame that conservative, free market ideologues felt the need to attack the science and scientists rather than to become part of the solution in helping to develop a mutually compatible strategic approach. Is that because they really do believe AGW to be a leftist political ploy? Agree. We could really use some great free market minds in helping to develop solutions. Unfortunately, most companies (and people) are driven nowadays by short-term thinking and short-term profits. Serious long term thinking and planning is a thing of the past. It's all about pumping the next quarter's numbers so their bonuses are better. This is, of course, at their own cost later down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I would say that no - it is not possible. Unfortunately money talks and as long as there is large money to be made based on an oil economy I don't see how scientists can combat that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottmartin49 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 First premise- Man made release of CO2 is the determinent factor in climate change. Second- Climate change is seen as requiring address. Third- As a negative or as a positive? First these three. We can't even create agreement on the first two, much less move on to the third. Oddly enough, the rest would be pretty easy- even within the proviso that all hominid advancement since the Bronze age has been driven by the gathering and transformation of planetary elements and that we wish it to continue. It's a pretty big train to "stop", but it could be transformed environmentally along different lines. I tend to see it all going along that path where (people say- never tried it myself!) a frog will allow itself to cook to death in a pot of warming water if it occurs slowly enough, but it'll jump out if it happens too quickly. From that perspective, maybe it's better to just let 'er rip! Just my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 First premise- Man made release of CO2 is the determinent factor in climate change. Second- Climate change is seen as requiring address. Third- As a negative or as a positive? First these three. We can't even create agreement on the first two, much less move on to the third. Oddly enough, the rest would be pretty easy- even within the proviso that all hominid advancement since the Bronze age has been driven by the gathering and transformation of planetary elements and that we wish it to continue. It's a pretty big train to "stop", but it could be transformed environmentally along different lines. I tend to see it all going along that path where (people say- never tried it myself!) a frog will allow itself to cook to death in a pot of warming water if it occurs slowly enough, but it'll jump out if it happens too quickly. From that perspective, maybe it's better to just let 'er rip! Just my opinion Stick around. You'll find plenty of disagreement concerning the first two premises. Science has reached a consensus regarding all the premises. The disagreement comes from elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottmartin49 Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Stick around. You'll find plenty of disagreement concerning the first two premises. Science has reached a consensus regarding all the premises. The disagreement comes from elsewhere. You make the argument for me Rusty! (I'm not "anti", btw...) When has a scientific consensus changed anything? It's the adoption that matters, and that requires buy-in from the administrators of 'un-reason', serving their own interests by appealing to the 'un-knowing' and 'un-believing'. If the mass of people listened to scientists, I'd have driven my jet-car to the dispensery for my storm allotment of hydroponically grown irradiated kelp wafers yesterday. Science is the easy part..... ...An' ever'body else in the world Makin' ever'thing from sewing machines to fertilizer Atomic bedrooms!... Plastic! Everything's gonna be made out of plastic! W. Guthrie, 1941 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.