Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,892
- Points
- 1,040
You forgot to embed your testimonial and link between [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm].
"Life After the Oil Crash"
- Thread starter rcr
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 11,902
- Points
- 1,160
I am with Brad on this one, Infanteer.
Their facts may be right but their spin leaves me cold.
Case in point - Global Warming - agreed - occurring
- agreed - serious
- disagree - man-made
- agree - we can do something about it
- disagree - we can prevent it
- agree - we can react to the consequences like our ancestors had to
Global Warming happens once every 500 million years or so when the planet comes out of a 2 million year deep freeze. We are only coming out of the most recent one now - and have not yet reached the longterm average temperature, we have to add another 7 degrees or so before that happens. And then, if the pattern repeats itself the temperature may rise by another 12-15C without extinquishing life as we know it.
May be a rough transition, New York may have to move like Ur did in the past, the Dutch may want to build their dikes a bit higher but you got to stay flexible.
During the last 12,000 years the Sahara has been green, the Amazon has been a desert and all mountains including those at the equator were blocked by glaciers and sea levels were 120m lower than they are now. There may even have been a couple of "nuclear winter" inducing comet strikes along the way. Ice and sediment cores seem to indicate that as a possibility. As somebody famously said Sh*t happens.
UCSUSA has an agenda. You were right when you call them progressives.
Cheers.
Their facts may be right but their spin leaves me cold.
Case in point - Global Warming - agreed - occurring
- agreed - serious
- disagree - man-made
- agree - we can do something about it
- disagree - we can prevent it
- agree - we can react to the consequences like our ancestors had to
Global Warming happens once every 500 million years or so when the planet comes out of a 2 million year deep freeze. We are only coming out of the most recent one now - and have not yet reached the longterm average temperature, we have to add another 7 degrees or so before that happens. And then, if the pattern repeats itself the temperature may rise by another 12-15C without extinquishing life as we know it.
May be a rough transition, New York may have to move like Ur did in the past, the Dutch may want to build their dikes a bit higher but you got to stay flexible.
During the last 12,000 years the Sahara has been green, the Amazon has been a desert and all mountains including those at the equator were blocked by glaciers and sea levels were 120m lower than they are now. There may even have been a couple of "nuclear winter" inducing comet strikes along the way. Ice and sediment cores seem to indicate that as a possibility. As somebody famously said Sh*t happens.
UCSUSA has an agenda. You were right when you call them progressives.
Cheers.
- Reaction score
- 12,764
- Points
- 1,260
I'll agree with that. And for some reason their agenda seems to be quite Anti-Republican; which doesn't really fit on my plate as an environmental advocacy group. I will admit that I haven't scratched the surface of alot of their issues; I looked into their Ballistic Missile Defence and alternative fuel research in detail.
However, I still tend to agree with Robert Kaplan that with the combination of population growth and both resource depletion and environmental degradation, the environment will become a significant issue of national security.
Next time, I'll put a disclaimer on my endorsements, because you guys are sharp. ;D
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,892
- Points
- 1,040
I am disinclined to pay attention to any organization which is prepared to subvert scientific objectivity in the service of political expediency.
As John McCarthy has written: "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say."
As John McCarthy has written: "Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say."
- Reaction score
- 12,764
- Points
- 1,260
Okay...okay...
[sarcasm]I always found the Union of Concerned Scientists to be a good resource on environmental issues and solutions.
www.ucsusa.org[/sarcasm]
;D
Like I said, I've found their material on Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile Defence to be pretty good. It was part of the course from a pretty left-wing professor, but I still found myself agreeing with some of it.
That's what I get for not following my own advice and listening to that asshole!
Now the question remains: Is there an organization that looks at environmental issues and provides objective scientific recommendations rather than subjective political ones, or is the issue of environmentalism too wrapped up with politics and business to hope for that?
[sarcasm]I always found the Union of Concerned Scientists to be a good resource on environmental issues and solutions.
www.ucsusa.org[/sarcasm]
;D
Like I said, I've found their material on Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile Defence to be pretty good. It was part of the course from a pretty left-wing professor, but I still found myself agreeing with some of it.
That's what I get for not following my own advice and listening to that asshole!
Now the question remains: Is there an organization that looks at environmental issues and provides objective scientific recommendations rather than subjective political ones, or is the issue of environmentalism too wrapped up with politics and business to hope for that?
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,892
- Points
- 1,040
A politically-neutral organization dedicated to environmental issues? If there is one, it isn't well-publicized. This is just a wild guess on my part: the "truth" is rarely sensational or newsworthy, so the people objectively studying the natural sciences go quietly about their business with no motivation that they are part of some great crusade; they do not seek publicity, nor are the results of their research (eg. that the world is not in imminent danger of one natural disaster or another of biblical proportions) newsworthy. People who have taken up a "cause", on the other hand, are enthusiastically vocal.
It strikes me that the environmental catastrophiles have adopted a quasi-religion. They tolerate and patronize the unbelievers, but become nearly unhinged by rage when confronted by someone who has left the flock or adopted a changed viewpoint. Consider the reaction to people such as Patrick Moore and Bjorn Lomborg.
It strikes me that the environmental catastrophiles have adopted a quasi-religion. They tolerate and patronize the unbelievers, but become nearly unhinged by rage when confronted by someone who has left the flock or adopted a changed viewpoint. Consider the reaction to people such as Patrick Moore and Bjorn Lomborg.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Another problem comes from the fact that as a science, climatology isn't as well understood as some of the other sciences (Newtonian mechanics for instance). Two different scientists, working objectively, can come up with different results from the same data. If you throw the scientists political ideas into the equation, it can become a real crap shoot, and a layman can have an exceptionally difficult time trying to understand what is actually going on.
