The environment thread

[Gregory Pratt]

Nothing wrong with it at all. Just trying to spread a little info.

 

PS: So?

 

It'd be probably better suited for a PM. I'd hate to hijack a thread about the environment. But I guess Branch Rickey is somewhat related to the environment...at least in name!

[BigSqwert]

Fighting Global Warming The Right Way

 

JOSEPH LIEBERMAN

October 22, 2007

 

Last week, former Vice President Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless work to call attention to one of the most serious threats we face: global warming.

 

Vice President Gore has sounded the alarm, now we must heed his call.

 

For more than a decade, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to convince other senators that we must act to reduce U.S. pollution enough to avert catastrophic global warming, without harming America's economy or imposing hardship on our citizens. Each year, we have had increasing bipartisan support.

 

This week, John Warner, R-Va., and I introduced America's Climate Security Act - a bill that will meet those goals - along with a bipartisan group of co-sponsors.

 

With all the irrefutable evidence that climate change is real, dangerous and proceeding faster than many scientists predicted, this is the year for Congress to move this critical legislation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the worldwide consortium of scientists that shared the Nobel with Vice President Gore - concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities including burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming.

 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may be threatened as a species. The U.S. Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge. And President Bush called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

 

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk catastrophic damage. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.

 

Our bill works in several ways to reverse the destructive impact of global warming.

 

The greenhouse-gas emissions cap in the climate security act covers electric power, transportation and manufacturing sources that account for 75 percent of the these emissions in the United States.

 

In addition to tightening emissions cap standards annually on electric power, transportation and manufacturing sources, the climate security act increases energy efficiency requirements for appliances and buildings in order to curb commercial and residential emissions that are not covered by the cap.

 

Together, the gradually tightening cap and the supplemental provisions in the act are projected to reduce total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by as much as 19 percent below the 2005 level in 2020 and by as much as 63 percent below the 2005 level in 2050.

 

In July 2007, the Environmental Protection Agency found that if the U.S. achieves emissions reductions at that level, then - making conservative assumptions about the pace of emissions reductions in the rest of the world - the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will remain below 500 parts per million at the end of this century. According to the scientists of the IPCC, keeping the concentration below 500 ppm will avoid a high risk of global warming that would cause severe effects.

 

Using market forces, the climate security act controls compliance costs by allowing companies to trade, save and borrow emission allowances, and by allowing them to generate credits when they invest in uncapped businesses, farms and other emitters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or capture and store greenhouse gases. By creating a market for pollution reductions, the bill would not only lower costs, but spur technological innovation that would boost our economy.

 

From the very start of the program, the legislation holds 55 percent of the emission allowances back from emitters and instead uses those allowances to accelerate the deployment of climate-friendly technologies, to help low-income energy consumers and for other important public policies. Within 25 years of the start of the program, 100 percent of the allowances are held back from emitters and used for those public policies.

 

Congress must move forward. Democrats will not enact a strong climate law without the help and support of their Republican colleagues. Working in a bipartisan fashion, Congress will enact a law that curbs global warming even as it strengthens the economy.

 

Joseph Lieberman is an independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

[YASNY]

It'd be probably better suited for a PM. I'd hate to hijack a thread about the environment. But I guess Branch Rickey is somewhat related to the environment...at least in name!

 

Hijack a thread? Whatever. Forget I said anything.

[kapkomet]

Hijack a thread? Whatever. Forget I said anything.

You're wasting your time, YAS. I'll just leave it at that, and with that said, you'll know exactly what I mean.

 

[Gregory Pratt]

[southsider2k5]

 

Never mind. I'll go start a few tire fires and break a few mercury thermometers over Lake Michigan this weekend. What difference does it make?

 

Perhaps you can also link abortion and immigration to this debate while you're at it.

 

That's OK, I didn't think you would get the similarities of the strawman arguements. The statistical arguements I can handle, the message arguements bother me, but I can understand them. The "what if he is right arguements" don't work for religion or Iraq, why would should they work for Al Gore? Big picture, it is all the same fear-mongering.

[BigSqwert]

That's OK, I didn't think you would get the similarities of the strawman arguements. The statistical arguements I can handle, the message arguements bother me, but I can understand them. The "what if he is right arguements" don't work for religion or Iraq, why would should they work for Al Gore? Big picture, it is all the same fear-mongering.

Because there is a ton of scientific evidence to back his message. And once again, what exactly are the negatives for instituting the change that he and many others are seeking?

[Gregory Pratt]

Because there is a ton of scientific evidence to back his message. And once again, what exactly are the negatives for instituting the change that he and many others are seeking?

 

You're wasting your time Sqwert. That's all I have to say and I think you'll know what I mean.

[BigSqwert]

You're wasting your time Sqwert. That's all I have to say and I think you'll know what I mean.

You're right. I'll tend to my tire fire and leave this topic alone.

[southsider2k5]

Because there is a ton of scientific evidence to back his message. And once again, what exactly are the negatives for instituting the change that he and many others are seeking?

 

What are the negatives about believing in God and living a Christian life? You could make the world such a better place. If you don't you could go to hell and burn for eternity. Is it worth the risk?

 

Go ahead argue the facts, that is fine. Don't give me the "what is the downside?" crap, unless you actually want to practice it consistantly.

[BigSqwert]

What are the negatives about believing in God and living a Christian life? You could make the world such a better place. If you don't you could go to hell and burn for eternity. Is it worth the risk?

 

Go ahead argue the facts, that is fine. Don't give me the "what is the downside?" crap, unless you actually want to practice it consistantly.

How do I not "practice it consistently"? I lead a very moral life and treat people equally. I don't need to go to church to be a good person. And once again, the global warming debate is fueled by science. Why you're bringing religion out of left field is beyond me.

[YASNY]

You're wasting your time, YAS. I'll just leave it at that, and with that said, you'll know exactly what I mean.

 

I'm just letting it go.

[BigSqwert]

BTW - Zero% of this can be proven by science:

 

You could make the world such a better place. If you don't you could go to hell and burn for eternity. Is it worth the risk?

Edited October 22, 2007 by BigSqwert

[southsider2k5]

BTW - Zero% of this can be proven by science:

 

Depends on who you ask. There are people who swear they have plenty of evidence.

 

Anyways, you are totally missing the point. You are smarter than making arguments like this. That is my point. If that type of arguement doesn't work for one side, it shouldn't work for anyone.

[kapkomet]

You're wasting your time Sqwert. That's all I have to say and I think you'll know what I mean.

You can't stand it, can you?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

I believe the Gore / Bush analogy is as erroneous as the Bush / Hitler.

 

If by tactics you mean thousands of scientists and hundreds and hundreds of studies, I do not believe it is the same. Gore is relying heavily on mainstream knowledge from the majority of scientists. Bush relied on dismissing the inspectors and a smaller knowledge base.

 

 

If by taking the "mainstream" opinion and spinning it for his own purposes, then yeah I guess it's the same. Look, i'm not saying Gore made up figures and quoted fake research. But he did take those real pieces of scientific research and plaster them alongside pictures of poor black kids on the roofs of their homes after Katrina with a big monotone voice essentially saying "look what we've done. if we don't shape up, we'll all be victims just like these people in two weeks." It's not only utter-nonsense but its also fear mongering. Its just like how BushCo has tried to paint every Muslim as a terrorist.

 

And look at worst case scenarios.

 

If Gore is wrong, we'll have cleaned up the planet, reduced pollution, etc.

If Bush is/was wrong, thousands of people will die and we will not find WMD and Iraq might night have been the threat we thought.

 

As Southsider points out, worst case scenarios are meaningless in this debate.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

 

Never mind. I'll go start a few tire fires and break a few mercury thermometers over Lake Michigan this weekend. What difference does it make?

 

 

And who is saying that? I fully admit we could help the environment because God knows we've done some bad things to it. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the debate about the human involvement in global warming is over. I say no. But in like two years Gore et al have effectively brain-washed the country into believing we are at fault for it and unless we act the Earth will explode and we'll all die.

[Texsox]

As Southsider points out, worst case scenarios are meaningless in this debate.

 

Well if southsider said it, it must be good!

[southsider2k5]

Well if southsider said it, it must be good!

 

That's what I have been telling my wife for YEARS!

[Gregory Pratt]

You can't stand it, can you?

 

I never would've guessed, signing up for SoxTalk, that this was an "old conservatives circle jerk" forum.

 

(I can take the heat. But you, of course, know how I feel about your debate tactics and those of most others in this forum, which can be frustrating. I understand fully why people leave the Filibuster.)

[kapkomet]

I never would've guessed, signing up for SoxTalk, that this was an "old conservatives circle jerk" forum.

 

(I can take the heat. But you, of course, know how I feel about your debate tactics and those of most others in this forum, which can be frustrating. I understand fully why people leave the Filibuster.)

And you, the saintly President of SoxTalk, the oh, so mighty one, is above all things. I'm trying to decide on the green, but meh, I think you'll get the point. You have proclaimed many times that you are of high intelligence.

 

Good grief. You spend more time trying to defend what we're all (on any political spectrum, not just conservatives, so you must enjoy them or something to even bring it up) laughing about then "debating".

 

[Gregory Pratt]

I am a Saint.

 

Beyond that I have no further comment.

[NorthSideSox72]

Beyond that I have no further comment.

 

Not once have you ever had no further comment.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, I want to address two particular arguments I am seeing about the whole climate change / global warming thing (hereafter called CCGW) - one from each side...

 

--I see posters who feel that CCGW is a given doing exactly what jenksismyb**** pointing out - lumping together those who are in denial of climate change and its consequences in their entirety, and those who acknowledge he reality and possible consequences but are not decided yet on how much (if any) human effect is there. I personally feel there is a ton of solid scientific evidence (not just leaps of faith) indicating such - but I have plenty of respect for those choosing to be undecided at this time. I have similar feelings about other larger issues beyond my understanding, including those surrounding my faith.

 

--I also see a lot of people who are skeptical of CCGW using as one of their base claims the argument that scientists are more likely to find in favor of CCGW because it will get them more (or continuing) grant money. This argument, to me, makes no sense. Getting a grant is about, more than anything, adding something NEW to the discussion. If you propose a doctoral thesis based on a theory that has already been tested numerous times, then you'd better either have some new/unique methodology, or go in with a different causation, or expect a different outcome... SOMETHING different than anyone else. I therefore think that this argument is actually quite the opposite - if a scientist with a real scientific background proposed a sound study saying "I think there is something else at work here", that would automatically give them an advantage in many forums for getting support. Yes, I am sure there are isntances where a professor or review board is SO biased that they won't hear the other side - but this would be true in both cases.

 

The fact that there is such overwhelming conclusions in the community, using any thousands of different methodologies and stats, that show there is at least some human effect, are enough to make me feel highly confident that there is some truth there.

 

[kapkomet]

By the way, I want to address two particular arguments I am seeing about the whole climate change / global warming thing (hereafter called CCGW) - one from each side...

 

--I see posters who feel that CCGW is a given doing exactly what jenksismyb**** pointing out - lumping together those who are in denial of climate change and its consequences in their entirety, and those who acknowledge he reality and possible consequences but are not decided yet on how much (if any) human effect is there. I personally feel there is a ton of solid scientific evidence (not just leaps of faith) indicating such - but I have plenty of respect for those choosing to be undecided at this time. I have similar feelings about other larger issues beyond my understanding, including those surrounding my faith.

 

--I also see a lot of people who are skeptical of CCGW using as one of their base claims the argument that scientists are more likely to find in favor of CCGW because it will get them more (or continuing) grant money. This argument, to me, makes no sense. Getting a grant is about, more than anything, adding something NEW to the discussion. If you propose a doctoral thesis based on a theory that has already been tested numerous times, then you'd better either have some new/unique methodology, or go in with a different causation, or expect a different outcome... SOMETHING different than anyone else. I therefore think that this argument is actually quite the opposite - if a scientist with a real scientific background proposed a sound study saying "I think there is something else at work here", that would automatically give them an advantage in many forums for getting support. Yes, I am sure there are isntances where a professor or review board is SO biased that they won't hear the other side - but this would be true in both cases.

 

The fact that there is such overwhelming conclusions in the community, using any thousands of different methodologies and stats, that show there is at least some human effect, are enough to make me feel highly confident that there is some truth there.

My official stance is centered around point 1. I know there's issues concerning global warming. I also think we should be good patrons of our planet. I'm all for that. But I don't think that we start shutting down our economy, etc. because we don't KNOW what all the effects are and I personally think that we are pretty damn arrogant to think that we can "destroy" the planet like the Goracle and their ilk contend.

 

As far as the "grant money" issue, I don't think that's entirely true, yet I think the Goracle and people like him feed a frenzy, much like BushCo create a frenzy on the "war on terror" - or at least a Democratic view of it. It's sort of the same thing.