flytyer57 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Look, I'm not defending big oil, I'm just trying to tell you this is a rat race and really I don't care which rat comes in first or second. Why? Because my opinion alone is not enough to change anything, and because I can't personally change it, I'm not going to get wrapped up in it. And here is where the problem exists. If more and more people started voicing their opinions on this matter, maybe something more would actually get done about it. When one side of the political ailse keeps telling us that the American people don't want change then it will never happen. If that one side would start listening to more and more people who are concerned about renewable energy sources etc., you can bet they will change their way of thinking, if just to get re-elected. There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
eric1978 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 A simple, "we could employ more people in America from switching energy plus aid the environment" is a heck of a lot more appealing That position has been out there for a long time and has been a battle cry from countless progressives, but the energy companies spend so much money on lobbyists and political payoffs, and so thoroughly and effectively propagandize our society, that any prospective or even proposed legislation hardly has a snowball's chance in hell. We've got to get big business out of government, or progress will continue to move at a snail's pace.
troutfiend1985 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 And here is where the problem exists. If more and more people started voicing their opinions on this matter, maybe something more would actually get done about it. When one side of the political ailse keeps telling us that the American people don't want change then it will never happen. If that one side would start listening to more and more people who are concerned about renewable energy sources etc., you can bet they will change their way of thinking, if just to get re-elected. Fly tyer, this may e a problem that the political system won't be willing to solve, so then you go out and find another route to get there. There is a lot of money in this area, so that means a lot of money can be gained. So the problem may not be people like me, it may be that the investment is not worth the risk, or another business area is more appealing as of right now. Asking the government to do this for the citizens won't happen, its going to need to be businesses going to the people. You are placing too much value in the political process on this one, and not enough value in the economy. And Eric I agree that lobbyists are the scum of the earth(and this is coming from a future lawyer ) But in this instance, there has to be a business move, a company willing to take on this market. And there are going to have to be investors, once you get these established, then the option of renewable energy has promise. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/22/tech/main6321633.shtml Check out this link. I think the big thing is one side has its feet stuck in the mud and won't budge, and the other side wants an all out change and is ready to fly to the moon. The real middle is that this change, if its going to happen, needs to start off in the small towns were there isn't alot of competition and where the money needed to invest will be less. So more moves like little towns in Oregon taking advantage of geothermal energy makes sense, and then you start building up. “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people” J. Brandeis
gotmuddy Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 man madeClimate change is the lump on our planet, and scientists are the 99 doctors telling us to remove it. Big business and bought-and-sold politicians are the one doctor telling you it'll be too expensive to worry about it. fixed. Denying climate change happens is ludicrous. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
gotmuddy Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 and so thoroughly and effectively propagandize our society do oil companies pay for the green channel?? There is WWWWAAAAYYYY more propaganda in the green movement than the other side. However there is very likely WWWAAAYYYY more lobbyists for oil rather than against oil. That is the way our system is(and I hate it). everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
eric1978 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Denying climate change is man-made is ludicrous. Fixed. There is WWWWAAAAYYYY more propaganda in the green movement than the other side. Science is not propaganda. Science is objectively drawing logical conclusions from data.
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 A lot of the third-party stuff is pretty interesting Wayne, and it's certainly possible the current period of climate change has nothing to do with our use of fossil fuels. But I guess that'd be an easier pill for me to swallow from a different messenger. I googled Marc Morano, and it seems as though he's worked for a lot of folks who get a lot of money from the oil and gas industry- I can see why he would have a vested interest in debunking global warming science. When the source is that biased to begin with, it makes me awfully suspicious... We can hardly use Marc Morano,, unless we want to keep deflecting the debate to use commentators as the source of facts. Marc Morano is no more a scientist than Keith Olberman is a journalist. I was interested in the quotes by real scientist, refuted to be 650 overall. Many want to point out the oil and gas industry, which is weak when a little thought is put into it, so using that argument where does the leading university in the UN's opinion come out? Am I the only one that wonders why a fairly new university would outshine thousands of established research colleges? Could it be that when entering an established community and needing to break into the life giving grant market that they had to come up with something off the charts? Is that not just as reasonable an argument as that the oil and gas industry wants to continue with petroleum based energy? Flytier57, if you think I'm ignorant for not falling in step to one drummer, maybe you should share where you get your information. I haven't seen any links from you, only "me too" so far. I need a lot more real proof, something that is probably impossible, to convince me that my children and especially my grandchildren should fall back into harder times because of a theory that is full of holes. While there is no doubt we are entering a warmer phase in our climate, to argue that it is man made in spite of numerous periods in the past occurring without mans help is shaky at best. No doubt we should move toward sustainable, cleaner energy, but I don't think we needed to do it at the expense of our way of life. This country has lost more jobs over environmental concerns then can ever be recouped in many generations. We need balance between life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and improving the environment. I'm always suspicious when someone with no dog in the hunt tells me and my family to sacrifice. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
eric1978 Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 While there is no doubt we are entering a warmer phase in our climate, to argue that it is man made in spite of numerous periods in the past occurring without mans help is shaky at best. Never in natural history has the Earth's climate changed so dramatically and so quickly as it has in the last 100 years, save for events like the asteroid impact that caused the K/T Extinction or massive volcanic eruptions. And the proof that the climate change is man-made is the direct and identical correlation shown on graph to the increase of CO2 in the same time frame. That's ALL the evidence I need, since there is NO indication of ANY other factor being the cause. No doubt we should move toward sustainable, cleaner energy, but I don't think we needed to do it at the expense of our way of life. Our way of life is exactly WHY we need to do it NOW. What way of life will future generations have if the planet is no longer hospitable to human needs? Making the switch to sustainable, clean energy doesn't necessarily mean a negative economic impact. If we led the world in a revolution in technology, we could once again be number one...and as far as I can tell, that's probably the ONLY way we'll ever be top-of-the-heap again. Continuing to fork over trillions of dollars a year for oil to people who board US flights with explosives in their underwear is NOT helping us.
Tim Smith Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Am I the only one that wonders why a fairly new university would outshine thousands of established research colleges? Could it be that when entering an established community and needing to break into the life giving grant market that they had to come up with something off the charts? Is that not just as reasonable an argument as that the oil and gas industry wants to continue with petroleum based energy? I need a lot more real proof, something that is probably impossible, to convince me that my children and especially my grandchildren should fall back into harder times because of a theory that is full of holes. While there is no doubt we are entering a warmer phase in our climate, to argue that it is man made in spite of numerous periods in the past occurring without mans help is shaky at best. No doubt we should move toward sustainable, cleaner energy, but I don't think we needed to do it at the expense of our way of life. This country has lost more jobs over environmental concerns then can ever be recouped in many generations. We need balance between life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and improving the environment. I'm always suspicious when someone with no dog in the hunt tells me and my family to sacrifice. Wayne, you are very very alone on the university argument. Take any prestiguious scientific organization and look to see what their opinions are on the matter. 97% of the National Academy of Sciences agree with human causes for the current warming trend. There is no more prestigious scientific organization in the country. People who are equating decades of careful science with some kind of propaganda just need to stop. Go to the facts. Search Ness' links at NOAA and then go to NASA and look at the data. There should always be skeptics but the skepticism needs to be based on something substantial. For the time being I guess I should just be happy that in this form most people seem to agree that we should take whatever steps we can to get off the oil/gas/coal treadmill as soon as we can... ...but even that view is a minority view in the general public.
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Never in natural history has the Earth's climate changed so dramatically and so quickly as it has in the last 100 years, And we know this how? 100 years isn't even a drop in time. How do they pick a particular hundred year period, 10K years ago? They're still constantly reviving information on humans and dinosaurs, but we know temperature trends? Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Recommended Posts