Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 06-06-2006, 04:02 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
The list of corporate funders has already been provided as well as a cite for their blatant distortion of the science.
  #52  
Old 06-06-2006, 04:22 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The list of corporate funders has already been provided as well as a cite for their blatant distortion of the science.
Indeed, such a list has been provided. But you made this claim "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)." Please show by an unbiased cite that each and every one of the listed Foundations are "fronts" as you claimed. (Note, you can't, as they aren't. So, back it up or back down.)
  #53  
Old 06-06-2006, 04:37 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
The list of corporate funders and arch-conservatives speaks for itself. So does their habitual distortion of the facts. I don't have the time or inclination to research each and every foundation. The group has already been sufficiently discredited. They are a front for corporate interests. You may choose to persist in your delusion that they are an objective, responsible "well-respected" think tank if you wish. I don't care enough to argue with you. I'll just say that if anyone contributing to those foundations does NOT have a financial or political interest in trying to disinform the public about Global Climate Change, then they're idiots and they need to do a better job of informing themselves about who they're giving money to.
  #54  
Old 06-06-2006, 04:45 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
The list of corporate funders and arch-conservatives speaks for itself. So does their habitual distortion of the facts. I don't have the time or inclination to research each and every foundation. The group has already been sufficiently discredited. They are a front for corporate interests. You may choose to persist in your delusion that they are an objective, responsible "well-respected" think tank if you wish. I don't care enough to argue with you. I'll just say that if anyone contributing to those foundations does NOT have a financial or political interest in trying to disinform the public about Global Climate Change, then they're idiots and they need to do a better job of informing themselves about who they're giving money to.
So, you admit you don't have any cites for your outrageous & unsupported claims? In other words, this "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)." was entirely your unsupported opinion, right?

What is bad science is when a group disagrees with you, and so then you smear the group with completely untrue libels & false accusations- only because they disagree with what you beleive.
  #55  
Old 06-06-2006, 05:29 PM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 11,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjimm
Because of the unprecedented speed of the change
The timescale of the current change (on the order of a century) doesn't look much different from that of previous non-anthropogenic changes (the beginning and end of the warm period around the time the Vikings colonized Greenland; the cooling period associated with the Maunder Minimum).
  #56  
Old 06-06-2006, 05:49 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
So, you admit you don't have any cites for your outrageous & unsupported claims? In other words, this "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies (including Texaco and Amaco) and other corporate interests (such as Ford Motor Company, Pfizer, Philip-Morris and Coca Cola)." was entirely your unsupported opinion, right?
All of those companies are included in their list of corporate funders. Those companies fund the group directly. I confused the corporate list with the list of "foundations" (most of which I suspect are still funded by the same corporate interests). I made a mistake. Sue me. It doesn't really change my main point that CEI is a shill for the oil and auto industries.
Quote:
What is bad science is when a group disagrees with you, and so then you smear the group with completely untrue libels & false accusations- only because they disagree with what you beleive.
That they lied is not in dispute. The very scientist they cited as an authority is calling them liars. Is he right or wrong. Do you deny that Curt Davis' research was misrepresented? Why do you think they would do that? Could they possibly have an agenda.

Respectable and legitimate think tanks don't lie and misrepresent the evidence to supoort a preconceived agenda.
  #57  
Old 06-06-2006, 08:23 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Well respected by who? The scientist they quoted for the misleading shit about thickening ice in Greenland and snowfall in the Antarctic has publicly accused them of cherry-picking and distorting his words. He cited those factors as evidence FOR Global Warming, but they falsely presented it as evidence against. That doesn't sound very respectable to me. When everything they say is contrary to the vast majority of objective scientists, when they can be shown to be demonstratively dishonest and when they're funded wholly by Big Business (particularly by the oil, petroleum and auto industries), I think it takes a heroic level of denial and self-deception to actually believe the CEI is some kind of objective, honest think tank. They sure as hell aren't respected.
Here is the press release from the scientist mentioned above. I am not going to enter the argument with DrDeth about whether CEI is wholey or just in some part funded by Exxon/Mobil et al. Who gives a shit? They make no bones about their point-of-view in this recent article in the Washington Post on the so-called "skeptics". Their recent spate of commercials on climate change are so bad that even some of the people on their side are saying this!

By the way, there is a review of Al Gore's movie here by the climate scientists at RealClimate. They feel that on the whole the science is accurately presented.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveMB
The timescale of the current change (on the order of a century) doesn't look much different from that of previous non-anthropogenic changes (the beginning and end of the warm period around the time the Vikings colonized Greenland; the cooling period associated with the Maunder Minimum).
I think the point is that the rate of change over this century, on a hemispheric scale, appears to be unprecedented over the last 1 or 2 millenia (and the current global climate appears to be the warmest it has been during that time). [These statements are technically for the Northern Hemisphere since Southern hemisphere data is sparse.] This is as determined by climate proxies, which admittedly has some degree of error associated with them. While there were regional scale changes, especially at high latitudes, such as occurred in Greenland, these have tended to be exaggerated by some. (E.g., the name "Greenland" has nothing to do with there having been a lack of ice there but was rather probably a name given to make an inhospitable place seem more appealing.)

However, it is more than the rate of change that provides evidence that the warming is anthropogenic. There is a whole field called "detection and attribution" dedicated to looking into this. To summarize it in a few sentences, the pattern of the warming (e.g., the fact that the lower part of the atmosphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling) is in line with greenhouse gas warming and other explanations that people have dreamed up. The climate model simulations have been unable to reproduce the warming of the last 30 years or so without incorporating greenhouse gases.

Also, basic physics tells us that greenhouse gases will produce this effect. In fact, the warming was predicted well before it was observed. The first to try to do a calculation of how much warming we'd get if we doubled CO2 was Arrhenius back in the late 1800s (and the ideas go back to the mid 1800s). However, it wasn't until the late 1950s that the measurement from Mauna Loa showed that CO2 levels in the atmosphere were in fact increasing. (Before that, some scientists felt that the CO2 emissions would be removed efficiently enough from the atmosphere that they would not build up. Over the last 40 years, we have seen that about half the CO2 we emit has been getting removed from the atmosphere and half has not...This fraction has remained quite constant although there are good reasons to believe that some of the carbon sinks will start to saturate.)

So, in addition to coming up with some other mechanism to explain the current warming, you also need to come up with a good reason why the warming due to the known forcing of greenhouse gases like CO2 somehow does not occur or gets largely cancelled out. There seem to be only a few scientists who have come up with any hypotheses of this sort...Richard Lindzen being the most notable, who has argued that there is a negative feedback effect due to clouds. However, his hypotheses haven't withstood actual tests from data very well and, furthermore, it is hard to understand how the stabilizing influences that he proposes can be reconciled with the known instability in the past climate (e.g., the ice-age interglacial oscillations).

I know people have probably heard a lot of criticism of climate models. However, the basic physics of CO2 causing warming is pretty straightforward. What is left to the climate models is calculating all the feedbacks in the climate system. This is admittedly not an easy task...but there are ways to compare the model to reality using historical data and even recent events such as the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. One can also compare their predictions to those inferred by looking at the ice age - interglacial oscillations as Jim Hansen has done and he gets a similar prediction to the models for climate sensitivity.

There was also a recent paper in Science that looked at water vapor in the upper atmosphere (from satellite measurements) and compared it to predictions of the models. This is very important because much of the positive feedback that enhances the warming in the models is due to this water vapor. The paper found that the models did a very good job at reproducing the water vapor data but did much worse when they artificially turned off the water vapor feedback in the models, thus strongly suggesting that the models are handling this factor quite well.
  #58  
Old 06-06-2006, 08:26 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Whoops! If I had read the last post before mine, I would have seen that DtC had already provided the link to Dr. Davis's press release. Well, it doesn't hurt to have it posted twice!
  #59  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:32 PM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
I am waiting for your cites as I requested above before we go off on a tangent.
You're hilarious.

Are you one of the guys who has been moving these goalposts? They used to be over there by "there's no warming going on" but now they're over here by "well sure there's warming, but we're not 101% sure we're causing it".

Hi-fuckin-larious.

-Joe
  #60  
Old 06-06-2006, 09:59 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
And more:http://www.answers.com/topic/sourcewatch
"Some critics believe the project to have a liberal or left-wing outlook. Many of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals."
Thus Sourcewatch is hardly "non-partisan".
I agree that Sourcewatch has a left-leaning bent, but the whole point of it is that it is a left-of-center group that keeps track of right-wing groups and their connections, just as the right-wing has groups that keep track of the left-wing. And, there is no doubt what CEI stands for and what it represents. Hell, they tell you right on their website:

Quote:
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to advancing the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace.
I think we can all decode what that means.

Look, the point is that you can't rely for your science on a group like CEI, just as you would be attacking us if we had post lots of links to Greenpeace. [Although, I think Greenpeace's links would contain considerably less distortion of the mainstream scientific viewpoint than CEI's.] You should rely on real credible sources like the IPCC or the joint statement issued last year by 11 National Academies of Science including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:

Quote:
The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.

Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
  #61  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:18 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore
I agree that Sourcewatch has a left-leaning bent, but the whole point of it is that it is a left-of-center group that keeps track of right-wing groups and their connections, just as the right-wing has groups that keep track of the left-wing. And, there is no doubt what CEI stands for and what it represents.

Look, the point is that you can't rely for your science on a group like CEI, just as you would be attacking us if we had post lots of links to Greenpeace. :
Never said we could. In fact, if dudes had said something along the lines of "CEI appears to be biased, as it does accept considerable funding from the Oil industry- and CEI also has a rather conservative rep." I would have bought it. I agree we have to take what CEI says with a grain of salt ( same with Sourcewatch, however), but that doesn't excuse the slanderous lies posted here about them. Crap like "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies" just makes their case stronger as it is so clearly a libel and a faslehood. Hell, there are legit complaints about CEI, sure- but that doesn't excuse making up lies about them either. CEI is respected, and isn't some tool of the Oil industry. They are biased- sure, no doubt. And, it appears their bias is reflected in their reporting- but that's not uncommon either.

In fact, I tend to lean towards the Global Warming side. The problem is- it's not an easy problem, and it has no right or easy answers. Making up lies about a group that happens to have differening opinions about such a complex subject doesn't help anyone. Sure, I admit & agree that CEI is now in the minority (and probably wrong), but their stuff is hardly crackpot science, either.
  #62  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:19 PM
Spavined Gelding Spavined Gelding is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Far Northeast Iowa
Posts: 3,658
The question, of course, is about the reliability, accuracy and honesty of the Al Gore movie.

The discouraging thing about these boards is the rapidity with which perfectly serious questions are drug down some dark alley and throttled in the course of some juvenile game of Got’cha that turns on some tangential point. So here, the funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who thinks up the names of these outfits? You almost expect to see something called The Sainted Mothers’ Association for Scientific Inquiry ) doesn’t have much to do with the merits of the Gore film. That the CEI’s public statements are misleading, manipulative and disingenuous if not just dishonest, seem to be pretty well established by this Annenberg Fact Check piece. When these guys start attacking the movie with this sort of stuff you have got to figure that there is some merit to the film.

Propaganda does have a pejorative connotation. I can only think the OP knew that and figured on getting some milage out of provocative language.
  #63  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:46 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
CEI is respected, and isn't some tool of the Oil industry.
No it isn't and yes it is.
  #64  
Old 06-06-2006, 10:59 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
CEI is respected, and isn't some tool of the Oil industry.
I guess I'd ask who exactly they are respected by. Sure, the Wall Street editorial page respects them...and some other people grudgingly respect them in the sense of admitting that they are influential but that hardly makes their viewpoints, particularly on scientific matters, well-reasoned. Can you name a major scientific organization that has said something positive about CEI's scientific analysis or their representation of the science of global warming (or even the science of some other issue)?
  #65  
Old 06-06-2006, 11:17 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
No it isn't and yes it is.
I think this statement was a little too curt.

I'd just like to know who respects them.

I also want to point out that their own stated goal is not the advancement of scientific inquiry but to further the interests of free enterprise and to limit government interference.
  #66  
Old 06-06-2006, 11:19 PM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore
I guess I'd ask who exactly they are respected by.
Well, considering DrDeth's adamantine insistance on symantics over substance, the fact that HE respects CEI means that "they are respected".

Q.E.muthafuckinD.

-Joe
  #67  
Old 06-06-2006, 11:24 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
So we've got Texaco, ExxonMobil, Ford, GM, the American Petroleum Institute . . . what more do ya want?
Hey, don't shortchange the Koch Brothers, owners of the largest privately held company in North America (by revenue), heavily into petroleum among other things. They are well-known financiers of libertarian / free-market organizations. I think they almost single-handedly bankrolled the Cato Institute in its early years.
  #68  
Old 06-06-2006, 11:57 PM
mike1dog mike1dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 771
Getting back to the OP.... Yes, it's propaganda. The aim of propaganda is to influence opinion, so this movie fits the definition of propaganda. I think the term lost any positive connotations it might have had in this country due to the propaganda by the Nazis and the Soviet Union.
  #69  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:00 AM
David Simmons David Simmons is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 12,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spavined Gelding
The question, of course, is about the reliability, accuracy and honesty of the Al Gore movie.

The discouraging thing about these boards is the rapidity with which perfectly serious questions are drug down some dark alley and throttled in the course of some juvenile game of Got’cha that turns on some tangential point. So here, the funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who thinks up the names of these outfits? You almost expect to see something called The Sainted Mothers’ Association for Scientific Inquiry ) doesn’t have much to do with the merits of the Gore film. That the CEI’s public statements are misleading, manipulative and disingenuous if not just dishonest, seem to be pretty well established by this Annenberg Fact Check piece. When these guys start attacking the movie with this sort of stuff you have got to figure that there is some merit to the film.

Propaganda does have a pejorative connotation. I can only think the OP knew that and figured on getting some milage out of provocative language.
Yhe problem with the thread seems to be that not many have yet seen the film.
  #70  
Old 06-07-2006, 01:40 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,887
This entire thread is propaganda (at least according to the first 2 definitions).

That aside, it seems that some posters can't distinguish between organizations devoted to investigation and organizations devoted to advocacy.

It's the difference between funding problem-solving and funding pre-fixed conclusions to a policy debate.

How naive.
  #71  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:10 AM
rjung rjung is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Fifth corner of the Earth
Posts: 17,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merijeek
Why is "balance" necessary in absolutely everything? If a science book declares that the Earth revolves around the Sun, why is it suddenly reasonable for any old asshat out there to demand that I put in an Earth-centric screed to "balance" my statement?
It's the only way the loony groups get a chance to air their loony views; otherwise, they'd be whining about the "media bias" shutting them out.
__________________
--R.J.
Electric Escape -- Information superhighway rest area #10,186
  #72  
Old 06-07-2006, 10:29 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by jshore
I guess I'd ask who exactly they are respected by?
http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm
Here is what some of the nation's leading news media have to say about us:

"From its start in 1984, [CEI] has thumbed its nose at the traditional think tank model, instead adopting what it terms a 'full service' approach that begins with research , but doesn't end there, stretching instead to dogged issue advocacy." - The Washington Post

"The best environmental think tank in the country" - The Wall Street Journal,

"One of Washington's feistiest think tanks" - The Boston Globe

"CEI is...one of the most influential Washington think tanks" - Now with Bill Moyers

This cite- and others- claims CEI is Libertarian not Conservative.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/orgs/
  #73  
Old 06-07-2006, 11:16 AM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
http://www.cei.org/pages/about.cfm
Here is what some of the nation's leading news media have to say about us:
This lists reminds of movie ads where they put up a list of truncated, elided, fragments from reviews. "Keanu Reeves is.....an actor..." I notice that your list does not include climatologists or any other scientists.

Taking them one at a time:
Quote:
"From its start in 1984, [CEI] has thumbed its nose at the traditional think tank model, instead adopting what it terms a 'full service' approach that begins with research , but doesn't end there, stretching instead to dogged issue advocacy." - The Washington Post
The Washington Post calls them advocates. That's what I've been saying. How does that equate to respect for their "research?"
Quote:
"The best environmental think tank in the country" - The Wall Street Journal
It's the Wall Street Journal. It's self-discrediting.
Quote:
"One of Washington's feistiest think tanks" - The Boston Globe
Who cares if their feisty? Michael Moore is feisty. Ann Coulter is feisty. Saddam Hussein is feisty. It's a value neutral term and does not connote anything about the validity of their conclusions.
Quote:
"CEI is...one of the most influential Washington think tanks" - Now with Bill Moyers
Again, "influential" means nothing.
Quote:
This cite- and others- claims CEI is Libertarian not Conservative.
http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/politics/orgs/
What I have said is that they are a front for corporate interests - especially the energy and auto industries. They hae an expressed goal in advocating for those interests and for advocating against government regulation of said industries. Whether they want to call themeselves libertarian or conservative is immaterial. This is not about "conservatives vs. liberals," it's about polluters trying to obfuscate the undeniable scientific evidence for the damage that they're doing.
  #74  
Old 06-07-2006, 11:54 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
What I have said is that they are a front for corporate interests - especially the energy and auto industries.
And you were asked for cites, and couldn't come up with them, and admitted you were wrong. But you still continue.....
  #75  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:05 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
The cites were provided in spades. What are you talking about?
  #76  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:19 PM
GSV Consolation of Dreams GSV Consolation of Dreams is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 691
The point DrDeth is clinging to desperately is that you haven't provided cites for all the foundations etc being industry fronts. Many of them yes...but not all of them. The transparency of their bias and their complete lack of respect for the best evidence science can provide is beside the point for the good Dr.

Some call it pointless pedantry...we call it GD.

Perhaps you could modify your statement concerning CEI's funding somewhat to get past this trivial point.

Perhaps DrDeth will then remove his fingers from his ears and stop lalalala-ing.
  #77  
Old 06-07-2006, 12:26 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Very well, the CEI is an advocacy group for corporate interests and against government regulation, which is largely funded by the energy and auto industries, which is not respected as a legitimate research group by most climatologists or scientists, which touts positions contradictory to the bulk of scientific consensus and which can be shown to have been dishonest in how it represents facts about Global Climate Change.
  #78  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:27 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Very well, the CEI is an advocacy group for corporate interests and against government regulation, which is largely funded by the energy and auto industries, which is not respected as a legitimate research group by most climatologists or scientists, which touts positions contradictory to the bulk of scientific consensus and which can be shown to have been dishonest in how it represents facts about Global Climate Change.
That's better! [pats Dio on head]
  #79  
Old 06-07-2006, 02:56 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic
Very well, the CEI is an advocacy group for corporate interests and against government regulation, which is largely funded by the energy and auto industries, which is not respected as a legitimate research group by most climatologists or scientists, which touts positions contradictory to the bulk of scientific consensus and which can be shown to have been dishonest in how it represents facts about Global Climate Change.
"largely" in Bizzaro World being defined as 9%. (9% is all the % of funding shown to come from "energy & auto industries" as most funding comes from private Foundations, at least one of which is a well known and widely respected funder of colleges- such as Harvard-, but some others may well have a more political agenda.)

To a small degree, I also disagree with "advocacy group for corporate interests ". True, CEI is Libertarian and anti-government interference, which often coincides with the goals of corporate interests, but if you read CEI's webpage,you'll see several other stances it has taken that big industry wouldn't nessesarily like.

And, "dishonest" I also disagree with. "Misleading" I would accept. Their wording was correct, just not complete.

The point is DtC- you went way overboard in your libel of CEI, as usual stated it as fact and refused to come up with any unbiased cites that supported your "opinion-which-was-as-usual-stated-as-fact."

Now, others have complained that I am standing firm on a rather small point, and perhaps even hijacking the OP. However, look back to Post 61, where I conceded "Never said we could. In fact, if dudes had said something along the lines of "CEI appears to be biased, as it does accept considerable funding from the Oil industry- and CEI also has a rather conservative rep." I would have bought it. I agree we have to take what CEI says with a grain of salt ( same with Sourcewatch, however), but that doesn't excuse the slanderous lies posted here about them. Crap like "All of these "foundations" are fronts for oil companies" just makes their case stronger as it is so clearly a libel and a faslehood. Hell, there are legit complaints about CEI, sure- but that doesn't excuse making up lies about them either. CEI is respected, and isn't some tool of the Oil industry. They are biased- sure, no doubt. And, it appears their bias is reflected in their reporting- but that's not uncommon either.

In fact, I tend to lean towards the Global Warming side. The problem is- it's not an easy problem, and it has no right or easy answers. Making up lies about a group that happens to have differening opinions about such a complex subject doesn't help anyone. Sure, I admit & agree that CEI is now in the minority (and probably wrong), but their stuff is hardly crackpot science, either.
"

I was willing to stop the discussion of CEI there, but DtC and others would not let it lie.
  #80  
Old 06-07-2006, 03:01 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Like I said, they're a lying, disreputable tool for the energy industry. That's not in dispute.
  #81  
Old 06-08-2006, 09:55 PM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,887
The OP? Oh yeah, the OP!

David Denby of the New Yorker notes the movie's flaws, but thinks the film's strengths outweigh them.
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/con...612crci_cinema

A.O. Scott of the New York Times liked the film:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AO Scott
[Gore]'s explanations of complex environmental phenomena — the jet stream has always been a particularly tough one for me to grasp — are clear, and while some of the visual aids are a little corny, most of the images are stark, illuminating and powerful.

I can't think of another movie in which the display of a graph elicited gasps of horror...The news of increased hurricane activity and warming oceans is all the more alarming for being delivered in Mr. Gore's matter-of-fact, scholarly tone.

He speaks of the need to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions as a "moral imperative," and most people who see this movie will do so out of a sense of duty, which seems to me entirely appropriate. Luckily, it happens to be a well-made documentary, edited crisply enough to keep it from feeling like 90 minutes of C-Span and shaped to give Mr. Gore's argument a real sense of drama. As unsettling as it can be, it is also intellectually exhilarating, and, like any good piece of pedagogy, whets the appetite for further study.
Those wishing to study the issue further can go the The New York Times' Global Warming Page or better yet http://www.realclimate.org/ , for the scientific perspective.

But hey, I like science.

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun Times:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ebert
In 39 years, I have never written these words in a movie review, but here they are: You owe it to yourself to see this film. If you do not, and you have grandchildren, you should explain to them why you decided not to.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../60517002/1023
  #82  
Old 06-09-2006, 11:03 AM
MMI MMI is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 903
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
. . . " Although those gasses can lead to warming, they also increase albedo, which should lead to cooling. Frankly; the cause of the current warming, whether it's a very temporay glitch in the data, or whether we can or should do anything about it, is highly debatable.

Most of the "greenhouse gases" don't come from humans and fossil fuels in any case.
CO2 does not really affect albedo. There is now some evidence that aerosols (primarily soot iirc) do increase the planets albedo and for a while was partially masking the results of increased CO2 concentrations. So while industries have gotten cleaner in many ways, reducing aerosol production while CO2 production continued apace, the effects of the CO2 are no longer being masked as much. I suppose it could be argued that putting out more aerosols would be a counter to the greenhouse effect but I am not sure that doing so on the off chance that all of the pollution effects may cancel out (a la Mr. Burns immune system) is a wise idea.

According to Realclimate, approximately 30% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic. While in bulk terms CO2 is less prevalent physicallyas water vapor the natural water cycle is rapid (and balanced) and so tends to be affected by climate change more than causing it. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/

The CO2 cycle hasn't been in balance since we started dumping large quantities of the stuff - the time it takes to sequester CO2 with existing natural mechanisms is much longer.
  #83  
Old 06-09-2006, 11:13 AM
ralph124c ralph124c is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 18,476
Just a question about the carbon cycle: the role of forests in sequestering CO2. Take the USA, by about 1900, the White and green mountains of New England had been stripped bare. trees had been felled with no thought of replanting or conservation-old photos of the now-richly forested white Mountains show bare mountainsides. So, since the 1920's these forests have regrown. Now, i suspect that the lumber that these trees went to is still with us 9mostly in the form of houses). Are forests efficient ways to remove CO2? I once read that there is more forest land now in the NE. If this is true, we should be cutting wood and using it (not burning it).
  #84  
Old 06-09-2006, 02:35 PM
EastCoastPearl EastCoastPearl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The OC
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil One
Do you think that undereducated people in China, India, Brazil, or anywhere else understand the issue? And if they did, do you think they would care when you told them they could no longer drive those cheap cars?
Well, considering that China's fuel economy standards are higher than the U.S. standards, I'd say they've got it figured out already. U.S. built cars couldn't even be driven in China. Or, for that matter, in many other countries with higher standards than the U.S. has (our fuel economy standards are among the lowest in the developed world).

If you've seen the film, you probably saw the graph illustrating this. The fact that Gore singles out the U.S. by highlighting our poor fuel economy standards definitely reinforces the idea that the film is propaganda. Or at the very least a giant campaign ad. He's essentially saying that the U.S. is a huge part of the problem where CO2 emissions are concerned. If you read between the lines, it kindof implies that if he'd secured the presidency then we'd already be on our way out of this hole we've dug.

As for the little side argument going on above, I got bored and started digging around for info on several of CEI's donor foundations. The foundations donate their money to a lot of places, but the recipients they have most in common are conservative think tanks, several of which are linked to the oil industry. The Sourcewatch profile on CEI describes it as "…an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business." And I guess improving fuel economy standards is contrary to the way the U.S. auto industry does business.
  #85  
Old 06-09-2006, 02:45 PM
Azov Azov is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjimm
There's a tree-hugging site in the UK that allows you to offset plane flights with carbon sinks (ie trees). Here's its short-haul figure - 1 tree, for £10, over 10 years, "will sequestrate approximately 730kg of CO2 during its life time [sic]"* and thus offset your carbon footprint for the flight. Through economy of scale, I think that the fee would decrease massively.

*It's not specific whether this is per person/flight or for the entire flight, though 730kg seems on the small size, so it probably is per person.
And another link responding to it: What's Your Real 'Carbon Footprint'?
  #86  
Old 06-09-2006, 03:00 PM
Azov Azov is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by InvisibleWombat
I'm now almost 100% convinced that there is a natural warming cycle, that it's being dangerously accelerated by human action, and that if we don't get things under control it will create a feedback loop that will be near-impossible to stop.

Gore's message is propoganda. Yep.

But I think he's right.
Were people accelerating Global Cooling in the 1970s?
  #87  
Old 06-09-2006, 03:11 PM
Diogenes the Cynic Diogenes the Cynic is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Paul, MN
Posts: 58,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azov
Were people accelerating Global Cooling in the 1970s?
According to your Wiki link, people were directly causing it, not just accelerating it.
  #88  
Old 06-09-2006, 03:15 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastCoastPearl
The foundations donate their money to a lot of places, but the recipients they have most in common are conservative think tanks, several of which are linked to the oil industry.
The Sourcewatch profile on CEI describes it as "…an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business."
1. Cite? Show as a % what money the foundations donate to 'conservative think tanks" and what defines a think tank "consevative", and what do you mean by "linked"? A small % of donations recieved?

2. Sourcewatch has already been debunked as a unbiased cite- it is no less biased than CEI. From my earlier post "And, Sourcewatch is hardly nonpartisan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sourcewatch
"Critics claim that most of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at what SourceWatch perceives to be prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals. The Center for Media and Democracy, which sponsors SourceWatch, has also targeted and focused on individuals within companies, lobby groups as well as academics, analysts and media personalities.[4][5] [6]

Sourcewatch has been criticised by conservatives and opponents of environmentalism for its political stance. Alan Caruba, who describes himself as a critic of "environmental propaganda' writes "Source Watch is a project of the Center of Media & Democracy, a left-wing organization that devotes a lot of time to attacking the public relations profession in general and conservative writers in particular."[7].

The website ActivistCash.com, operated by industry lobby group the Center for Consumer Freedom, describes the Center for Media & Democracy, the organisation behind SourceWatch, as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization... it is essentially a two-person operation" run by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber. ActivistCash adds "If someone in a shirt and tie dares make a profit (especially if food or chemicals are involved), Rampton and Stauber are bound to have a problem with it." [8] The Centre is funded by organisations, described by ActivistCash as 'leftwing', such as the Homeland Foundation, the Educational Foundation of America, the DJB Foundation, the Carolyn Foundation, and the Foundation for Deep Ecology.CMD Financials."

And more:http://www.answers.com/topic/sourcewatch
"Some critics believe the project to have a liberal or left-wing outlook. Many of the project's investigative and critical articles are aimed and directed at prominent conservatives, those that are right-of center and Republican Party organizations and individuals."
Thus Sourcewatch is hardly "non-partisan". "
  #89  
Old 06-09-2006, 07:15 PM
EastCoastPearl EastCoastPearl is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The OC
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
1. Cite? Show as a % what money the foundations donate to 'conservative think tanks" and what defines a think tank "consevative", and what do you mean by "linked"? A small % of donations recieved?
*sigh*

1. Armstrong Foundation: Number one recipient of funds is National Center for Policy Analysis, whose board chairman works for Thompson Petroleum Corp. Source: Media Transparency
2. Barre Seid Foundation: Contributes to education, the arts, and churches primarily. Top non-education donations made to The Heartland Institute, which has published on its site a piece about global warming (quote from the last line of the piece "…the voice of reason and truth. The one that says there is no global warming!"
3. Castle Rock Foundation: Created to distribute the unrestricted funds of the Adolph Coors Foundation (which is restricted to donations within the State of Colorado). Number one recipient of funds is The Heritage Foundation (Richard Scaife is Vice Chairman).
4. Carthage Foundation Scaife Foundations: Financed by the Mellon industrial, oil, and banking fortune. Also donates to Heritage Foundation. Number one recipient of funds is Free Congress Foundation, Inc. (conservative think tank)
5. Koch Family Foundations: Koch Industries is an oil & gas corporation
6. Earhart Foundation: Number one recipient of funds is Atlas Economic Research Foundation "Johnny Appleseed of Conservative Think Tanks"
7. Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation: Number one recipient of funds is Rice University. Also donates to National Center for Policy Analysis, whose board chairman works for Thompson Petroleum Corp.
8. Jacquelin Hume Foundation: Number one recipient of funds is San Francisco Conservatory of Music. Also donates significantly to Institute for Justice (heavily donated to by several of the above mentioned conservative think tanks)
9. JM Foundation: Number one recipient of funds is Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Also donates to National Center for Policy Analysis, whose board chairman works for Thompson Petroleum Corp.
10. John M. Olin Foundation: Closed at the end of 2005. Funds right-wing think tanks. Number one recipient of funds is Harvard University ($24 M). Also contributes significantly to The Heritage Foundation.

That's only half of them. The value of donations to the "conservative think tanks" and the other organizations I mentioned are actually much higher than the donations to CEI. If you want more information, look it up yourself on the link I provided in item no. 1 (dollar values are provided). I consider this sufficient information to link CEI to conservative groups who consider corporate welfare to be of greater importance than the environment.

And I apologize to everyone for continuing to let this hijack go on. Hopefully it'll get back on topic (if this tangent didn't completely kill it).
  #90  
Old 06-10-2006, 12:06 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Twitter: @MeasureMeasure
Posts: 12,887
Tricky

Quote:
Originally Posted by ralph124c
Just a question about the carbon cycle: the role of forests in sequestering CO2....If this is true, we should be cutting wood and using it (not burning it).
I don't know what I'm talking about.

But recall that a lot of the carbon is tied up in leafy material, roots, forest floor, brush and soils. Table which I don't fully understand. So there are lots of offsetting effects when wood is harvested, since only a fraction of the total carbon stock is converted to market products. Also, a portion of the manufactured wood products will burn or rot over time.

The studies that I've read about forest carbon sequestration discuss 1) reducing tropical forest loss, 2) expanding existing forests, 3) increasing forest density and yes 4) conversion to wood products. See the first discussion paper here. "Although not the complete answer to the carbon problem, carbon sequestration through forestry does have the potential of stabilizing, or at least contributing to the stabilization, of atmospheric carbon in the near term (20–50 years) and hereby allowing time for the development of a more fundamental technological solution in the form of reduced carbon emission energy sources."
  #91  
Old 06-10-2006, 02:43 AM
DMC DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Never said we could. In fact, if dudes had said something along the lines of "CEI appears to be biased, as it does accept considerable funding from the Oil industry- and CEI also has a rather conservative rep." I would have bought it.
What if we said: "CEI is almost solely funded by those who would like global climate change issues to be ignored, as well as 'free market' types, with the vast majority of funds coming from those with an interest in the petroleum and chemical industries, and were the largest single recipient of 'Public Information and Policy Research' (Warning: PDF file) funds from Exxon in 2004." Do you buy that?
  #92  
Old 06-10-2006, 10:08 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
2. Sourcewatch has already been debunked as a unbiased cite- it is no less biased than CEI. . . .
[*sigh*] Let's see if I can explain this in very clear, simple terms.

1. SourceWatch makes no secret of being an arm of the Center for Media and Democracy. See the introductory statement on the SourceWatch website, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch:

Quote:
Welcome to SourceWatch, a collaborative project of the Center for Media and Democracy (http://www.prwatch.org) to produce a directory of the people, organizations and issues shaping the public agenda. SourceWatch's primary focus is on documenting public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. Over time, SourceWatch has broadened to include others involved in public debates including media outlets, journalists and government agencies. Unlike some other wikis, SourceWatch has a policy of strict referencing, and is overseen by a paid editor.
2. The Center for Media and Democracy makes no secret of its agenda, either -- http://www.prwatch.org/:

Quote:
The nonprofit Center for Media and Democracy strengthens participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, and by promoting media literacy and citizen journalism, media "of, by and for the people." Our programs include PR Watch, a quarterly investigative journal; six books by CMD staff; Spin of the Day; the Weekly Spin listserv; and, Congresspedia and SourceWatch, part of our wiki-based investigative journalism collaborative to which anyone, including you, can contribute.
3. The above statements clearly express a commitment to following the money. Thus, one cannot "debunk" these organizations by exposing a "left-wing" or "anti-conservative" bias in them -- that comes with the territory; most of the money with which these organizations are concerned is in the hands of mostly conservative think-tanks, PR firms and media outlets. That's just how it is, David Horowitz' preposterous ranting about a well-funded, all-powerful national leftist "network" notwithstanding.

4. So if you want to "debunk" SourceWatch, or detract from its credibility, the only way to do it is to point out errors or falsehoods in its published statements. Which you have not yet done, in this thread.

5. CEI, on the other hand, is, on its own terms, much easier to debunk. It straddles the fence -- it claims to be a politically motivated, pro-free-market organization, but at the same time it claims objective scientific credibility for its statements. Unlike with CM&D and SourceWatch, the names of CEI's backers and sources of funding are, in fact, prima facie evidence of its lack of credibility; they render everything CEI might publish, not automatically dismissable, but automatically suspect, at the outset. Heightened scrutiny is warranted in examining all of CEI's statements. Because when big corporations and buisiness-conservative foundations spend a lot of money to get a message out, we know why they're doing it, and it is not for the public good, although that might be an incidental by-product on some rare occasions.

6. Of course, it is much more effective to "debunk" CEI's statements by pointing out errors and falsehoods in those statements -- which many in this thread have done already, WRT global warming.
  #93  
Old 06-10-2006, 11:11 AM
ITR champion ITR champion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 9,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
2. Sourcewatch has already been debunked as a unbiased cite- it is no less biased than CEI. From my earlier post "[I]And, Sourcewatch is hardly nonpartisan:
So let me get this straight. You claim that if "some critics" believe that a certain source is biased, then that source has been "debunked as a [sic] unbiased cite"? Isn't that a rather low standard for debunking? I think we could generally agree that conservatives and "opponents of environmentalism" have made a habit out of howling bias at anything which they don't agree with, so their opinions about what is and isn't biased are rather low on credibility.
  #94  
Old 06-10-2006, 02:24 PM
Gary Robson Gary Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure
I don't know what I'm talking about.

But recall that a lot of the carbon is tied up in leafy material, roots, forest floor, brush and soils.
In a nutshell, a great deal of CO2 is captured by forests. If we make our goal the reduction of new CO2 being added to the atmosphere, then we should shift away from using coal, oil, and old-growth forests, because they contain carbon that hasn't been in the atmosphere for hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. Instead, we should plant new forests, which will capture CO2 that's in the atmosphere right now. Any wood that we process from those forests will only be releasing CO2 that was in the atmosphere anyway, and any new forests that we leave alone will be reducing the overall carbon in the atmosphere.

I know that's grossly oversimplified.
  #95  
Old 06-13-2006, 12:58 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 18,199
Lets permute:
1.Gore and environmentalists are correct and we therefore clean the planet and save us all.
2. Gore is wrong but we clean up the environment mistakenly and the world is cleaner.
3.We say Gore is wrong and polute to corporations hearts content and the world gets filthier.
two wins one loss.
  #96  
Old 06-13-2006, 01:07 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever
Lets permute:
1.Gore and environmentalists are correct and we therefore clean the planet and save us all.
2. Gore is wrong but we clean up the environment mistakenly and the world is cleaner.
3.We say Gore is wrong and polute to corporations hearts content and the world gets filthier.
two wins one loss.
If only it were that simple. Of course, you're only looking at one side of it. "Cleaning up the environment" also means "slowing the pace of economic growth, particularly that of underdeveloped countries."
  #97  
Old 06-13-2006, 01:57 PM
Least Original User Name Ever Least Original User Name Ever is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 18,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton
If only it were that simple. Of course, you're only looking at one side of it. "Cleaning up the environment" also means "slowing the pace of economic growth, particularly that of underdeveloped countries."
I must have forgotton about god oops I mean money. I am familiar when gm built a plant from scratch in Mexico. hey could have built a clean plant on the cheap because it was new. The reason they didn.t is because it was cheaper not to. They owned the government and knew they were free to do what they wanted. They sent their polutants right into the Rio Grande. Jobs come at a great price .
  #98  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:10 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 33,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by Least Original User Name Ever
Lets permute:
1.Gore and environmentalists are correct and we therefore clean the planet and save us all.
2. Gore is wrong but we clean up the environment mistakenly and the world is cleaner.
3.We say Gore is wrong and polute to corporations hearts content and the world gets filthier.
two wins one loss.
Less Greenhouse gases does not = "cleaning up the environment" although the two can be connected, of course. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is GOOD. It's just that more CO2 that we are historically used to may raise the temp more than we are used to. However, in general "less CO2" = "less economy". Would you be content to not drive, and use 75% less electricity? In order to reduce CO2 for generating power, we have to generate power from one of the following sources:

1. Nuclear- which the Greens hate due mostly to Luddite concerns and ignorance (not that Nuke doesn't have problems)

2. Hydro, which is great except that the Sierra club wants to destroy all the dams.

3. Wind, which is great except NIMBY and "raptor burger" (Wind Turbines kill thousands of hawk & eagles a year). And, enough wind power use coudl also change the weather by changing prevaling winds. so far, this hasn't been a problem, but Wind doesn't generate a significant amount of power. Should Wind be used to generate 75% of power, don't be surpised if we get dramatic and dangerous weather changes from that.

4. Solar- which is expensive and in large usage will change the Earth's Albedo, which could also cause severe climatological changes.

None of which will power cars, although they can all be used indirectly for Electric cars or maybe Hydrogen power cars. Neither of which are currently practical.

And then there's the problem of the 800# gorilla- China, which either is or is about to be the worlds worst polluter due to it's huge use of coal in outdated coal burning power plants. How do we get them to stop?

For the USA, there are a few more or less painless choices:
1. Raise the milage requirement. Hybrids are the way of the future. If the average car got twice the milage with effectively zero pollutants (not counting CO2 as a "pollutant) , it would be a huge change, and we could do this without killing the economy.

2. More Nuke power, and have laws that stop "Green" delaying lawsuit tactics. Sorry, Luddites, if we want less greenhouse gas power, Nuke has got to be ONE of the options. Don't worry, I am not talking a huge Nuke program, but it should be increased.

3. Tell the Sierra club to "get stuffed" when it complains about Greenhouse gasses from one side of it's mouth, while demanding we dynamite the dams with the other. Hydro has been mostly fully developed here, but we need to keep what we have.

4. More wind power, with laws that stop NIMBY tactics, and more research on seeing how to stop raptors from becoming hawkburger. If we just use Wind as part of the solution, it is unlikely to cause significant winds/climate changes.

5. More solar. See above.

See, if we have a BALANCE between Fossil Fuel, Nuke, Wind, Solar & Hydro, we run very little risk of any of them harming the environment. We are damaging the environment because we have put far too many eggs in the Fossil fuel basket.

6. Twist China's arm, economicly- they just can't keep going on like they are.

7. More research $$ for other power sources.

8. Use the stupid Kyoto treaty for toilet paper. It's crap.
  #99  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:43 PM
Miller Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 42,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
And, enough wind power use coudl also change the weather by changing prevaling winds.
How does that work, exactly?
  #100  
Old 06-13-2006, 02:49 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth
Would you be content to not drive, and use 75% less electricity?
Bite your typing fingers!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017