Yes, I think there is some massive demand. The organic craze started back in the 60s, but really went thru the roof when Farmer’s Markets started to take off-- about 10 years ago. Plus, Safeway started losing customers to stores like Whole Foods. Are they trying to “push” the product now that they’ve jumped on the bandwagon? Sure. Are they creating more demand? Probably. But the demand came first.
Yeah, but they’re ripping off the success of Perrier, and not just creating some random product. The demand for premium water was there, and they exploited it.
I’m not sure why Detroit failing, and Toyota whupping their ass isn’t considered the free market in action. I don’t really care who makes my car-- Detroit or Tokyo. Pretty much everything should just have a “made all over the place” sticker on it, since “made in America” doesn’t mean crap anyway. Free market success does not mean the solution must come from an American comapany.
How can you simultaneously think that global warming is minor enough that it won’t end up being a big deal, and yet so huge a problem that we couldn’t hope to solve it even if we tried? This sounds to me like lazy wishful thinking. Hopefully it’s either so minor that I don’t have to bother doing anything about it, or so huge that I don’t have to bother doing anything about it!
It’s a given fact that the sun controls global warming cycles. It has done so since its creation. We humans have very little to do with global warming, and it will stay that way until we find where the thermostat is located.
When one starts from a position of knowledge, it is easy to see where things are manipulated and distorted to the contrary.
See my previous post. Do the new product ideas come from focus groups, or do the groups help refine the ideas?
In any case, this isn’t just a standard situation. Consider what a focus group on high mileage cars would have shown in June of 1973. I was driving then, and was paying something like 30 cents a gallon. I bought a small car, but that was purely price, not on MPG. Things changed, and things are changing now, or had better. Clearly just sending new products out there is not going to work. The companies need to build demand, both by pricing and by advertising.
If it’s a given fact, who taught you that fact? It may very well be a fact, or it might not. So if you have reason to believe it’s a fact, you should be able to show us why you believe it’s a fact, and the presentation of that should convince us, or perhaps it might not.
Except the trouble with this is that no humans start from a position of knowledge, each of us starts from a position of ignorance. We start out not even knowing how to wipe our own asses, our parents have to teach us. So how do we gain knowledge? What method or methods should we use to overcome our original ignorance?
I think he meant knowledge = my predetermine desired result. If you start with the answer, there aren’t any questions. It’s a zen thing-- don’t analyze it too much.
Well, it may seem this way to some but, in fact, if you look at what are considered the legitimate authorities on science then the overwhelming number go in one direction. For example, the National Academy of Sciences is an organization whose chartered purpose is to advise the federal government on scientific matters and they have weighed in clearly on this issue (along with the analogous bodies in several other major countries). Similarly, studies of the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject show that the overwhelming majority of it supports the AGW theory.
If you want to disbelieve AGW, what you are really left to argue is that the minority viewpoint held by a small minority of scientists in the field is the correct one and the viewpoint that dominates the field is incorrect. While it is always possible that this is so (and people can even cite a few examples of the past that to a greater or lesser degree show that such a situation can sometimes occur in science), it seems to me to be setting a dangerous precedent to ignore the best science at the time and go instead with the very limited scientific evidence that supports one’s own biases.
For me, it conclusion may be correct, but the “science” and studies to back it up always seem fatally flawed somehow. From my training in mathematics and educational research, I spotted numerous fallicies and errors in “An Incovienent Truth”. My favorite? p 66-67 showing the relationship between historic temperature and CO2 levels. The two cycles are very close, but it looks like CO2 level trend BEHIND temperature changes which would negate the whole carbon dioxide effects temperature premise.
In fact, the only reason I even believe in the whole “humans influence global warming theory” is the study by the ECMWF that global warming was link to human industriation, but IIRC stopped short of any causation conclusions.
They do both. Typically, companies will brainstorm a bunch of ideas, and then take it to the focus groups to find out which ones are “sticky,” then they refine those ideas in further focus groups, and then eventually take the idea to R&D. But in reference to your post, you said:
I would say that rarely does a company put very much money into R&D and then try to figure out a way to sell it. They may check with R&D to see if their idea is feasible before testing the idea, but they won’t actually have the product developed…it’s too expensive to do it that way, and too much risk. But what they typically try to do, rather than survey a market to get ideas, is they watch the trends, as I mentioned earlier, and then brainstorm ideas from there. It’s cheaper and easier than doing focus groups and hoping some participant will give them a good idea. As far as the organic products…these are the types of trends I mean. Companies pick up on this stuff from the media…“oh, everyone’s talking about organics these days, we should try that out.” They test the idea to see if people want organics, especially Safeway customers, to be sure that peope believe that it “fits” Safeway to carry organics. If the idea tests well, they try a small line. Then, as you say, if that sells well, they add to it.
Well, sure, as I said, companies ride the trends and milk them for what they’re worth. No doubt about that. And I’m not saying that companies don’t help drive the trends, but there were trends long before there were large corporations like we have now…corporations just use them to their own ends.
You misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m saying that at this point I’m not convinced that it is a big deal, but if it does turn out to be a big deal, coping with it will be a very complex and difficult endeavor given the fact that most of the countries around the globe are going to have to acheive some sort of rapproachment regarding the steps that are going to have to be taken and the sacrifices that will be required.
NurseCarmen and jshore, thank you for the information on what I hope will be useful information. I must admit that when I hear that no television meteorologists in the country believe in global warming, and that the CEO of the Weather Channel debunks it, I tend to feel that, given the fact these people have reputations on the line, that should be sufficient enough qualified information, but perhaps not. Thanks again for the references.
Voyager, at the time I made the post you are quibbling with, this thread was in GD and it was simply my intention to offer insight into what I feel are some of the reasons why conservatives (those such as myself anyway) don’t get too worked up about global warming. It wasn’t my intent then to justify my feelings and observations in this regard, nor was it my intent to proselytize my point of view in the hopes of persuading others to adopt it. Therefore I’m not going to engage you in your response to it. Just take it for what it’s worth and know that while I, thanks to this board and people such as NurseCarmen and jshore, now have acess to what I hope will be reliable information regarding this problem, the vast majority of people around the country, people who have to rely on politicians, the mainstream media and conflicting “expert opinions” do not have this option. If you really want to hop on your high-horse and go tilting at the problem of global warming, you’d do better to try to hold these entities’ feet to the fire to get accurate information out there than by trying to argue about it with me.
That is my complaint against the book. The left holds it up as an example of the science, the right easily blows holes in it, and the movie is filled with anecdotal and extraneous B.S. that clouds the issue even more.
In a perfect world, A.I.T. would give people an interest to do some research on their own, and all would acknowledge that it’s for entertainment purposes only. Instead it’s a stupid magnet, that is at it’s strongest at the opposing poles.
As far as global warming goes, I believe the environmental movement is only using the global warming fad as a vehicle for pushing their socialistic agenda. Reason being… I find it curious that their “solutions” to global warming always come down to higher taxes, more government control over corporations, more regulations, and less freedom. I am thoroughly convinced the global warming supporters would not entertain any solution that did not raise taxes, did *not * increase regulations, and did *not * infringe upon people’s freedoms.
What baffles me is how many people refuse to see the obvious: it’s the same thing.
The right does it with terrorism. The left does it with AGW. That is not to say that terrorism and AGW aren’t issues that need to be addressed, but both sides so distort the facts in an effort to advance their own agendas that it requires a monumental effort to wade through these distortions to see just where the truth lies, and that’s an effort that most people aren’t going to make, besides which, if they DO make the effort, it becomes clear that there is not universal agreement on either of these topics, and the proper course of action probably lies - surprise! - somewhere in the middle.
As for the market being a viable solution, I think those denying that it can be are deluding themselves by viewing the world through corporation=bad! tinted glasses. I’m not in the market for a new car right now, but I probably will be in a year or two. If we (mankind) continue to consume the easily refined oil at a breakneck pace, the price of oil is going to go up and up as easily cracked reserves are exhausted and more expensive methods of refining oil move to fill the resulting shortfall. If gas is 3,4 or more dollars a gallon, a high mileage hybrid is going to be a hell of a lot more attractive to me(and I suspect to many, many other people). That’s supply and demand in action. The supply of cheap oil falls, resulting in more expensive gas, which in turn causes the demand for high mileage hybrids to go up, so manufactures will produce more hybrids to meet those demands and as a happy byproduct of all this, carbon emissions will fall. All of this is quite easy and natural and doesn’t demand one single bit of government interference. (Note: I’m not saying this would solve the carbon issue, but it is an example of how purely market driven forces will work to help reduce carbon emissions). As more and more people become more concerned about AGW, the demand for “green” products will increase, and corporations will move to meet those demands(Actually, this is the one positive aspect of the AGW hysteria as it’s being pushed by the left. Ironic, no?). Finally, spiraling fuel costs will force corporations to look for less expensive alternatives. I expect a resurgence in nuclear sources for power generation(and about fucking time I say), along with more and more alternative fuels for cars and trucks (bio-diesel? hydrogen engines? something we haven’t even heard of yet as it’s till on the drawing boards?), and that, right there, is the only hope we have of reigning in the developing world’s carbon emissions. We (the West) got rich off of cheap oil in the last century. Now it’s their turn, and they are NOT going to stop, no matter how man UN resolutions are passed, UNLESS something cheaper comes along. The market is what will drive the development of those technologies, NOT the government. The government has one tool in it’s arsenal: regulation, and the more stringent regulations become, the harder industry will resist them , try to weaken them or try to find ways around them. I would much rather that money and effort be put into R&D on things that actually will solve the problem, and that is what a market based approach encourages.
Yep. Bell labs used to do that, but it’s almost unheard of these days.
If you look at the development of the PC, it was hobbyists who created the product, and then a few visionaries who realized they could capitalize on it. Gordon Moore (one of the founders of Intel) didn’t think there would be much demand for a PC, but Steve Jobs thought otherwise. Once it caught on, of course, companies were going to try and stimulate demand with marketing campaigns. It’s a definite feedback loop, but it has to get kick started, and it’s very hard to do that without some demand. Products get test marketing and shit-canned all the time. Companies can’t just push junk on people if they aren’t satisfying some kind of demand.
Maybe designer clothing might seem to fall in the “invented demand” category, but even then the designers are appealing to some basic human need to establish oneself higher up on the social ladder. That’s part of human nature, not something some marketing guy invented.
Cite? Where are you getting the claim that “no television meteorologists in the country believe in global warming, and that the CEO of the Weather Channel debunks it”?
You may also be interested to learn that the Weather Channel’s official Climate Expert is climatologist Dr. Heidi Cullen, a well-known advocate for AGW awareness.
If the Weather Channel CEO really doesn’t believe in the existence of climate change, as you claim, s/he has apparently not been listening to his/her own TV station, or else is deliberately promoting views and information on that station that s/he thinks are nonsense.
Eventually, sure. But in order to be able to do so, the market has to have sufficient financial incentives.
The use of oil is artificially cheap right now because it’s so heavily taxpayer-subsidized, in everything from road-maintenance costs to the costs of oil development and maintaining political stability in the Middle East.
The emission of greenhouse gases is also artificially cheap because there are no restrictions on using the common atmosphere as a free sewer into which we can pour as much of them as we like.
These situations cripple the ability of markets to provide solutions to the emerging problems, because the incentives that would spur markets to do so have been artificially weakened. The market cannot efficiently address problems that subsidies and “free” common resources have largely placed outside the market.
If we want the market to be able to respond to a problem, we have to “marketize” the problem in the first place, rather than just externalizing its costs outside the market. We can’t expect markets to fix a problem if we’ve artificially made it cheaper for them to ignore the problem.
Kimstu, John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, is a well known AGW skeptic. He has been published widely (Although, not in the afore mentioned peer reviewed channels.) His published works are often cited by the talking heads. An important caveat, meteorology is not the same as climatology. They are two pretty drastically different sciences.
