Eaarth

[NeilBlanchard]

Oops, you caught me in a homonym faux pas. Of course "sow" as in plant.

You are misinterpreting what I mean. Oil companies are problematic because they take shortcuts and the cheapest way out, and spill oil. The profit motive has to be tempered by good oversight, to protect us all from the high costs of them making mistakes. They make pretty insanely high profits, and so they need to be held to the highest standards possible. And the risks when they screw up is something we all pay for. What is the saying? Internalize the profits and externalize the costs? That's the part we need to avoid.

You do know that they get lots of subtle subsidies -- and with all their profits, they can line the pockets of those in government who are supposed to be looking out for all the rest of our interests. The unfettered market is a disaster waiting to happen.

I'm fine with long-term profits, because if they are sustained, they are less likely to be taking shortcuts. It's the short-term quick profits that are most problematic.

I still think it is pretty odd thinking to equate the profits from a book sale vs what the oil companies rake in. C'mon, I didn't just fall off the cabbage truck...

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I still think it is pretty odd thinking to equate the profits from a book sale vs what the oil companies rake in. C'mon, I didn't just fall off the cabbage truck...

Then the author of your favorite book is in the wrong business. But I don't expect he or you will abandon your crusade or go into the oil production business any time soon.

[NeilBlanchard]

So, what are the motivations of those of us who are very concerned with the new reality, and what are the motivations of those who are trying to undermine the science?

[bestclimb]

Yep, pretty crazy high profit. Not that they should not be held accountable for real damage that they cause.

[NeilBlanchard]

ThinkProgress ExxonMobil paid no federal income tax in 2009. (Updated)

Big Oil giant Exxon Mobil, which last year reported a record $45.2 billion profit, paid the most taxes of any corporation, but none of it went to the IRS:

Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, what are the motivations of those of us who are very concerned with the new reality

What you call "the new reality" is merely your personal belief; you and others who are gullible believe it and thus it is your idea of reality. You can speak for yourself as to what your motivation is.

...and what are the motivations of those who are trying to undermine the science?

"Undermine" is a loaded word, as is "the science". The former shows bias (or paranoia?) in that disagreement is seen as conspiracy; the latter shows arrogance in that you equate a consensus of opinion as proof of a supposedly incontestable truth. It brings to mind the tale of the Emperor's New Clothes where mass delusion prevailed. In other words the global warming hoax is considered by its supporters as beyond reproach, and any dissent in the scientific community is seen as invalid or not scientific.

That is the nature of all politics. There is power in numbers. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with attempt at attainment of power and authority.

[NeilBlanchard]

Listen, the scientific consensus is the global climate change is being affected by human activity -- that is the reality. Sure, there are doubts and unknowns, and science is finding out about the unknowns; and the only disagreements on GCC are about the rate of the changes, and minor details. But, there is no scientific doubt about the general causes of this current global climate change.

I'm not making it up, and it is not political. Why is the US military planning for it? Why do they call it one of the biggest threats to our security? They don't do that for political reasons or to part of the in-crowd. No, the military planners are pragmatists.

Why are insurance companies not writing policies for places like Norfolk, VA? Is it because they don't want to compete for that business? No, they are pragmatists, too.

Why are Russia and Canada and the USA and others starting to make claims on the mineral rights of the Arctic? Is it because they are now becoming accessible, I wonder?

Why is India building a wall to keep out the Bangladeshis? Is is because Bangladesh is mostly just above sea level and the sea is rising?

Why are the Maldives looking to buy other land, to move their country to?

You are obviously not convinced and that is your prerogative. But that doesn't mean it isn't fact. Scientific process is the same in all fields of science. If you believe them that there are these tiny things called atoms, and there are even tinier things called quarks and bosons; or if they tell you that the crust of the earth is a bunch of plates that are slowly drifting around and bumping up against each other, and are related to earthquakes and volcanoes, or that out space is infinite, and that light gets sucked into black holes...

If you don't believe in the Theory of Gravity, doesn't mean you will float away -- and eventually you will recognize the reality that the scientists know what they are talking about on both gravity and global climate change, because it will affect you along with the rest of us.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Listen, the scientific consensus is the global climate change is being affected by human activity -- that is the reality.

As I said, your conceptualization of reality is consensus. Political reality. That is your concept of reality.

Another goal of this well endowed political movement is the curtailment of "human activity". If we could just get rid of those pesky humans, earth (excuse me, I must spell it "eaarth") would be nirvaana, or utopiaa or an unspoiled staate of naature.

Sure, there are doubts and unknowns, and science is finding out about the unknowns; and the only disagreements on GCC are about the rate of the changes, and minor details. But, there is no scientific doubt about the general causes of this current global climate change.

What do you call a society in which doubt is regulated - one in which the fundamental premise can never be doubted, where only the minor details can be questioned if they brook no disagreement?

Belief leaves little or no room for doubt.

I'm not making it up, and it is not political.

No, I'm not saying you are making anything up. You are simply regurgitating the indoctrination you have embraced without questioning it, and it IS very political. It was Aal Gore's pet project - so don't pretend that it isn't political.

You are obviously not convinced and that is your prerogative. But that doesn't mean it isn't fact.

The important thing, to which you are in denial is that it doesn't MAKE it fact.

If you don't believe in the Theory of Gravity, doesn't mean you will float away -- and eventually you will recognize the reality that the scientists know what they are talking about on both gravity and global climate change, because it will affect you along with the rest of us.

And those scientists who are in disagreement with the global warming scam are not really scientists, right? Perhaps it will get to the point where they will have to be silenced by authorities. All in the name of 'science'. All for the good of mankind. All for the 'global community'.

Welcome to 1984.

Newspeak: Eaarth

And the sheeple said: "Baa, baa, baa."

[NeilBlanchard]

Scientists don't just agree with each other for the hell of it. The data is the data, and all the new data fits the model of humans causing global climate change. You can try to shift it into a delusion, but I'm not the one being fooled.

Here's how peer reviewed science works: those scientists who have different ways of explaining the data get their studies published in recognized publications, and the other scientists review them. If those differing explanations cause a majority of the scientists to realize that they were mistaken, and the new explanation is better, then it becomes the new consensus.

You and I don't get to make scientific conclusions. And just because there is some minority of scientists who disagree, doesn't mean that the majority are wrong.

A huge majority of the scientists who are working on this agree with the conclusion that humans have caused rapid global climate change by burning lots of carbon fuels. Like a 97% majority.

I posit that you should look at the funding sources of the deniers.

PS I notice that you didn't address any of the five specific examples, that I listed from the top of my head, of the reality of global climate change. Why is that, I wonder?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

You and I don't get to make scientific conclusions. And just because there is some minority of scientists who disagree, doesn't mean that the majority are wrong.

Nor does it make them RIGHT. But you refuse to accept that all-important point.

A huge majority of the scientists who are working on this agree with the conclusion that humans have caused rapid global climate change by burning lots of carbon fuels. Like a 97% majority.

Have you ever heard the line that "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong"?

Why can't they be wrong? Just because a large number of people (including scientists) agree, does that make them automatically right??? THAT is the antithesis of how science works.

To you, and to those who accepted 'the Emperor's New Clothes', they couldn't admit that they might be wrong either.

If I were a government subsidized scientist and didn't want to lose my job, I'd probably have to agree that the Emperor was right about his 'New Clothes'.

PS I notice that you didn't address any of the five specific examples, that I listed from the top of my head, of the reality of global climate change. Why is that, I wonder?

Because, to repeat a well known, famous old quote: "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn."