Earth Hour - What will you be doing tonight?

[Orphee]

The green movement is just a bunch of sanctimonious, niave buffons peddling a load of cod-science to promote their own agenda, stopping using aerosols and fitting useless light bulbs is NOT going to do a damn thing. Grow up.

 

I don't suppose any reasoned argument will change your mind, but the green 'movement' isn't alone in this. The science is on their side, and there's lots of it, peer-reviewed and tested year after year to show that human activity is damaging our own environment - that's the place we live in - and that we know how to stop or compensate for it. Naivety is hard to come by when you've been researching the damage of human activity, coupled with the ignorance of people who either don't want to face facts or can't be bothered to alter their behaviour to save their own skins.

 

On the other hand, the anti-environment, pro-consumption brigade are funded overtly or covertly by fossil fuel companies and promote the non-science of climate change-denying campaigners, who hardly ever publish or peer-review their studies. Instead of employing scientific methods to make a point, they rely on bullying tactics like constant FOI requests to universities studying climate change, and spreading theories about corruption and conspiracy, because they can't actually prove their argument with any facts.

 

The ban on CFC gases (not aerosols themselves) has had measurable effects, and the low energy consumption of new lighting is also proven. I have low energy lamps throughout my house and aside from reducing electricity consumption and hence carbon emissions, its kept my electricity bills down.

 

What are you prepared to do to keep your own back yard in one piece?

[convert]

I don't suppose any reasoned argument will change your mind, but the green 'movement' isn't alone in this. The science is on their side, and there's lots of it, peer-reviewed and tested year after year to show that human activity is damaging our own environment

I'm sorry but I call BS on that. Just remind me when the Himalayan Glaciers are supposed to be melting, and what 'scientific' journal the IPCC got that year from? Remind me of how just ONE tree (YAD061) was the base for Mr Mann's discredited hocket stick?

 

On the other hand, the anti-environment, pro-consumption brigade are funded overtly or covertly by fossil fuel companies

 

Wrong, Please provide your figures to back this up or retract the comment.

 

I'm all for conserving our resources, but I'm fed up of being taken for a ride on the back of the green bandwagon.

[Orphee]

 

I'm all for conserving our resources, but I'm fed up of being taken for a ride on the back of the green bandwagon.

 

What does that actually mean? Do you believe human activity influences the environment or not? Why pick on climate change to disbelieve and not a hundred other subjects?

[Orphee]

I'm sorry but I call BS on that. Just remind me when the Himalayan Glaciers are supposed to be melting, and what 'scientific' journal the IPCC got that year from? Remind me of how just ONE tree (YAD061) was the base for Mr Mann's discredited hocket stick?

 

Here's what the deniers don't or won't understand about science - theories are tested via collected available data. When more or better data appears, theories have to adapt to that data, not vice versa. This means that scientists do have to alter their beliefs to fit the facts. You should worry when a scientist doesn't reassess their theory in light of new evidence. The climate change deniers lobby behave more like a religious sect, clinging to a belief via a few discreet points of information, regardless of the mass of information that contradicts.

 

So yes, the predictions on glaciers can change, because scientists kept working to make better predictions. If they were corrupt liars, wouldn't they just stop and say 'that's it, we know what will happen'? As for 'one tree', read again what I say about available data. We can work out many things about the dinosaurs from the presence of just one bone from an entire skeleton. The reason is that many different scientific disciplines and existing models can be brought to bear that can extrapolate conclusions from an example.

 

As for the hockey stick graph, the measurements of mean temperatures still support the graph. It's 'discredited' only in the minds of people who've already made up their minds that they won't accept data they don't like, because it means they might have to live differently. Scientists have to accept data they don't like all the time - do you really think any of them actually look forward to rising sea levels, melting polar ice and extreme weather conditions?

[cressida]

Re: Earth Hour - What will you be doing tonight?

 

Pitching the woo

[convert]

Here's what the deniers don't or won't understand about science - theories are tested via collected available data. When more or better data appears, theories have to adapt to that data, not vice versa. This means that scientists do have to alter their beliefs to fit the facts. You should worry when a scientist doesn't reassess their theory in light of new evidence. The climate change deniers lobby behave more like a religious sect, clinging to a belief via a few discreet points of information, regardless of the mass of information that contradicts.

 

So yes, the predictions on glaciers can change, because scientists kept working to make better predictions. If they were corrupt liars, wouldn't they just stop and say 'that's it, we know what will happen'? As for 'one tree', read again what I say about available data. We can work out many things about the dinosaurs from the presence of just one bone from an entire skeleton. The reason is that many different scientific disciplines and existing models can be brought to bear that can extrapolate conclusions from an example.

 

As for the hockey stick graph, the measurements of mean temperatures still support the graph. It's 'discredited' only in the minds of people who've already made up their minds that they won't accept data they don't like, because it means they might have to live differently. Scientists have to accept data they don't like all the time - do you really think any of them actually look forward to rising sea levels, melting polar ice and extreme weather conditions?

 

All these points and more have already been discussed and discredited on the "No evidnce for global warming thread"

 

PS I'll give you a clue the IPCC didn't get the 2035 year from any Scientific journal, and when questioned over it they lied.

 

As for the scientific method, I'm sorry but any 'scientist' who refuses to publish their raw data and methodology, so that other scientists can either support or refute their theories, isn't a scientist that I'd trust.

 

PPS if the science is so settled, why are multiple climate models needed?

[Harleyman]

Do you think people who support this event are going to burst into tears? The point of switching off lights in cities is to make a visible gesture at one specific moment in support of the idea of conserving energy. It's not actually meant to make a significant dent in consumption. To do that, you have to make small changes in your everyday life, which add up if enough people do it together. What would be so difficult about that?

 

I conserve energy everyday. I generally snooze from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM after my daily game of golf.

 

Anyway apart from that rather pathetic attempt at levity what's the whole point of conserving energy?

 

The environmentalists in this state have everybody by the b*lls. You cant build this ! you cant build that ! yet most power generating plants have either been upgraded or constructed to be environmentally friendly. Our petrol has to be specially refined to meet California clean air standards and because of that we pay more than anyone else in the country for a gallon of the stuff although any car sold nowadays in this state also has to meet specific low emission standards.

 

If you get the urge to buy a hybrid better take out a home loan to pay for it.

The prices on a new hybrid standard production model with not all that many frills are way above that of a standard all gasoline vehicle. You jusr cant win

 

Robbed at the petrol pump or robbed at the new car dealer ! Take your pick

 

The state of Oregon to the north is the worst case of environmental lunacy.

The Greenies have really done a job on that place. Unemployment is worse than most other states because there are not enough jobs and why is that?

Because the state government are so environmentally conscious that they have no diversification of business or industry. The main product is lumber and even that is under threat to protect the endangered Spotted Owl.

 

You are not allowed to fill up your own car in that state. A petrol pump attendant has to do that because pumping petrol is a "make work" project and I'm sure the pay is around the "working poor" rate

 

Anyway that's my story and I'm sticking to it :rant: