| Archive for Earth Sciences Forum This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!! |
| Baywax |
Benefits of the GW Hype?What are the benefits that can be derived from all this publicity about carbon dioxide, CFCs, the environment in general, reflective surfaces, hybrids, hydrogen fuel cells, solar panels, wind power generators, coal burning generators, hydro and so on and so on?I know there are a few "companies" that stand to gain a substantial amount of money from the trading of "carbon credits". And there are several industries that may make some money because they are considered "green" and sustainable. But, putting these profits and specifically benefited individuals and groups aside, what benefit is there in the extreme witch-hunt for polluters and non-self-sufficient modes of energy production for humans as a whole? Do you see the big bamboozel of AGW as a means to an end where humans actually live in concordance with the bio and eco systems of the earth? Or is the process too deceptive to result in an ecologically ethical balance between humans and the rest of nature? |
||||
| scpg02 |
Ok taking the political completely out of it and looking at the silver lining, learning about our climate is a good thing in the long run. Perhaps it has forced us to invest money in studies that might have langished if there had not been the climate scare, like pushing for the moon spurred us faster in space travel than we were probably ready for, war spurs weapon development etc. | ||||
| Baywax |
Yeah, you're point is well taken. We wouldn't have the BIC pen without Buzz Aldrin and the gang. In fact, we would not have the fuel cell generator without the moon shots.
I think your point about developing an understanding about climate and developing new technology (that's been sitting shelved for a couple of decades or more) is valid. There is money being spent where it would otherwise be going into oil exploration or refining process (or keeping new technology on the shelf). 
As for war technology... where would we be today without sidewinders, camoflage and nightvision?!? 
|
||||
| Bystander |
Or, 50-100 billion a year in civilian research money dries up and blows away when the public finally picks up on the scam. Is that a new dark age? Or is it a return to "classical" scientific (pre-WW II) investigation? The Cold War's over, and Vannevar Bush's NSF model for pursuing science may not be the ticket in a saner world. | ||||
| scpg02 |
RADAR was a war development. Kevlar probably was too. I'm sure a search would bring up more stuff than missles. |
||||
| Andre |
Without Bystanders billions, we probably wouldn't have had the opportunity to wade through over thousand publications trying to figure out what the evidence is telling us about the past.
Hundreds of scientists and environmental friendly enterprises have a steady income and grants thanks to global warming, which of course they recycle in the economy. Without global warming that money may have gone to other scams, weapon-industries, more aircraft carriers, more rational research and development of stable and secure power resources, it might also have been used for preserving the rainforests. Who can tell? |
||||
| Baywax |
Yes, Kevlar has helped my cooking radically... (not!) and I've survived several drive-bys this week....(not really!)... but its true that many benefits come out of war technology.... like M & Ms... nylons!... slightly more efficient autos and copters... the best benefit of war is that it consistently proves itself to be unworthy of praise. Yet we continue to enjoy a less visible display of Nazi sentiments because of WWII, however, who knows what's going on underground or in the board room. |
||||
| scpg02 |
Obviously you are not a cop. Plus it's being widely used in other aspects, not that I could name them at the moment. edit: BTW night vision technology has helped in the studies of animals too. I'm sure it would not have come as far as fast if it hadn't had millitary applications. |
||||
| Baywax |
No, not in the police force.
So, is everyone telling me that "bad things" produce benefits too?!
Does this mean that the GW hype is as bad and as deceptive a political practise as those that justify invading a country or killing x amount of "collaterally damaged" humans? |
||||
| scpg02 |
Yes. |
||||
| Baywax |
I have a feeling that what you are saying is that any super deceptive campaign is a bad campaign. I can agree with this on the moral/ethical grounds that full disclosure of all the facts is the clearest way to communicate difficulties or other concerns. However, D day was a campaign won by using deceptive techniques. They built dummy jeeps and landers and placed them in another part of the coast of England to fool the enemy and invade France from a completely different part of the UK. The question might be whether we can trust anyone to wage a deceptive campaign in the name of a balanced ecological relationship with our planet rather than to be waging a campaign that simply profits a few people then falls flat on its weather station. If this is the case then the benefitial technology that gets its half-start under the direction of self-serving corporations, multinationals and anomalous political bodies will in no way be allowed to continue as a benefit to the human species.... is this how you see the benefits? |
||||
| scpg02 |
I'm not really sure I understand the question so I'll shoot from the hip and try and clarify my position.
You must keep in mind that I am a property and water rights advocate. I have seen nothing but deception and misdirection coming from the enviro community as a whole, especially from the scientists. In my opinion the global warming crap, and yes I believe it's crap, is all part of it. They really don't care about the environment. It is all about a political agenda. Kyoto was a prime example. If it had truly been about the environment it would have been drafted so that any country falling into a certain category would be held accountable to reduce CO2. China and India were left out? Why? Because it was all about stopping the US economy and pushing a "green" agenda in the US. I have never, NEVER, seen and environmental policy that actually took the environment into account. I posted a thread yesterday about a court ruling on forest management. The ruling said the Forest Service didn't adequately take the environment into account and failed to get public input. Earthjustice says this ruling does away with a key environmental provision. So are they admitting that their key environmental provision doesn't take the environment and public opinion into account? Talk to any environmentalist about logging and the first thing out of their mouth is not forest health, it is logging company’s profits. It's all about resource control, period. |
||||
| Baywax |
We have a strong sustainable logging component in BC. There are more and more operations that are considered sustainable and "selective" logging. Then we have landslides, mud rivers, diverted salmon fisheries and diesel spills threatening huge ecological areas. We have a lot of trees left... but we also have the scars of clear cutting operations by Fletcher Challenge, Mac/Blodel and many others. All in the name of profit, toilet paper, computer paper, expensive lumber and crappy plywood. We can't make profit a dirty word. Profit is a good thing for quite a few people. Its the method of gaining a profit that has to be scrutinized... to avoid corruption and to avoid thoroughly unethical and unsound practices of obtaining profit such as those methods that basically scoop the environment right out from under everyone... ruining drinking water, air quality, diversity and on and on.. But, I would like to think that any move and motive in the direction of an eco/ethical balance with nature and behavioural shift in the thinking of common people... as in... thinking ahead before acting... would be a step in the right direction. The more profitable an environmental endevour appears... the more people will be interested in learning about the condition and others and they might do something that is both profitable for them and profitable in the sense that it is a sustainable and integrated part of the ecological "dominos" system. Example being Health Food... and Organic foods. There are plenty of scammers in the business and there are plenty of people with good intentions. Services such as produce are a democracy of the consumer and those votes (with the dollars) decide who becomes a powerful force in the "new age of foods". If the product is crap... no one (with any taste for organics etc...) will buy the product more than once. Can the consumer's democracy be applied to the Carbon Caper or the Clean Water Act or to the EPA or Environment Canada...?... in a way yes... especially in the case of NGOs like the Carbon Trading companies.... the longer this idea is around, the more of them there will be and the consumer or "participant" will vote with their dollar concerning who they will work with in this regard. In the case of government bodies enacting policies etc... they are voted into place, supposedly, by the people for the people of the people. |
||||
| scpg02 |
I need to go back and read your last post more carefully but I can say this, what you are experiencing up there is a direct result of the environmental crap down here.
I have a friend who wrote a book containing a freemarket system for environmental conservation. He used logging as examples in his book. He has done a lot of habitat restoration on his land. He lives what he preaches and I have the utmost respect for him. Read the stuff he has on his web site. He aproaches everything with a scientific point of view. Natural Process |
||||
| scpg02 |
Hmmm, not sure you understand who is playing the game and what game is being played. The NGOs are the ones who are causing all the problems you have up there. They are the ones who shut down the logging down here. They are the ones reaping the profits up there with your clear cutting etc. They are investors in logging, mining etc. The whole reason they pushed Kyoto was to mine methane hydrates. And they won't be held accountable if they have an inadvertent release. I have never seen an ethical environmental organization. Even the Washington Post documented how The Nature Conservancy was scamming. The Sierra Club is corrupt beyond belief. All the environmental law suits are funded by the big foundations. They use government regulations to shut down domestic competition to the foreign investments. That's what they did with logging down here. |
||||
| scpg02 |
You are correct in that but not in the way you think. The groups you think are going to push that idea are the ones working against it. But that idea is exactly what is talked about in the book I linked. |
||||
| Baywax |
I'll go back and check out your friend's site after I generate some profit today...!
Its true that corruption is rampant in organizations. The Red Cross has been completely exposed as a corrupt org. for good reason. The United Way is totally scamming bleeding hearts to the max. Why should it be any different for David Suzuki (sp) (who is or at least was a very good guy... having met with him) or Greenpeace or any of them? They are large institutions today... they have large numbers of supporters and workers. Its easy for corrupt individuals to get into their ranks and screw them up. Its the same vunerability for hospitals, libraries, governments and non-profit orgs. The screening process for employees is weak. My bet is that the Sierra and others are targets of private concerns and will always be brought down by any means possible. Its an underground WWIII being fought in the name of a very limited number of individuals. While all the innocents can see is their good cause while their trust in human nature appears to be misplaced. PS. When the most starry eyed, altruistic endevours accept huge grants from the FBI you know there's too many bats in the belfry.... ding ding.
|
||||