<p>Xiggi–that’s one of the most mature posts I think I’ve ever seen on CC; I hope you don’t read that as condescending. You have a really admirable ability to really see both sides of an issue, with honesty.</p>
<p>The one thing about your post that makes me sad is this:</p>
<p>" The moral obligations exposed in Gore’s movie won’t ever go far enough. Crass capital is what flows in our veins and makes our brain tick. "</p>
<p>Do you entirely believe that? Would you do something because it was the ethically right thing to do, regardless of personal gain? I’m thinking, yes, you would. I’d like to think that we all have that possibility in us. I don’t disagree that hitting most people in the pocketbook is the easiest way to get their attention, but I really, really, do believe also, deep down in my liberal heart, that if people really, really got what Gore’s movie is saying, no matter what they think of him (that’s not important) that maybe that would cause them to change their ways.</p>
<p>But, I’m an idealist, in some ways–meanwhile, though, let’s tax those Hummers. ;)</p>
<p>I don’t understand the passion and venom in the denial of global warming, and the denial of the fact that humans DO have an impact on our world, and the disregard for the earths future inhabitants, the next generation</p>
<p>Why not be concerned? Why brush it off? Why not look and see, that we can take care of our planet, and be prosperous? </p>
<p>Why such denial? Without even looking at the movie or the science, which is overwhelming, and believing the “reports” of the very few that happen to have agendas</p>
<p>My agenda, I want the planet to be livable for my children and other people children</p>
<p>I want business to get smart, they have the brains, but to change anything, to them seems to be admitting they haven’t been doing the best job</p>
<p>Please explain why the denial of real science? The pictures? The changes that are PERMENATELY happening to our planet? Is it too scary to think about? Does it fly in the face of long held beliefs that we as Americans are perfect and are ahead of everyone else? Is it fear of not making record profits? Is it not caring? Figuring, well, I will be dead anyway, so why do I care? Why not even take a look at the movie, read the books, listen to the scientists? Why hide under a rock?</p>
<p>citygirlsmom: I guess you are a scientist, right? I seriously doubt you have a thorough knowledge of the scientific data, climate models and theories and can decide what is “real” science. This is not the place for any detailed presentation, but you should know that the scientific evidence is far from clear. It is possible, but no one can tell how probable, that global warming is occuring and this warming is caused by man’s influence on the enironment. There is plenty of speculation about possible effects from hydrocarbons, smog, heat output, depletion of the rainforests, irrigation, and highways and other structures. There is very little understanding of which, if any, of these factors may be important in causing long term changes. You should also know that money, politics, and even religious beliefs can influence “real” science. There are reasons for serious concern that the quest for research money influences the process of scientific inquiry into the global warming issue. There are a lot of scientist working to prove various theories and it is currently very difficult for any scientists to express reservations about these approaches and theories. So much for real science.</p>
<p>It is great that you are idealistic and want to protect the planet. I guess you also want to see “business” take care of these issues. Some people believe business has some sort of ability or agenda to cover up the truth about global warming. I doubt business can do either. Business has a hard time maintaining a workforce, producing products and making a profit. Enron may have been able to cook their books, but I doubt they could have handled getting to the bottom of global warming issues or pulling off a major world-wide conspiracy.</p>
<p>It sounds like you are very idealistic, ready to join some causes, and expect everyone else to agree with your beliefs.</p>
<p>Adding the word crass to my sentence did indeed undermine its effect. I really should have used a more sensitive term. I do, however, believe that the market incentives would in fact induce more people to try newer technology, even if they require a small leap of faith. I also believe that it absolutely acceptable for companies to benefit from having takien risks and having pioneers. In fact, they HAVE to as next to social responsibilities to their employees, customers, and maybe to their communities, they also have responsibilities to their shareholders. Can we blame a company such as Florida Power and Light for seeking a return on their 5 Billion dollars investment in wind farms? We can safely assume that the hardest part of the management was to convince the board to invest the first 10 million dollars. </p>
<p>I do believe that people have it “in them” to do the right thing. However, some of the good get sidetracked by our faculty to analyze our decisions and measure them against a financial yardstick. It is in this light that I would like to see more or incentives or “justifications” for our moral obligations. </p>
<p>Lastly, I also believe with a passion that we possess an immense sense of survival and resiliency. It suffice to think how different our world was in 1980 to remain optimistic about our chances to develop technologies that will help us overcome our never satisfied appetite for fossil fuels, all the while curbing our excess production of CO2 and possibly related global warming.</p>
<p>Whenever I hear someone denying global warming, I can’t help but think of Stephen Colbert and “truthiness.” Somehow the strength of your gut belief nullifies the mountains of scientific evidence that contradict it. I don’t think anyone would get up and argue with a nuclear physicist about what goes on inside a reactor, but talk about global warming and suddenly it’s a matter of horse sense. Weird</p>
<p>Like another poster was talking about, it’s all ultimately about planning and risk. Arguing against global warming is playing the losing side of a Pascal Wager. If you’re right ( science be damned!), you gain nothing. If you’re wrong, then people and the world will suffer incalculable losses. That’s not a good gamble, and that’s why people who’s business is risk assessment know which side to bank on.</p>
<p>edad, are you aware that the argument you’re making is taken straight from the Luntz memo commissioned by the Republican party in the 1990s to help them spin their position on the environment? (pages 137-138) But it’s not a new tactic - the arguments you make were used quite effectively by the tobacco industry to fight off regulation - and the link between smoking and cancer is just as vulnerable to the b-b-b-but you can’t prove causation! argument as evidence underlying the global warming analysis. There are trillions to be made, short term, if government acts on the assumption that global warming theory isn’t worth acknowledging and acting on. Trillions. Do you honestly believe that no one is hard at work circulating the snippets of information and superficially appealing arguments which have you convinced that “the scientific evidence is far from clear”? It doesn’t take a conspiracy, just a profit motive - look at tobacco, and learn a lesson.</p>
<p>Xiggi - I apologize. I know your view is more nuanced than it appeared from your liberal-bashing posts.</p>
<p>I wish I had a dime for every scientific “theory” that has been overturned or substantially revamped in my lifetime. </p>
<p>Has there been some global warming–probably. Is some of it normal cycles–probably. Has our lifestyle caused some of it?-probably. Is it worth it to alter our lifestyles significantly in order to offset the change? I’m not so sure yet. Very few trends extend out unchanged for long periods. Other countervailing forces move things back toward equilibrium.</p>
<p>…Will admitting it exists it affect my portfolio --probably. Can anyone cobble together a slick, superficial argument that would allow me to ignore it–probably. Is it worth changing my lifestyle even the slightest bit based on an overwhelming scientific consensus that if I don’t future generations will suffer extreme hardship? Nah…</p>
<p>Sorry, there is no overwhelming scientific consensus. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that we have a very minimal understanding and we need additional research. Anyone who wants to gain some additional understanding can start by googling: national academy sciences global warming. If you are looking for opinions to support your own, you will not have any difficulty locating plenty of sensational newspaper and popular magazine reviews. You will also be able to find the NAS consensus and followup information.</p>
<p>If the hypothesis regarding global warming is correct, the message that Gore seems to be promoting (or at least what you are hearing) is damaging to the cause. What would be needed is far more significant than changing your lifestyle the “slightest bit”. Those who adhere to this hypothesis agree that the provisions of Kyoto will be woefully short in solving the problem. Yet, countries who have signed on to Kyoto are finding that even these provisions (which will have no meaningful impact) are too stringent to be met. </p>
<p>Just cutting back on energy use with its negative impact on the global economy is inadequate. The real solution will have to come from research into totally different forms of energy. It will also, at least in the short term, require expanded use of nuclear energy. Both of which Bush has proposed and is following (and the latter is being resisted by the left). Is the Bush solution adequate? Perhaps not, but at least he didn’t get suckered into following the Gore folly.</p>
<p>fundingfather: I think you are correct. IF we determine there is a significant problem with global warming and IF we determine that this warming is due to burning hyrdocarbon fuels, then it is likely that very significant changes will be needed. This almost certainly means a massive conversion to nuclear energy. Those who believe we need to act quickly should consider what this might entail.</p>
<p>It rather amazes me, honestly, that people still think that it isn’t “worth changing my lifestyle even the slightest bit”, no matter what the scientific, empirical, or moral evidence. People continue to believe that their individual fuel consumption, their mammoth McMansions and behemoth vehicles and exurbs a hundred miles away from work are personal decisions that affect no one else. Who cares about draining precious resources… because everyone else is draining the resources anyway, they may as well do the same, the environonment be damned.</p>
<p>That kind of self-righteous, cavalier attitude makes no sense to me, and never has. I actually don’t understand it, and for those of you who drive Hummers or Suburbans and live in 6000 square foot houses with your families of four, I would love the rationale, honestly.</p>
<p>It continues to amaze me that people won’t take the time to consider the other scientific evidence because it doesn’t match their political agenda.</p>
<p>The fuel economy of many minivans is far superior to a Suburban or other vehicle in that class. No one was saying family of seven has to squeeze into a Prius.</p>
<p>we used to have a minivan…but it was just too much of a hassle trying to fite everything in there on trips and stuff. idk…maybe some time in the future…I would buy up the first hybrid SUV that has the size I like…i def dont like paying $50 every week and a half for gas.</p>