MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 15:28:38 GMT 1
First off, since when is "being in a minority" equate to "being incorrect"? Galileo was in the scientific minority of his time. He was proven correct in many of his assertions. Since the dawn of modern science during the Renaissance. Findings must be accepted by the majority to be viewed as creditable and factual. Galileo's predicament was among many other possible hypotheses that suggested multiple different results, but he was also shut down by a non-scientist. The Pope. Yes, much of Galileo's work is now accepted by the scientific community, but that is irrelevant. If we were to exercise erroneous disregard for the findings in the majority, there would be absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever. Second of all, I'm going to go over the actual data (not the interpretations of data) I can find and re-evaluate my claims. I know from prior experience that many people have been using climate change as a stalking horse to push their political agendas, hence my skepticism. Right, in other words, you are not going to accept the current implications found by the majority of the scientific community and will persist in an ignorant bliss until the planet has a much more noticeable temperature shift after oil companies prevail in their desperate attempts to disprove the theory. Oh, yes. Political biases and agendas. Just think of those biases the opposition to the overwhelming majority may have. You know, the oil companies, the Republican party, and those scientists funded by oil money. What could they possibly have at stake here?
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 15:38:18 GMT 1
First off, since when is "being in a minority" equate to "being incorrect"? Galileo was in the scientific minority of his time. He was proven correct in many of his assertions. Since the dawn of modern science during the Renaissance. Findings must be accepted by the majority to be viewed as creditable and factual. Galileo's predicament was among many other possible hypotheses that suggested multiple different results, but he was also shut down by a non-scientist. The Pope. Yes, much of Galileo's work is now accepted by the scientific community, but that is irrelevant. If we were to exercise erroneous disregard for the findings in the majority, there would be absolutely no empirical evidence whatsoever. Second of all, I'm going to go over the actual data (not the interpretations of data) I can find and re-evaluate my claims. I know from prior experience that many people have been using climate change as a stalking horse to push their political agendas, hence my skepticism. Right, in other words, you are not going to accept the current implications found by the majority of the scientific community and will persist in an ignorant bliss until the planet has a much more noticeable temperature shift after oil companies prevail in their desperate attempts to disprove the theory. Oh, yes. Political biases and agendas. Just think of those biases the opposition to the overwhelming majority may have. You know, the oil companies, the Republican party, and those scientists funded by oil money. What could they possibly have at stake here? About what Gore and his chronies (the "hacks" I alluded to in a prior post) have at stake in jumping on the Green bandwagon.
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 15:45:22 GMT 1
Sorry, double post.
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 15:45:50 GMT 1
Currently? Absolutely nothing. While the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, there is an alarming minority of politicians who are willing to acknowledge the threat. Why? Lobbying, my friend. The oil and energy companies are trying their damnedest to prevent the scientific view from becoming widely accepted among Americans. Why do you think other nations support it? Europe, the Middle East, Asia, even Russia.
You are ignoring the fact that there are two faces to the argument. There is the political and scientific side. There is absolutely no debate in the scientific community about it. It is widely accepted as fact. The only people who are fabricating any "controversy" about the theory are companies who'd shrink as a result of climate change legislation.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 15:59:11 GMT 1
Currently? Absolutely nothing. While the scientific community overwhelmingly supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, there is an alarming minority of politicians who are willing to acknowledge the threat. Why? Lobbying, my friend. The oil and energy companies are trying their damnedest to prevent the scientific view from becoming widely accepted among Americans. Why do you think other nations support it? Europe, the Middle East, Asia, even Russia. You are ignoring the fact that there are two faces to the argument. There is the political and scientific side. There is absolutely no debate in the scientific community about it. It is widely accepted as fact. The only people who are fabricating any "controversy" about the theory are companies who'd shrink as a result of climate change legislation. And on the other half of the lobbyist coin are the corporations who'd grow as a result of said legislation. There are shit birds on both sides here. Now, I said earlier that I'm going to look for the raw data and come to my own conclusion. All that means is I want to make my own decisions rather than echo a majority voice (a nice little logic trap known as "group think" by the way).
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 16:57:02 GMT 1
And on the other half of the lobbyist coin are the corporations who'd grow as a result of said legislation. There are shit birds on both sides here. Yes, and the difference between them is drastic. Also, tell me, if the green energy sector lacks effective funding and rely on corporate welfare, how are they able to afford lobbyists? The shit birds fighting for green energy have the science on their side. Now, I said earlier that I'm going to look for the raw data and come to my own conclusion. All that means is I want to make my own decisions rather than echo a majority voice (a nice little logic trap known as "group think" by the way). I am not saying that your own conclusion is inherently wrong. I am saying that you are in direct contradiction to prominent, reputable scientific minds. You are going to find it incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to effectively argue your point in a scientific manner because of your lack of scientific consensus. My conclusion is a result of no such fallacy. It is the result of the scientific method. I have already demonstrated to you how scientific results are supported as empirical evidence, it is up to you to accept it.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 17:20:59 GMT 1
You don't have to pay lobbyists if you do your own lobbying or have good friends do it. Alternatively, you can simply have friends in high places. Look at Tesla Motors, Solyndra, Fisker Motors, etc. Their money came from the aforementioned friends in high places (people like Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Aldy, et al.). The green industry got a check for $90 billion from the government and haven't shown much progress.
Hell, Tesla Motors loses $10,000 for every car they sell when government subsidies (for example, the 'no emissions' credit which I find laughable because the car has emissions stemming from the extra electric energy it draws from the grid, meaning more fossil fuels burned in power plants) are removed from the equation.
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on May 25, 2013 17:23:08 GMT 1
That's a very good point, Iron. Green does not necessarily equal green as people see it. There is always a cost. You just pay it on your electric bill instead of at the pump.
Though I don't see what that has to do with global warming.
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 17:40:09 GMT 1
You don't have to pay lobbyists if you do your own lobbying or have good friends do it. Alternatively, you can simply have friends in high places. Look at Tesla Motors, Solyndra, Fisker Motors, etc. Their money came from the aforementioned friends in high places (people like Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Aldy, et al.). The green industry got a check for $90 billion from the government and haven't shown much progress. For effective lobbying, money is to be spent. Lobbyists quite literally write the laws in congress, most whom of which most are paid by successful corporate interests. Having a friend or two will not get you far when a legion of opposing lobbyists destroy your industry. Hell, Tesla Motors loses $10,000 for every car they sell when government subsidies (for example, the 'no emissions' credit which I find laughable because the car has emissions stemming from the extra electric energy it draws from the grid, meaning more fossil fuels burned in power plants) are removed from the equation. This only proves my point. Corporate welfare is the only thing keeping the green industry alive because of people like you. If people were to stop treating this like an issue and simply ignore oil company's non-science, said corporate welfare would not even be necessary.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 18:28:51 GMT 1
You don't have to pay lobbyists if you do your own lobbying or have good friends do it. Alternatively, you can simply have friends in high places. Look at Tesla Motors, Solyndra, Fisker Motors, etc. Their money came from the aforementioned friends in high places (people like Nancy Pelosi, Joseph Aldy, et al.). The green industry got a check for $90 billion from the government and haven't shown much progress. For effective lobbying, money is to be spent. Lobbyists quite literally write the laws in congress, most whom of which most are paid by successful corporate interests. Having a friend or two will not get you far when a legion of opposing lobbyists destroy your industry. Hell, Tesla Motors loses $10,000 for every car they sell when government subsidies (for example, the 'no emissions' credit which I find laughable because the car has emissions stemming from the extra electric energy it draws from the grid, meaning more fossil fuels burned in power plants) are removed from the equation. This only proves my point. Corporate welfare is the only thing keeping the green industry alive because of people like you. If people were to stop treating this like an issue and simply ignore oil company's non-science, said corporate welfare would not even be necessary. Nancy Pelosi is one of the highest-ranking members of the Democrat party and many people listen to her. Also, her brother in law the number two person in charge of Solar Reserve LLC, one of the larger solar energy companies in the country. Not exactly what I consider to be a coincidence when you look at where the money is going.
|
|
|
Post by CAPT Issac R. Madden on May 25, 2013 18:34:01 GMT 1
That's a very good point, Iron. Green does not necessarily equal green as people see it. There is always a cost. You just pay it on your electric bill instead of at the pump. Though I don't see what that has to do with global warming. More emissions from the plants as they burn additional fuels to address the additional energy demand.
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 19:51:05 GMT 1
Nancy Pelosi is one of the highest-ranking members of the Democrat party and many people listen to her. Also, her brother in law the number two person in charge of Solar Reserve LLC, one of the larger solar energy companies in the country. Not exactly what I consider to be a coincidence when you look at where the money is going. Of course green companies qualify for corporate welfare. They are in dire straights, just like the banks were, or when the auto-industry was collapsing. Whenever the oil industry finally loses the battle against the science, that is either run out of money or lose public control, the green industry will not require it. Of course green energy companies support climate change in politics, but they are not nearly the large proponent that you make them out to be. They cannot even come close to competing with the corporate interests in the oil industry. So, again, prove to me that there is a big bad industry with a big bad agenda for climate change.
|
|
|
Post by jklinders on May 25, 2013 21:17:49 GMT 1
We're coming a morsel close to personal attacks here. I got no trouble with strong debating but keep it to the topics and not the people.
|
|
MEdiscovery
Gunnery Chief
The discovery of a life time.
Posts: 93
|
Post by MEdiscovery on May 25, 2013 21:35:02 GMT 1
We're coming a morsel close to personal attacks here. I got no trouble with strong debating but keep it to the topics and not the people. Who came close to an ad hominem?
|
|
|
Post by Clint Johnston on May 25, 2013 21:46:18 GMT 1
Doesn't matter. When the mod weighs in, cool off for awhile. By all means address the ad hominem, but the problem is the faulty logic, not the person.
Also, we cannot simply point our fingers at the oil companies and say "Aha, thar be our villains!" They certainly contribute, as do the shenanigans with politicians. Right now, if green cars are costing the gov't 10,000 per car in subsidies, then this is a bad situation and needs to be resolved. But blaming it on the idiots who won't invest in the future is the wrong approach. The sensible way is to show them that the green options can work just as well.
|
|