User avatar
By befuddled
#298075
Yep.

And dueling algorithms are going to be understood and interpreted intelligently by the general populace instead of soundbytes.
User avatar
By Plow
#299122
befuddled wrote:Yep.

And dueling algorithms are going to be understood and interpreted intelligently by the general populace instead of soundbytes.
The Global Warming folks sold their hoax with lies not algorithms. The general populace will understand just fine with the truth.
User avatar
By Back Eddy
#299200
Plow wrote:
befuddled wrote:Yep.

And dueling algorithms are going to be understood and interpreted intelligently by the general populace instead of soundbytes.
The Global Warming folks sold their hoax with lies not algorithms. The general populace will understand just fine with the truth.
Image
User avatar
By SLSS
#299210
Gore has an opinion piece on global warming in the NYT this weekend.
User avatar
By m.b.
#299212
that's the point... he still spouts off when it's in a medium that's friendly to him, but when asks tough questions about objective stuff by "hostile" media, he hides.
User avatar
By Plow
#299221
Gore needs to take up one of the public challenges to debate GW face to face if he wants to regain any credibility.
User avatar
By SLSS
#299227
I heard a report this week with a behavioral scientist, questioning how in the face of 98% of the scientific community involved in the fields related to the environment behind the evidence showing significant impact by man and industrialization, the majority of Americans don't believe it. The behavioral scientist had done studies showing that no matter what the message, the audience received it with a preconception based on their impression of the messenger- ie Al Gore is possibly the worst possible messenger of anything other than his fan-base. I think he was very effectively branded by the Bush campaign in their presidential campaign as a _________________ (I'll let you fill in the blank), and he will be forever that to the people that think that about him.

Unfortunately that doesn't change the science behind the issue. I do think there is a lot of room for debate about how to best approach solutions (I personally think the whole idea of carbon trading shows how tied in Wall Street is to DC, and how tone-def the politicians are to the rest of the country and the real world, and is bullshit), but I don't blame Gore at all for not wanting to get involved in a media clash on conservative broadcast. It seems to be mostly about undermining his credibility rather than addressing the real issues.

As for Al Gore himself, I think he is probably a well meaning, well intentioned guy, who grew up in politics, had that as his primary career, and is out of touch with the reality of most of our lives- like most every other politician going. Kinda like a life-long academic telling people what the real world is like. I also think Gore has a Pinocchio quality that makes him not real well suited for modern media, but that doesn't make him an idiot. He's been effectively branded as such by the right, and it makes it difficult for many to listen to him. If you put aside the often repeated dig that he claimed to have invented the internet (he never made the claim), you find he was instrumental in getting policies in place that funded it and made it come together. He was able to see the possibility of it before many in government were even aware of it. The bullshit that has sidelined him as a voice of significant ideas is the same sort of disingenuous bullshit going on right now in the healthcare debate- I think it all has to do with political power, corporate money, and the desire of some of those involved to continue to profit greatly at the expense of most of the rest of us.

So, that's all I got. Every reasonable (by my estimation) piece of information I have seen points to massive impact of our ever expanding population and the multiplying effect of industry. One of the big things I don't understand is the resistance to the opportunity presented by alternative energy. I really think we are fucked as a nation if we don't return to a manufacturing economy- how else are we going to have enough decent jobs that we reduce unemployment and the social support programs? I had lunch with my brother-in-law yesterday, who has had a very successful career in industrial design- the last several years of which has been moving manufacturing overseas, for a company long seen as a great American company thought they just recently moved their headquarters form the Cayman Islands to Ireland. He told me they have found the only real variable in the cost of manufacturing is labor, that China is already losing jobs to countries on worse shape. But that the technology used in manufacturing is reducing labor as a part of the equation. That would seem to indicate there might be opportunities in alternative energy development for job growth within our country. Check Tom Friedman's (we may actually agree on our opinion of him, but again, it doesn't mean he has something worth hearing) column in the NYT.

I've yakked too long. I'm going snowshoeing with my pup. :cool
User avatar
By m.b.
#299236
yeah, only problem with that argument is the little inconvenient fact the statement "in the face of 98% of the scientific community involved in the fields related to the environment behind the evidence showing significant impact by man and industrialization" is false. it's hardly 98%.

it's an agenda designed for a power grab that is bought-into and endorsed whole-heartedly by the gullible and those who favor big-government and big-government control of the private sector. having said that, those who bought into it love to scream that those who don't agree with the agenda are not for conservation and alternative energy. that is hardly the case, it's just that trying to switch to alt. energy and away from oil before the alt. energy technologies are viable is a fast-track to losing our place as the dominant superpower in the world. creating legislation to tax and control it is an even faster track. believe me, i'd love to be able to tell every camel jockey in the middle east to fuck off/we don't need their oil and they aren't getting another dime from us, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen till new tech. is viable and can support our economy like oil can.

and as far as a media clash on a conservative broadcast to undermine his (gore's) credibillity - if it's as rock solid as the GW crowd likes to claim it is, what does he have to fear? why doesn't he use that as a chance to show the rest of the world how wrong they are and convince them of "the truth?" why doesn't he appear on those broadcasts to undermine those networks' credibility and humiliate the "deniers?" we all know why....because he and the whole global warming movement don't have the credibility to begin with.

why not publicly debate it rather than publishing little puff-pieces in GW friendly media? cuz neither he nor the movement can win the debate. answering legit questions that he's been avoiding blows holes in his argument.
User avatar
By SLSS
#299244
m.b. wrote:yeah, only problem with that argument is the little inconvenient fact the statement "in the face of 98% of the scientific community involved in the fields related to the environment behind the evidence showing significant impact by man and industrialization" is false. it's hardly 98%.
I don't think that's the problem, in fact I think it's nearly irrelevant. Realistically, there is a majority of the scientific community- those working in the fields related to environmental science- who are in the camp of climate change. The 98% was my imperfect memory of a remark made by a behavioral scientist who was interested in the behavior related to it, not the #. I do often see people arguing against the idea often grab a number like that to refute the argument. I don't think it matters whether it's 98, 78 or 58. Enough believe it that I think it bears consideration and funding.
m.b. wrote:it's an agenda designed for a power grab that is bought-into and endorsed whole-heartedly by the gullible and those who favor big-government and big-government control of the private sector.
I disagree with you, but I don't see us convincing one another. I do think there are plenty of opportunist fucks looking to influence governmental policy for their own benefit- seen by the actions of the last several admins (starting with Reagan) loosening control of the banking/credit/investment/insurance industries and the hosing we've all taken as a result. From what I have read, the whole corn-'based ethanol program is much the same- not a good energy program, but money in the pockets of a lot of well funded special interests
m.b. wrote: having said that, those who bought into it love to scream that those who don't agree with the agenda are not for conservation and alternative energy. that is hardly the case, it's just that trying to switch to alt. energy and away from oil before the alt. energy technologies are viable is a fast-track to losing our placed as the dominant superpower in the world. creating legislation to tax and control it is an even faster track. believe me, i'd love to be able to tell every camel jockey in the middle-east to fuck off/we don't need their oil and they aren't getting another dime from us, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen till new tech. is viable and can support our economy like oil can.
A agree with you on the screaming aspect of the protests- although I think protest is fair and valid. I also think the screaming and contemptuous tone of some of the commentators on the right are of the same value (none), and it is not unusual to have someone get really heated about their position, and upon 2 minutes of engagement, you find out they have no idea what they are talking about. Both sides.

I also agree that we are no where near done with oil, but I'd love to see coal reduced then eliminated. I realize nuclear may be the best short term alternative, but I have severe misgivings about the long term impact (storage dumped on the next several generations). A hot button issue in the PNW are the dams, particularly those on the Columbia. Studies (granted studies are not reality), have shown there is enough alternative energy available or soon could be to replace the energy generated there, but it would probably increase expense to a minimal degree. I personally think the argument against should be tossed, as I think the bigger issue is that our country - and possibly the world- need the salmon stocks of the PNW restored for food, way more than we need to save a few dollars on a power bill. But entrenched industrial/political interests won't allow that to happen anytime soon, and possibly not in time to save the salmon, and possibly ourselves. Yes, I do think we are fully capable of fucking up the place so much we make it in hospitable to most or all. And I think all these issues are interrelated and need to be weighed and evaluated that way- something our government should be able to do if it served us, the population, and not the business interests that would win/lose with various options.

I do think we are on our way to losing our place as the dominant superpower in the world, which is one reason I think we are on a better path with foreign policy. I wish we had taken a more diplomatic approach to the middle east over the last 60 years, rather than the more WWF approach I think we did. I also think it is interesting how rarely it is pointed out the same players with close ties to the oil industry, have been involved in shaping those policies over so many years.

At any rate, we may never agree, but if things could be kept civil, I think there are potential long term solutions. I have three kids, and a good share of my concerns are for the country and world we leave them with.

I thought for years I was a liberal, til I met some real liberals. Then visiting with a brother in law who is more conservative than most I've ever met, we were both surprised on how much we agree on. The only label I claim is independent.

It's funny MB, my guess is if we met and fished, we'd probably have fun. If it ever happens, we probably need to keep politics out of the day. :cool
User avatar
By m.b.
#299247
we'd get on just fine. i've fished with my fair share of libs and uppity mountain hippies [:)] and had a blast each time. it's safe to say they had fun too, as many have come back for seconds.

and there's no politics on the boat, even with those i see eye to eye with. there is no point as that's not why we're there, and besides, on the boat it's not like you can walk away when you're sick of discussing it and the other clown isn't.

Hope everyone is looking forward to IG Horowitz re[…]

Thumbing Through Some SBSs

Muddled Denson Autumn Ordie https://live.sta[…]

KP got a good dig in. When I'm the guy who ge[…]

come hell or high water tr

Good year SFB. FYI, he's FSB over here, the[…]

Subsribe to The Drake Magazine