another example why not to trust scientist

[kevbone]

Hey Seahawks.....If you fart a lot? Does the air around you balls warm up? Does the glaciers in your nut sack recede?

[StevenSeagal]

Anyways so far the things that have been suggested to improve the global warming situation are pretty good, I think, I wouldn't mind more forrest on this planet, less pollution out put from industry and individual, how can these things be bad?

 

Simple- profits have never been better for the oil and energy industries, and to implement more efficient technology, someone would have to spend some money. We can't have that, everyone knows that business interests always take first priority, because if it's good for business, it's good for America, right?

 

Never mind the long term profits that could resume from monopolizing new technology the way the current technology is monopolized. I want it all, right now.

 

Finally, I would like to know what your interpetation of "real science" is?

 

Business profits=good Regulation= bad

No further science required. Global warming isn't the issue here.

[AlpineK]

In my view global warming is a real problem. I agree that it doesn't look like the 50% mark is correct, but if it's only 15% to 30% it's still making an impact that will affect us.

 

Even if you still don't buy global warming getting off oil will still be good for us. Finding a product that produces energy but doesn't require us to tank a ton of product from the middle east to us has to be good for the US.

[archenemy]

I burn trees.

[AlpineK]

Last year I was way into burning trees, but this year it's been oil.

[kevbone]

I burn something else......

[JayB]

"Simple- profits have never been better for the oil and energy industries, and to implement more efficient technology, someone would have to spend some money."

 

How does one explain the existence of technological progress in any field in light of the assertion that those who profit from existing technology are always able to thwart the development of superior alternatives? This theory, at the very least, has to overcome the minor hurdle of accounting for the discrepancy between a world in which technological progress has come to a screeching halt, and the world that we actually inhabit.

 

This theory that the profit motive is antithetical to technological progress also seems to assume that the same corporations corporations that are programmed to exploit the profit potential derived from old technology A in a given sector are quite uninterested in the potential profits generated in new technology B. Did IBM try to squelch the word-processor/PC and force the world to use the Selectric II? A further assumption is that the said corporations are not only interested in the potential profits generated from technology B, but able to prevent the adoption of B by any competitor operating anywhere in the globe. Then you also have to assume that either they can prevent those who would benefit from technology B from having any knowledge of its existence, and lacking that, insuring that they aren't able to channel the demand for B into demand thats capable of overcoming whatever restrictions that those who profit from A are able to put into place to prevent B from getting into their hands.

 

Is this logical analysis, or a lazy paranoia that caters to one's ideological predispositions at work here? Sounds quite a bit like those who claim that the foremost obstacle to curing a given type of cancer is the existence of a profitable treatment.

 

 

 

 

[StevenSeagal]

Let's just put it this way:

 

I have no more faith in the altruism of business owners to do what is best for everyone, than I do in the federal government. Given the choice between the illusion of government oversight of the oil/energy industries, which provide a service that is vital and has the ability to effect every aspect of our society, versus allowing these industries to do what is best for the environment on a "voluntary" basis, I'll take the gov't regulation. At least there's the possibility of transparency.

 

The current situation is that oil is a giant cartel that set prices however it feels like, because they know there is absolutely nothing any of us can do about it except complain. Free market economics doesn't work if there is no competition. I don't favor gov't regulation for business, but if there ever was a case for it, it's here.

 

 

[JayB]

It looks like we've strayed from the original "big established businesses versus innovation theme" a bit here. Is the claim that businesses will resist regulations that diminish their profits, or that they can/will always squelch any technological innovation that may occur in their field that has the potential to undermine their profits, at least in the near term?

 

C02 emissions are one thing, the price of oil is another. It would seem to me that the existence of a monopoly that artificially inflated the price of oil would actually decrease oil consumption below the level that would prevail in a competitive marketplace where oil companies had an incentive to compete on price - and that depending on the scope and strength of the monopoly - the reduction of C02 emissions generated by burning hydrocarbosn might be faster and of a greater magnitude than government regulations that mandate higher efficiency or decreased emissions.

 

Minor digression with regards to altruism:

 

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

 

-Adam Smith, 1776

[PeterC]

Here's a global warming argument that I'm surprised doesn't get used more:

 

We know very well how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from gas sales records (you know too - how many GALLONS do you burn/wk?). We've known for decades exactly how CO2 causes warming by trapping heat near the surface (just like a blanket). Using these two basic facts, we can calculate the eqilibrium temperature of the planet if we double CO2 (which I think will happen in 50yrs given our current usage). I forget the exact number, but I think it's around ~10 degrees Celsius rise in surface temperature. What the skeptics who say 'the planet is too complicated to understand scientifically' don't seem to understand is that simple logic gives us 10 degrees rise and its the complicated feedbacks that LOWER this number down to the 2-5 degrees commonly predicted by climate scientists.

 

Saying "the climate won't change because I don't understand why it would" is stupid - its easy to understand why it would and much trickier understanding why it wouldn't.

[kevbone]

This thread was good....then it got all serious and shit. Its friday, cant was all just let loose?

[archenemy]

You mean like post on a useless thread?

Good idea.

[Stonehead]

For what it's worth, there have been well publicized examples of fraudulent activities in the sciences, for instance, in the medicial sciences and if I recall correctly this occurred in conjunction with NIH funding. As far as research universities there is huge pressure to acquire grant monies, fund research and graduate students, and to publicize results. I would imagine that science as a practice would be similar to other professions in that there are individuals in it who make bad moral decisions. But, as a body the purpose of science, as the root of its name, is knowledge. Sure, the workings of science are like any other human activity and reveal our shortcomings in things such as reseacher bias for a particular working hypothesis.

 

[minx]

scientists and catholic priests -- two types of professionals you should never trust.

[Stonehead]

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

 

-Adam Smith, 1776

 

But it is, in a sense, enlightened self-interest.

[Stonehead]

Here's a global warming argument that I'm surprised doesn't get used more:

 

We know very well how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere from gas sales records (you know too - how many GALLONS do you burn/wk?). We've known for decades exactly how CO2 causes warming by trapping heat near the surface (just like a blanket). Using these two basic facts, we can calculate the eqilibrium temperature of the planet if we double CO2 (which I think will happen in 50yrs given our current usage). I forget the exact number, but I think it's around ~10 degrees Celsius rise in surface temperature. What the skeptics who say 'the planet is too complicated to understand scientifically' don't seem to understand is that simple logic gives us 10 degrees rise and its the complicated feedbacks that LOWER this number down to the 2-5 degrees commonly predicted by climate scientists.

 

Saying "the climate won't change because I don't understand why it would" is stupid - its easy to understand why it would and much trickier understanding why it wouldn't.

 

I think most of us are on the same page, just different parts of the page, re: global warming.

 

One of the criticisms of the CO2/warming feedback cycle is that lag times in the two variables have been observed. The ocean is a huge sink for carbon and ocean temperature affects the volume of gas that it stores, so it's a moderator. Thus, the proposition is that cosmic rays which in turn affect cloud cover acts as a primary trigger.

 

But, the fact remains, that we're definitely contributing to the carbon budget.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Stonehead

[Stonehead]

scientists and catholic priests -- two types of professionals you should never trust.

 

Doubly so for Pierre Teihard de Chardin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

 

Don't immanentize the eschalon.

 

To immanentize the eschaton means trying to bring about the eschaton (the end of days, see eschatology) in the immanent (material) world. More recently, it has been used by conservatives as pejorative against what they perceive as utopian schemes, such as socialism, communism, etc. It is also being used by libertarians to criticise George W. Bush and the neo-conservative movement [1]. In this context it means "trying to make that which belongs to the afterlife happen here and now (on Earth)" or "trying to create heaven here on Earth."

 

--widipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanentize_the_eschaton

 

 

[kevbone]

You mean like post on a useless thread?

Good idea.

 

Arch….all the thread are useless………useless=entertainment.

[Seahawks]

I burn something else......

 

Methan from your arse? or do you just burn from those STD's???

 

[StevenSeagal]

It looks like we've strayed from the original "big established businesses versus innovation theme" a bit here. Is the claim that businesses will resist regulations that diminish their profits, or that they can/will always squelch any technological innovation that may occur in their field that has the potential to undermine their profits, at least in the near term?

 

At the least, I think the development and availability of some technologies is not as expedient as it could be, while competing interests wrangle for control of them. I suspect that until oil interests secure a means to capitalize from alternative fuels to power cars, those technologies will be slower to develop and be affordable. The problem is, they are needed sooner than later.

 

Side note- my understanding was that back in the 1940's, LA infrastructure planners had a very different vision for the area than what is in place today- one that involved trains and mass transit. But, powerful interests that wanted a car-based system helped to squash it and develop the freeway network they have today. I don't have a source on this but I do remember reading about this awhile back, maybe someone else can chime in with specifics?

 

For better or worse, we've developed a transportation system dependent on the car, and our daily lives now also revolve around it, making it more difficult to effect change. The unfortunate reality is, it is clear that the continuation of this system as is will not likely be practical- everything is developed, space is limited, and the freeways are reaching capacity. And oil seems to either be running out, or requires invading other countries to secure more of it, and/or requires continuing dealings with shady countries and governments. Like many things in human history, ultimately, the change will occur only when we have no other choices remaining.

 

Minor digression with regards to altruism:

 

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

 

-Adam Smith, 1776

 

Ironic, but true. Altruism is more a fantasy than a reality. The butcher providing your dinner is one thing. The problem is when someone's "regard for their own interest" becomes distorted into thinking that multi billion dollar profits and 200 million dollar bonuses are necessary for one's survival, and the byproducts are poisoning of the water and air, relationships with despots, crushing of weaker competition, underhandedly funding nefarious business dealings and wars, and gouging consumers at their own whim, because they can.

 

There's a fine line between making a comfortable living, and going out of your way to interfere with and prevent others from having the same so that you can be filthy rich. Don't assume I'm advocating a socialist/gov't approach to fixing this. People have to come to this realization on their own, or not at all. But it doesn't hurt to point it out. Wishful thinking, yes.

 

 

Oh and kevbone: if you want to "let loose", go back to Billcoe's proctology exam photo and pull out the doc's finger.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

scientists and catholic priests -- two types of professionals you should never trust.

 

Even more so if the scientist or catholic priest is hot.

[kevbone]

I burn something else......

 

Methan from your arse? or do you just burn from those STD's???

 

Nope......I put the STD's in my pipe and smoke them. Your mom taught me that.

[kevbone]

Oh and kevbone: if you want to "let loose", go back to Billcoe's proctology exam photo and pull out the doc's finger.

 

Someone should have labeled that as NSFW. But that was hilarious. Simply because the person getting the finger was Seahawks.....ha ha

[StevenSeagal]

Oh and kevbone: if you want to "let loose", go back to Billcoe's proctology exam photo and pull out the doc's finger.

 

Someone should have labeled that as NSFW. But that was hilarious. Simply because the person getting the finger was Seahawks.....ha ha

 

And also because it was your finger.

[Stonehead]

Strange bedfellows?

 

Thanks for the Cheap Gas, Mr. Hitler! How Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa perfected one of the world's most exciting new fuel sources.

 

--Slate