Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Environmentalism 15

Journal by pudge

NewsHour tonight did a story on pollution. It noted, among other things, that Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and that Seattle has a new "green" City Hall that emits fewer greenhouse gases and, supposedly, saves energy. And that Seattle City Light predicts they will create no net emissions by the end of this year.

The report neglected to mention that the U.S. Senate -- which must ratify all treaties -- turned down Kyoto 95-0 in 1997 (3.5 years before Bush took office), and that there is no reason to think whatsoever that the President could get it passed, even if he wanted to.

The report say the reason Bush pulled out was that he said "the science about global warming was unclear," but the real reason is much more complicated: the United States grew a lot more during the 1990s than most countries, so in order to cut emissions to 1990 levels, they would have to cut a lot more than other countries. This was evident even in 1997.

And even if the levels were modified to make it less respectively painful, it would often have to be done in a way that would significantly harm American jobs, which the Senators -- Democrat and Republican -- simply would not agree to.

The reporter also apparently didn't know that the new Seattle City Hall uses a lot more electricity, while housing far fewer employees, than the old Seattle City Hall, and that Seattle City Light thought it was going to use significantly less electricity, which calls into question the reporter's touted prediction of creating no net emissions by year's end.

And despite all this, Washington state is requiring all new publicly funded buildings to be "green," which will cost millions, still abiding by the myth that it will be cheaper in the long run.

Update: See below for an example of how Wikipedia editors often intentionally censor and misrepresent the facts. In this case, someone replicated and claims different results from a published study, and that information has been excised from Wikipedia. (Follow the circular logic: they remove it because it is not from the scientific literature, and the scientific literature won't publish it because it is already "widely dispersed on the Internet.") And they even misstate the actual study, saying it was about the term "climate change" in the literature, when in fact it was about the term "global climate change." Word to the wise: don't trust Wikipedia for anything that is controversial.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Environmentalism More

Environmentalism

Comments Filter:
  • the United States grew a lot more during the 1990s than most countries, so in order to cut emissions to 1990 levels, they would have to cut a lot more than other countries. This was evident even in 1997.

    They would have to cut more, or they would have to trade emissions credits with other countries which have a surplus.

    Perhaps it is wrong to bash Bush with this issue; as you say the Senate seems unlikely to pass the measure even if it was passed onto them for a decision. However, Bush's opposition to
    • Unless you pay one meeeeeellllliiiioooonnnn dollars.
    • And people have been claiming for centuries that population growth is unsustainable, even though every dire and hysterical prediction of doom has proven false to date!

      And the oil was supposed to have run out decades ago, yet we keep pumping more than ever!

      And just a few decades ago, the world was on the brink of a global cooling catastrophe!

      The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
      • My doctor told me the other day I had terminal cancer and that unless I had drastic and immediate corrective surgery I would die within months. But I don't believe him: I know better.

        He said once that I had a cold, and I should take medicine, but I didn't; and I was fine!
        He said once I should splint my broken arm to make sure it healed properly, but I didn't; and it was fine!
        And, get this, he was worried about symptoms that might have indicated I had a heart condition, but I didn't; so it was fine!

        R
        • My doctor told me the other day I had terminal cancer and that unless I had drastic and immediate corrective surgery I would die within months. But I don't believe him: I know better.

          Yes, I didn't believe him. I got a second opinion, and the other doctor told me it likely wasn't cancer.

          Please do not pretend in here that all -- or even anything approachinig nearly all -- scientists agree that man is creating global warming, because we happen to know that it's not remotely true.

          Every major catastrophic predi
          • Please do not pretend in here that all -- or even anything approachinig nearly all -- scientists agree that man is creating global warming, because we happen to know that it's not remotely true.

            Oh absolutely, Pudge. But a scientist is not a scientist is not a scientist. I'm sure you could dig up some dermatologists or a "political scientist" [wikipedia.org] to refute global warming. But if you actually look at people who are published in; and conversant with; the field: THEY all agree.

            From the most recent survey, qu
            • Oh absolutely, Pudge. But a scientist is not a scientist is not a scientist. I'm sure you could dig up some dermatologists or a "political scientist" to refute global warming. But if you actually look at people who are published in; and conversant with; the field: THEY all agree.

              Uh, no, they don't. Not remotely. You've been deceived. I guess it is not all your fault; amazingly, the Wikipedia entry you cite below doesn't include a clear refutation to the Science study, and actually misstates the study its
              • Ok, sorry for the late response.

                The Oreskes study was not perfect. No sweeping survey could be. But Benny Peiser's response was flawed, and his motives dubious. After his letter's rejection from Science, he immediately went to the Telegraph newspaper with his supposed grievance, and earned himself a light weight and wishy washy opinion piece on flaws in Science.

                Let's first of all take his claims on face evidence. He says, when he repeated Oreskes methodology, he found 34 abstracts that he believed "re
                • But Benny Peiser's response was flawed, and his motives dubious

                  From what I've seen, his response was no more flawed -- if as flawed -- as the study itself, and his motives are no more dubious than hers were.
              • No, it really isn't. Yes, there is a lot more evidence for climate change, but there is not more evidence for what is causing the climate change, nor what the future of climate change will be. Many on the "left" of this issue refuse to separate those issues, despite their being scientifically distinct.

                Firstly, I don't believe this issue should be tangled up in left v right arguments. It only complicates matters. Your statement "there is not more evidence for what is causing climate change" is mystifyin
                • Could you outline your reasoning for stating there is not more evidence about causes of the climate change we are witnessing all across the world, from Canada, to Kilimanjaro, to Siberia?

                  It's quite simple: WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS CAUSING THE CLIMATE CHANGE.

                  They estimated it, measured it, found things missing from their estimates, revised and extended them until they can conclusively (rare in climate science) state that man-made CO2 emmissions are the driving factor behind global warming.

                  They have done no suc
              • you're saying it is not worth examining how effective those measures are, or would be?

                Of course not, but you have to take these 3 things into consideration.

                Firstly, when evaluating the effectiveness of the proposals, you must take into account the fact that they are but a single necessary first step in what will be an evolving and improving process. You can't decry that necessary first step as ineffective on its own, ignoring this point.

                Secondly, you are dealing with a situation where, if everyone
                • Firstly, when evaluating the effectiveness of the proposals, you must take into account the fact that they are but a single necessary first step in what will be an evolving and improving process. You can't decry that necessary first step as ineffective on its own, ignoring this point.

                  That's a circular argument. If they are ineffective, they can't be necessary.

                  Secondly, you are dealing with a situation where, if everyone else is right, the consequences of inaction are huge.

                  Irrelevant. If they are ineffecti

      • And people have been claiming for centuries that population growth is unsustainable, even though every dire and hysterical prediction of doom has proven false to date!

        Actually, I read recently that the growth rate is trending down such that scientist widely believe that the growth will stop around 2050 and the global population will actually shrink for the foreseeable future. The explanation was urbanization. People around the globe are abandoning the countryside in favor of cities at an incredible ra

    • However, Bush's opposition to Kyoto is not predicated on their imaginary rejection of the treaty.

      No, it is based on the same exact reasons that every Senator voted against it, several years before he even took office.

      With the latest news from Siberia, it is clear that the US and others have blindly prevaricated long enough so that any measure we take now will only temporarily stall the catastrophe.

      No such thing is remotely clear.

      I don't know why people continue to insist it is fact that human-created emiss

Slashdot Top Deals

Many people write memos to tell you they have nothing to say.

Close