Eco-Guilt

Whether or not Global Warming can be directly attributed to human beings, is it not unconscionable for sanctimonious Green-types to try and guilt people in to giving money so that we can repent for our eco-sins? How is that any different than scumbag televangelists tithing?Are carbon credits not the biggest scam imaginable? People look at Al Gore as if some kind of a prophet. Is it not apparent that his blustering is really just precious face-time for the camera? Nobel Peace Prize? Are you serious?I call BULLSHIT! I mean that literally, watch the links Part IPart IIPart III

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

I agree, but people will do the stupidest things to make themselves feel good.P.s. Love the show!

---

I hunt for the truth

Global Warming is a fact. The warming trend is directly correlated with the amount of CO2 in the air. We have been pumping CO2 into the air for a long time now. Even if we aren't the sole cause of Global Warming, it's obvious we're not making things better. If we can reduce the amount of CO2 we add to the system, we might be able to help. If nothing else, we'll reduce the amount of smog and asthma causing irritants in the air while stimulating new businesses and innovation. Can you tell me where the downside is?

I think you'll find that many people involved in the "green" movement don't actually give a crap about Al Gore. What many people are now focused on is sustainability. Even if anthropogenic climate change is bunk (which it isn't) it still makes sense to develop economic and environmental practices that will not bring us the highest short-term gains, but rather ensure that prosperity into the future. Yes, giving away money solely to offset your own guilt is not a good way to go about things. However, changing the way we do things to make them more sustainable will cost some money up front. I suggest you look for another way for you to invest your money/time to help reach this goal, one that you think is not a scam. Maybe you could try to buy local foods (whether or not they're labelled organic) more often.

---

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

Correlation does not prove causation.I've seen some scientists suggest that increased temperature is causing the increase in CO2, rather than the other way around. What evidence is there that the causation goes the direction you believe, beyond the correlation?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, the first thing is that this thread is about carbon credits and people who manipulate global warming to their own ends. I won't pretend, though, that I exactly trust the "experts" on the issue for the sole fact that there are money making agendas. Recycling is BIG business started off of a bald faced lie. California and other states extort its residents through unnecessary smog testing, which started out with good intentions, but snowballed in to a money making scheme. The auto industries have racked in the dough riding the eco-trend. On and on. Agenda's tend to skew things here and there, and tip things in other's favor.Somebody else makes an excellent point: That correlation does not necessarily equal causation. The fact is that the earth is warming. This could be part of a cyclical trend or it could be attributed to humans. I don't think, however, that the debate is closed on the issue. I think it's just begun.I think the scariest thing is that, without even realizing it, the whole eco-movement is becoming more like a religion and less like what it ought to be. And Al Gore is their prophet.I agree that emissions should be controlled and monitored. I agree that it is good practice to conserve energy. I agree that it could be possible that global warming is directly attributed to mankind's lax attitude. What I don't agree with is the hysteria-induced mania, the fear mongering, the exaggerations, the guilt trips, and the outright lies. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : Added a little informationEdited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

I agree that there is a lot of misinformation out there about global warming, and a lot of people with a financial interest in exploiting this information. But remember that this goes for both sides of the issue. The trouble is that the people who distort things and make shrill proclamations are the ones who get the most news coverage. I watched the first part of the P&T. They are entertaining, but I think they do fall into the category of shrill misinformation spreaders. Before you go believing everything that scientifically illiterate skeptics tell you and doubting everything that scientifically illiterate greenies say, why don't you have a look at what the scientific community actually claims rather than at what the media says.Have a look at the latest IPCC report (put together by the world's leading collaboration of scientists on the subject). For example, it directly explains the correlation versus causation issue you guys are worrying about. The full report is here, but you should look at their FAQs. On page 9 is a chart (FAQ 2, Figure 2) that summarizes the current (as of 2005) state of understanding in terms of how much the earth is warming from various sources.Clearly, people who say that there is no doubt that human activities are heating up the earth are wrong. There is some doubt, but it is very small, see the 90% likelihood error bars on each of the processes in this chart. On the other hand the Penn and Teller skeptics who claim that changes in solar irradiance are driving things are very wrong because the heating is far too small. This is easy to calculate and you can see it in the chart. The real uncertainty that remains is in how human produced aerosals interact with cloud formation, and in how much cooling that produces. But the most likely scenario is that the earth is warming and that humans are the primary cause. That is the scientific consensus.

I agree. There are many religious methodologies, practices and mindsets exhibiting themselves in the 'eco-friendly' movement: manipulation by guilt (like you mention), scaring people into submission, ignoring contradicting evidence while accepting only re-inforcing evidence and on and on.As for the persons who say that global warming is a 'fact', that it may be however man-made global warming certainly isn't, far from it. Science is always tentative and assigning the same degree of credibility to the man-made-global-warming theory as to, say, the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution is disingenuous.What I find really reprehensible is the cynical way that governments -in Europe at least- exploit this movement to extract more taxes and impose more controls.I call BULLSHIT too!

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

What I think the biggest danger in all this is, is very simple.When it turns out that it won't be as bad as all the doomsayers are projecting, people will start to reject any solution that'll make us use our energy supplies more efficiently.In short, I am not against more efficient energy use, i am against exploiting this new "eco-scare" for monetary gain, which will only serve to drive people away from the actual solution for the problem. Which is a shame.Like my government for example. They introduced a flight tax because "planes polute a lot". But then, when it turns out it was costing them more money then it gained them, they did away with it, citing "economic reasons". How this looks to the people is of course the way it is. They don't care about the environment, and only wanted to make a quick buck. Now it'll be harder to convince people we need to use energy and resources more efficiently.

---

I hunt for the truth

I would hardly call the scientists behind the IPCC report the "world's leading collaboration of scientists". They are a body of scientists selected by self-elected bureaucrats and whose livelihood and reputation are totally dependent on the acceptance of the man-made-global-warming theory.Within the IPCC itself there's a lot of bickering and self-doubt, exemplified by the resignation of scientists such as Dr Richard Lindzen and Dr Christopher Landsea who have both expressed their concern at the politicisation of the IPCC and the suppression of dissenting opinions.Treating the IPCC report as gospel only helps to reinforce the argument in the OP.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"

When hundreds of scientists are selected by their nations and asked to review the current state of climate change science and report a summary for the public to digest, I am inclined to trust what they say. Maybe there are biases, but I have trouble believing in any big conspiracies to bury the truth in an organization of this size.But if you don't like the IPCC, then how about the other leading scientific organizations that are expressing significant concern about human influence on the climate? Say, the American Physical Society, the European Academy of Science and Arts, the European Science Foundation, the American Meteorological Society, or the dozens of others on this list? Can you find any dissenting scientific organizations? There are isolated individual dissenters, but mainstream science suggests that humans are probably (not certainly) responsible for most of the warming that has occurred, and that this warming will probably continue with unknown consequences. The biggest remaining source of uncertainty in determining how temperatures will evolve in the future is the aerosol issue, I think.

But that's just it. They don't have a consensus on the matter. There are more dissenters to the prevailing belief than what is known. For every good thing they think they're doing with the Kyoto Protocol, human beings are directly affected because of these mandates that strip their ability to work.It was like the ban of DDT... This ban killed millions upon millions of people in the interest of... saving millions upon millions of people? Hmmmmmm...

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

Who doesn't have a consensus? CATO? I don't really have time to read through all their documentation, is there some part of it that you want me to look at specifically?It seems to me that there is a pretty strong scientific consensus that global warming is probably a real phenomenon that is being caused or increased by humans. I have provided links to support my opinion of this consensus. Like I said, I completely agree with your point that there is misinformation on the left as well as the right, and many organizations are overstating the certainty and the peril that climate change poses. But we still know that we are probably having a significant impact on the earth's climate, and the consequences may be dangerous.

RAWR!Thought I would use plead to emotion in my argument too.On a serious note. One of the main reasons so many scientists are skeptical of human cause to Global Warming as well is the very fact that we are still emerging from a very recent Ice Age. After all, rising ocean levels from this post-ice age Global Warming is what created the Black Sea. In fact, data shows that the vast majority of sea rise occurred in the ost-Glacial_Sea_Level.png]-->distant past.The data I have found thus far on increase in CO2 concentration causing temperature increase is not too compelling. My main hang up is the CO2 dips that directly preced the temperature increase spikes, which are then followed by CO2 spikes. Also, the fairly recent data time line provides insufficient trending to determine whether CO2 causes increase temp. or if the opposite is true.I will have to do further research on this issue which will need to include:

• A greater time line so as to provide a greater comprehension on trending (more than likely from ice core samples).
• More data on CO2 and it's interaction with temperature change (as opposed to water vapor which has a greater capacity for heat enclosure)

TTFN

---

How hard they must find it, those who take authority as truth, rather than truth as the authority.
-unknown

That's exactly it: scientists are selected by governments, governments with agendas to fulfill. The IPCC report itself isn't written by scientists, it's written by bureaucrats, scientists merely contribute to the report and the bureaucrats put their spin on it. Dr John Christy - Lead Author for the IPCC- is one of the many who've admitted that scientists are told what to include in the report by politicians who want to push a particular agenda. No, but as most of the organisations you mention rely on funding by governments and organisations with vested interests in the acceptance of the MMGW theory, that's hardly a surprise at all.Fortunately scientific truth isn't decided by majority vote. The MMGW theory is used to make predictions of dubious relevance and specificity. The persistence of bodies such as the IPCC to have it accepted as scientific 'fact', of equal standing to the theories of relativity, evolution, etc. badly stinks of ulterior motives. If you're somehow suggesting that scientists like John Christy, Richard Lindzen and Christopher Landsea are not 'mainstream' because they disagree with the agenda pushed upon them I can only remind you that throughout history totalitarian regimes and religions have always marginalised and ostracised people who questioned and challenged their orthodoxy. The word 'Heretic' literally means 'someone who chooses to believe something different'.

---

"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"