Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I would like to hear some opinions on this.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 270534" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>AV8,</p><p>I want to address your post #31 first and then I address the other.</p><p> </p><p>As to the politics and for funding access? Sure it's driven by politics, I won't say dogmatically in all but I do think in a lot of cases it is. It's just as fair IMO to say this as others say that when Exxon or BP Oil do a study that it is tainted as well. Do you think that UPS would fund a study for public consumption who's goal was to show that in the few years ahead that large scale package delivery services were no longer needed and should be abolished? I think we both know the answer to that question. <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>It was all the rage to say it's global cooling because starting in the 1940's until the early 1980's the mean global temp was dropping and scientists saw the trendline and other data and the evidence on hand seemed to support that conclusion. But in 1980 or so the temp swung upward and here we are today and it's all the rage to say global warming because the data supports that. What I think and others do as well is pointing to a root cause. There is a political agenda among some who say it's human activity but there is also a school of thought that being we don't know, maybe it's just a good idea to be safe and limit our own known contributors to warming "in case" they may be more a factor than we at this point realize.</p><p> </p><p>My wife's boss had a gut problem that as we age some have worse than others. The doctor was unable to pinpoint a root cause so he had his patient strip his diet down to very bare bones and as time went on they plugged various foods in and out of the diet and then monitored the results. Over time, they were able to pinpoint the foods that caused his problems so instead of having to take drugs to mask the situation, he now avoids those foods and lives life very well. Many scientists know they can't stop the naturally occuring CO2 and some scientists are dumping iron oxide into the ocean to overbreed a type of plankton that consumes vast amounts of CO2 but I side on caution that this may have unintended consequences. Reducing man's output of CO2 at this moment may seem like something that should be done but there are potential unintended consequences as well and some of that is believed to be economic. I would be so inclined to agree that this would be the case most likely.</p><p> </p><p>But I still think the root problem again "IMO" is positioned in the political and that egos are such that one side doesn't want the other side to win no matter what. As a result no one is willing to sitdown and lay out all the facts out on the table, take the time instead of 30 second political soundbits to educate everyone on all aspects of this and then I think a lot of this can be done by people choosing themselves outside of any gov't mandates or programs to make some minor changes in their lives and I think many will. It's not hard to show by doing certain things we limit our environmental impact but we also limit our hard earned dollars from flowing out of our country to the likes of oil producing states like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Russia who IMO is still not to be trusted. These monies have had a habit of finding their way into the hands of people who don't have our best interest at heart. The way I see it, you attack 2 problems with one solution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 270534, member: 2189"] AV8, I want to address your post #31 first and then I address the other. As to the politics and for funding access? Sure it's driven by politics, I won't say dogmatically in all but I do think in a lot of cases it is. It's just as fair IMO to say this as others say that when Exxon or BP Oil do a study that it is tainted as well. Do you think that UPS would fund a study for public consumption who's goal was to show that in the few years ahead that large scale package delivery services were no longer needed and should be abolished? I think we both know the answer to that question. :happy-very: It was all the rage to say it's global cooling because starting in the 1940's until the early 1980's the mean global temp was dropping and scientists saw the trendline and other data and the evidence on hand seemed to support that conclusion. But in 1980 or so the temp swung upward and here we are today and it's all the rage to say global warming because the data supports that. What I think and others do as well is pointing to a root cause. There is a political agenda among some who say it's human activity but there is also a school of thought that being we don't know, maybe it's just a good idea to be safe and limit our own known contributors to warming "in case" they may be more a factor than we at this point realize. My wife's boss had a gut problem that as we age some have worse than others. The doctor was unable to pinpoint a root cause so he had his patient strip his diet down to very bare bones and as time went on they plugged various foods in and out of the diet and then monitored the results. Over time, they were able to pinpoint the foods that caused his problems so instead of having to take drugs to mask the situation, he now avoids those foods and lives life very well. Many scientists know they can't stop the naturally occuring CO2 and some scientists are dumping iron oxide into the ocean to overbreed a type of plankton that consumes vast amounts of CO2 but I side on caution that this may have unintended consequences. Reducing man's output of CO2 at this moment may seem like something that should be done but there are potential unintended consequences as well and some of that is believed to be economic. I would be so inclined to agree that this would be the case most likely. But I still think the root problem again "IMO" is positioned in the political and that egos are such that one side doesn't want the other side to win no matter what. As a result no one is willing to sitdown and lay out all the facts out on the table, take the time instead of 30 second political soundbits to educate everyone on all aspects of this and then I think a lot of this can be done by people choosing themselves outside of any gov't mandates or programs to make some minor changes in their lives and I think many will. It's not hard to show by doing certain things we limit our environmental impact but we also limit our hard earned dollars from flowing out of our country to the likes of oil producing states like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Russia who IMO is still not to be trusted. These monies have had a habit of finding their way into the hands of people who don't have our best interest at heart. The way I see it, you attack 2 problems with one solution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
I would like to hear some opinions on this.
Top