Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Steven Maloney
Mullica Hill, NJ
As a conservative thinker (economically, some gay rights) and a slightly liberal thinker on other issues (abortion, green energy, health care) but overall a person who foresees problems that are ahead for the situation, i mostly argue on the side of economy as well
Recent Activity
-
Steven commented on the article |while the mountain top removal is in dispute, but many of you forget the obvious benefits.
1. coal despite being dirty, is an important source of energy, and we can't just flash over to solar and wind because of placement problems and of course construction.
2. And the strip mining (which is the technique of mountain top miners) actually saves lives and is more efficient than other types of mining (as in in the ground). the deep mining is quite deadly and often cause collapses that kills dozens of workers at once. Strip mining is almost completely safe and does not have dangerous side effects like deep mining has on your lungs. it is more safe but less environmentally friendly. that no one can refute. but what would you rather have, a couple of mountains crumbling (which would happen over time anyways) or hundreds of lives lost every year
-
Steven commented on the article |
Craig,
No I don’t deny that Walter Block is controversial, in fact I like the fact that he is, it makes every argument more fun because of it. Being a thinker of the Austrian school of economics, he is bound to be a macro-economist that looks from above, but that’s not the point. The ‘extreme’ viewpoint is that despite what you may think of him, he’s right that property rights (mainly the right to your own body, as in free speech, freedom of religion [or no religion] and basic freedom of choice) are the fundamental human right. Of course some things must not be allowed but the basic idea is correct. Walter Block, despite your accusations, is a good thinker. Yes he’s a little extreme, but hey! You need extreme views to make sure you’re on the right path. Just like how your views are extreme (environmentally) Walter Block’s Views are extreme on the free-market side, not always conflicting but they do rub against each other.
Also, I like Ron Paul, he wants to at least audit the federal reserve, which I believe is needed to fix our economy in the long term. The past credit bubble (I think it’s a triple bubble recession, oil speculation, credit bubble and housing are the three) was caused by easy money policies by Former Fed chairman Allen Greenspan since the 1990s. and since the Federal reserve has more influence (right now) than the executive branch in the economy, we need to limit that, especially since the fed is not elected by the people but elected by banks (self-regulation does not always work if the regulation gives them free money). But for more of my thoughts on that let’s keep it off this comment board.
On my assertion of Exxon NOT being the biggest corporation, the Fortune 500 top 25 biggest companies as had Wal-Mart as the largest for the past 2 years, with ExxonMobile coming AFTER Wal-mart in 2007, in fact, the oil group’s profits have been stagnating as the price of oil and the price of refinement continue to grow (even when it hit a record net income). And this year (since earnings season is almost done) the European oil company Shell is above Exxon as the largest corporation. So in the past 3 years (from business year 2006 to 2008) Exxon has only been the second largest company, not the first.
You are right that I do not understand peer-reviewing, and you are right that Exxon does have vested interest in what studies they invest in, I’m saying what the problem with that is. The governments (in my view is always seeking more power) has vested interests in not only climate change but in healthcare reform, regulations, and other avenues of growth.
On the issue of the IPCC, what do they define climate change as? Is it AGCC? Or is it any change in climate (like the name suggests). Well, I looked and looked and haven’t found a good source yet, but for argument’s sake let’s use the first one since never once has the IPCC ever published anything that offered cause other than AGCC.
I trust both of them to fund ‘good science’ since anything published has to be good (otherwise they wouldn’t bother publishing it), however both sides cherry pick the information and never consider the opposing side, and of course i've heard sceintists (who have good points) talk about how the science is dispued and perhaps false (i haven't bothered to look further but i'm sure can get you a transcript if you asked). All I’ve been trying to argue is that despite what you and most people who read this, there is very much a debate still going on it may be 3-1 (or by pew’s account 4-1 which I have problems with) in favor of AGCC-ers but in any account there is still debate (the have a saying where ‘we like it when we’re surrounded because hey can’t get away’). Consensus is not the reason to think that the science is sound, nor is it any way to measure whether scientists are all on one side or not, after all it’s hard to get EVERY single scientists to answer, so even if it’s statistically relevant, it’s not precise enough to actually be absolutely correct.
So far I have not debated you on what causes the climate changing but tended to dance around the issue, but if you’d start with the private messages or invite me to a forum or other place where we can debate without anyone saying that we can’t argue, I’d be happy to start to debate weather it’s AGCC or if it’s NGCC. The idea of getting sound proof taken off the comment board is kind of scarry
-
Steven commented on the article |
Craig,
For the Wikipedia reliability issue, yes, the changes are monitored, but the article could still be new and relatively unknown making it less likely to be challenged. The point is unless it’s an opinion part of the Wikipedia article, don’t take from Wikipedia, take it directly from the sources to ensure facts are correct.
Also on Walter block you alleged that he has a biased point of view. Well of course he does, anyone’s point of view is biased towards any of the following: Libertarianism, Conservatism (I myself am a combination of the two), Liberalism (which hasn’t been much liberating in the past 30 years), and Authoritarianism (by the state, for the state). Walter Block simply put out his point of view. That doesn’t disqualify him from speaking. In fact, it makes him perfectly qualified to speaking out. He’s an Austrian Economist (that means he’s a free-market type) and a senior fellow at the Ludwig Von Meisis Institute. Just because he’s different from you (like I am) and isn’t here to defend himself, don’t disqualify him so quickly.
There are problems with the Peer-review process. Because all humans have opinions, strong opinions often match up with each other on the peer-review panels, making the bias all more powerful. You can look that Allegation on your favorite quotable website, Wikipedia (as I said, opinions are true, but not always facts). But since you’re so keen on peer-reviewing, why don’t you give me a couple of sites that are peer-review publishing sites, just to make it fair.
Logic, though can be proven, is still an opinion. For example: how can you prove I even exist? Well when you pull out the logic, you can’t. The only thing one can really prove is that they themselves exist ‘I think therefore I am’. Beyond that, it is hard to prove anything else exists since it could just all be a figment of your imagination. See? I exist because you think I exist. But let’s keep philosophy out of further conversations, please.
And lastly, I have yet to see that a. Exxon is the biggest corporation out there, obviously there are larger corporations and one can even view governments as corporations in some ways. However, if you say Exxon is the biggest OIL and gas company that would be more accurate. Again, Exxon is just one source for scientific revenues, and each source has it’s own agendas and such, but that DOES NOT MEAN the scientific facts in the article are false, it does not mean that the intentions are good or bad, it’s the resulting information that matters. And because Exxon funds research, there is a debate that otherwise would not exist because at the heart, AGCC is a political movement.
Your ideas that the IPCC is an international science-based organization is wrong, the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is a multi-GOVERNMENT organization, it’s even in the name! Politics IS at the heart of the movement you are so proudly part of but the idea that it is unbiased is completely false. Governments are dictated by politics, not science, and they cherry pick information. In fact there hasn’t been ONE idea that the IPCC has put forward that CC is not caused by man, but by nature. That’s not because there isn’t any, it’s because it conflicts with the goals of the IPCC. How can one quote this organization knowing that governments are behind it?
-
Steven commented on the article |
First, Craig, Wikipedia is NOT a good source for biographies. Every year thousands of users hack into bios of political, scientific and even sports personnel and put up unflattering information. So whatever on Wikipedia should only be taken from its sources. (Just for future reference Craig)
Second, you were right that ExxonMobile has funded Willie Soon. But how is that a bad thing? Just because he gets money from a corporation, don’t other scientists get their funding exclusively from governments? The point is that it doesn’t mater where the funding comes from; it’s what the papers say. Therefore I HAVE given you a peer reviewed paper (other peer-reviewed sites like what you rely on are biased the other direction, a.k.a. for human caused global warming. They may not say I, but the sheer volume of pro-CC (Climate Change) peer-reviewers are near 100%
But just to make it clear, what are the necessary qualifications for a peer-reviewed paper that denies global warming? Let me guess at the double standards here. 1, it must not be funded by special interests. 2, it must be from a site where it is completely un-biased. Obviously I’ll be having a hard time with just those two (special interests back ALL science and no website is un-biased ever, but websites can be less biased than others), so while I’m looking, I’ll be sure to try for these two goals.
And finally, about the Aesthetics, Dr. Craig (your age doesn’t show), I apologize, obviously, me being an ‘outsider’ (despite what my sisters do one a photographer and one in a music school) I only see it as unproductive and more luxurious than working hard. But, people value it, so it has a right to exist and be praised at will, even if I have my own opinions on it.
ok Robert, let me educate you for a second. It’s Steven, not 'Stephen'. It’s on my birth certificate and i take offence to the misspelling of my name.
1. Just because 1 and 2 (carbon dioxide and recent warming) seem to be going up at the same time doesn't mean they are directly related. It’s putting the cart before the horse. Sadly it took off before any other proposals could take off. Science has a history of being misrepresented and moving towards a political movement (remember the 1970's new ice age panic?). The point is that anything in science must be fully debated and researched before politics take over. Global warming is one of those science topics that were taken by politics before. Also, you can’t count the 7054 scientists who didn’t answer as automatically on the same lines, you can assume, but assumption can be wrong. Also, according to Rasmussen, the public is increasingly getting evenly slit between the idea that it’s caused by human activity (42%) and planetary trends (40%) yes the trend is going towards human activity in the past 3 months (back and forth before then). That just means that scientists should be encouraged to debate BOTH sides of the issues and not say ‘recent warming [caused by global warming] is making polar bears become stranded on sea ice in the middle of the ocean’ or something to that means. DEBATE is what sways the public, and you need 50% +1 of the house and senate to pass anything budget neutral and 60% to pass blind spending. If you want what you say you want, stop denying there’s a debate and actually debate! I’ not stopping you, in fact I’m asking you to debate me even though I know I’m at a disadvantage (50-1 of people yelling at me is a disadvantage, not to mention the hard time I have finding viable reports, as Robert has so subtly pointed out). (<- holy.. I just sounded like a one of my teachers just now… I need a vacation suddenly) http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment/energy_update
2. The scientists of the IPCC have a mission to prove that humans cause global warming. There for it is a political entity, but though that doesn’t stop the science, the question behind the motives is in play, since they would not allow ANY controversial proof be published in their reports, so take the IPCC with a grain of salt. Everyone knows politics is just a game of lies and deceptions, Obama’s doing it [in various ways already, don’t ask me to debate that point, you’ll be swamped and we’ll get off topic], Bush did it, Clinton did it, and every cold-war era president did it. How do we know we can trust politics and politicians with something we care about? (You- the environment, me- scientific fact)
3. See 1. The question is not ‘is there warming’, no one says there hasn’t been warming. Living in NJ and hearing the stories of Washington crossing the Delaware River near Trenton, full of river ice, and looking at the crossing now (in December) and see only thin ice on the banks of the river. Yes there has been warming. The question is whether it is anthropogenic or nature. I believe that: since we’ve been warming since he mid-1700s (up from a little ice age), the trend (on a 20 year mini-cycle of up then flat) means hat humans aren’t he cause. If the cause were humans causing CO2 levels to rise, then we would have had a constant rate of warming. But no, we’ve had a cycle pattern. We’re already 8 years into the current flat (to slightly down) part of the cycle. Climate models say that we should be seeing a constant degree of warming, but they have been repeatedly failing. In fact NO climate model has yet to be exact on the observed temperatures. One would think with the amount of science and ‘consensus’ hat the scientists would get it correct 99% of the time, not 0%.
And lastly, scientists who don’t give opinions aren’t human. But since scientists are humans they have opinions, otherwise every paper would just be a bunch of data on 1-300 pieces of paper. Opinions is how hypothesizes are made, how science is advanced, and how the tests are generated. Scientists use their brains (often just a different form of an opinion) to create their science. Not o mention hat logic in itself ids a n opinion (sorry to go Plato on you guys, but a lie like scientists don’t have opinions gets my brain working harder).
-
Steven commented on the article |Sam, there's one called DDT it was used in America and Europe to kill INDOOR mosquitoes carrying malaria. indoor, DDT has little to no environmental impact. of course many organizations which banned DDT in America expanded influence to ban it nearly everywhere, and that's why Malaria is running rampant in Africa killin hundrids of millions of kids every year.
-
Steven commented on the article |
sorry Marilyn, i already checked the site, Heartland (which hosted in 2008 the first ICCC [international conference on climate change] was AFTER Exxon stopped funding heartland institute) is a reliable source for me. their science is sound and has not been debunked (probably no one even tries to pay attention to them, but still it has yet to be debunked)
Also, how are the deniers going to get funding if the government and IPCC aren't going to fund them unless they say global warming is caused by anthropogenic means? the only source available, private businesses. it isn't dirty money, dirty money is that with a political agenda.
Also, just to be on topic, i have not seen anything significant (note SIGNIFICANT) where anti-coal activists have been attacked, mostly just threatened (yes the example above was bad, but threats are just threats untill they are carried out) and just one slap/punch (it's kind of blury there). If a pro-coal activist movement walked through a town and was dispersed through violent means i'm not sure what this site would do, perhaps most would say 'they had it coming to them' or something on that line. Activism in general is going to have a bump or two in the road. it comes with the territory
-
Steven commented on the article |
Ok Craig, I call your bluffs.
First, the idea that Walter Block is an economist is correct, but the idea that he has defended voluntary slave contracts is wrong, slavery means someone owns another person, not a company which ‘owns’ you. It may be ‘slave-like’ conditions (in my opinion it’s NOT, if you choose it, you can get away from it)
Second, there have been peer-reviewed papers that state that humans are not largely the cause. Just follow the links:
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/mclean_defreitas_carter_jgr_2009.pdf -this is a study on El nino’s effects on the climate, and how it’s been the driving force of warming
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/robinson%202008%20gwreview.pdf
Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson and Willie Soon.
Environmental effects of increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
Oregon Institute of Science and medicine
“When we re viewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained; so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming” are now available.
The average temperature of the Earth has varied within a range of about 3°C during the past 3,000 years. It is currently in creasing as the Earth re covers from a period that is known as the Little Ice Age, as shown in Figure 1. George Washington and his army were at Valley Forge during the coldest era in 1,500 years, but even then the temperature was only about 1° Centigrade below the 3,000-year average.”
So, there goes your first statement where there aren’t any peer-reviewed studies. There’s one right there, and I have many more where that came from. (for the graphs showing the facts, click the link). The scientists who authored are among the best in the world in their fields, all they did was compile data, however, their data is correct and the paper has been peer-reviewed
Third, has anyone heard about the Oregon petition? That, if anything, is proof that there is not a consensus on the subject of global warming. Over 31,000 people who are scientists and engineers, 3,697 scientists were of atmospheric, environmental or earth science disciplines. 5,691 scientists and engineers were of the physics and aerospace variety. All this occurred without funds from any energy source. So while 3,146 earth scientists out of 10,200 say global warming is true, 3,697 (perhaps of the same 10,200, but likely outside of that number) say there’s no such thing as a consensus in the debate. Yes there are some abnormalities in the data but that’s bound to happen with larger and larger groups.
Finally, you misquote me when I say ‘small bits’. Then I was referring to the urban heat island effect not the strip mines. And I laugh at the false science of aesthetics; all they really are, are overpaid art critics, that’s all! The have no possible value that they give to society and could in fact remove productivity in the markets by making women care about their beauty more than their work. However, I am in agreement with you where ‘the storage of toxic mine tailings… the degradation of water quality, or even the long-term economic value of the land destroyed’ is a problem. That’s why regulations must be enforced in this field, but to dismiss it like the argument for gun control (if guns aren’t available then there won’t be guns anymore) is absurd (gun control is a really stupid idea, it’s ok to know who owns the gun, but without gun stores, people will buy guns off the black market if they feel like they need it, that’s why the black market exists). To put to bluntly, coal is what got us to where we are now, coal power, not hydro, and certainly not solar or wind, is what drove the industrial age into the colossus of information that it is now!
The protests are all well and good, but in the end of the day, ‘big coal’ is how we have gotten America and Europe to be the top of the world, so why should we forsake third world countries for ‘environmentalism’? obviously the third world needs coal to develop, so why are you beheading the main reason why humans have advanced as far as we have? What is the moral background? ‘the earth is warming!’. Sadly, we have not had any significant warming since 1998 (a super el nino year), no warming since 2003 and a cooling trend in recent years. CO2, which it’s warming impact is logarithmic in nature (there’s only a certain amount of energy a compound can store), has probably hit the ceiling of it’s effects already since we’ve been seeing a cooling trend. I’m not going to go so far as to say that the sun is the reason (it’s not, the stratosphere has been cooling since 1980s is proof of that), but the idea that global warming is a reason not t invest into third world countries’ futures is just running away from our REAL problems.
-
Steven commented on the article |
Jen, i'm just offering a different viewpoint in many of these problems. There HAVE been bomb threats at institutions like the Heartland institute and the Cato institute and many others who house global warming 'flat earthers'.
in the first video, i could not see who the woman hit, but the first person i saw from that side was the man with the gray beard. i did not see an woman that she hit.
in the second video, the camera cuts from scene to scene, but the music is constantly the same. that means that the music was added, or was recorded at the stage and added on later.
i'll concede the facts that you gave about the men in the video, you obviously know more about it and i admit when i'm wrong. But i'd like everyone to remember there's always two sides to every story, and not to judge to quickly, judging quickly is the reason why misunderstandings and subsequent under-representation of certain groups happen undeliberately
-
Steven commented on the article |
honestly, i love how no one is debating me. so far that is... how can you guys claim that you want to debate when you run away when someone with strong points comes knocking?
-
Steven commented on the article |
oh yeah... here's where ot the info
