Why do we have to look at the science? Why can we not get on with reversing the trend? Why not spend money on improving things? We don't spend money on trying to prover cancer exists, aids exist? Why still spend money to prove our climate is changing? What's it going to hurt to polluter less, conserve energy, be a little more conscience of the environment? Probably won't hurt at all!!!
it's hurting bottom lines ... oil companies make a lot of money because they've convinced us that we need to use their dirty product ... it's no different than tobacco ... they fought long and hard to try and disprove their product was bad ... oil companies are doing the same thing ...
unfortunately, it takes leadership ... political leadership to make things better but when that leadership is controlled by companies that would lose out ... it basically is non-existent ... especially when the people that vote in that leadership continue to read only ideological sources ...
le sigh .....its a "settled" and "complex" issue....
CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet
The next climate debate bombshell
Share |
(3) Comments | Subscribe | Print friendly | Email Us
- Dennis Avery Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Get ready for the next big bombshell in the man-made warming debate. The world’s most sophisticated particle study laboratory—CERN in Geneva—will soon announce that more cosmic rays do, indeed, create more clouds in earth’s atmosphere. More cosmic rays mean a cooler planet. Thus, the solar source of the earth’s long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle will finally be explained.
sooo ... this is the guy you listen to ... :roll: ... honestly ... if you guys don't want to read up on global warming ... read "trust us, we're experts" ... a great book on the role of PR in issues such as this ...
but what were all those crazies thinking believing in Darwin and Mendel, there was proof and it was settled that lamarckism was real...
Lysenkoism, named for Russian botanist Trofim Lysenko, was a political doctrine in Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union that mandated that all biological research conducted in the USSR conform to a modified Lamarckian evolutionary theory. The underlying appeal was that it promised a biology based on a plastic view of life that was consistent with the plastic view of human nature insisted upon by Marxist-Leninist dogma.
Lysenko was, though a thorough crank, a political favorite of Stalin who promised great advances in the Soviets' agricultural system by breeding plants based on characteristics acquired from drastic alterations of their environments. Despite the political success of Lysenko's hypotheses, the actual implementation was a failure, wrecking Soviet biology research and risking famine on several occasions.
At the core of Lysenkoism was rejection of the work of Gregor Mendel and denunciation of the concept of genes as "idealist" (one of Stalin's favorite snarl words for ideas he found unacceptable). Though DNA had not been discovered at the time of Lysenko's rise in the 1930s, much productive work -- starting with understanding of how to breed "pure" (i.e. predictable) strains of plants and animals in order to provide proper experimental controls in breeding work -- had been done since the discovery of Mendel's work. Lamarckism (the idea that offspring inherit traits their parents acquired in their lifetimes) provided a more politically correct view in the eyes of Stalin, who felt (as had many Lamarckian holdouts) that Darwinian/Mendelian biology rendered life unacceptably deterministic.[1]
The Lysenkoists employed Stalinist terror in their struggle with Darwinian biologists for bureaucratic and academic positions. Anti-Lysenkoists faced the threat of public denunciation, loss of communist party membership, loss of employment position and arrest by the secret police. Between Lysenko's grip on power and the "disappearances" of numerous of his opponents, it would be years until the Soviet biology program would recover.[2] Similar political strong-arm tactics also hobbled the Soviet nuclear physics program, requiring Soviet scientists to follow only theories that had the Communist Party's blessing. This forced them to steal working designs from the United States, including the decisive Teller-Ulam hydrogen bomb design.
Like much of Stalin's legacy, Lysenkoism fell out of favor in the mid-late '50s and early '60s, as Nikita Khrushchev "de-Stalinized" the Soviet Union. Lysenko himself was stripped of his power as head of the Soviet agricultural academy in 1956 after a couple of years of intense criticism by the Party, and he slipped into obscurity afterwards. However, Lysenkoism would retain some influence well into the '60s.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
If you read (read, not skim) this article, you'll see that the CERN experiment will do nothing to debunk the reality of anthropogenic global warming:
If my die-hard Republican father in law can see the light, I believe that everyone has a chance of changing face on learning the effects of climate change. (And I've never met a closed mind as tightly shut as my Father in law) But one has to want to learn. How do we get more people curious?
I'm changing...I believe in climate change more and more...just a little skeptical on the cause...but I now believe more than ever that we do contribute, now I'm more curious about why more is done to reverse it or slow it down. My wife and I both do our part, have energy efficient appliance's, energy efficient light bulbs, don't leave lights on, both of drive fuel efficient cars, only drive when necessary...we do all kinds of things...but why isn't more effort being done?
I also admit that I was dead set in believing in climate change...but If you do the reading and listening of the facts then you'll see that climate change does exist...
I just wonder why more isn't being done...why is bottle water popular still? look at the waste with all those bottles and it's just overpriced tap water. Why is so much package items in that hard plastic? I have so many questions, doubtful I'll get satisfactory answers.
from one of the comments ... pretty scary if true ...
When Eyjafjalajokull was erupting and shut down European/N. Atlantic air traffic for more than a week, folks were trying to estimate the change to carbon emissions… the result I remember was that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere dropping at least 10-fold for that period. Yes, the volcano emitted a lot, but the amount not emitted just from having no European air traffic was much greater.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
from one of the comments ... pretty scary if true ...
When Eyjafjalajokull was erupting and shut down European/N. Atlantic air traffic for more than a week, folks were trying to estimate the change to carbon emissions… the result I remember was that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere dropping at least 10-fold for that period. Yes, the volcano emitted a lot, but the amount not emitted just from having no European air traffic was much greater.
Good point. Too many people don't want to admit that climate change is mainly anthropgenic because they don't want to admit the need to change their habits. Kurt Vonnegut said we would do ourselves in because we are too damn cheap. I think he also meant chintzy in our willingness to change. It's easier to just jump in the car than to walk a block or two to the store. (Not meaning to pick on anyone here. We all need to give up some habits and things in order to make a difference.)
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Good point. Too many people don't want to admit that climate change is mainly anthropgenic because they don't want to admit the need to change their habits. Kurt Vonnegut said we would do ourselves in because we are too damn cheap. I think he also meant chintzy in our willingness to change. It's easier to just jump in the car than to walk a block or two to the store. (Not meaning to pick on anyone here. We all need to give up some habits and things in order to make a difference.)
for sure - we all have to make changes ...
it's just sad tho how easily manipulated many people are ... i just got preliminary approval with my company to push forth an environmental sustainability strategy ... my presentation to the execs was met with a lot of preconceived notions of that it all meant ... but after explaining to them that actions to preserve our environment is a win-win situation for all - they were more supportive ... it's amazing how much mis-information is out there ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,435
Good point. Too many people don't want to admit that climate change is mainly anthropgenic because they don't want to admit the need to change their habits. Kurt Vonnegut said we would do ourselves in because we are too damn cheap. I think he also meant chintzy in our willingness to change. It's easier to just jump in the car than to walk a block or two to the store. (Not meaning to pick on anyone here. We all need to give up some habits and things in order to make a difference.)
for sure - we all have to make changes ...
it's just sad tho how easily manipulated many people are ... i just got preliminary approval with my company to push forth an environmental sustainability strategy ... my presentation to the execs was met with a lot of preconceived notions of that it all meant ... but after explaining to them that actions to preserve our environment is a win-win situation for all - they were more supportive ... it's amazing how much mis-information is out there ...
Yes, how true! Everyone benefits from taking care of the planet (and helping each other). It's so odd that so many don't get that.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Comments
it's hurting bottom lines ... oil companies make a lot of money because they've convinced us that we need to use their dirty product ... it's no different than tobacco ... they fought long and hard to try and disprove their product was bad ... oil companies are doing the same thing ...
unfortunately, it takes leadership ... political leadership to make things better but when that leadership is controlled by companies that would lose out ... it basically is non-existent ... especially when the people that vote in that leadership continue to read only ideological sources ...
sooo ... this is the guy you listen to ... :roll: ... honestly ... if you guys don't want to read up on global warming ... read "trust us, we're experts" ... a great book on the role of PR in issues such as this ...
http://www.desmogblog.com/dennis-avery
Lysenkoism, named for Russian botanist Trofim Lysenko, was a political doctrine in Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union that mandated that all biological research conducted in the USSR conform to a modified Lamarckian evolutionary theory. The underlying appeal was that it promised a biology based on a plastic view of life that was consistent with the plastic view of human nature insisted upon by Marxist-Leninist dogma.
Lysenko was, though a thorough crank, a political favorite of Stalin who promised great advances in the Soviets' agricultural system by breeding plants based on characteristics acquired from drastic alterations of their environments. Despite the political success of Lysenko's hypotheses, the actual implementation was a failure, wrecking Soviet biology research and risking famine on several occasions.
At the core of Lysenkoism was rejection of the work of Gregor Mendel and denunciation of the concept of genes as "idealist" (one of Stalin's favorite snarl words for ideas he found unacceptable). Though DNA had not been discovered at the time of Lysenko's rise in the 1930s, much productive work -- starting with understanding of how to breed "pure" (i.e. predictable) strains of plants and animals in order to provide proper experimental controls in breeding work -- had been done since the discovery of Mendel's work. Lamarckism (the idea that offspring inherit traits their parents acquired in their lifetimes) provided a more politically correct view in the eyes of Stalin, who felt (as had many Lamarckian holdouts) that Darwinian/Mendelian biology rendered life unacceptably deterministic.[1]
The Lysenkoists employed Stalinist terror in their struggle with Darwinian biologists for bureaucratic and academic positions. Anti-Lysenkoists faced the threat of public denunciation, loss of communist party membership, loss of employment position and arrest by the secret police. Between Lysenko's grip on power and the "disappearances" of numerous of his opponents, it would be years until the Soviet biology program would recover.[2] Similar political strong-arm tactics also hobbled the Soviet nuclear physics program, requiring Soviet scientists to follow only theories that had the Communist Party's blessing. This forced them to steal working designs from the United States, including the decisive Teller-Ulam hydrogen bomb design.
Like much of Stalin's legacy, Lysenkoism fell out of favor in the mid-late '50s and early '60s, as Nikita Khrushchev "de-Stalinized" the Soviet Union. Lysenko himself was stripped of his power as head of the Soviet agricultural academy in 1956 after a couple of years of intense criticism by the Party, and he slipped into obscurity afterwards. However, Lysenkoism would retain some influence well into the '60s.
— Socrates
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -blown-up/
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Here's an excellent 8:04 video on bottled water: http://www.youtube.com/storyofstuffproj ... e12y9hSOM0
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... genic-co2/
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
from one of the comments ... pretty scary if true ...
When Eyjafjalajokull was erupting and shut down European/N. Atlantic air traffic for more than a week, folks were trying to estimate the change to carbon emissions… the result I remember was that CO2 emissions into the atmosphere dropping at least 10-fold for that period. Yes, the volcano emitted a lot, but the amount not emitted just from having no European air traffic was much greater.
Good point. Too many people don't want to admit that climate change is mainly anthropgenic because they don't want to admit the need to change their habits. Kurt Vonnegut said we would do ourselves in because we are too damn cheap. I think he also meant chintzy in our willingness to change. It's easier to just jump in the car than to walk a block or two to the store. (Not meaning to pick on anyone here. We all need to give up some habits and things in order to make a difference.)
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
for sure - we all have to make changes ...
it's just sad tho how easily manipulated many people are ... i just got preliminary approval with my company to push forth an environmental sustainability strategy ... my presentation to the execs was met with a lot of preconceived notions of that it all meant ... but after explaining to them that actions to preserve our environment is a win-win situation for all - they were more supportive ... it's amazing how much mis-information is out there ...
Yes, how true! Everyone benefits from taking care of the planet (and helping each other). It's so odd that so many don't get that.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"