actually have not read it, but are you saying that there has been no PR for AGW, no money, no lobbying, no fraudlent half science politicalization of the facts?
i can't say that definitively but what i can say is this ...
the majority of scientists who support AGW are just that ... scientists working for universities and such ... as for PR and lobbying ... do you know how much money it takes to launch these kinds of campaigns!? ... NGO's like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. just don't have the money ... and they also realize that if they do something that is fraudulent - the consequences of that action far outweigh any benefit ..
if a tobacco company tells you their studies show that smoking a pack of day in front of kids doesn't cause any damage to the children - how would you approach that?
You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?
The peer-reviewed journal process ensures nothing but complete objectivity and scientific validity. Rigorous rules must be followed and if they're doing primary research, the scientific method is used (or it is trash).
If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. These are the basic tenets of scientific theory; observation agrees with the intended result, it can be replicated, and there aren't observations that prove otherwise.
Now, for there to be some sort of conspiracy, there would have to be thousands of scientists involved and they'd all be getting paid a lot of money to do so.
Having worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal (Thistlethwaite, Paul C., Dale Schofield, Ronald J. Bauerly, and Paul A. Willits (2003) Emerging Issues in Business and Technology Conference Proceedings [I'm Paul]) I can't begin to tell you how absurd your statements are. If you claim that peer-reviewed science is corrupt, that means to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't 1960s Russia.
Everything not forbidden is compulsory and eveything not compulsory is forbidden. You are free... free to do what the government says you can do.
I dont assume the politcal world is as disconnected from those organizations as you do.
"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
The peer-reviewed journal process ensures nothing but complete objectivity and scientific validity. Rigorous rules must be followed and if they're doing primary research, the scientific method is used (or it is trash).
If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. These are the basic tenets of scientific theory; observation agrees with the intended result, it can be replicated, and there aren't observations that prove otherwise.
Now, for there to be some sort of conspiracy, there would have to be thousands of scientists involved and they'd all be getting paid a lot of money to do so.
Having worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal (Thistlethwaite, Paul C., Dale Schofield, Ronald J. Bauerly, and Paul A. Willits (2003) Emerging Issues in Business and Technology Conference Proceedings [I'm Paul]) I can't begin to tell you how absurd your statements are. If you claim that peer-reviewed science is corrupt, that means to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't 1960s Russia.
Thanks for the explination on peer review and how it is suppose to function. It does not take millions and thousands to stifle credible science.
"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: 42,433
Looks like good discussions here- sorry not enough time to read thoroughly today.
A good site to check for good sound climate science for those interested:
You can not hide behind only peer reviewed science if your peer review process has become politicized and is no longer willing to be scientific and entertain questions and challenges to its theories. Where is the scientist who wants to question AGW to go to get published if his own industry for politcal reasons silences his discension?
The peer-reviewed journal process ensures nothing but complete objectivity and scientific validity. Rigorous rules must be followed and if they're doing primary research, the scientific method is used (or it is trash).
If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. These are the basic tenets of scientific theory; observation agrees with the intended result, it can be replicated, and there aren't observations that prove otherwise.
Now, for there to be some sort of conspiracy, there would have to be thousands of scientists involved and they'd all be getting paid a lot of money to do so.
Having worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal (Thistlethwaite, Paul C., Dale Schofield, Ronald J. Bauerly, and Paul A. Willits (2003) Emerging Issues in Business and Technology Conference Proceedings [I'm Paul]) I can't begin to tell you how absurd your statements are. If you claim that peer-reviewed science is corrupt, that means to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't 1960s Russia.
Speaking as someone who's been published in a number of peer-reviewed journals, this is not completely true. Bias is often instilled in research from the get-go, and even so, is often published. The word objectivity is what really bothers me with your post.
Should the reviewers be able to replicate the findings with the supplied data? Yes. Is that often done? No. Even if it was, that doesn't mean that there wasn't bias instilled at the outset of the scientific method. In other words, some seek to create evidence for their underlying hypothesis.
One can use statistics and even the scientific method to almost always prove their original hypothesis. The way you do it is to start with the hypothesis, then test it using this data in this manner. If it doesn't get your point across, toss it. Then do it again from another angle, maybe different data, maybe a different series of empirical approaches. If it doesn't get your point across, toss it. This goes on and on until they find the data, and the method, that reveals statistically significant results, supporting the original bias hypothesis.
Statistics can be misused and abused. Anyone who says differently is not being truthful.
I don't know about all of you, but where I live, the climate changes at least twice a year. Every March, it seems that a big wave of global warming hits my location, causing a sharp rise in temperature that continues until July or August. Then, usually around October, the climate changes yet again, and the days start becoming gradually cooler! Then the process seems to repeat itself. I'm not a scientist, but I have a theory that the blazing heat in the middle of the year might be caused by a "star" in the center of our solar system. I further hypothesize that the aforementioned "star" may just be the big yellow orb we see gradually moving across the sky every day.
I don't know about all of you, but where I live, the climate changes at least twice a year. Every March, it seems that a big wave of global warming hits my location, causing a sharp rise in temperature that continues until July or August. Then, usually around October, the climate changes yet again, and the days start becoming gradually cooler! Then the process seems to repeat itself. I'm not a scientist, but I have a theory that the blazing heat in the middle of the year might be caused by a "star" in the center of our solar system. I further hypothesize that the aforementioned "star" may just be the big yellow orb we see gradually moving across the sky every day.
Thoughts?
:idea: I don't know much, but this sounds like a legit hypothesis to me.
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
Local weather does not equal global climate. The facts on a global climate still stand: global temps are rising. By the way another giant ice shelf was lost off Iceland recently. ( I don't have a link at the moment.)
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Local weather does not equal global climate. The facts on a global climate still stand: global temps are rising. By the way another giant ice shelf was lost off Iceland recently. ( I don't have a link at the moment.)
Another way to tell is extreme weather. Just remember what a bad tornado season 2011 has been. And a hurricane has devastated parts of New England!? All of these wild weather events and more equate to a global shift.
cli·mate /ˈklaɪmɪt/ [klahy-mit] Show IPA
noun
1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.
hey ... brian ... don't let the ignorant send you away ... i know it's disheartening when people refuse to accept the science (btw there is no proof that global warming is not anthropogenic) ... what is even sadder is that all it takes is a little reading and an open mind to realize that global warming is real ... is caused by man and has already resulted in the loss of many lives ... denial was an operative word because that is what it is ... the science IS overwhelming ... all they have are links to articles that when traced and dissected are fraudulent ...
yeah don't let the ignorant make you leave. jut realize that you aren't going to open their eyes because they are not receptive to what it is you have to say.
the motto of this place should be "everyone is right and no one is sorry. that's the start and the end of the story."
i think the only reason that huntsman is the only gop candidate that acknowledges that climate change is a problem speaks volumes. the rest of them are bought and paid for by oil lobbyists, so of course they are going to deny that man is contributing to climate change.....all you have to do is follow the money.
I agree with Gimme. Don't let the ignorant push your buttons to the point of wanting to leave... because that signifies that they win.
I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.
I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.
Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way . But the class room- oh how I miss it sometimes! Let us know how it goes, what you learn.
Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!
Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.
Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way . But the class room- oh how I miss it sometimes! Let us know how it goes, what you learn.
Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!
Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
these would my key priorities in addressing global warming:
1. education - too many people are "learning" about global warming from the wrong places ... we need to break down the science into it's simplest principles so, people aren't distracted by fraud graphs and personal scandals ...
2. embark on a major conservation strategy - which includes primarily reductions in consumption and efficiencies
3. i would develop a plan to be at least 75% renewables by the year 2050
4. i would develop a transportation strategy that would see better public transit from the municipal to the national level ... high speed trains that connect cities that are integrated with a local transportation network ... invest in infrastructure that would allow for clean transportation (whether they be plugs or hydrogen gas stations)
5. i would create trade incentives for goods produced environmentally and socially responsible
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?
dude ... you've ignored my point about scientific associations in this entire thread and keep putting out lies ... essentially making you a troll ... at least bigdvs who shares similar views as you has the open-mindedness to listen and to explore ... he may not agree but he's listening and contributing to the discussion ... you want to be taken seriously!? ... you need to contribute instead of just trolling ...
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?
dude ... you've ignored my point about scientific associations in this entire thread and keep putting out lies ... essentially making you a troll ... at least bigdvs who shares similar views as you has the open-mindedness to listen and to explore ... he may not agree but he's listening and contributing to the discussion ... you want to be taken seriously!? ... you need to contribute instead of just trolling ...
The old your trolling device. Very nice. You seem to have ignored my main point - what of the fraud report?
To you post above this one. I actually agree with some of it. How much would going 75% renewable cost?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
The old your trolling device. Very nice. You seem to have ignored my main point - what of the fraud report?
To you post above this one. I actually agree with some of it. How much would going 75% renewable cost?
dude ... what fraud report? ... i don't recall you referencing anything ... you're just throwing out stuff ... if you're talking about the CRU ... that has been addressed ages ago ... 6 independent bodies went thru all the emails and found no evidence of fraud ... and you can't tell me you haven't been trolling ... why have you not addressed my points about the scientific associations?
as for going to renewables ... the cost is obviously dependent on how you calculate it ... but first and foremost, we can't continue to subsidize dirty energy like coal and oil ... if you factor in wars associated with oil ... there is a significant amount of dollars put in to keep us on this archaic fuel system ...
wind is the cheapest form of new energy right now with the lowest amount of risk ... the only thing preventing us from moving in that direction is a corporately driven gov't that is beholden to big oil ...
as for going to renewables ... the cost is obviously dependent on how you calculate it ... but first and foremost, we can't continue to subsidize dirty energy like coal and oil ... if you factor in wars associated with oil ... there is a significant amount of dollars put in to keep us on this archaic fuel system ...
wind is the cheapest form of new energy right now with the lowest amount of risk ... the only thing preventing us from moving in that direction is a corporately driven gov't that is beholden to big oil ...
Just to be up front - I am purposely ignoring the first part. That isn't getting us anywhere. We'll agree I'm stupid.
This is the part that intrests me. I know it's not easily calculable, and I don't expect you to do that. But, I think the question of cost is a critical one with all this. I mean, renewable energy is clearly the way to go (regardless of our opinion of global warming). But, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves - what it the economic impact? I think that's where you'll get people moving. I believe even if it's not cost neutral, most reasonable folks would move in this direction. And obviously, doing nothing is easier than change.
And, obviously, safety is another concern. On Long Island, we're still paying for the nuclear plant they built but never put into operation (which I'm fine with. There's not exactly a lot of escape routes should something go wrong). I don't think the area could sustain another boondoggle like that without clear proof of safety and cost.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
This is the part that intrests me. I know it's not easily calculable, and I don't expect you to do that. But, I think the question of cost is a critical one with all this. I mean, renewable energy is clearly the way to go (regardless of our opinion of global warming). But, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves - what it the economic impact? I think that's where you'll get people moving. I believe even if it's not cost neutral, most reasonable folks would move in this direction. And obviously, doing nothing is easier than change.
And, obviously, safety is another concern. On Long Island, we're still paying for the nuclear plant they built but never put into operation (which I'm fine with. There's not exactly a lot of escape routes should something go wrong). I don't think the area could sustain another boondoggle like that without clear proof of safety and cost.
for sure ... but two things i want to point out:
1. we have to look at the cost with a holistic approach ... we never factor in the health costs of the pollution, nor the impacts global warming will cause ... nor the cost of waging foreign wars ...
2. we currently subsidize the shit out of oil and gas ... if it was a level playing field, this would be a no brainer even discounting the impacts of global warming ...
the primary issue is demand ... we, especially, in north america waste energy because it's been considered limitless and cheap for far too long ... i don't buy into the theory that people can't conserve ... here in ontario, we've exceeded all our conservation targets ... it just has to be in the social conscience ... similar to not littering, there has to be an engagement of society ... we can't expect the gov't to mandate and force it ... it has to come from within the populace ...
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?
You realize that you sound like an idiot when you write things like this, right?
ig·no·rance
[ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?
You realize that you sound like an idiot when you write things like this, right?
ig·no·rance
[ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
So, it's only people that don't agree with you that are ignorant? Perhaps it's the people agreeing with you. :shock:
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
1. we have to look at the cost with a holistic approach ... we never factor in the health costs of the pollution, nor the impacts global warming will cause ... nor the cost of waging foreign wars ...
2. we currently subsidize the shit out of oil and gas ... if it was a level playing field, this would be a no brainer even discounting the impacts of global warming ...
the primary issue is demand ... we, especially, in north america waste energy because it's been considered limitless and cheap for far too long ... i don't buy into the theory that people can't conserve ... here in ontario, we've exceeded all our conservation targets ... it just has to be in the social conscience ... similar to not littering, there has to be an engagement of society ... we can't expect the gov't to mandate and force it ... it has to come from within the populace ...
#1 is spot on. We can disagree on the foreign wars thing (while I agree part of it is about the oil, part of it is not, but I don't want to derail this).
#2 is a fair point. However, we also have to weigh that against jobs created. I'm not saying the other way can't create jobs. But, I think it's a bit narrow to not realize that there are social benefits reaped from the subsidies. Now, we can say those benefits don't outweigh the damage. But, you can't ignore it in the equation.
I do think we can do better on conservation. But, that's also part of the issue. I'll openly admit I have a gas guzzler. But, quite frankly, I have 4 sons that play sports, and I can't cart that all around (not to mention the wife) in a Volt. If they made an affordable hybrid that fit my lifestyle, I'd adjust. That doesn't exist. I'm not cramming my kids into a smaller car just so I can feel better about the environment. So, you can say I'm part of the problem. I'm fine with that.
And I am very happy to agree with your not forcing gov't mandates. You're final conclusion is also spot on. When this stuff is accepted at large, the free market will adjust to fill that demand. Pumping tax dollars into it is not the way to go.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
#1 is spot on. We can disagree on the foreign wars thing (while I agree part of it is about the oil, part of it is not, but I don't want to derail this).
#2 is a fair point. However, we also have to weigh that against jobs created. I'm not saying the other way can't create jobs. But, I think it's a bit narrow to not realize that there are social benefits reaped from the subsidies. Now, we can say those benefits don't outweigh the damage. But, you can't ignore it in the equation.
I do think we can do better on conservation. But, that's also part of the issue. I'll openly admit I have a gas guzzler. But, quite frankly, I have 4 sons that play sports, and I can't cart that all around (not to mention the wife) in a Volt. If they made an affordable hybrid that fit my lifestyle, I'd adjust. That doesn't exist. I'm not cramming my kids into a smaller car just so I can feel better about the environment. So, you can say I'm part of the problem. I'm fine with that.
And I am very happy to agree with your not forcing gov't mandates. You're final conclusion is also spot on. When this stuff is accepted at large, the free market will adjust to fill that demand. Pumping tax dollars into it is not the way to go.
2. we create jobs by making people sick as well ... so, again ... we have to look at it holistically ... i think it's a bit narrow to believe incorporating sustainability into the equation is always going to have a negative impact ... and really, the job market sucks now ... it's not like these subsidies have done anything except keep these corporations super wealthy ...
you base your consumer decisions as you see fit ... as will everyone else ... the issue is that we need people to understand that global warming and environmental concerns are indeed a problem and that it will take everyone doing their part to foster positive change ... sure, your large vehicle is needed for practical reasons ... but there are many areas one can make changes that do not pose significant impacts to lifestyle ... in fact, sometimes those changes have added benefits ... like say walking or commuting using bike or transit more ... it can be less stressful and offer up exercise to promote better health ... etc...
i just also want to make it clear that i don't believe in the free market ... what i mean by non gov't mandate is simply that the desire of that change comes from the populace ... so, the populace is the ones that demand that air quality should be respected and water quality, etc ... until we live in a world where corporations don't prioritize profits above everything else ... only the gov't can lead change ...
2. we create jobs by making people sick as well ... so, again ... we have to look at it holistically ... i think it's a bit narrow to believe incorporating sustainability into the equation is always going to have a negative impact ... and really, the job market sucks now ... it's not like these subsidies have done anything except keep these corporations super wealthy ...
you base your consumer decisions as you see fit ... as will everyone else ... the issue is that we need people to understand that global warming and environmental concerns are indeed a problem and that it will take everyone doing their part to foster positive change ... sure, your large vehicle is needed for practical reasons ... but there are many areas one can make changes that do not pose significant impacts to lifestyle ... in fact, sometimes those changes have added benefits ... like say walking or commuting using bike or transit more ... it can be less stressful and offer up exercise to promote better health ... etc...
i just also want to make it clear that i don't believe in the free market ... what i mean by non gov't mandate is simply that the desire of that change comes from the populace ... so, the populace is the ones that demand that air quality should be respected and water quality, etc ... until we live in a world where corporations don't prioritize profits above everything else ... only the gov't can lead change ...
I agree with a lot of what you are saying (and continuing to ignore the global warming theory, as we've agreed that I'm stupid). But, why can't the change be win-win? Again, the best engine of innovation is the free market. We didn't get to where we are today with technology because of regulation. Most people carry around computers in their pockets because of the profit motive. Ford invented the production line BECAUSE of the profit motive. It's not a dirty word. How much of the world's innovation is centered on the free market economies? So, why not try to create a situation where you use that engine to create the change you want rather than fighting it?
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying (and continuing to ignore the global warming theory, as we've agreed that I'm stupid). But, why can't the change be win-win? Again, the best engine of innovation is the free market. We didn't get to where we are today with technology because of regulation. Most people carry around computers in their pockets because of the profit motive. Ford invented the production line BECAUSE of the profit motive. It's not a dirty word. How much of the world's innovation is centered on the free market economies? So, why not try to create a situation where you use that engine to create the change you want rather than fighting it?
who says it isn't win-win!?? ... the profit motive does not mean the free market ... the profit motive by itself fosters greed ... which to me is the cause of all our ills in this world ...
have you heard of the the triple p approach!? ... people planet profit ... it can be done ... it is being done ...
despite what many want to believe about me - i don't begrudge any corporation or individual making absurd amount of money ... but when that money comes from exploitation and does not factor in the social consequences ... it's problematic for all ...
if we didn't regulate things ... we'd still have lead in gasoline and ddt sprayed everywhere ... the free market doesn't account for sustainability nor social consequences ... it assumes or hopes that people would be the check and balance to the corporation which we've seen it is not ...
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,433
I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.
Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way . But the class room- oh how I miss it sometimes! Let us know how it goes, what you learn.
Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!
Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street. Either one. But, be clear - just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them ignorant. You ignoring those points makes YOU the ignorant one. Why did that group have to make a fraudelent report regarding this. If it's so clear cut, there should be no need to put out such a report. That's why the normal people don't put out as many studies. Why bother proving something that doesn't exist? Do I need to put a paper out proving theres' no Easter Bunny?
Get out in the real world- you're kidding, right? You have no idea.
Ok, back to trying to make a POSITIVE difference.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.
Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way . But the class room- oh how I miss it sometimes! Let us know how it goes, what you learn.
Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!
Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?
I totally agree. Education is key to anything in life. I am disappointed in our education system to no end.
But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.
but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
i can't say that definitively but what i can say is this ...
the majority of scientists who support AGW are just that ... scientists working for universities and such ... as for PR and lobbying ... do you know how much money it takes to launch these kinds of campaigns!? ... NGO's like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, WWF, etc. just don't have the money ... and they also realize that if they do something that is fraudulent - the consequences of that action far outweigh any benefit ..
if a tobacco company tells you their studies show that smoking a pack of day in front of kids doesn't cause any damage to the children - how would you approach that?
The peer-reviewed journal process ensures nothing but complete objectivity and scientific validity. Rigorous rules must be followed and if they're doing primary research, the scientific method is used (or it is trash).
If they are describing experiments or calculations, they must supply enough details that an independent researcher could repeat the experiment or calculation to verify the results. These are the basic tenets of scientific theory; observation agrees with the intended result, it can be replicated, and there aren't observations that prove otherwise.
Now, for there to be some sort of conspiracy, there would have to be thousands of scientists involved and they'd all be getting paid a lot of money to do so.
Having worked as an editor for a peer-reviewed journal (Thistlethwaite, Paul C., Dale Schofield, Ronald J. Bauerly, and Paul A. Willits (2003) Emerging Issues in Business and Technology Conference Proceedings [I'm Paul]) I can't begin to tell you how absurd your statements are. If you claim that peer-reviewed science is corrupt, that means to me that you have no idea what you're talking about. This isn't 1960s Russia.
I dont assume the politcal world is as disconnected from those organizations as you do.
— Socrates
they are and they aren't ...
you can't tell me big oil doesn't have major influence in US gov't policy ...
Thanks for the explination on peer review and how it is suppose to function. It does not take millions and thousands to stifle credible science.
— Socrates
A good site to check for good sound climate science for those interested:
http://www.realclimate.org/
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Speaking as someone who's been published in a number of peer-reviewed journals, this is not completely true. Bias is often instilled in research from the get-go, and even so, is often published. The word objectivity is what really bothers me with your post.
Should the reviewers be able to replicate the findings with the supplied data? Yes. Is that often done? No. Even if it was, that doesn't mean that there wasn't bias instilled at the outset of the scientific method. In other words, some seek to create evidence for their underlying hypothesis.
One can use statistics and even the scientific method to almost always prove their original hypothesis. The way you do it is to start with the hypothesis, then test it using this data in this manner. If it doesn't get your point across, toss it. Then do it again from another angle, maybe different data, maybe a different series of empirical approaches. If it doesn't get your point across, toss it. This goes on and on until they find the data, and the method, that reveals statistically significant results, supporting the original bias hypothesis.
Statistics can be misused and abused. Anyone who says differently is not being truthful.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Thoughts?
:idea: I don't know much, but this sounds like a legit hypothesis to me.
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Another way to tell is extreme weather. Just remember what a bad tornado season 2011 has been. And a hurricane has devastated parts of New England!? All of these wild weather events and more equate to a global shift.
noun
1. the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.
2. a region or area characterized by a given climate: to move to a warm climate.
3. the prevailing attitudes, standards, or environmental conditions of a group, period, or place: a climate of political unrest.
I agree with Gimme. Don't let the ignorant push your buttons to the point of wanting to leave... because that signifies that they win.
I'm taking an environmental science class right now, a required elective, so everyone in the school has to take it. I'm surrounded by the youth straight out of high school knocking down reasons to be more environmentally aware. But at the same time, some of them surprise me. Many of them also know the danger the planet and the human civilization are facing and are willing to do what they can. It gives me hope.
True, it's much worse. This is Orwell's 1984.
Sounds like a great class! Oh to have time for school again. Self education is good- AMT is motivating that way
Re. your comment on extreem climate: Yeah, I've read some pretty earth shaking (literally, now that I think of it!) statisics on the increased incidences of extreem weather. Good point! When I get time (or maybe someone else will) I'll post some statistics. Very eye opening!
Speaking of classes and education and such reminds me that one of my ideas for this thread from the get-go was to share ideas for slowing and dealing with global warming. Maybe now that we've ascertained who and who isn't convinced global warming is real etc. (I think we've discussed that enough but feel free to carry on, I'm not the boss of anybody here)-- maybe now would be a good time to start discussions about solutions-talk about some positive, useful things we can do and learn from each other. Any ideas anyone?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Maybe, you folks should stop taking classes and get out in the real world. Or, go to Wall Street.
1. education - too many people are "learning" about global warming from the wrong places ... we need to break down the science into it's simplest principles so, people aren't distracted by fraud graphs and personal scandals ...
2. embark on a major conservation strategy - which includes primarily reductions in consumption and efficiencies
3. i would develop a plan to be at least 75% renewables by the year 2050
4. i would develop a transportation strategy that would see better public transit from the municipal to the national level ... high speed trains that connect cities that are integrated with a local transportation network ... invest in infrastructure that would allow for clean transportation (whether they be plugs or hydrogen gas stations)
5. i would create trade incentives for goods produced environmentally and socially responsible
dude ... you've ignored my point about scientific associations in this entire thread and keep putting out lies ... essentially making you a troll ... at least bigdvs who shares similar views as you has the open-mindedness to listen and to explore ... he may not agree but he's listening and contributing to the discussion ... you want to be taken seriously!? ... you need to contribute instead of just trolling ...
The old your trolling device. Very nice. You seem to have ignored my main point - what of the fraud report?
To you post above this one. I actually agree with some of it. How much would going 75% renewable cost?
dude ... what fraud report? ... i don't recall you referencing anything ... you're just throwing out stuff ... if you're talking about the CRU ... that has been addressed ages ago ... 6 independent bodies went thru all the emails and found no evidence of fraud ... and you can't tell me you haven't been trolling ... why have you not addressed my points about the scientific associations?
as for going to renewables ... the cost is obviously dependent on how you calculate it ... but first and foremost, we can't continue to subsidize dirty energy like coal and oil ... if you factor in wars associated with oil ... there is a significant amount of dollars put in to keep us on this archaic fuel system ...
wind is the cheapest form of new energy right now with the lowest amount of risk ... the only thing preventing us from moving in that direction is a corporately driven gov't that is beholden to big oil ...
Just to be up front - I am purposely ignoring the first part. That isn't getting us anywhere. We'll agree I'm stupid.
This is the part that intrests me. I know it's not easily calculable, and I don't expect you to do that. But, I think the question of cost is a critical one with all this. I mean, renewable energy is clearly the way to go (regardless of our opinion of global warming). But, we have to be realistic and ask ourselves - what it the economic impact? I think that's where you'll get people moving. I believe even if it's not cost neutral, most reasonable folks would move in this direction. And obviously, doing nothing is easier than change.
And, obviously, safety is another concern. On Long Island, we're still paying for the nuclear plant they built but never put into operation (which I'm fine with. There's not exactly a lot of escape routes should something go wrong). I don't think the area could sustain another boondoggle like that without clear proof of safety and cost.
for sure ... but two things i want to point out:
1. we have to look at the cost with a holistic approach ... we never factor in the health costs of the pollution, nor the impacts global warming will cause ... nor the cost of waging foreign wars ...
2. we currently subsidize the shit out of oil and gas ... if it was a level playing field, this would be a no brainer even discounting the impacts of global warming ...
the primary issue is demand ... we, especially, in north america waste energy because it's been considered limitless and cheap for far too long ... i don't buy into the theory that people can't conserve ... here in ontario, we've exceeded all our conservation targets ... it just has to be in the social conscience ... similar to not littering, there has to be an engagement of society ... we can't expect the gov't to mandate and force it ... it has to come from within the populace ...
You realize that you sound like an idiot when you write things like this, right?
ig·no·rance
[ig-ner-uhns]
noun
the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.
So, it's only people that don't agree with you that are ignorant? Perhaps it's the people agreeing with you. :shock:
#1 is spot on. We can disagree on the foreign wars thing (while I agree part of it is about the oil, part of it is not, but I don't want to derail this).
#2 is a fair point. However, we also have to weigh that against jobs created. I'm not saying the other way can't create jobs. But, I think it's a bit narrow to not realize that there are social benefits reaped from the subsidies. Now, we can say those benefits don't outweigh the damage. But, you can't ignore it in the equation.
I do think we can do better on conservation. But, that's also part of the issue. I'll openly admit I have a gas guzzler. But, quite frankly, I have 4 sons that play sports, and I can't cart that all around (not to mention the wife) in a Volt. If they made an affordable hybrid that fit my lifestyle, I'd adjust. That doesn't exist. I'm not cramming my kids into a smaller car just so I can feel better about the environment. So, you can say I'm part of the problem. I'm fine with that.
And I am very happy to agree with your not forcing gov't mandates. You're final conclusion is also spot on. When this stuff is accepted at large, the free market will adjust to fill that demand. Pumping tax dollars into it is not the way to go.
2. we create jobs by making people sick as well ... so, again ... we have to look at it holistically ... i think it's a bit narrow to believe incorporating sustainability into the equation is always going to have a negative impact ... and really, the job market sucks now ... it's not like these subsidies have done anything except keep these corporations super wealthy ...
you base your consumer decisions as you see fit ... as will everyone else ... the issue is that we need people to understand that global warming and environmental concerns are indeed a problem and that it will take everyone doing their part to foster positive change ... sure, your large vehicle is needed for practical reasons ... but there are many areas one can make changes that do not pose significant impacts to lifestyle ... in fact, sometimes those changes have added benefits ... like say walking or commuting using bike or transit more ... it can be less stressful and offer up exercise to promote better health ... etc...
i just also want to make it clear that i don't believe in the free market ... what i mean by non gov't mandate is simply that the desire of that change comes from the populace ... so, the populace is the ones that demand that air quality should be respected and water quality, etc ... until we live in a world where corporations don't prioritize profits above everything else ... only the gov't can lead change ...
I agree with a lot of what you are saying (and continuing to ignore the global warming theory, as we've agreed that I'm stupid). But, why can't the change be win-win? Again, the best engine of innovation is the free market. We didn't get to where we are today with technology because of regulation. Most people carry around computers in their pockets because of the profit motive. Ford invented the production line BECAUSE of the profit motive. It's not a dirty word. How much of the world's innovation is centered on the free market economies? So, why not try to create a situation where you use that engine to create the change you want rather than fighting it?
who says it isn't win-win!?? ... the profit motive does not mean the free market ... the profit motive by itself fosters greed ... which to me is the cause of all our ills in this world ...
have you heard of the the triple p approach!? ... people planet profit ... it can be done ... it is being done ...
despite what many want to believe about me - i don't begrudge any corporation or individual making absurd amount of money ... but when that money comes from exploitation and does not factor in the social consequences ... it's problematic for all ...
if we didn't regulate things ... we'd still have lead in gasoline and ddt sprayed everywhere ... the free market doesn't account for sustainability nor social consequences ... it assumes or hopes that people would be the check and balance to the corporation which we've seen it is not ...
Ok, back to trying to make a POSITIVE difference.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
I totally agree. Education is key to anything in life. I am disappointed in our education system to no end.
But to your further point. I think it is important to change the focus of the discussion. Right now it seems that there is an attitude that you either "believe" in it or you don't. That doesn't really help push things forward. The term global warming should be stricken from the lexicon...it only confuses those that aren't interested at more than a cursory level. Climate change should have been used from the beginning. There is nothing more annoying than when someone says I don't believe in global warming because it got to negative 15 for a week last year...(live in minnesota...that shit is said daily in the winter especially in january)
The focus of the discussion rather should turn to something as simple as, what can we do about it? What affect can humans have on reversing/changing climate change. Does forcing new light-bulbs on people really change anything when the factories that make them are built and run in countries that do not care about environmental issues...
Right now, from someone who used to be very guilty of it when I was a bleeding-hearted liberal (not that long ago actually), there seems to be the feeling that those who are very adamant about global warming/climate change are so fed up that they are talking down to people who may be on the fence about the importance of CC, and that makes many more people susceptible to manipulation. It is sort of like the old theory that if you tell someone what to do they will say fuck off, if you ask them to do it they will say for how long...I don't know if that makes sense...but it seems that the supporters (generally those on the left) are allowing themselves to be painted as condescending liberal elites. If the pro CC community switched their message from here is what we are all doing wrong, to here is how you can help I think it would go a long way. Tone is critical in discussion and too often ignored.
but as Polaris stated, simple education on the importance of understanding CC (caused by humans or not is secondary) is key.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan