sorry to steal a phrase you just used Brian, but it inspired me:
firing off matches trying to light wet paper hoping it catches fire sooner rather than later
it's her favourite thing nothing will stand in her way it's the song that she sings in the mirror the fantasy she likes to play
it won't make it real to her not unless it's convenient don't interrupt her routines it seems to take a genius
time to pick up the pieces are there any left? there has to be something generational theft
if they're not dropping like flies choose not to believe "it's not my fault... blame it on Adam & Steve"
Steal away, P! I can dig it!
Also, I like your title idea. It happens to be the title of one of my favorite Replacements songs but that's ok, I don't think song titles can be copy righted. Looking forward to your single when it comes out!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
if it is not a war on science, what should we call the flat out denial and dismissal of scientific fact?
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
to be fair, science is ever-evolving, so it can be argued that it's not a stretch to argue what is currently known as scientific fact, since tomorrow it might be scientific "we used to believe that".
but there are just some things that can't be argued. and anyone who argues against climate change is just using it as an excuse to be fucking lazy and not give a shit about their environment.
as I've stated before, whether you believe in human caused climate change or not, you have to believe that pollution is bad for us and the world we live in.
if it is not a war on science, what should we call the flat out denial and dismissal of scientific fact?
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
to be fair, science is ever-evolving, so it can be argued that it's not a stretch to argue what is currently known as scientific fact, since tomorrow it might be scientific "we used to believe that".
but there are just some things that can't be argued. and anyone who argues against climate change is just using it as an excuse to be fucking lazy and not give a shit about their environment.
as I've stated before, whether you believe in human caused climate change or not, you have to believe that pollution is bad for us and the world we live in.
Paul,
I think it's important to clarify on the topic of climate change. There are those who say that the global temperature rises we're seeing are merely part of a cycle. There are others who say that it can be attributed to non-CO2 factors. Then, there are many who say it should be attributed to CO2 primarily.
None of these precludes giving a shit about the environment. Am I certain that CO2 is the prime contributor towards global warming? Nope. Do I care? Nope - I'm always going to believe in renewable resources, and I'm always going to recycle and compost, because with finite resources, it's just logical to do so. Anyone who argues against climate change and also uses that to justify their inactivity in the environmental concern department - THAT's where I agree with you about sheer laziness and selfishness.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
if it is not a war on science, what should we call the flat out denial and dismissal of scientific fact?
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
to be fair, science is ever-evolving, so it can be argued that it's not a stretch to argue what is currently known as scientific fact, since tomorrow it might be scientific "we used to believe that".
but there are just some things that can't be argued. and anyone who argues against climate change is just using it as an excuse to be fucking lazy and not give a shit about their environment.
as I've stated before, whether you believe in human caused climate change or not, you have to believe that pollution is bad for us and the world we live in.
A huge part of science denial is this idea that we aren't "big" enough to effect natural systems. Some truly seem to believe the Earth is an infinite system in which there can be no amount of human impact that can overwhelm the planet. FOOLS!
if it is not a war on science, what should we call the flat out denial and dismissal of scientific fact?
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
to be fair, science is ever-evolving, so it can be argued that it's not a stretch to argue what is currently known as scientific fact, since tomorrow it might be scientific "we used to believe that".
but there are just some things that can't be argued. and anyone who argues against climate change is just using it as an excuse to be fucking lazy and not give a shit about their environment.
as I've stated before, whether you believe in human caused climate change or not, you have to believe that pollution is bad for us and the world we live in.
Paul,
I think it's important to clarify on the topic of climate change. There are those who say that the global temperature rises we're seeing are merely part of a cycle. There are others who say that it can be attributed to non-CO2 factors. Then, there are many who say it should be attributed to CO2 primarily.
None of these precludes giving a shit about the environment. Am I certain that CO2 is the prime contributor towards global warming? Nope. Do I care? Nope - I'm always going to believe in renewable resources, and I'm always going to recycle and compost, because with finite resources, it's just logical to do so. Anyone who argues against climate change and also uses that to justify their inactivity in the environmental concern department - THAT's where I agree with you about sheer laziness and selfishness.
yeah, I know the different stances on it. I still don't know why, though, whether it is human caused or the natural order of things, why we still wouldn't want to reduce our emissions. for health reasons alone, it only makes logical sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVHWq0ZGE_Y "Adam and Eve were immediately evicted from paradise and the whole world went to shit" My husband's cousin homeschools her kids with a Christian curriculum. She has taken her seven children to this "museum". She loves it. She lives many states away from here, but our neighbors also home school their 4 kiddos with a Christian curriculum, A Beka. Looking at their curriculum catalog, I read that the 8th grade science book "text rejects the unproven hypothesis of evolution, recognizing special creation as the only reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe."
And the sun it may be shining . . . but there's an ocean in my eyes
if it is not a war on science, what should we call the flat out denial and dismissal of scientific fact?
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
to be fair, science is ever-evolving, so it can be argued that it's not a stretch to argue what is currently known as scientific fact, since tomorrow it might be scientific "we used to believe that".
but there are just some things that can't be argued. and anyone who argues against climate change is just using it as an excuse to be fucking lazy and not give a shit about their environment.
as I've stated before, whether you believe in human caused climate change or not, you have to believe that pollution is bad for us and the world we live in.
I think it's important to clarify on the topic of climate change. There are those who say that the global temperature rises we're seeing are merely part of a cycle. There are others who say that it can be attributed to non-CO2 factors. Then, there are many who say it should be attributed to CO2 primarily.
.
Sorry Benjs, you are putting these different opinions on the same playing field. They are not. The vast majority of climate change scientists believe that humans are the cause.
Truly sad that people like this get elected. Of course, I'm expecting the 'my comments were taken out of context' defence within hours.
people like that get elected because they pander to the uneducated, low information voter. these people demonize the more educated election opponent and call them "elitist" because they use big words and talk about complex themes that are not so black and white, such as good vs evil.
why is intelliegence a bad thing? an unfavorable quality in politics?
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Truly sad that people like this get elected. Of course, I'm expecting the 'my comments were taken out of context' defence within hours.
people like that get elected because they pander to the uneducated, low information voter. these people demonize the more educated election opponent and call them "elitist" because they use big words and talk about complex themes that are not so black and white, such as good vs evil.
why is intelliegence a bad thing? an unfavorable quality in politics?
because your average voter is disengaged with the system and will listen to the easiest thing to digest before they switch the channel back to Survivor.
Truly sad that people like this get elected. Of course, I'm expecting the 'my comments were taken out of context' defence within hours.
people like that get elected because they pander to the uneducated, low information voter. these people demonize the more educated election opponent and call them "elitist" because they use big words and talk about complex themes that are not so black and white, such as good vs evil.
why is intelliegence a bad thing? an unfavorable quality in politics?
because your average voter is disengaged with the system and will listen to the easiest thing to digest before they switch the channel back to Survivor.
i was thinking the same thing, except i was thinking of a show where people can go online a vote for a winner instead of having to go to the polls and take their chances...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
Truly sad that people like this get elected. Of course, I'm expecting the 'my comments were taken out of context' defence within hours.
people like that get elected because they pander to the uneducated, low information voter. these people demonize the more educated election opponent and call them "elitist" because they use big words and talk about complex themes that are not so black and white, such as good vs evil.
why is intelliegence a bad thing? an unfavorable quality in politics?
Obama grunt taxes grunt Muslim grunt grunt Obamacare grunt not US citizen grunt grunt illegals grunt grunt amnesty grunt grunt Muslim grunt grunt entitlements grunt grunt.
There is not debate. We need to move on and find solutions.
Yea, there is still debate. I do believe that we (humans) have contributed to climate change. The debate is how much. I dont think it is catastrophic as some are saying. Global weather is cyclical.
There is not debate. We need to move on and find solutions.
Yea, there is still debate. I do believe that we (humans) have contributed to climate change. The debate is how much. I dont think it is catastrophic as some are saying. Global weather is cyclical.
but isn't that also a hypothesis/theory? or do scientists know that for a fact?
There is not debate. We need to move on and find solutions.
Yea, there is still debate. I do believe that we (humans) have contributed to climate change. The debate is how much. I dont think it is catastrophic as some are saying. Global weather is cyclical.
but isn't that also a hypothesis/theory? or do scientists know that for a fact?
Hmmmm.Excellant question.And what fuels the whole debate.
if it is not a war on science, what should we call the flat out denial and dismissal of scientific fact?
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
Espescially on the state levels where religious lobby is more heavily involved.Nothing like an evangelical fucking up good scientific progress.
agreed. hey, common ground!
Come on Rod we both also like Pearl Jam,Adult beverages, live in cities that are home to the STL Cardnials.And I believe you said you were also an independent? (A liberal one,but that's ok)So there is plenty of common ground.Plus we were both at the Oct PJ show in STL.So that's a good start.lol
There is not debate. We need to move on and find solutions.
Yea, there is still debate. I do believe that we (humans) have contributed to climate change. The debate is how much. I dont think it is catastrophic as some are saying. Global weather is cyclical.
Scientists that know a helluva lot more about it than you or I say different. So what makes you think that it's not going to be as bad as some are saying?
Because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for these climate changes to happen. The human element thrown into that mix sped the process up by 5% maybe? I don't know. I don't claim to know anything about global warming.
Hearing these world ending catastrophes from these scientists remind me of the preachers who always pick the date of the end of the world. How does that turn out for them?
I'm well aware that have 0 evidence to support the 5% claim I made. And that you can post 10 links that will prove it wrong in your eyes. Because like the bible, data can be interpreted in any way that fits his or her side of the story.
Because it takes hundreds of thousands of years for these climate changes to happen. The human element thrown into that mix sped the process up by 5% maybe? I don't know. I don't claim to know anything about global warming.
Hearing these world ending catastrophes from these scientists remind me of the preachers who always pick the date of the end of the world. How does that turn out for them?
I'm well aware that have 0 evidence to support the 5% claim I made. And that you can post 10 links that will prove it wrong in your eyes. Because like the bible, data can be interpreted in any way that fits his or her side of the story.
There is alot about your logic here that is flawed, or just wrong. In addition to ignoring abrupt climate shifts such as the Younger Dryas (+10C in less than a decade) you are SEVERELY underestimating the amount of carbon we are emitting.
What is not true? That the earth's weather is not cyclical? That the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete? That we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think? That data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on?
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,761
What is not true? That the earth's weather is not cyclical? That the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete? That we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think? That data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on?
I should let Mr. Gambs answer your questions first Mr. Exit so tell me to butt out if so.
Yes, it is cyclical. It's exactly the point that humans also affect natural cycles. That's why scientists refer to our influence as cause anthropocentric global warming. They didn't make that up. I wish I could say they did.
We possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think? Yes, but also quite possible that we contribute to it's demise more quickly as some think. I wish I could say I believe the former, not the latter. I really do.
I know I've said this a zillion times, but if you check out this site: http://www.realclimate.org/ and read what the braniac scientists there say (which, I admit, can be quite challenging), I think you'll get a much clearer picture of what the consensus on these statistics is by people who are far more interested in pure science than any political or economic motivation. I've been following this site for years and have yet to get any indication that these people have any interest besides doing diligent,scientific research. It's fairly easy, even for a lay person, to see what it is they have come up with. I wish their conclusions were wrong. That also, I really do.
Here's a good article from realclimate that is very current and addresses much of this:
This article points out how natural oscillations in climate change are slowing the warming trend but that in decades to come, those same oscillations will likely add to anthropogenically caused warming. That's when things will really start to get interesting.
Post edited by brianlux on
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What is not true? That the earth's weather is not cyclical? That the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete? That we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think? That data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on?
To say, "the Earth's climate is cyclical" is a huge oversimplification. There have been periods of climate conditions that will not be repeated and likely periods to come that have no precedent. To say, "the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete" is only exactly true of the broadest definition of "climate cycles". Periods such as the Younger Dryas have demonstrated that the climate can change in a single human lifetime. While that change is just an oscillation in the broader climate cycle, it is hugely relevant for two reasons. The first reason is that we live on that timescale and billions of people will be impacted for decades, even if it stabilizes like the end of the Younger Dryas. The second reason is the existence of feedback loops such as the albedo effect, in combination with the principle of equilibrium. The climate "seeks" an equilibrious state, and if that equilibrium lands on a desertified or snowball Earth, it may take millions of years to come out of such a state...if at all. That's a problem for life. To say, "we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think" is reasonable. The problem with this is that we are burning thousands of years worth of the carbon cycle every year, so the effect is logically going to be accelerated. To say, "data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on" is a huge , misrepresentation of how science works. This isn't social science, this is multi-disciplinary experts working together to solve puzzles. We are talking about expert chemists, physicists, geologists, and all the specialists within these specialist fields. If you truly believe that any data can be interpreted any way, then you must feel that there is no point to science at all! It is obly because this issue has become politicized that people question the scientific consensus.
At the heart of your skepticism is the cleverly crafted notion of human impact humility. It is largely disseminated and originated from the Koch brothers and is pseudo-scientific baloney. It is the notion that human activity doesn't have much impact on the Earth because it is so large. Baloney. Do you know anything about cyanobacteria and the history of atmospheric oxygen? Maybe do a wiki search on the Great Oxygenation Event and the resulting mass extinction to get a sense of how the climate can be effected by the organisms living within it.
What is not true? That the earth's weather is not cyclical? That the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete? That we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think? That data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on?
To say, "the Earth's climate is cyclical" is a huge oversimplification. There have been periods of climate conditions that will not be repeated and likely periods to come that have no precedent. To say, "the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete" is only exactly true of the broadest definition of "climate cycles". Periods such as the Younger Dryas have demonstrated that the climate can change in a single human lifetime. While that change is just an oscillation in the broader climate cycle, it is hugely relevant for two reasons. The first reason is that we live on that timescale and billions of people will be impacted for decades, even if it stabilizes like the end of the Younger Dryas. The second reason is the existence of feedback loops such as the albedo effect, in combination with the principle of equilibrium. The climate "seeks" an equilibrious state, and if that equilibrium lands on a desertified or snowball Earth, it may take millions of years to come out of such a state...if at all. That's a problem for life. To say, "we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think" is reasonable. The problem with this is that we are burning thousands of years worth of the carbon cycle every year, so the effect is logically going to be accelerated. To say, "data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on" is a huge , misrepresentation of how science works. This isn't social science, this is multi-disciplinary experts working together to solve puzzles. We are talking about expert chemists, physicists, geologists, and all the specialists within these specialist fields. If you truly believe that any data can be interpreted any way, then you must feel that there is no point to science at all! It is obly because this issue has become politicized that people question the scientific consensus.
At the heart of your skepticism is the cleverly crafted notion of human impact humility. It is largely disseminated and originated from the Koch brothers and is pseudo-scientific baloney. It is the notion that human activity doesn't have much impact on the Earth because it is so large. Baloney. Do you know anything about cyanobacteria and the history of atmospheric oxygen? Maybe do a wiki search on the Great Oxygenation Event and the resulting mass extinction to get a sense of how the climate can be effected by the organisms living within it.
You are way smarter than me. That much is clear. I can't even argue with mist of what you said except interpreting data. I'm not being sarcastic. Data and statistics can be read in different ways. That's why there are debates. Regardless of which side of the fence you are on, or who's paying for your study.
I haven't heard of that great oxygenation thing. I will check it out.
I love science. Granted, it took the cyanobacteria a long time to oxygenate our atmosphere, but it still shows that a profound effect can be made. SOME data is so open to interpretation, some is pretty cut and dry. I am not as interested in climate models' predictions as some are, I feel like they polarize the debate to an extent. I like looking at it from a historic perspective, which leads to the same conclusion...we have to kick our oil addiction. If we wait until the oil runs out we will be left with our thumb in our ass no matter what the climate does!
The earth has biofeedback mechanisms to deal with fluctuations in carbon dioxide. In a vacuum the amount of carbon dioxide would be a problem but fortunately we don't live in one. We would be far better off to focus our attention on clean air and drinking water instead of wasting our time trying to preventing the emission of something we exhale. Carbon dioxide emissions have only increased over the last twenty years and yet the level of warming has plateaued. This shows that CO2 might not be the devil we once thought it was. While me might contribute to the earth's temperature on some level it is clearly on such a negligible level to be of any concern. The earth's climate is largely impacted by changes in solar activity and that is something none of us can control. Get ready for the cooling by the way because solar activity such as sun spots and flares are at an all time low.
Comments
Also, I like your title idea. It happens to be the title of one of my favorite Replacements songs but that's ok, I don't think song titles can be copy righted. Looking forward to your single when it comes out!
should we call it the "championing of ignorance"?
when denial of science becomes public policy, we have a serious problem. and that is what is happening in this country right now.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-pcs-distance-themselves-from-mpp-who-denies-evolution/article23202872/
Truly sad that people like this get elected. Of course, I'm expecting the 'my comments were taken out of context' defence within hours.
but there are just some things that can't be argued. and anyone who argues against climate change is just using it as an excuse to be fucking lazy and not give a shit about their environment.
as I've stated before, whether you believe in human caused climate change or not, you have to believe that pollution is bad for us and the world we live in.
www.headstonesband.com
I think it's important to clarify on the topic of climate change. There are those who say that the global temperature rises we're seeing are merely part of a cycle. There are others who say that it can be attributed to non-CO2 factors. Then, there are many who say it should be attributed to CO2 primarily.
None of these precludes giving a shit about the environment. Am I certain that CO2 is the prime contributor towards global warming? Nope. Do I care? Nope - I'm always going to believe in renewable resources, and I'm always going to recycle and compost, because with finite resources, it's just logical to do so. Anyone who argues against climate change and also uses that to justify their inactivity in the environmental concern department - THAT's where I agree with you about sheer laziness and selfishness.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
FOOLS!
www.headstonesband.com
"Adam and Eve were immediately evicted from paradise and the whole world went to shit"
My husband's cousin homeschools her kids with a Christian curriculum. She has taken her seven children to this "museum". She loves it. She lives many states away from here, but our neighbors also home school their 4 kiddos with a Christian curriculum, A Beka. Looking at their curriculum catalog, I read that the 8th grade science book "text rejects the unproven hypothesis of evolution, recognizing special creation as the only reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe."
97% in fact.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
why is intelliegence a bad thing? an unfavorable quality in politics?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
www.headstonesband.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
www.headstonesband.com
Hearing these world ending catastrophes from these scientists remind me of the preachers who always pick the date of the end of the world. How does that turn out for them?
I'm well aware that have 0 evidence to support the 5% claim I made. And that you can post 10 links that will prove it wrong in your eyes. Because like the bible, data can be interpreted in any way that fits his or her side of the story.
In addition to ignoring abrupt climate shifts such as the Younger Dryas (+10C in less than a decade) you are SEVERELY underestimating the amount of carbon we are emitting.
Yes, it is cyclical. It's exactly the point that humans also affect natural cycles. That's why scientists refer to our influence as cause anthropocentric global warming. They didn't make that up. I wish I could say they did.
We possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think? Yes, but also quite possible that we contribute to it's demise more quickly as some think. I wish I could say I believe the former, not the latter. I really do.
I know I've said this a zillion times, but if you check out this site: http://www.realclimate.org/ and read what the braniac scientists there say (which, I admit, can be quite challenging), I think you'll get a much clearer picture of what the consensus on these statistics is by people who are far more interested in pure science than any political or economic motivation. I've been following this site for years and have yet to get any indication that these people have any interest besides doing diligent,scientific research. It's fairly easy, even for a lay person, to see what it is they have come up with. I wish their conclusions were wrong. That also, I really do.
Here's a good article from realclimate that is very current and addresses much of this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/
This article points out how natural oscillations in climate change are slowing the warming trend but that in decades to come, those same oscillations will likely add to anthropogenically caused warming. That's when things will really start to get interesting.
To say, "the cycles take hundreds of thousands of years to complete" is only exactly true of the broadest definition of "climate cycles". Periods such as the Younger Dryas have demonstrated that the climate can change in a single human lifetime. While that change is just an oscillation in the broader climate cycle, it is hugely relevant for two reasons. The first reason is that we live on that timescale and billions of people will be impacted for decades, even if it stabilizes like the end of the Younger Dryas. The second reason is the existence of feedback loops such as the albedo effect, in combination with the principle of equilibrium. The climate "seeks" an equilibrious state, and if that equilibrium lands on a desertified or snowball Earth, it may take millions of years to come out of such a state...if at all. That's a problem for life.
To say, "we possibly do not contribute to demise of earth as quickly as some think" is reasonable. The problem with this is that we are burning thousands of years worth of the carbon cycle every year, so the effect is logically going to be accelerated.
To say, "data can be interpreted several ways to lean of whatever side of the fence you are on" is a huge , misrepresentation of how science works. This isn't social science, this is multi-disciplinary experts working together to solve puzzles. We are talking about expert chemists, physicists, geologists, and all the specialists within these specialist fields. If you truly believe that any data can be interpreted any way, then you must feel that there is no point to science at all! It is obly because this issue has become politicized that people question the scientific consensus.
At the heart of your skepticism is the cleverly crafted notion of human impact humility. It is largely disseminated and originated from the Koch brothers and is pseudo-scientific baloney. It is the notion that human activity doesn't have much impact on the Earth because it is so large. Baloney. Do you know anything about cyanobacteria and the history of atmospheric oxygen? Maybe do a wiki search on the Great Oxygenation Event and the resulting mass extinction to get a sense of how the climate can be effected by the organisms living within it.
I haven't heard of that great oxygenation thing. I will check it out.
SOME data is so open to interpretation, some is pretty cut and dry.
I am not as interested in climate models' predictions as some are, I feel like they polarize the debate to an extent. I like looking at it from a historic perspective, which leads to the same conclusion...we have to kick our oil addiction. If we wait until the oil runs out we will be left with our thumb in our ass no matter what the climate does!