| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Renrut, no claiming his soul. It belongs to us. His delicious, delicious soul...
The amazing climatologists Gore and Danson.
They weren't scientists, and wouldn't know science if it fell on their head. But, they started the hype, so there you go.
Indeed. Nobody doubts that.
How many times will the models have to be revised before we get the really real real? Is it ok to trust the outcome now, or is it ok to hesitantly accept that maybe that's what the models say now, but could change again?
Here's where you'll find me a skeptic of climate science.
I think the idea that a couple of people and a few computers can accurately model the entire climate of the earth is a little absurd. They can make guesses, probably even really, really good guesses, but they can't KNOW what will happen in 20-30 years.
Calling the models into question is a good thing.
It's the denial of the science that looks into the past, that measures the rate of change to date, that's what I find absurd.
I think there is a lot of room for healthy debate on what COULD happen.
Take Miami Beach for example. We don't know how fast or how much the water is going to rise. We do know that the water is rising though. Last year in October they had "spring floods". That's where water just bubbles up from the ground and floods the place. No rain, no storm surge, just extra water deciding to stop by and say "Hello!" while it hangs out for a while.
Right now it happens during the fall when there is a full moon. It happens twice a day, during each of the high tides. The slight difference in gravity from the Sun during fall, combined with the rough alignment of Sun-Earth-Moon, means that water gets up to 2-3 feet deep in the streets.
If things continue to change, it will probably get worse. How much worse though? How much will it cost to preserve Miami Beach? How much is it worth to preserve it?
Are we prepared to dedicate millions or billions of dollars to save this section of the city? What about when the flooding spreads to poorer parts of Miami?
This s$+# is happening and burying our heads in the sand isn't going to work. The sand will get flooded eventually too. Again, we don't know when, but trying to deny that it's happening isn't going to solve the problem.
I really think that people are starting to bark up the wrong tree when the discussion starts to be about how the scientists need to start working with the tone of their message to get the climate change point across properly. Tone should be the worry of the media and the politicians, scientists have the job of looking at data and telling people what the data says. I'd much prefer they spend more time on that, rather than on public relations classes because somebody complains about the tone of the claims.
It isn't the job of the scientists to decide how the world should react to things like climate change. But when their models show it happening, it's very much their job to communicate those findings to whoever will listen.
I don't recall any mainstream claims that felt we'd see major disasters by 2015, though there were some who felt that if we didn't act by 2015 then it would be too late. Regardless the models will need to be frequently adjusted over time because we're dealing with complex systems, included chaotic elements such as weather. Additionally some countries and individuals are altering behaviour due to climate science. Doomsday predictions not coming true doesn't mean the scientists who made them were wrong, it may just as well mean that people listening to them have had some impact.
If climate science were not politicized back in 1989 and a lot of climate scientists not also considered, and sometimes actual, politicians as a result... I would agree with you.
But that's not how history went.
As it stands, climate science cannot divorce itself from having the same concerns as politics about public relations because so much of it is hinging on public relations. If they want to succeed in changing the course of humanity's future, they have to be just as political as the very governments they are trying to get to listen. That's why it is there are billions being spent on lobbying for this issue on both sides of the conversation. Because no matter what the science says, at the end of the day politics determines how much funding they get and if any change is made.
Stop and ask yourself exactly how far climate science would get right now if they disbanded the IPCC and left the political arena. I know there would be a lot of people who oppose them dancing in the streets. And the lobby against them would be just as active as ever.
And the failed dates merely represent how much wasn't known back then. Science is massively more educated now and has a much better grasp of it. All they really serve to do is illustrate how the media mishandled the information, and why scientists need to take more control over how it's presented.
Maybe if we can't see it, it'll think it can't see us.
Oh crap! I see it! I see it! I can't stop seeing it! It's charging! Run! RUN!!!
Maybe if we can't see it, it'll think it can't see us.Oh crap! I see it! I see it! I can't stop seeing it! It's charging! Run! RUN!!!
RUN! RUN ALL YOU WISH! YOU CANNOT ESCAPE ME, MORTAL!
Yeah! And we could call it... hmmm... I know! Rainbow road!"We need to cross the river to the other side, why are you stopping?"
"I'm not crossing the Rainbow Bridge. Look there is no ice. Bye-Frost indeed."
... lose 50 experience.
...I really think that people are starting to bark up the wrong tree when the discussion starts to be about how the scientists need to start working with the tone of their message to get the climate change point across properly. Tone should be the worry of the media and the politicians, scientists have the job of looking at data and telling people what the data says. I'd much prefer they spend more time on that, rather than on public relations classes because somebody complains about the tone of the claims.
It isn't the job of the scientists to decide how the world should react to things like climate change. But when their models show it happening, it's very much their job to communicate those findings to whoever will listen.
I don't recall any mainstream claims that felt we'd see major disasters by 2015, though there were some who felt that if we didn't act by 2015 then it would be too late. Regardless the models will need to be frequently adjusted over time because we're dealing with complex systems, included chaotic elements such as weather. Additionally some countries and individuals are altering behaviour due to climate science. Doomsday predictions not coming true doesn't mean the scientists who made them were wrong, it may just as well mean that people listening to them have had some impact.
If climate science were not politicized back in 1989 and a lot of climate scientists not also considered, and sometimes actual, politicians as a result... I would agree with you.
But that's not how history went.
As it stands, climate science cannot divorce itself from having the same concerns as politics about public relations because so much of it is hinging on public relations. If they want to succeed in changing the course of humanity's future, they have to be just as political as the very governments they are trying to get to listen. That's why it is there are billions being spent on lobbying for this issue on both sides of the conversation. Because
We were discussing the dates in my last post, I think.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to flee. Climate Change seeks me.
RUN! RUN ALL YOU WISH! YOU CANNOT ESCAPE ME, MORTAL!Maybe if we can't see it, it'll think it can't see us.Oh crap! I see it! I see it! I can't stop seeing it! It's charging! Run! RUN!!!
*Runs off the face of the earth*
How much of the "failed predictions" are the result of steps taken to prevent them?
That's another thing. We are currently being bombarded with things like "The stuff we have done so far has been a failure and hasn't measurably affected the CO2 content of the atmosphere", "This new model shows that the consequences will come sooner and be worse", "If we don't act by 2012, it will be too late", "Only if we stop producing any more CO2 completely and actively manage to further reduce the CO2 already in the atmosphere will we be able to not go above 2 degrees", "the environmental talks in <latest hyped city> were a failure" and too many other doomsayings to mentions. According to the official spin, nothing we have done have affected things in the least. So, probably none of them. It is also worth noting that many of the predictions have failed beyond even the intervals of the "most optimistic" scenarios.
Nonononono... we should ALL return to hunting/gathering. Burn what we can find for heat. Eat whatever moves. Shut down all malls, cities and money systems, that's part of why we were given the punishment by Mother Earth for our sins, and now it's time to atone...
So long as nobody sets fire to the men afterward. That would be ugly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure where these "cataclysmic predictions" are coming from. But we are in fact seeing several negative consequences of climate change already. And it doesn't require super drastic changes in climate to cause major problems, the entirety of human civilization is dependent on the climate not changing at all, a few less inches of rain here, a few inches of sea rise there is all it takes for massive disruption.
So long as nobody sets fire to the men afterward. That would be ugly.
or one hell of a party.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very very confused on how climate researchers could have educated the public but avoided "politicization". Ultimately...if you are telling the public "We are putting so much CO2 in the environment that we are looking at long term global warming and climate change" the very next concern is "how do we fix/mediate these problems" That's going to get into a very political question.
I am very very confused on how climate researchers could have educated the public but avoided "politicization". Ultimately...if you are telling the public "We are putting so much CO2 in the environment that we are looking at long term global warming and climate change" the very next concern is "how do we fix/mediate these problems" That's going to get into a very political question.
An example of metargument rather than argument.
OH, i would have agreed with you, but not if you're political about it!
Interesting approach to carbon sequestration there, Sissyl and Andrew R. I hadn't thought of growing straw and turning it into men to capture carbon before. Good plan. Hope it goes well for you both.
I prefer to sequester my carbon (and toxic metals) in grass reeds and bamboo fibers, because when I make a wickerman out of them, it has the entertaining bonus of freaking out Nick Cage.
I'm not sure where these "cataclysmic predictions" are coming from. But we are in fact seeing several negative consequences of climate change already. And it doesn't require super drastic changes in climate to cause major problems, the entirety of human civilization is dependent on the climate not changing at all, a few less inches of rain here, a few inches of sea rise there is all it takes for massive disruption.
The media over-exaggerating.
I am very very confused on how climate researchers could have educated the public but avoided "politicization". Ultimately...if you are telling the public "We are putting so much CO2 in the environment that we are looking at long term global warming and climate change" the very next concern is "how do we fix/mediate these problems" That's going to get into a very political question.
The idea of what I've said was not to avoid being politicized, but to not do it right off the bat. Instead, talking to the public first and getting them on board. Then, when the science is politicized, it happens with the support of the public and the politicians are forced to act just to keep their jobs.
Thus, as people would start to ask how to fix the major problems, then would be the time to direct them to write/talk/blackmail their Congressmen.
So, it's not that it shouldn't have be politicized. It's that it shouldn't have been politicized as early as it was.
Interesting approach to carbon sequestration there, Sissyl and Andrew R. I hadn't thought of growing straw and turning it into men to capture carbon before. Good plan. Hope it goes well for you both.I prefer to sequester my carbon (and toxic metals) in grass reeds and bamboo fibers, because when I make a wickerman out of them, it has the entertaining bonus of freaking out Nick Cage.
I use men made from driftwood and other material I find on the beach. And whenever I run out, I drop by Tortuga, raise a pirate crew, and go sink a few more ships.
See? I'm sequestering carbon and making money at the same time!
|
Interesting approach to carbon sequestration there, Sissyl and Andrew R. I hadn't thought of growing straw and turning it into men to capture carbon before. Good plan. Hope it goes well for you both.
At the end of the day however i am right. Humans and our manufactured way of life are the problem. Less humans is best for the planet, if you are making more humans you are the problem. Industry creates pollution making electricity, petroleum products and metals (like those used in batteries). Limiting both of those is the ONLY real and effective way to reduce the damage we do to the world. Sure we can talk a big game like al gore and keep burning the world down but when will people stand to do what will have an actual EFFECT? How many "green" types are ready to really sacrifice to do something. I think it is time to see some of these neo-hippies put up or shut up.
Interesting approach to carbon sequestration there, Sissyl and Andrew R. I hadn't thought of growing straw and turning it into men to capture carbon before. Good plan. Hope it goes well for you both.At the end of the day however i am right. Humans and our manufactured way of life are the problem. Less humans is best for the planet, if you are making more humans you are the problem. Industry creates pollution making electricity, petroleum products and metals (like those used in batteries). Limiting both of those is the ONLY real and effective way to reduce the damage we do to the world. Sure we can talk a big game like al gore and keep burning the world down but when will people stand to do what will have an actual EFFECT? How many "green" types are ready to really sacrifice to do something. I think it is time to see some of these neo-hippies put up or shut up.
And again with the binary thinking. Its entirely possible to go from having the thermostat at 80 in January and driving a hummer to turning the thermostat down to 60 and buy a Prius without going man vs wild. The mere presence/absence of metals plastic carbon etc. isn't all that matters. The amount matters too.
|
|
Interesting approach to carbon sequestration there, Sissyl and Andrew R. I hadn't thought of growing straw and turning it into men to capture carbon before. Good plan. Hope it goes well for you both.At the end of the day however i am right. Humans and our manufactured way of life are the problem. Less humans is best for the planet, if you are making more humans you are the problem. Industry creates pollution making electricity, petroleum products and metals (like those used in batteries). Limiting both of those is the ONLY real and effective way to reduce the damage we do to the world. Sure we can talk a big game like al gore and keep burning the world down but when will people stand to do what will have an actual EFFECT? How many "green" types are ready to really sacrifice to do something. I think it is time to see some of these neo-hippies put up or shut up.And again with the binary thinking. Its entirely possible to go from having the thermostat at 80 in January and driving a hummer to turning the thermostat down to 60 and buy a Prius without going man vs wild. The mere presence/absence of metals plastic carbon etc. isn't all that matters. The amount matters too.
Wich is like saying child slavery is bad but if we keep just enough to make what we want at least there isn't as much so we are doing good. Really it is more about limiting humanity than stopping us from having plastic that will do long term good.
I'm not sure where these "cataclysmic predictions" are coming from. But we are in fact seeing several negative consequences of climate change already. And it doesn't require super drastic changes in climate to cause major problems, the entirety of human civilization is dependent on the climate not changing at all, a few less inches of rain here, a few inches of sea rise there is all it takes for massive disruption.The media over-exaggerating.
I am very very confused on how climate researchers could have educated the public but avoided "politicization". Ultimately...if you are telling the public "We are putting so much CO2 in the environment that we are looking at long term global warming and climate change" the very next concern is "how do we fix/mediate these problems" That's going to get into a very political question.The idea of what I've said was not to avoid being politicized, but to not do it right off the bat. Instead, talking to the public first and getting them on board. Then, when the science is politicized, it happens with the support of the public and the politicians are forced to act just to keep their jobs.
Thus, as people would start to ask how to fix the major problems, then would be the time to direct them to write/talk/blackmail their Congressmen.
So, it's not that it shouldn't have be politicized. It's that it shouldn't have been politicized as early as it was.
But by educating the public, you are explicitly telling them there is a problem, which is also going to go right away into how we should resolve the problem. I mean...If a doctor tells a patient he has cancer, he doesn't then wait a year to tell him what to do about it.
That, and I don't really see how politicizing an issue or not would somehow lead to greater or lesser acceptance. Most evolutionary biologists historically didn't go out of the way in making evolution a political issue, but that didn't really stop the Conservative Right in multiple states from trying to prevent mentions of evolution in school. If anything, the recent "controversy" over the state fossil for South Carolina has shown that people will readily make controversy even when its not there or attempts have been made to avoid it.
And again with the binary thinking. Its entirely possible to go from having the thermostat at 80 in January and driving a hummer to turning the thermostat down to 60 and buy a Prius without going man vs wild. The mere presence/absence of metals plastic carbon etc. isn't all that matters. The amount matters too.
Except history hasn't really held that out. Everytime we create more efficient technology that uses less energy, we just create new products to use that extra energy.
I don't know if going back to the stone age is the answer, maybe just all become Amish.
MMCJawa, right. But at the same time, evolution doesn't have the problems with official acceptance that climate change does. Even in the U.S., playing around with teaching it in the science classrooms is a good way to turn your state into the laughing stock of the nation.
Remove climate change, though, and you're just participating in the ongoing debate or can justify it as not wanting it in the classroom until the debate is settled. Nevermind that most of the debate is political.
If, instead, climate science had gotten the public support first by telling them there's a problem we need to resolve instead of telling the politicians, then we'd probably see the same thing with climate change that we see with evolution.
Also, note that James Hansen and a few other climate scientists did go out of their way to make climate change a political issue.
|
|
And again with the binary thinking. Its entirely possible to go from having the thermostat at 80 in January and driving a hummer to turning the thermostat down to 60 and buy a Prius without going man vs wild. The mere presence/absence of metals plastic carbon etc. isn't all that matters. The amount matters too.Except history hasn't really held that out. Everytime we create more efficient technology that uses less energy, we just create new products to use that extra energy.
I don't know if going back to the stone age is the answer, maybe just all become Amish.
I think returning to a 1800's tech level would do the trick, doesn't have to be stone age but anything involving plastics and electricity is planet killing
Wich is like saying child slavery is bad but if we keep just enough to make what we want at least there isn't as much so we are doing good. Really it is more about limiting humanity than stopping us from having plastic that will do long term good.
Just out of curiosity, are you being serious? I can't tell if your Final Solution/ Plastic Problem theory is real or a joke...
It's a classic technique for avoiding action. Make it seem as if the only effective action would be ridiculously drastic and use that as an excuse not to do anything.Wich is like saying child slavery is bad but if we keep just enough to make what we want at least there isn't as much so we are doing good. Really it is more about limiting humanity than stopping us from having plastic that will do long term good.Just out of curiosity, are you being serious? I can't tell if your Final Solution/ Plastic Problem theory is real or a joke...
But traditionally when that tactic is used it involves telling people they have to drive tiny cars with pink triangles on them and eat quiche. Liquidating the populace is a whole different kind of talk, especially given the US habit of thinning out the populace of places like Iraq with sanctions, bombing, and general mayhem.
|
|
It's a classic technique for avoiding action. Make it seem as if the only effective action would be ridiculously drastic and use that as an excuse not to do anything.Wich is like saying child slavery is bad but if we keep just enough to make what we want at least there isn't as much so we are doing good. Really it is more about limiting humanity than stopping us from having plastic that will do long term good.Just out of curiosity, are you being serious? I can't tell if your Final Solution/ Plastic Problem theory is real or a joke...
Quite the opposite really, i think we need to use much MUCH less plastic and cut back our electrical usage immensely if we really care about pollution. And i really do mean that cutting back on humanity is the only truly effective way to reduce environmental destruction. Good luck trying to convince humans to stop breeding like rodents though
MMCJawa, right. But at the same time, evolution doesn't have the problems with official acceptance that climate change does. Even in the U.S., playing around with teaching it in the science classrooms is a good way to turn your state into the laughing stock of the nation.
Remove climate change, though, and you're just participating in the ongoing debate or can justify it as not wanting it in the classroom until the debate is settled. Nevermind that most of the debate is political.
If, instead, climate science had gotten the public support first by telling them there's a problem we need to resolve instead of telling the politicians, then we'd probably see the same thing with climate change that we see with evolution.
Also, note that James Hansen and a few other climate scientists did go out of their way to make climate change a political issue.
Because they were already concerned with consequences and the lack of action.
Evolution doesn't have the same problems with official acceptance that climate change does, partly because it's more than 150 years old. It certainly did have problems with official acceptance. We can't wait generations for climate change to become accepted truth.
Evolution was fighting against deeply-held beliefs on a societal scale.
Climate change is confirming the worries and concerns segments of the public have had over pollution and how it affects the environment are actually on the money. Concerns which have been going on since the 1940s and which hit a peak in the 1960s.
Climate change didn't need the long-term scale evolution faced because it already had most of its work done for it by the preceding forty years. All it had to do was tie into those fears, remind the public of them, and then tell them that they were right in thinking they had something to worry about. And you can bet the public hearing that it was a legitimate worry, one that they were concerned about first, would get them up in arms.
Instead, they talked to politicians first and now it'll likely be generations before anything major gets done.
Good luck trying to convince humans to stop breeding like rodents though
It seems the best way is to stop treating them like rodents. With a few exceptions, raising the standard of living (and especially guaranteeing secure retirement) tends to cause the birthrate to drop off sharply. Sadly, our economic system is set up to provide far more profit for killing people rather then providing them with stable futures.
|
|
Making the environment a politic thing instead of a common sense thing has assured no good will happen. Now it is "enviro extremists" vs business/economy and "big business polluters" vs people that care about the planet. With very few exceptions your side is for the common man and the others is trying to destroy everything. My side, there side. the core of all american political problems, 2 sides, both of which are almost always half wrong
|
|
Good luck trying to convince humans to stop breeding like rodents thoughIt seems the best way is to stop treating them like rodents. With a few exceptions, raising the standard of living (and especially guaranteeing secure retirement) tends to cause the birthrate to drop off sharply. Sadly, our economic system is set up to provide far more profit for killing people rather then providing them with stable futures.
Those "stable futures" rely on each generation being larger than the last to support the ponzi scheme of taking from some to support others. Compounding the problem if you want to limit pollution causing industry that produces the wealth that pay the taxes. That does little to remedy the population issue
ELECT ME PRESIDENT! I CARE ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! I WILL BRING CHANGE!
I think you are talking about the age old difference between what the rulers want and what is best for the people. Back in the day it was the king or god emperor vs. the peasants slaves and serfs. In modern times it is the corporate interests and their kept politicians vs the other 99+% of the people.
"Those "stable futures" rely on each generation being larger than the last..." No they do not. It operates on the same principle as insurance- not everyone who pays in, gets to take out.
I also think your "2 sides, both of which are almost always half wrong" is a silly assertion to make. A great many issues have few or no politicians on the peoples side (for example - outsourcing) and a vast number of issues such as racial civil rights, gender/sexuality issues, etc. don't have "half wrong on both sides".
PS - You can't complain about Ponzi schemes and cheerlead for the free market. Ponzi schemes are free market economics at their most pure!
|
|
I think you are talking about the age old difference between what the rulers want and what is best for the people. Back in the day it was the king or god emperor vs. the peasants slaves and serfs. In modern times it is the corporate interests and their kept politicians vs the other 99+% of the people.
I also think your "2 sides, both of which are almost always half wrong" is a silly assertion to make. A great many issues have few or no politicians on the peoples side (for example - outsourcing) and a vast number of issues such as racial civil rights, gender/sexuality issues, etc. don't have "half wrong on both sides".
PS - You can't complain about Ponzi schemes and cheerlead for the free market.
Certainly they do. many of us oppose outsourcing as stripping local jobs and harming our country, others defend it as good for business. 2 sides that can see little common ground. On the rights issue you run into things like gay rights vs religious freedom. both are wrong in the term that is wrong to tell a religion that it must perform gay marriage even if it is directly against there religion, while the religious are wrong to oppose the marriages for existing at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PS - You can't complain about Ponzi schemes and cheerlead for the free market. Ponzi schemes are free market economics at their most pure!
I cannot say i truly champion a free market. I support honest commerce, the choice to buy and sell as you want in a mutual contract with others. Lies, false products and fuzzy math have no place in honest commerce. The problem is that honesty tends to melt down when you are not interacting directly and completely when making profits becomes the only goal.
Certainly they do. many of us oppose outsourcing as stripping local jobs and harming our country, others defend it as good for business. 2 sides that can see little common ground.
That is my point. The vast majority of people want jobs. A few wealthy people would rather make even more money and not abide by the laws within their own country. I think both sides can see the advantages and disadvantages. It just so happens that one group gets the advantage, the other gets the short end of the stick.
On the rights issue you run into things like gay rights vs religious freedom. both are wrong in the term that is wrong to tell a religion that it must perform gay marriage even if it is directly against there religion, while the religious are wrong to oppose the marriages for existing at all.
That is the theory behind separation of church and state, and the basis for our principle of religious freedom. The government should not dictate how religions handle faith, and religions should not try to use governments to enforce their policies.
|
|
Certainly they do. many of us oppose outsourcing as stripping local jobs and harming our country, others defend it as good for business. 2 sides that can see little common ground.That is my point. The vast majority of people want jobs. A few wealthy people would rather make even more money and not abide by the laws within their own country. I think both sides can see the advantages and disadvantages. It just so happens that one group gets the advantage, the other gets the short end of the stick.
On the rights issue you run into things like gay rights vs religious freedom. both are wrong in the term that is wrong to tell a religion that it must perform gay marriage even if it is directly against there religion, while the religious are wrong to oppose the marriages for existing at all.That is the theory behind separation of church and state, and the basis for our principle of religious freedom. The government should not dictate how religions handle faith, and religions should not try to use governments to enforce their policies.
yes some of us can see both sides. many see their side as the only proper way and the other as evil and wrong