or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Climategate - Page 64

post #2521 of 3039
Jazzy, here you go again demonstrating that you really don't understand climate science one bit. Worthless. Utterly worthless.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2522 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Thanks, BR.

Here's one scientist's opinion: Prominent Scientist Tells Congress: Earth in CO2 Famine

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2523 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

So you disagree that the amount of CO2 is increasing, sea levels are rising, temperature trends are increasing and glaciers are receding? Sometimes you don't need governments to “take extreme measures to regulate it” but you can start by not using your incandescent desk lamp and substitute an LED or CF bulbs. One can also recycle, use public transportation when possible, think green etc, before it becomes necessary for Big Brother to monitor your carbon foot print, your pollution and energy consumption index. Might even tax you if you exceed your base level.

I do not disagree that the earth's climate changes. I disagree that it is a bad thing, that it must be stopped, that it can be stopped, and that it can only be stopped by giving up God-given freedoms to an elite minority.

Quote:
No matter what you call it, it still does not prove AGW false does it?

I'm still waiting for it to be proven true.

Quote:
It is quite possible that the changes are more subtitle than expected---receding glaciers and snow packs, warming trends, spred of tropical diseases into temperate zones, etc. However the long term trends can be just as devastating. As for the drastic events that you say hasn't happened, doesn't mean that the science is wrong.

I know you meant subtle (not subtitle). This is not what we have been told by Nobel Prize-winning Al Gore and those who he represents. We were told that natural disasters - including hurricanes - would increase as a result of AGW. He, and they, were wrong.

Quote:
Then come up with alternative to having governments take charge.

It's called freedom.

Quote:
Because people like you keep questioning and obfuscating the good scientific evidence, like evolution is a myth.

Evolution does not explain everything. For example, it does not explain how life came to be on this planet in the first place. Any honest scientist will tell you that. Any honest scientist will ask questions and propose alternate theories to fill in the gaps.

Quote:
If you believe that the “alarmist” are claiming pending doom, you aren't reading the same book.

Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"?

Quote:
Something like this, like it or not, will take global effort to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions along with the other toxic pollutants.

Greenhouse gases are not toxic pollutants.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2524 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

No, I am not really saying that. I said I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant. Are you really saying greenhouse gases are pollutants? Seriously?


Figure 1: CO2 levels (parts per million) over the past 10,000 years. Blue line from Taylor Dome ice cores (NOAA). Green line from Law Dome ice core (CDIAC). Red line from direct measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA).

Thursday, 11 February, 2010

Quote:
We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant?

A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.

Rising CO2 levels causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. This leads to warmer temperatures which has many consequences. Some effects are beneficial such as improved agriculture at high latitudes and increased vegetation growth in some circumstances. However, the negatives far outweigh the positives. Coast-bound communities are threatened by rising sea levels. Melting glaciers threaten the water supplies of hundreds of millions. Species are becoming extinct at the fastest rate in history.

How we choose to define the word 'pollutant' is a play in semantics. To focus on a few positive effects of carbon dioxide is to ignore the broader picture of its full impacts. The net result from increasing CO2 are severe negative impacts on our environment and the living conditions of future humanity.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-CO2-a-pollutant.html

CO2 in the political spotlight

Quote:
Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).

The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6). Living systems, be they an ecosystem or an organism, require that a delicate balance be maintained between certain elements and/or compounds in order for the system to function normally. When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2525 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2526 of 3039
Quote:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and also as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane (CH4): Methane is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and by the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.

Nitrous Oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

Fluorinated Gases: Hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent greenhouse gases, they are sometimes referred to as High Global Warming Potential gases (High GWP gases).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2527 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2528 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2529 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.


I am not a scientist [FT Comment: I gathered that a long time ago--explains why you fall for the traps of the "REFUTERS" 2 AGW], but I have always considered the words "scientist" and "skeptic" to be synonymous. And it is disturbing to me that you and others would rather stifle debate on this subject than consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is some merit to what AGW skeptics are saying.

First the problem is that the links to "relevant information" is not relevant since is refuted and made irrelevant---but you fail to see it.

scientist>skeptic ≠ skeptic>scientist.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2530 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

First the problem is that the links to "relevant information" is not relevant since is refuted and made irrelevant---but you fail to see it.

scientist>skeptic ≠ skeptic>scientist.

All we are doing is presenting information from both sides of the argument. That you feel you need to "refute" the information I am sharing is fascinating to me.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2531 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2532 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

'Biodiversity': the new Big Lie

Oh look jazzguru has just posted a link to a climate denier blog!

Start a blog. You want a blog. This is not your blog. Start a blog.
post #2533 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

All we are doing is presenting information from both sides of the argument. That you feel you need to "refute" the information I am sharing is fascinating to me.

jg speaks

Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)

Stern report: the key points
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2534 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2535 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Species go extinct. Other species come into existence. The earth is a wondrous place.

Or did we cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, too?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2536 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Species go extinct. Other species come into existence. The earth is a wondrous place.

Or did we cause the extinction of the dinosaurs, too?






Extinction risk from climate change

Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe

Diversity of species faces 'catastrophe' from climate change
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2537 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2538 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2539 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2540 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Link wars!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2541 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2542 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Nice. Note the use of the word "deniers" instead of "skeptics". Deniers, of course, has the same connotation as "holocaust deniers".

I was wrong about you, FineTunes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2543 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Nice. Note the use of the word "deniers" instead of "skeptics". Deniers, of course, has the same connotation as "holocaust deniers".

I was wrong about you, FineTunes.

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2544 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Goodnight?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2545 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Goodnight?



BORING
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2546 of 3039
Thread Starter 
Climate Delusion Falling Faster Than US Temperatures

I would have said it's falling faster than Obama's approval ratings...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2547 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2548 of 3039




無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2549 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2550 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2551 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Happy Climate Fools' Day

METEOROLOGISTS AS CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS?
Analysis by Benjamin Radford
Fri Jan 15, 2010 02:52 PM ET

Quote:
A recent piece in the Columbia Journalism Review examined the rise in global warming denial among the ranks of TV meteorologists.

It's not just that the climate change deniers (as clunky a label as you'll find) claim that the climate scientists got it wrong; it's not that there was a mistake somewhere, some statistician forgot to carry a two in an important calculation or neglected to convert feet to meters.

No, the accusation is more venomous than that: Human-caused global warming is not an error, it is a hoax. It is an intentional fraud, a worldwide conspiracy.

As San Diego weatherman John Coleman wrote in a November 2007 opinion piece, "Global Warming is a nonevent, a manufactured crisis and a total scam." The climate scientists are liars and con men who have no qualms about faking data if it will help assure them funding and continued research grants. It's all about the money. (By this logic, doctors are secretly doing their best to make the public sick, thus ensuring a continued supply of patients and income.)

Curiously, Coleman is not alone; according to a survey conducted by an Emory University researcher, nearly one-third (29 percent) of the television meteorologists he asked responded that global warming was a "scam." That percentage may or many not be representative of all local TV station forecasters nationwide, but it should be cause for alarm.

Coleman's article, which has been widely disseminated and used by critics of global warming, reflects a curious anti-science, anti-academic position.

It's the typical populist argument that the ivory-tower eggheads are pulling a fast one on the world: "These scientists know that if they do research and results are in no way alarming, their research will gather dust on the shelf.... But if they do research that sounds alarms, they will become well known and respected and receive scholarly awards and, very importantly, more research dollars will come flooding their way.... Their like-minded PhD colleagues reviewed their work and hastened to endorse it without question."

This distrust of scientists is all the more evident when you realize that most TV meteorologists are not scientists -- and certainly not climate scientists. Few of them have graduate degrees, and only half have college degrees in atmospheric science.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with this; you don't need a PhD to accurately forecast the weather. But climate change is an extremely complex issue, and (with all due respect to TV meteorologists) their specialty is short-term, local weather, not the science of long-term global climate patterns.

The danger is that the public will assume that Coleman and other global warming deniers are speaking from a position of personal expertise on the subject, that their skepticism about global warming comes from first-hand knowledge of the issues instead of right-wing talk shows and conspiracy-theory Web sites.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/mete...e-deniers.html



Who's Who on Inhofe's List of 400 Global Warming Deniers

Combating climate change deniers
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2552 of 3039
Thread Starter 
It'll take you a while to catch up, FineTunes.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2553 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2554 of 3039


How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

Assuming that they are willing to listen to the evidence rather than refering to the dogma of the deniers.



Quote:
Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:

Stages of Denial,

Scientific Topics,

Types of Argument
, and

Levels of Sophistication.

More @ http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2555 of 3039
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2556 of 3039
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

All we are doing is presenting information from both sides of the argument. That you feel you need to "refute" the information I am sharing is fascinating to me.

That's the huge fallacy that we have in this nation. You can't just bring on a dissenting opinion and automatically give it the same weight because it's from the "other side"--not when that dissenting opinion comes from one that lacks knowledge, ethics, credibility, or all of the above. This whole notion that everyone's opinion somehow has merit is utter bullshit.

You continue to post links from people that have been proven time and time again to distort the actual picture of what's going. They use faulty math, logic, and science to advance an agenda. Their fallacious reasoning has been debunked numerous times, yet because they are from the "other side," you somehow decide that they still must receive equal weight. I'm sorry, they don't.

What the hell do you think the purpose of faking AGW would be anyway? You always advance this idea that they somehow want to do this for the grant money. Grant money for what? To continue to advance false science? To build their whole lives and careers on lies? Why on Earth would a scientist devote all of his energy so blatantly contrary to the reason behind getting into science in the first place--to better understand the universe we live in? Why the FUCK would thousands upon thousands of scientists do that? I get why religious people would--their worldviews are immutable. Scientists are the ones that have not only dealt with dramatic changes to our understanding of the nature of the world, but brought about those changes. WHY WOULD THOUSANDS DEVOTE THEIR WHOLE CAREERS TO SPREADING BLATANT MISINFORMATION?

It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. There is no big conspiracy. You don't understand the science. You would rather put your faith in magic and bullshit. Well, stop fucking up the world that I LIVE IN because you can't handle a little change in understanding.

And even if all this nonsense you are spouting even has the slightest shred of truth, which I certainly WILL NOT concede, what's the end result?



Jazz, shut up already. Start your fucking blog.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #2557 of 3039
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2558 of 3039
Thread Starter 
BR, how about you choose to believe what you want to believe, and I'll choose to believe what I want to believe. Because as individuals living in the United States of America, we are currently still permitted to do that (for the most part).

Science is about questioning the dogma. Questioning the status quo. Questioning the consensus. Right now, you and other adherents of the AGW religion seem to think a perceived consensus means no questions should be allowed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2559 of 3039
The irony is that jg started this blog.....er....uh....thread. Maybe it's time to leave this and start afresh leaving this to jg.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

By now I'm sure most of us have heard of the hacked e-mails and documents that make the meaning of the words "peer reviewed", "consensus", and "facts" utterly false when it comes to "anthropogenic climate change".

If you haven't heard, here's a fantastic resource to help you get up to speed on the latest:

http://www.climatedepot.com/

Thoughts?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

START A F[LO]CKING BLOG.
[FT: Edit]

If we want to read your links to right wing climate denial blogs we'll seek them out ourselves.

if you start your own climate denial aggregator we might even seek out yours. You never know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

That's nice.

YOU, SIR, SHOULD START A BLOG, BY CRIMINEE.

If you want a propganda aggregator, START A BLOG. Fine Tunes just debunks this shit remorselessly every time and you never bother to respond. So just START A BLOG AND TURN THE COMMENTS OFF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

......

You continue to post links from people that have been proven time and time again to distort the actual picture of what's going. They use faulty math, logic, and science to advance an agenda. Their fallacious reasoning has been debunked numerous times, yet because they are from the "other side," you somehow decide that they still must receive equal weight. I'm sorry, they don't......

And even if all this nonsense you are spouting even has the slightest shred of truth, which I certainly WILL NOT concede, what's the end result?



Jazz, shut up already. Start your fucking blog.[FT:Edit]
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #2560 of 3039
Climate change: Cultural shift needed similar to smoking, slavery

October 27, 2010

Quote:
(PhysOrg.com) -- Despite scientific evidence of climate change, it will take a significant cultural shift in attitudes to address the situation, says a University of Michigan researcher

The shift would be much like what has happened with recent cigarette smoking bans and even similar to the abolition of slavery in the 19th century.

Quote:
"The present reality is that we tend to overlook the social dimensions of environmental issues and focus strictly on their technological and economic aspects," said Andy Hoffman, the Holcim (U.S.) Professor of Sustainable Enterprise at the Ross School of Business and School of Natural Resources and Environment. "To properly address climate change, we must change the way we structure our organizations and the way we think as individuals.

"It requires a shift in our values to reflect what scientists have been telling us for years. The certainty of climate change must shift from that of being a 'scientific fact' to that of being a 'social fact.'"

In an article published in the current issue of the journal Organizational Dynamics, Hoffman compares the current cultural attitudes toward climate change to historical societal views on smoking and slavery.

For years, scientists pointed to data that would suggest that smoking causes lung cancer, but the general public consciousness ignored that fact, he says.

Quote:
"And yet, the general public now accepts belief that smoking and second-hand smoke cause lung cancer," said Hoffman, who is also associate director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise. "They have become 'social facts' and with that shift, action becomes possible."

Hoffman says that climate change today still resides in the "pre-social" fact phase, awaiting public acceptance. He points to the abolition of slavery as an example of the magnitude of the cultural and moral shift it will take in order for climate change to become a social fact.'"

During the 1700s, slavery was a primary source of energy and wealth around the world, especially in the British Empire. Abolitionism was seen as a challenge to the way of life in Great Britain, leading to the collapse of its economy. It would eventually take about 100 years to abolish slavery.

Quote:
"Just as few people saw a moral problem with slavery in the 18th century, few people in the 21st century see a moral problem with the burning of fossil fuels," Hoffman said. "Will people in 100 years look at us with the same incomprehension we feel toward 18th-century defenders of slavery? If we are to address the problem adequately, the answer to that question must be yesour common atmosphere will no longer be seen as a free dumping ground for greenhouse gases and other pollutants."

But Hoffman says this value shift will require people to come to terms with a new cultural reality: first, that we have grown to such numbers and our technologies have grown to such a capacity that we can, and do, alter the Earth's ecological systems on a planetary scale; and second, that we share a collective responsibility and require global cooperation to solve it.

According to Hoffman, research and experience support the conclusion that there is a range of individual- and organizational-level biases that operate to maintain current behaviors that do not support sustainability.

Organizations must augment the development of new protocols for carbon accounting or economic incentives to reduce emissions in order to overcome these obstacles and to change the culture and values of the organization, he says.

Quote:
"These alterations must integrate sustainability concerns into the existing routines by which business strategies are constructed, recasting them in ways that are mutually beneficial to the objectives of individuals, organizations and the sustainability of the ecosystem on which they depend," he said. "The solutions to climate change within the organization must emerge from an alteration of the organizational system, reaching deep into the levels of the core beliefs and values that members hold toward the relationship among the organization, the market and the natural environment. It involves the unlearning of what has been ingrained."

Hoffman says that organizations must develop a climate strategy by conducting an emissions profile assessment, gauging risks and opportunities, evaluating options, and setting goals and targets. Once a strategy is established, organizations must create financial mechanisms to support climate programs and get employee buy-in by educating and rewarding its work force. Finally, organizations must be aware of regulatory policy options that would most benefit their own business strategies and ideally "gain a seat at the table" when future regulations are designed.

Quote:
"For business, the rules of the game are changing, and companies are finding that the implications of these changes have deep cultural significance for their organizational purpose and objectives," Hoffman said. "No solution to climate change will ever be found if we do not spend time changing the culture and values by which we make and implement our decisions."

無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Climategate