The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt Past Point of No Return Options
Daemon
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 12:00:00 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/7/2009
Posts: 28,235
Neurons: 83,883
Location: Inside Farlex computers
West Antarctic Ice Sheet Melt Past Point of No Return

Experts say that a large section of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has reached a state of irreversible retreat. Its continued melting will raise sea levels as much as 4 ft (1.2 m) over the next few hundred years and could trigger a chain reaction of additional melting of nearby parts of the ice sheet, causing sea levels to rise even more. Even if we were to curb our greenhouse gas emissions, we could not now reverse or even halt the melt. The best we could hope for is to slow the ice loss. More...
Absurdicuss
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:15:13 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/8/2013
Posts: 2,877
Neurons: 30,144
Location: Jefferson, South Carolina, United States

Humans bad for planet - population must be reduced to 500 million.


"Now" is the eternal present.
Professor
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 9:59:42 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/9/2009
Posts: 227
Neurons: 42,160
Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States
Absurdicuss wrote:

Humans bad for planet - population must be reduced to 500 million.


The are 7.2 Billion people on the planet. How many is too many? Notwithstanding, i am not sure that even man can make a difference when it comes to ice melt in the Antarctic. However, for every barrel of oil we burn, or every ton of coal, or decatherm of natural gas we burn, we return 1/2 back as water. It is ancient water that once was locked up as a hydrocarbon, but now released again as H2O. That is what is causing water levels to rise around the globe. But oh by the way, every minute, the earth is creating new oil and locking up H2O, until we find it and use it as our fuel, and so the cycle continues. How much new oil is the earth creating? About 30% of our daily usage or 100 million barrels per day.of new hydrocarbons are created each day at the mouths of rivers, in lakes and in wetlands throughout the world.

"You reveal your character by what you do with what you have."
monamagda
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 5:05:57 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/4/2014
Posts: 7,273
Neurons: 5,358,769
Location: Bogotá, Bogota D.C., Colombia
For those curious as to what the Earth would be like with the ice caps melted, this report has hopefully given an illustration, along with some perspective: this sort of change cannot be affected by modern human activity even given many centuries. It is sad that some youngsters think that burning of hydrocarbons could cause the ice caps to melt and drown cities; it is criminal when teachers don’t correct this nonsense. And it should tell you much of environmental groups like the Sierra Club when they use such myths to further an extremist political agenda.

Read this article:

WHAT IF ALL THE ICE MELTS? MYTHS AND REALITIES
by Wm Robert Johnston



http://www.ancientdestructions.com/antarctic-ice-cap-melting-controversy/
Moe Zarella
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:19:11 PM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 5/17/2014
Posts: 1
Neurons: 275
Location: Bismarck, North Dakota, United States
Hope2
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 9:37:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
This is paraphrased and parts copied from "Think101x The Science of Everyday Thinking" - lecture about why people believe in Conspiracy Theories and why there are Climate Change Deniers when the scientific evidence is there that man is helping to cause climate change - from Harvard and MIT.

"They have been looking at the nature of conspiracy theories and how they're operating, and some of the psychological mechanisms that are operating are mentioned. One is related to the confirmation bias when you're only looking at the evidence that supports what you want to believe, seeing what you expect to see, and seeing what you want to see.

When it comes to climate-change denial, climate-change deniers actually only cite the evidence that doesn't support the fact that the climate is changing due to human involvement.

This is also related to the idea of availability. Deniers are only exposing themselves to a certain type of information, so when they are reading about climate change, the news that they get is always based on a subset of news just as people who read Facebook are only exposed to information from their friends on Facebook, who are very like-minded individuals.

In fact, things like Facebook and Google only show you the things that you like and therefore probably agree with, which is going to bias you even further. Our news is being shaped now that the information we get on the Web is being more and more encapsulated, so when you do a Google search, it's catered to you, in a sense. The information that it pops up is not the information that I would get when I do the same search. We're, in a sense, suffering from what's called false consensus. You have this perception that other people think the same way that you do.

The anti-establishment bias/conspiracy theory is operating as well. If the government or an official body releases some information and says, "Here are the data. This is what's happening in the case," well, that's not just ignored. It's taken as evidence that the opposite is happening. If the authority or if the official body says one thing, then it's probably actually the opposite thing that's going on. It's probably going to be really difficult to change your mind, unless you have some help.

There is another bias called "be-fair-to-both-sides". The media is trying to be fair and balanced, and so they include both. You can see how these two go hand in hand. If you're being fair to both sides, then you feature both, and thinking about it in terms of availability, then you're giving both of these things equal weight and people think they are much more common than they are."

My addition - And so Conspiracy Theories cascade and Climate Change Deniers who do not want to have to make changes to their lifestyle or to their pocketbook stick their heads in the sand and refuse to look at all the evidence.

Good luck with that!




Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:16:38 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Hope2 wrote:
This is paraphrased and parts copied from "Think101x The Science of Everyday Thinking" - lecture about why people believe in Conspiracy Theories and why there are Climate Change Deniers when the scientific evidence is there that man is helping to cause climate change - from Harvard and MIT.

"They have been looking at the nature of conspiracy theories and how they're operating, and some of the psychological mechanisms that are operating are mentioned. One is related to the confirmation bias when you're only looking at the evidence that supports what you want to believe, seeing what you expect to see, and seeing what you want to see.
Sorry, Hope, but this is exactly the same thing climate change believers do also.

When it comes to climate-change denial, climate-change deniers actually only cite the evidence that doesn't support the fact that the climate is changing due to human involvement.
Ditto for believers.

This is also related to the idea of availability. Deniers are only exposing themselves to a certain type of information, so when they are reading about climate change, the news that they get is always based on a subset of news just as people who read Facebook are only exposed to information from their friends on Facebook, who are very like-minded individuals.
Ditto for believers.

In fact, things like Facebook and Google only show you the things that you like and therefore probably agree with, which is going to bias you even further. Our news is being shaped now that the information we get on the Web is being more and more encapsulated, so when you do a Google search, it's catered to you, in a sense. The information that it pops up is not the information that I would get when I do the same search. We're, in a sense, suffering from what's called false consensus. You have this perception that other people think the same way that you do.
Ditto for believers.

The anti-establishment bias/conspiracy theory is operating as well. If the government or an official body releases some information and says, "Here are the data. This is what's happening in the case," well, that's not just ignored. It's taken as evidence that the opposite is happening. If the authority or if the official body says one thing, then it's probably actually the opposite thing that's going on. It's probably going to be really difficult to change your mind, unless you have some help.

There is another bias called "be-fair-to-both-sides". The media is trying to be fair and balanced, and so they include both. You can see how these two go hand in hand. If you're being fair to both sides, then you feature both, and thinking about it in terms of availability, then you're giving both of these things equal weight and people think they are much more common than they are."
This paragraph makes no sense to me. I've read it several times and still don't get it. If you're being fair to both sides, and feature both, and thinking in terms of availability (what availability?), then you're giving both things equal weight (duh! so?), and people think they are much more common than they are (what they? both things? and what does it mean that both are more common than thought? climate change believers and climate change non-believers?)

My addition - And so Conspiracy Theories cascade and Climate Change Deniers who do not want to have to make changes to their lifestyle or to their pocketbook stick their heads in the sand and refuse to look at all the evidence.

Good luck with that!

I have seen and heard both believers and non-believers. For every argument I've heard in favor of man-caused climate change, there is an equal and opposite argument. It seems at this point to be an awful lot like religion. You choose which side you want to believe.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
FounDit
Posted: Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:25:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
As evidence of what I posted in my last post, I thought about this article I came across:
Edit: Some of the links didn't come through so I'll add them. There are quite a few, however, so I hope to finish them tonight. Done.


Don’t blame climate change for extreme weather
By Bjørn Lomborg, Published: September 13, 2013

Bjørn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” “Cool It” and, most recently, “How Much Have Global Problems Cost the World? A Scorecard From 1900 to 2050.”

One of the most persistent claims in the climate debate is that global warming leads to more extreme weather. Green groups and even such respectable outlets as Scientific American declare that “extreme weather is a product of climate change.”


And the meme seems irresistible as a political shortcut to action. President Obama has explicitly linked a warming climate to “more extreme droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes.” The White House warned this summer of “increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events that come with climate change.”

Yet this is not supported by science. “General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media,” climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies said last month. “It’s this popular perception that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for 10 seconds they realize that’s nonsense.”

Global warming is real. It is partly man-made. It will make some things worse and some things better. Overall, the long-run impact will be negative. But some of the most prominent examples of extreme weather are misleading, and some weather events are becoming less extreme.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) delivered a 600-page report on extreme weather in 2011. It got little attention — because it is nuanced.

Global warming, in general, will mean higher temperatures. This causes more heat waves — more extreme weather. But it also causes fewer cold waves — less extreme weather. Many more people die from excessive cold than excessive heat, so fewer people will die from cold and heat in the future. By mid-century, researchers estimated in 2006, that means about 1.4 million fewer deaths per year. In the continental United States, heat waves in the past decade exceeded the norm by 10 percent, but the number of cold waves fell 75 percent.

Moreover, global warming will mostly increase temperatures during winter, at night and in cold places, making temperature differences less extreme.

Global warming will also cause more heavy rain; this is clearly more extreme. But warming will also help alleviate water scarcity — less extreme. About 1.2 billion fewer people are expected to live with water scarcity by the end of the century because of increased precipitation.

Drought is expected to increase in some regions while decreasing in others. Overall, the impact will probably be slightly more extreme. Likewise, sea levels will rise, which will mean more flooding of coastal structures — more extreme weather. The total impact is likely to be less than 0.1 percent of global economic output.

Hurricane wind speeds are likely to increase (more extreme), but the number of hurricanes is likely to decrease or hold steady (less extreme). The number of extra-tropical cyclones is likely to decline (less extreme).

Obama’s examples of more extreme weather from droughts, floods, wildfires and hurricanes are weak examples for the United States. Wildfire may be the only one of these indicators that is increasing in the United States, but to a large degree this is because fire suppression efforts have resulted in more material being available to burn.

The IPCC found that “droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America.” A scientific overview published in June in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society found that the severe drought of 2012, which at one point covered 39 percent of the United States, was still much less extreme than droughts in the 1930s (which covered 63 percent) and the 1950s (50 percent). And all those droughts pale next to the six-decade mega-drought in what is now the U.S. West in the 12th century.

Damage from flooding in the United States has declined from 0.2 percent of gross domestic product in 1940 to less than 0.05% today. And U.S. hurricanes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. It has been more than seven years since the United States was hit by a Category 3 or stronger hurricane. That is the longest such hurricane drought since 1900.

A new paper in the journal Nature shows on a crucial measure that there is no increase in extremes. Looking at temperature variability as one kind of extreme weather, the authors document that extreme weather globally has been constant since 1960. Moreover, the researchers found that extreme weather as temperature variability will decline in the future with higher levels of carbon dioxide. They laconically conclude: “Our findings contradict the view that a warming world will automatically be one of more overall climatic variation.”

It is understandable that a lot of well-meaning people, wanting stronger action on global warming, have tried to use the meme of extreme weather to draw attention. But alarmism and panic are rarely the best way to achieve good policies. The argument that global warming generally creates more extreme weather needs to be retired.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope2
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 7:54:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Hi FD,

There is some truth in what you say about mixing up weather changes and climate. How much of what is happening right now is attributable to climate change and how much is just weather variability is unknown. Lomberg was trying to be positive about the changes he sees coming, but he does see them coming.

But even if weather now is not indicative of climate change that does not negate that there is a problem that is going to happen at some point. I forget the date but it is not far away. 2050 sticks in my mind but I could be wrong.

I have taken three courses online now from a university in California, a university in Australia, and a university in British Columbia. They were all about scientific measurements and models in Climate Change. The evidence is there in the math. They all said the same thing. Once we go past 2 degrees warmer the climate deniers will wish they had listened and tried to do something now. Either that or they won't care because it will be their heirs dealing with the problems. I can't possibly show you all the charts and experiments they used as they worked through the science to prove their points. But I went in with an open mind to see for myself what the story really is and they made a believer of me. The graphs definitely show climate temperature increasing in leaps and bounds since the Industrial Revolution in comparison to the millions of years before that as far back as they can decipher.

These professors are all young, bright scientists and the consensus is in. We are at the point of no return. The only thing they differed in was the perspective of what would/is happening to different locations in the world as to what to do to ameliorate the flooding, drought and other problems and what steps might be taken to slow things down. The Australians saw different problems than the Californians because of their differing locations.

The paragraph you didn't understand uses terms from our Critical Thinking course you are not familiar with. What it means is that the arguments are NOT REALLY EQUAL. The fact is that both are just GIVEN equal weight by the media trying to be fair. That makes people such as yourself think that they are equal when they are not. Availability means what sources you go to get your information. Deniers are not going to read David Suzuki magazine and I can't think of a magazine deniers would read so I can do vice versa which proves my point. If I switch to politics for an example - Liberals probably don't watch Fox News TV. As for confirmation bias, yes we all do it. You are correct there. This prof used Climate Change as his example of how biases clutter up Critical Thinking and why we all have irrational beliefs.

In order to make a decision about anything the facts are needed. Since I am just an arm chair critic, the only recourse I have is to trust the experts. There are always going to be a dissenting few experts to be quoted, but the majority believe we need to act now to do whatever mankind can do to help Nature put some balance back into climate.

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:09:11 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Hope2 wrote:


In order to make a decision about anything the facts are needed. Since I am just an arm chair critic, the only recourse I have is to trust the experts. There are always going to be a dissenting few experts to be quoted, but the majority believe we need to act now to do whatever mankind can do to help Nature put some balance back into climate.


I agree with you that we need facts, and I might trust the 'experts' if there wasn't evidence already that political influence is brought to bear on their 'science'.

In order to continue getting government grants, they feel pressured to make the 'evidence' match the current political ideology.

I'm not ready to buy it yet. Back to religious belief again...Dancing


We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope2
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 10:19:04 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Hi FD,

You may be right about climate change and politics in the media and governmental bodies. I have no idea about politics and the profs who taught my courses. I don't see how they might have manipulated the graphs. The facts were plain enough to see, although I am not a mathematician by any stretch of the imagination. lol But I did follow enough to see the writing on the wall. I guess you would have had to have taken the courses yourself to see what I mean and make your own decisions - as in the old saying - I guess you have to have been there. I am sure there is some subconscious bias as they are human after all. But don't you think it is a bit of a cop out to negate all research and attribute all their work and data to be slanted in only one direction without proof of your opinion when scientists are the most oriented of any of us to getting to the truth? They have precautions in every experiment to ensure that their bias is taken into account or actions are taken to prevent that happening as in double blind experiments.

However, my philosophy is that if there is any possibility whatsoever that we can influence nature and what is about to happen with mitigation, no matter whether it is us or Mother Nature making the changes, I think we should at least try. It is the result that matters, not the cause.

What I fear is that we are no match for Mother Nature.


Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 11:08:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
FD,

It won't allow me to copy a graph from the course in British Columbia, but ppm carbon dioxide in the Antarctic about 10,000 years ago was around 268.

Carbon dioxide based on past carbon cycles should have gone down around 6000 years ago but instead started to climb very slowly to about 280 ppm till at the Industrial Revolution time period and the time since, the line goes straight up off the chart at 400 ppm. When Keeling in Hawaii starting recording ppm carbon dioxide in 1958, it was 315. Compare to 400 ppm just 50 years later. I don't know how one might manipulate these facts without it being outright fraud.

They are now calling this time period 'The Age of Humans'.

If you are interested, have a look at this website about the observatory in Hawaii.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/14/record-400ppm-co2-carbon-emissions

"...Ralph Keeling discusses his father's work, reflects on the meaning of CO2 levels climbing higher than they've been in at least 800,000 years, and expresses hope that crossing the 400 ppm mark may play a role in awakening the public to the dangers of runaway climate change. "Bringing about change requires people to be aware of what's going on," said Keeling."

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 11:56:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Here is the advice in the critical thinking course that is given to scientists and it can be generalized into a lot areas in life. It is called 'blinding procedure'.

Quote - William Thompson - I think he is involved in forensic science.

"I'm not sure I've mastered how to think well myself. I think we all struggle with thinking clearly, with marshaling our thoughts. Sometimes when I have been benefited by trying to be very systematic and decompose problems into elements and think about them carefully, piece by piece, but the fact is I rarely make actual decisions that way. I think a lot of our decision-making happens intuitively, through processes that we don't fully understand and really can't analyze. The kind of advice that I give people about making better decisions is to be careful about what information you allow yourself to consider.

If you're a forensic scientist and if you want to avoid being influenced inappropriately by extraneous information, make sure you don't know that information. If you're an instructor and you want to avoid being influenced by how attractive or charming the students are when you grade their exam, grade their exams blindly."


Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
FounDit
Posted: Sunday, May 18, 2014 2:09:14 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Hope2 wrote:

“I have no idea about politics and the profs who taught my courses. I don't see how they might have manipulated the graphs.”

Well, the first clue that political ideology is involved is the fact that the subject is referred to as “climate change”, and the material supports that position. This term itself illustrates the fact that the subject is ideologically driven since that term is meaningless. The climate is always changing, not only from day to day, but from century to century. “Climate change” is a euphemism for the old “Global Warming”, and it is empirical that this is what is being discussed and taught. Back in the 1970’s it was “Global Cooling” and the fear-mongers were saying we were all going to freeze in the dark. When that didn’t happen, it was switched to “Global Warming”. When that didn’t happen as predicted, it was switched again to “Climate Change”, but is still the same propaganda.

Then the “science” was damaged by the “hockey stick” data whereby the scientists admitted in emails they manipulated the data. I don’t know, and don’t believe ALL scientists manipulate their data, but the very fact, as I said earlier, that they depend on Government for their research monies, can too easily lead to influence. Since is it also abundantly clear that the current ideology of Western Governments is pro-Global Warming, i.e. “Climate Change”, I remain suspicious.

I don’t dismiss all scientists. There may, indeed, be an effect from pollution that will warm the Earth. The difference is that I don’t live with the fear those promoting the ideology want me to have. Any change is tiny to date as far as I can see.
Besides which, if we don’t have the whole globe cutting back along with the West, it will make no difference. It would be like emptying out the ocean with a teaspoon. China and India, along with other developing countries, are pumping out pollution like crazy with coal-fired energy plants, while our air, according to the EPA, is cleaner than it ever has been. Therefore, even if we shut down Canada and the U.S. completely, no effect would be noticed; but I’m not in favor of that. Nor am I in favor of damaging our economies by forcing “Green Energy” onto the populace in the name of this new “religion”.

We humans are a fairly inventive lot, and I think that if there were sufficient evidence, untainted by ideology, to prove the danger, we could figure a way out without, as many would have us believe, putting on sackcloth and ashes, sitting on the sides of the roads throwing dust into the air, and awaiting our doom.

But that's just my perspective... :)



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope2
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:58:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Hi FD. You are such a nice man that I wish we could agree on something. But here we are again on opposite sides! However,
I certainly don't want anyone to sit by a dusty road in fear. I want something, anything beneficial, to be done.
:::::

http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org

Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway would agree with you that political influence HAS been used in the Climate Change theory. But in exactly the opposite way to which you propose.

This quote is from the following book review.

"In their ... book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. The goal of this group, (and she names the three most prominent, my information in brackets added) was to stave off government regulation."

It certainly looks as if they achieved their goal.

Quote - book review 2007

"The troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda.

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers... In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.

“A well-documented, pulls-no-punches account of how science works and how political motives can hijack the process by which scientific information is disseminated to the public.”—Kirkus Reviews"

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:06:01 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
FD,
May I suggest for your own curiosity that you read their book to see how many of your arguments can be traced back to this group? Or her video is about an hour long.

Oreskes had the results of polls in 2007 that said a majority of Americans believed we need to do mitigation. That was seven years ago and yet when Obama tries to do anything there is political chatter meant to stop him.

Saying that previous errors negate any advancements in methods and knowledge about today's ideas does not seem like a valid argument to me.

And if you think your air is clean, I could send you pictures of the smog on Lake Ontario and it is not all coming from Canada. Perhaps your perspective in the south is different, although you do have Big Oil in your state.

I erred in shortening the title of the BC course. It was called "Climate Literacy: Navigating Climate Change Conversations". I could post the list of their goals but these posts are too long now. Their main goal was to provide the scientific basics so we could judge for ourselves.

Also, you mentioned the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change. That idea was introduced by Republican strategist Frank Luntz for the Bush administration. It was Luntz' idea that administration communications reframe 'global warming' as 'climate change' since 'climate change' was thought to sound less severe. In Oreskes video she says Luntz has since been converted from a Contrarian/Denier position into believing Climate Change is real.

In 2010 he said that Americans are much more interested in seeking solutions than watching yet another partisan political argument.

I hope that will finally be true soon.


Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:15:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Continuing this important topic -
Green Earth people are not after your car. I do not want to give up mine either. The distances in our huge countries are too far. We do want eager young smart kids to be given help/grants to make discoveries that will get us away from our dependence upon fossil fuel. We want jobs created in the fields of different sources of energy. We want the governments of the world to work together and study how countries have made carbon taxing viable without causing a lot of hardship to people. We want methods and money to help developing countries cut down on their emissions instead of spending valuable resources on war. We want governments and people to stop arguing/discussing and DO something!

We want forests and wetlands preserved instead of being torn apart as it is in places such as Alberta, Canada, and the jungle forests. Fracking, as well, causes problems.

We want individuals to do their share by conserving electricity and water, by recycling, by using reusable washable cloth bags instead of paper or plastic, by taking their own glass jar of water or reusable coffee mug with them, by encouraging governments and businesses to become Eco friendly, by eating locally and organically. A lot of Vancouver's government buildings have garden rooftops and they have established garden plots for individuals within the city. I have forgotten all the things they are doing there. This list of what we as individuals could do could go on forever.

http://myfootprint.org/en/visitor_information/

Every little bit helps to reduce our carbon footprints. I took a fun test online and although I do most of their suggestions it says that if everyone lived my lifestyle it would take 3.18 earths to support us because I live in a condo where the insulation is not top notch and we travel south every winter. We do recycle here in condos and apartments in Ontario. They are now working on setting up a method of composting in these buildings.

I retook the test using their average American/Canadian default figures and it came up at 6.06 earths needed to support that lifestyle.

It gave me suggestions on how to reduce my carbon footprint at this address.

http://myfootprint.org/en/take_action/reduce_your_footprint/

I know you will never be convinced of the necessity for mitigation, but hopefully I have given other readers some food for thought.


Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:20:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
One last thought -

By comparing my definition of a Conspiracy Theory in the following thread with your last post giving your personal reasons such of loss of your car as the reason why you refuse to believe, plus the blaming of the scientists for making earlier mistakes and hedging the data, I think you would see that the two fit nicely.

http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst58263_Why-Conspiracy-Theories-Cascade.aspx?find=unread

Definition from thread - "Conspiracy theories always involve a rejection of an official account. They always presume nefarious intent behind the official position. The government or the pharmaceutical industry or scientists—they're out to screw you, basically. That is always the case. It's just one way for people to reject a fact—that is by making up a conspiracy surrounding it because that's one way out."

This definition is from a Critical Thinking Course and was given during an explanation as to why we all at some point think irrationally.


Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
Hope2
Posted: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:30:06 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
This URL is worth repeating. The suggestions are not that difficult to do for most of us in the Developed World.

http://myfootprint.org/en/take_action/reduce_your_footprint/

Do people know this fact mentioned as something we can do to make a difference?

Eat lower on the food chain-going meatless for just one meal a week can make a difference. Globally, it has been estimated that 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions are associated with meat consumption.

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 10:42:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Hmmm...five posts comprising a range of topics that would take me hours to address if I took them one by one, so I'll have to condense somewhat. I know I have about as much chance of convincing you NOT to believe what I call propaganda as I do of convincing the Pope to abandon Catholicism. However, a couple of points did stand out to which I wanted to respond.

First, however, I want to thank you for the compliment, but I think you have misunderstood me and my position. I don't say there is no pollution, but rather that I doubt the idea we here in North America are both destroying the planet and that we here in North America can stop it all by ourselves.

The conspiracy theory post tickled me, however. Specifically this:

Quote: One last thought -

By comparing my definition of a Conspiracy Theory in the following thread with your last post giving your personal reasons such of loss of your car as the reason why you refuse to believe, plus the blaming of the scientists for making earlier mistakes and hedging the data, I think you would see that the two fit nicely.
(As a note: I don't remember mentioning a car, so I think you are referring to the "sitting on the side of the road in sackcloth and ashes..." comment. That was simply a figure of speech taken from the Bible to convey the "woe is me! We're all going to die!" mentality of Global Warming alarmists.

However, since I live in a rural area, and it's a 25-mile-round-trip to get groceries and supplies, and a 50-mile-round-trip to work, I would really hate to give up my transportation. That's one reason I get irritated at gas prices that fluctuate so dramatically, but I digress.)


http://forum.thefreedictionary.com/postst58263_Why-Conspiracy-Theories-Cascade.aspx?find=unread

Definition from thread - "Conspiracy theories always involve a rejection of an official account. They always presume nefarious intent behind the official position. The government or the pharmaceutical industry or scientists—they're out to screw you, basically. That is always the case. It's just one way for people to reject a fact—that is by making up a conspiracy surrounding it because that's one way out."

This definition is from a Critical Thinking Course and was given during an explanation as to why we all at some point think irrationally.


I don't have much use for conspiracy theories. I do, however, like to deal in facts whenever possible, so let's apply some critical thinking to this "Climate Change/Global Warming" idea, and see what is reality and what is conspiracy theory.

The President of the United States recently gave a major speech wherein he stated Climate Change was a fact and he was going to expend efforts in that direction. Conspiracy theory or reality?

The U.S. Government has Cabinet positions including the Surgeon General, the eponymous Environmental Protection Agency which can and does pass rules and regulations that carry the weight of law. These rules and regulations can either cripple, delay or shut down an industry. Recent rules on the coal industry and the delay on the keystone XL pipeline are two examples. Conspiracy theory or reality?

The Global Warming/Climate Change group have the power of Government in their hands at present, and wield that power. It is these two who currently hold sway, not those who express doubts, or who would prefer not to make policy by ideology. So those who currently possess and hold the power label those who disagree as "conspiracy theorists". That's helpful to the discussion...NOT!

Perhaps an analogy would help make my position more clear. You live in a neighborhood next door to a landfill. Desiring to keep your yard clean, you pick up all the trash that blows into your yard from that landfill.

Concerned for your family and what they might be exposed to, you grow increasingly worried about what is finding its way into your yard. You press your family members into service to help keep the yard clean, but some members aren't all that concerned, expressing doubts that it will make much difference. But that's not good enough. You become obsessed with the idea of contamination, accusing those who don't agree of being lazy or obstructionists. Finally, you develop an acute case of OCD, can't sleep, don't eat, can't work, lose your job, lose the house and the yard.

This is the Western Nations and the rest of the planet. If the whole globe doesn't cooperate, as I wrote earlier, we run the risk of hurting ourselves, and still doing nothing to solve the problem. We have had forty years of the EPA's efforts to clean up our environment, and we have done a magnificent job, in my opinion. Our air and water is cleaner than it has ever been. But there comes a point beyond which continued efforts hurt rather than help. I don't want to reach that point, but think we are dangerously close to it now. The billions wasted on solar energy by the U.S. Government, many of which went bankrupt in the last few years, are a typical example.

To wit:

Solyndra $4.5 Billion
Beacon Power
Abound Solar $68 Million
Ener1
A123 Systems $142 Million
Spectrawatt
Evergreen Solar
Fisher Coachworks
Fisker Automotive $192 Million (before the Dept. of Energy finally put a hold of the remaining $525 Million they were to get.)
Emri $119 Million
Tesla $523 Million
Solar Trust $2 Billion

You wrote in other posts about your health issues and your body's response to allergies and toxicity, so I can see how this issue is personal for you. I wish it weren't the case for you, but that's about all I can do. However, to make another analogy, it wouldn't serve you to practice blood-letting as a cure for what ails you. In like manner, it would not serve us here in North America to injure ourselves economically while the rest of the world continues to pollute without reservation.

We need to be sensible about this, not call names or resort to hysteria. Polution is a global problem, and while I don't believe it has reached global disaster levels, to be solved, it must be solved by a global effort, not by the citizens of the U.S. and Canada alone.



We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Hope2
Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:11:00 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/6/2012
Posts: 4,909
Neurons: 16,769
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Quote FoundDit -

"We need to be sensible about this, not call names or resort to hysteria. Polution is a global problem, and while I don't believe it has reached global disaster levels, to be solved, it must be solved by a global effort, not by the citizens of the U.S. and Canada alone."

Applause Applause Applause

Exactly! Well said!

As far as I know my posts were not indicative of name calling (I even said I too think irrationally at times, use bias confirmation, and also am not willing to improve my carbon footprint any more than anyone else) or indicative of hysteria either. I am not sitting here wringing my hands either, or advocating quick drastic changes. I am calling for research to get some plan of action that the countries of the world will cooperate on. So I assume you are talking generally.

Yes, it did start out personally for me out of necessity. But I gradually came to realize that the clean lifestyle was good for the world too. Very high levels in tests checking for pesticides and toxic metals in both children and adults made the headlines here a couple of years ago - for about two days! The pollution part of the 'Great Climate Debate' has been lost in the carbon dioxide/green house gas emissions. You never hear about the big plastic vortex in the ocean anymore. The loss of the ozone layer and rates of skin cancer, in particular melanoma, and particularly in Canada, that are skyrocketing, have been linked.

When I read your first couple of posts, it seemed to me you were denying that a problem even existed, that it is all propaganda by a government out to do harm to your economy, or scientists slanting their results to get government grants, that the melting of the Antarctic is really a non issue and only the weather and that is what I reacted to. It seems I misinterpreted that and you have clarified that quite well now. Plus you have given me and us information about what is happening in the US so thanks for that.

I think you too have misunderstood my involvement. The only cause I support is the David Suzuki Foundation here in Canada. All I am trying to do here on the Forum is advance awareness because people do not respond very well to 'what might happen in the future' unless it becomes an emotional issue for them. Remember the 'marshmallow' experiment with kids and how most of them (adults too) prefer immediate gratification to future gratification? It is just human nature. And there are countries who have made great changes to their carbon emissions without disrupting their economy. Research into that is what I wish for as even though they say the melting of the Antarctic is now unstoppable, we do have other global concerns.

I also wanted to let all peoples know there are little things we can all do individually that can make a huge difference collectively. There are people from other countries besides Canada and the US who read this Forum. As I said before, I had others in mind too as I wrote.

(PS - I assumed if you were sitting in the dust by the side of the road, your car was either gone or out of gas. Although you said you were NOT willing to sit with sackcloth and ashes on a dusty road, I actually laughed out loud and still cannot get out of my head the picture of me, kicking up dust flying by in my little red car (not willing to give my car up like a good little environmentalist should ) and you sitting there with your middle finger extended (go on admit it, it makes a good picture).Whistle (Please don't take my vivid imagination and my sense of humor the wrong way. )

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. T. S. Eliot
FounDit
Posted: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 10:36:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 11,429
Neurons: 57,718
Applause Applause Applause

I laughed out loud at your imagery. That wasn't my thought, but it is a funny mental picture. I wish I were an artist so I could draw it, complete with 'Save the Earth' and 'Mother Gaia" bumper stickers. I'd love to have that framed!

We should look to the past to learn from it, not destroy our future because of it — FounDit
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2019 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.