Well said guys, very well said 
Capāt Jack
What? Another apocalypse[/? :ahhh: :ahhh: 
:lol:
FL:Poverty is a problem and I don't support any social system that claims it's fair to allow a tiny fraction of the population to own everything including other people which is what the historical precedence is when you get such an unbalanced society. What I'm saying is it's probably not possible at this time to tackle the poverty issue head on while trying to deal with climate change. My sense is once the virtual monopoly that has grown up around the fossil fuel sector and its close links with the financial sector is removed then the overall social changes are going to result in a much more equitable distribution of wealth. It's this deeply entrenched economic and political block that is preventing action on both things like climate change and the addressing of the huge gulf between the haves and the have nots. The stark truth is the top 1% in general can't seem to care about the welfare of people within their own nations, and they have very tight control of most of the world's political systems. Until we break this deadlock then addressing all the world's serious issues is pretty much impossible. The people who have the most to lose are fighting tooth and nail to hold on to their wealth, power and privilege because that's how they judge self-worth. Even if it kills all of us in the long term.Itās no longer a question of raising people out of poverty, itās about trying to control a situation that has a very real possibility of changing the environment around us to the point where it will it only support a tiny fraction of the number of people now alive.Maybe to you getting out of poverty isn't to problem, but to a large part of the world's [population it is. If you and your children were starving or dealing with disease would you still be worried about "some places like coastal Bangladesh" that you most likely have never heard of, going under water. The point I am trying to make is that while global warming is a serious problem and must be dealt with, their are other problems, more immediate to many people, that must be dealt with as well. Until we recognize this we are not going to be successful.
You are missing my point. People become motivated--or not--depending on their determining factors, not because they "decide" to be motivated or got pissed off. If the country's youth were motivated in the 60s it was because our determining factors were at work and that manifested itself as the movement we know so well. That no one appears to be similarly motivated now is because young people's determining factors are different now--a lot is either missing or present now that wasn't the case then. If a rebellious movement should develop now it would be completely different than it was in the 60s. Young people's experience, their history, political conditions, physical conditions, even the zeitgeist is different today than it was then. It will never happen again the same way or even close to the same way. Their ideas are different, their conditions are different and they handle frustrations and anger differently than we did in he 60s. It does no good to cry, "What's the matter with kids today." What's a large part of the diference is that we were brought up by a completely different generation and today's young people were brought up by us! You can't go back. The die is cast. LoisAh, yes, if only that were possble.It may sound like wishful thinking Lois but I've actually seen it happen more than once on the local, state and national level. It either takes getting people really motivated or pissed off to get them to move on an issue but it can happen. That's the one superlative thing about the sixties that I miss. The country's youth were far more politically motivated then. Cap't Jack
Lois:
young peopleās determining factors are different nowāa lot is either missing or present now that wasnāt the case then. A big thing for the kids today is paying for college education, many don't want to take on the debt that even a two year trade school requires. High school has been free since approx. the 1920's. Maybe it's time for a bachelor degree to be free as well.
Whatās a large part of the diference is that we were brought up by a completely different generation and todayās young people were brought up by us! You canāt go back. The die is cast.That's true and I like it, it has always been that way.
People become motivatedāor notādepending on their determining factorsOne of the determining factors in resistance to climate change info. is that scientist have been wrong before when trying to panic people about apocalyptic events such as Malthus; Club of Rome, etc.
Quoting Garythehuman:
One of the determining factors in resistance to climate change info. is that scientist have been wrong before when trying to panic people about apocalyptic events such as Malthus; Club of Rome, etc.I agree that there are examples of scientists being wrong, but thatās not a factor. Iād bet that you could ask a thousand people to explain either of those and get fewer than five correct answers. The main reason for the public resistance is the constant flow of propaganda from the carbon based energy producers and their lackies.
Occam
One of the determining factors in resistance to climate change info. is that scientist have been wrong before when trying to panic people about apocalyptic events such as Malthus; Club of Rome, etc.The science behind climate change goes back almost 200 years and the more we know the more serious the implications get not less. For instance while the large body that crashed into the Earth 65 million years did a lot of damage, it was the billions of tons of CO2 that were blasted into the atmosphere that eventually resulted in climate change that drove about 75% of species then present into extinction. And 250 million years ago it was the gradual emission of large amounts of CO2 and SO2 that likely resulted in the extinction of about 95% of species then alive. We're currently emitting some of the same gases and aerosols that in the past have been associated with massive extinction events and doing it a rate that possibly surpasses some of them. Scientists if anything are being conservative in their actions, while on the other hand the people spinning the genuine science for corporate interests are using the same model perfected by the tobacco industry to distort the science about the negative health effects of smoking. It took decades before action was taken to limit the damages of smoking, we probably don't have the time to wait with climate change as key non-recoverable thresholds are passed.
Lois:Sure, scientists have been wrong, but what would be the motive of scientists trying to panic people? I can't even imagine one. We know what the motive is behind corporations trying to mollify people. Loisyoung peopleās determining factors are different nowāa lot is either missing or present now that wasnāt the case then. A big thing for the kids today is paying for college education, many don't want to take on the debt that even a two year trade school requires. High school has been free since approx. the 1920's. Maybe it's time for a bachelor degree to be free as well.Whatās a large part of the diference is that we were brought up by a completely different generation and todayās young people were brought up by us! You canāt go back. The die is cast.That's true and I like it, it has always been that way.People become motivatedāor notādepending on their determining factorsOne of the determining factors in resistance to climate change info. is that scientist have been wrong before when trying to panic people about apocalyptic events such as Malthus; Club of Rome, etc.
Lois
what would be the motive of scientists trying to panic people?If you read any of the history of science you will quickly see that scientists are subject to the same human emotions as everyone, else. the need for prestige, jealousy, pride, not liking to be wrong, etc. Fortunately science as a genre, not as individual scientists, is traditionally self-correcting. Back to the original question of how to get a majority of humans worldwide to recognize the dangers of climate change. We have to recognize that this is a political question more than a scientific ne and take into account the immediate needs and activities of the human population. We must recognize that climate change is but one of the problems and not the most immediate that many people face. If we don't do this we will not be successful
One of the determining factors in resistance to climate change info. is that scientist have been wrong before when trying to panic people about apocalyptic events such as Malthus; Club of Rome, etc.So how wrong was the Club of Rome or Malthus really? Seems to me we are seeing it play out in front of our eyes, OK perhaps not as fast as those folks thought, but the same dynamic with the same potential end result. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I think we'd have been way better off paying attention. Than allowing the Reaganomics Dream Machine to ridicule it and marginalize it and forget about the reality of the warning being issued
Oh and in answer to my own original question.
I keep writing because of dishonest frauds like Jim Steele just plain piss me off with their utter crazy-making lies they faust on people.
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Fabricating Climate Doom: looking at Jim Steeleās fraud
If you read any of the history of science you will quickly see that scientists are subject to the same human emotions as everyone, else. the need for prestige, jealousy, pride, not liking to be wrong, etc. Fortunately science as a genre, not as individual scientists, is traditionally self-correcting. Back to the original question of how to get a majority of humans worldwide to recognize the dangers of climate change. We have to recognize that this is a political question more than a scientific ne and take into account the immediate needs and activities of the human population. We must recognize that climate change is but one of the problems and not the most immediate that many people face. If we don't do this we will not be successfulJust because the worst effects of climate change can take years to show up doesn't mean it's not an immediate problem of the highest magnitude. There's still enough of a radiative imbalance from new CO2 emitted by humans in the atmosphere to drive global warming for several more decades. That's if we stop all emissions of greenhouse gases today. What we're doing by emitting more CO2 every day is drive those effects further and further along a spectrum of thresholds that likely will include the extinction of our species at some point. We may have already crossed that line, there's no way to know until we get there. If we don't deal with climate change as the highest priority anything else we do simply won't matter, because people won't be around any longer at some point.
At first I though climate change would cause our (and many other species) extinction, but now I think there is enough climate variation on earth that there will be a few humans that survive, maybe in arctic caves (?) as a minor species.
However, as I read more about computer advances, I believe they, not climate change will ultimately be the cause of our disappearance.
We talk about our unique characteristic, consciousness. As animals mutated from amoebas to us, when and how did consciousness develop? I think, as the computer system developed from the jelly fish nerve net, though the nerve cord runnind down a planarianās back, to fishes, mammals, and finally us, somewhere along the line consciousness slowly developed.
Why shouldnāt the same phenomenon occur as computers develop the equivalent of animal neural systems? Along with that comes self-interest and competition.
We may find that in addition to organic beings being wiped out by climate change, thereāll be a quiet assistance toward sterility.
Occam
People you do understand that I do support dealing with climate change.
Here is a letter to the Buffalo News that I basically agree with: http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letter-shine-light-of-truth-on-climate-change-20140320
The point I am trying to make is that we have to understand why so many people donāt support making dealing with it a high priority. Running around like chicken little yelling the sky is falling, or a fundy preacher screaming the end is here isnāt going to get the job done. Yes there are powerful interests that are going to be hurt by what needs to be done, thatās to be expected and needs to be dealt with. But, IMO, the bigger problem in getting the job done is that many people have much more immediate problems to deal with and we need to find ways to raise this issues on their priority list, climate change is not a local problem but a world wide one and until we adjust strategy to these fact we will not be successful.
To be quite honest, I am utterly confused when it comes to global warming or climate change. I know the Earth goes through cycles (which we canāt change) and that people destroy the planet with their irresponsible and greedy behavior (which we can change), but in how far this can be curbed Iām at a total loss. I donāt think political change will help much, as the whole planet would have to go with it. I think there would have to be an entirely new underlying philosophy. What I mean is: 1) Green energyā¦ BUT nobody cares and itās subsidized because it canāt produce (yet) the needed energy to feed our habits. 2) Nuclear is āBAD" because weāre hippies, and yet itās the cleanest thing there is. And the new fracking thing might be a gold mine of independence, but did any habits change? 3) How much damage does our beef consume do? Those farting cows probably destroy the most. The whole thing is a big mess because everybody wants to address symptoms and put bandages on. It goes much deeper than that. To address climate change (I donāt know if global warming is necessarily the correct word, as it includes crazy winters like this year and confused hurricanes down here in FL), I think we need to first address our habits and entire worldview and outlook on life. A āChristian worldview", just for example, sees nothing wrong with exploiting the Earth. Sure, ābe good stewards of Godās creation", but the focal point is always āthe crown of creation". Itās the most selfish religion there is. Stuff like that contributes. I like green energy, but I donāt oppose nuclear energy like some of my ātree hugging" friends because itās really the only way to get this planet clean unless people cease to be addicted to their status quo. And, green energy has problems of its own. Wind mills hurt certain birds and bats. Who knows where that leads. Solar panels must be disposed of somehow. ā¦ But anyway, Iām utterly confused. Unless something really drastic will happen, nature-wise, nobody will do anything. Hopefully Iām wrong, but WHAT to doā¦. I have no idea.Michelle, Maybe the following data will help. Ice core samples are being used for past CO2 and temperature results. See the problem the scientist have been having is the temperature goes up first and then 1,400 years latter you see a rise in CO2. The new reports help narrow the rise in temperature being followed 200 years latter a rise in CO2. From a scientific point of view, global warming has the effect following the cause, and thatās backwards. http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_090452_e.htm#BK28 See Table 1. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/ Be sure to read the comments. Whether its 1400 years or 200 doesn't matter, cause CAN'T follow effect. I am not saying that we should not do something about the carbon in the air, we should. I just think that for something so major we should be using good science.
Donāt listen to Mike, Michelle. Heās just repeating the lies the energy-company funded think tanks spread. See this post] Real Climate for the explanation. And note the publication date: 3 Dec. 2004. Some people just donāt want to know the truth.
This may give pause for thought
is the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs. Population by population, species by species, amphibians are vanishing off the face of the Earth. Despite international alarm and a decade and a half of scientists scrambling for answers, the steady hemorrhaging of amphibians continues like a leaky faucet that cannot be fixed or a wound that will not heal. Large scale die-offs of frogs around the world have prompted scientists to take desperate measures to try to save those frogs they can, even bathing frogs in Clorox solutions and keeping them in Tupperware boxes under carefully controlled conditions to prevent the spread of a deadly fungus. Will it ever be safe to return the frogs back to the ecosystem from which they were taken?http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/frogs-the-thin-green-line/video-full-episode/4882/ Frogs are an "indicator species" and when frogs are disappearing, there is "trouble in river city". In a few centuries (after the industrial revolution) man has done more damage to the amphibians who have withstood millions of years of climate changes. The problem is not the climate per se. That is a natural cycle, man made or otherwise. It's the unnatural chemicals we dump recklessly in the aquifers that is killing off species who cannot protect themselves from our poisons. I find it odd we should wear masks while working, but then we dump the untreated waste products in the rivers. Unfortunately we do not provide little masks for acquatic life. So, now we have killed off the bees with our pesticides and the amphibians are next with our chemical waste products. But don't worry, we'll get to the larger animals soon enough and we will be able to walk the forests without fear of attack from "dangerous predators". All will be well, I promise.
People you do understand that I do support dealing with climate change. Here is a letter to the Buffalo News that I basically agree with: http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/letter-shine-light-of-truth-on-climate-change-20140320 The point I am trying to make is that we have to understand why so many people don't support making dealing with it a high priority. Running around like chicken little yelling the sky is falling, or a fundy preacher screaming the end is here isn't going to get the job done. Yes there are powerful interests that are going to be hurt by what needs to be done, that's to be expected and needs to be dealt with. But, IMO, the bigger problem in getting the job done is that many people have much more immediate problems to deal with and we need to find ways to raise this issues on their priority list, climate change is not a local problem but a world wide one and until we adjust strategy to these fact we will not be successful.A lot of people don't support doing anything about it because their scientific literacy is poor and the fossil fuel sector spends tens of millions of dollars a year worldwide in distorting that science and lobbying governments into near complete inaction. We get local attempts to try and fix what is a global issue as you say, but it needs a comprehensive international agreement and plan. And the effects of climate change are just as local as they are global, for instance if you've been repeatedly flooded out by much more frequent flash floods or you live in an area like where I grew up in central British Columbia where climate change has resulted in an explosion of the pine beetle killing millions of trees and creating all sorts of problems like massive forest fires in the often much hotter summer weather. I live in Alberta now, but one morning a few years ago I walked out of my home into dense smoke. I thought it was from grass fires that sometimes happen on the city outskirts, but it was from fires all around the BC community where I grew up over 500 miles away, the smoke travelled all the way to the other side of continent in Quebec. Family in BC had to evacuate and it almost looked like parts of the city would burn as has happened in places like Kelowna BC. Climate change is already costing billions of dollars a year, I think it's more than a little ridiculous to claim we can improve peoples lives at a time when changes we're driving are costing us more and more.
Itās odd that Industrial Revolution should rhyme with Natural Evolution. They both mean change, but the results are incompatible.
Don't listen to Mike, Michelle. He's just repeating the lies the energy-company funded think tanks spread. See this post] Real Climate for the explanation. And note the publication date: 3 Dec. 2004. Some people just don't want to know the truth.DarronS, Can you explain the energy-company funded think tanks spread? Scientific American, I thought is a good source for the common person. William Ferguson has written several stories and they do not seem to be biased in the least. This story was written in the last year. Some 9 years after your source. The source you bring up is stating that the earth has warming periods every 10,000 years. Then they state, ācould have fact have been caused by CO2". In my book using the word āCOULD" is like using a disclaimer. What Jeffrey Severinghaus story is saying is that the first 800 years of warming has to do with the earth warming cycle and not CO2. āthe probable sequence of events", āSome (currently unknown) process", ā[But it may give us a very interesting clue" I tried calling Mr. Severinghaus to find out what his views are today. Left a msg. maybe he will call back. I do like the fact that he works at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. I think they are the best at what they do. Now the other report is a government report. So, by that fact it is most likely biased. But it is up to date. Canada Report. You have accessed the most current consolidation of this law available on e-Laws. This consolidation is up-to-date to the e-Laws currency date. Today, Thursday, March 20, 2014, the e-Laws currency date is Monday, March 17, 2014. Note: I agree that we have to stop pollution. And I agree that the carbon is bad and needs to be stopped. Should we not prove the heating is caused by the CO2? If it is proven wrong, then we might set the clean up of carbon back by decades. After drones killings and internet spying, America is not liked or trusted as much today as in the past and this clean up is going to have to be a world project.