Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 10:53am PT
|
DMT, my crack about the sky writing wasn't intended to be an insult. Instead, it was a tongue-in-cheek response to your "playing dumb" question. I pointed out several real-world examples showing that the earth is warming, ones which I assume you already knew about. Yet you played coy by asking if there were any such events that weren't shown in just in science graphs.
Perhaps you believe the event shown by the NASA video I posted (the melting Arctic) is just a normal blimp in the Arctic ice coverage. However, you'll have to address the modern science that has been done on this subject if you want to seriously speculate on its cause. That science, by the way, clearly points to a trend caused by AWG.
But now I'm not clear, are you taking about convincing yourself or are you talking about convincing the masses? You keep noting the cod incident Ed explained, but Ed wasn't trying to compare the science of cod depletion to AWG. Instead, he was comparing our collective response to what scientists presented about the cod to our collective response to AWG.
Like with AWG, the cod science was in. There was no sugar-coating it, yet the communities continued to believe that somehow the American Spirit would find a way through, and the problem would be resolved.
Well, the American Spirit did manage to find it's way through all right. However, the problem certainly wasn't resolved.
PS. Great post Chiloe.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 11:22am PT
|
I'm just a guy trying to make a living.
Now we can compare this to the cod incident, and we can see where this POV got that community.
Upstream, folks asked what can be done about AWG. Personally, I think it's going to take a massive movement to change basic assumptions about how we need to live our lives--our present economic setup isn't going to resolve this issue.
What does some of that look like? Well-thought-out communities with massive coordination on food, shelter, and transportation. I personally believe that all oil deposits should be state owned and the resource should be allocated with great thought (Oh No, socialism!). Food should be grown local as possible, and eaten in season. The economic capitalism model and it's continuous growth imperative must end.
It's certainly easy to poo-poo these ideas. Heck, anybody living the American Life certainly doesn't want to let go of what they've got. Especially if you have amassed a lot (like the oil and gas companies).
And now we're back to the cod fishermen.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 11:23am PT
|
As is most of the shet you and many others here keep posting over and over.
Oh look, it's the Noise Machine.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
There is a sales job to be done here. Thus far that sales job has not been well executed. I'd imagine the last thing scientists want to be doing is a sales pitch, but when you want someone's money you've got to sell.
No, you've bought somebody else's version of science. Instead of waiting for better commercials, why not try to learn about what the scientists are saying? It's not beyond comprehension, there's a lot of good material and media these days.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I haven't bought anyone's version of anything.
I think you have, and keep doing so, but I could be wrong. What climate science do you read?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 12:16pm PT
|
There is a sales job to be done here. Thus far that sales job has not been well executed. I'd imagine the last thing scientists want to be doing is a sales pitch, but when you want someone's money you've got to sell.
What has money got to do with this? Why does anybody need to sell something?
The problem is this: the leaders have the information on the science. But they are unwilling to rock the boat of those who got them into office. Take one look at the climate-change agenda of our new Congress.
How did they get into office anyway?
The issue of that AWG is not a money thing, people aren't trying to sell something to make a buck (unless you believe the propaganda that the scientists are twisting their results to continue their outrageous science grants).
With the cod incident, the scientists did their job. It was up to the community to listen to them, or not. They decided to listen only in as much as it did not disturb their way of life. In other words, they ignored the the warnings so they could continue their present living standards.
In their hindsight, do you think the leaders of those communities would have done things differently?
So, whose job is it to convince people that we have a real problem on our hands, and it's time to take real action so that we have a reasonable standard of living in the not-to-distant future?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
That right there is a problem - its ALL about money. It surprises me this is such a difficult thing to understand.
IFO don't understand you, and if that's surprising maybe your model is incorrect. What for instance does "its" mean to you, in that declaration?
Can't mean that Sierra granite is all about the money, Sierra granite don't care. Those geologists who study the Sierra, no doubt they need money, do you think they're such whores they'd say it was sandstone if that paid better?
If you insist it's all sandstone anyway, does that prove the geologists are bad salesmen, and had better improve their spiel to persuade you?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 01:00pm PT
|
That right there is a problem - its ALL about money.
The economics of what to do about AWG is all about money, yes. But the selling of the AWG issue to the masses is not the problem of climate scientists.
Here's a analogy: Suppose you want to stay healthy and you go to your doctor every so often for a checkup. To understand what's up with your system, your doc orders you to get a blood panel.
You make an appointment and go. Your results return in a day or so and say you're good to go, or perhaps they reveal this or that.
The folks that do your blood work are not vested in the results they return, they aren't selling to you. You've already paid them, it's up to you (and your doctor) to decide if you want to do anything from there.
If your blood work doesn't look right, it's your doctor who must sell you on any further procedures you might need. Of course, you can see another doctor, or check his diagnosis. Perhaps you might even get another blood panel if the results look especially dire.
This can be directly related to climate science--it's been checked and rechecked.
So Dingus, when you say "when you want someone's money you've got to sell," understand that it's not the climate scientists who need to do the selling--they're not in business to increase sales.
But wonder about this: Why do climate scientists now feel that they must be the ones selling their results?
Certainly they know it's not their normal business to sell, much like the folks who do blood work know it's not their business to sell remedies based on the work they do.
So no, it's not a money thing.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
The constitution does nothing to promote the consideration of External Costs.
AGW/CC : It's happening regardless of moneyed deniers, politics, opinions, inaccurate spokespersons, complainers, rationalizers, ...
Policy What to do about it : Is a money + political issue, with many possible choices, some of which are good ideas, such as a revenue neutral carbon tax in every country.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 01:08pm PT
|
With it has come the multi-billion dollar Industry that has solutions to the remedy this end of the world theory.
Have any good examples of the multi-billion dollar industries that are "selling" solutions?
|
|
EdwardT
Gym climber
Discontent
|
|
The economics of what to do about AWG is all about money, yes. But the selling of the AWG issue to the masses is not the problem of climate scientists.
Selling the masses on AGW is the problem. The crux of the issue.
Until the masses are sold, the politicians won't touch it.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
None of you and your science can prove that this climate behavior has NEVER occurred before in the past 500 million years. Not one of you.
Are you saying that it existed humans (aliens?) that burned fossil fuels in the past 500 million years ago or that the dinosaurs or same other animals burned fossil fuels in those years?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
Selling the masses on AGW is the problem. The crux of the issue.
Until the masses are sold, the politicians won't touch it.
So, whose problem is it to sell the masses and (more importantly) what are they waiting for?
Friends, the blood work is in.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 01:29pm PT
|
Want to see your kids have a good life? Start selling.
Yes, exactly.
Fire the sales team. I like that one ;-)
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Ah, NO!
On the contrary. CC and sudden temp & C02 rises have come and gone long before any Coal fired PP or SUV showed up.
but this climate behavior involve humans burning fossil fuels. You seems to talk about other climate behaviors.
Everyone above the age of 5 knows that the climate has changed in the past but this really hasn't much to do with what happens today.
Our behavior with burning fossil fuels, using cfcs, leaded gasoline and a lot of other forms of pollutions that change the environment just don't get a good things because environment catastrophes has happened in the past for other reasons.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
How much of humans are involved? You nor any of the AGW science truly and thoroughly knows for sure.
The scientist know it sure enough.
Yup. And that was the agenda that was working in the past. Clean up the Air, Water etc.
But don't insist on this new theory of the end of word if 2degs C is past.
I don't really understand what you are saying.
Do you think that we should try to be nice to the environment even though catastrophes has happened without human interactions in the past?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Which IPCC report? Do you even know how many IPCC reports there are?
Difficult question... I guess that the latest one is a good start.
The latest doesn't specify a percentage.
LOL, I guess that you should try to read it before writing about on the internet.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
Which IPCC report? Do you even know how many IPCC reports there are?
The latest doesn't specify a percentage with any certainty. Nor do any of the other dozen or more reports. Not one.
But do keep repeating the rhetoric that you don't even know is true or false or whatever.
Just parroting.
And Phule, do answer the question:
What caused the equal spike in temps/C02 at the beginning of the last century (1910-1940) equal to the current one if only 1/10th of the humans and their emissions were existent?
Why do some people add to their posts all the time. I just found it frustrating that seeing a new post after you have answered a post.
The latest doesn't specify a percentage with any certainty. Nor do any of the other dozen or more reports. Not one.
Please read the reports.
But do keep repeating the rhetoric that you don't even know is true or false or whatever.
Just parroting.
??????????
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!