Cycles


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Cycles

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 9 · Next
Author Message
Batter UpProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 May 99
Posts: 1946
Credit: 24,858,651
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1515315 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 3:43:09 UTC
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 3:44:09 UTC


97 to 3 hehehe

That is funny; especially with Bill Nye the Science Guy as one of the 97. Although how a mechanical engineer is a weather expert is beyond me. I can't find any peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject.
____________

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515321 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 3:59:16 UTC - in response to Message 1515315.
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 4:20:19 UTC


97 to 3 hehehe

That is funny; especially with Bill Nye the Science Guy as one of the 97. Although how a mechanical engineer is a weather expert is beyond me. I can't find any peer reviewed papers he has published on the subject.


Finally had a chance to watch it. Indeed it was funny. It was also quite tongue in cheek. The point seemed to be: who cares what the individuals think, what do the experts think? The overwhelming majority have sided with human-related climate change. I tend to agree with the host that, firstly there doesn't have to be a debate about climate change (because there doesn't have to be a debate about everything despite what Fox news pushes), and secondly, it doesn't matter that a few skeptics are wrong just as it doesn't matter that a few Americans are wrong.

Message 1515380 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 6:56:26 UTC

The overwhelming majority have sided with human-related climate change.


Yep, Push 'it', Push 'it' Real Hard. Analogous to The Church Pushing Fear And/Or Hope, and Here's The Biggie-MAKING YOU PAY. Pay often and FOrever. Only by 'Believing and PAYING will One or All Be Saved.

Sweetness.

Cycles Indeedee. HeeHeeHee 97 to 3.
____________


OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515448 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 13:45:32 UTC - in response to Message 1515380.

The overwhelming majority have sided with human-related climate change.


Yep, Push 'it', Push 'it' Real Hard. Analogous to The Church Pushing Fear And/Or Hope, and Here's The Biggie-MAKING YOU PAY. Pay often and FOrever. Only by 'Believing and PAYING will One or All Be Saved.

Sweetness.

Cycles Indeedee. HeeHeeHee 97 to 3.


Didn't realize I was 'pushing' anything. Just stating my views on the subject. There's a reason why I've stayed out of the various climate threads.

But interpret my words as you see fit. Sweetness indeedee fo sho.

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9201
Credit: 261,133
RAC: 106
Canada
Message 1515490 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 16:19:22 UTC

Reading this thread it really is a mystery to me why people still insist that climate change is not real and not caused by human activity.

Experts who study this and understand how climate works pretty much all agree that it is.

The people who mainly speak out against climate change obviously don't understand the science at all (comments about not being able to predict the weather 5 days in advance show that) and do not come from a science background.

So the real question should be, why don't these people WANT to believe? Because this is such an obvious case of denial.
____________
"The truth which makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." - Herbert Agar

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515534 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 17:33:51 UTC - in response to Message 1515490.

So the real question should be, why don't these people WANT to believe? Because this is such an obvious case of denial.


It goes back to distrust. Admittedly, science does a very poor job of educating the masses, and there aren't a whole lot of science speakers that can explain it so that everyone understands (that was the joke about Bill Nye the Science Guy in the skit Dullnando linked to - the only speaker for science is someone who has a degree in engineering!).

People hear a dire prediction and that "most scientists agree", and they hear about climate models, and they simply think they're being had. Throw in a big push from Big Oil trying to find any scandal they can ("Climategate"), and you have yourself a perfect condition for resistance to accept the findings.

Then the largest arrogance of humans is thinking we do not have to change to fit the environment anymore.

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515558 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 17:58:01 UTC

Does it really matter if we believe or not? According to todays news, two new scientific reports saying the sea levels will rise 10' (first time I heard the predictions of sea level rise, it was 300' then 100'). Slowly over the first 100 years then speeding up. There are lots of qualifiers in the article leading one to think that this might happen if the stars align just right. I have to wonder, so what? A 100 to 200 year change is something that mankind can plan for and deal with. I can't see this as a disaster. Back to my original post, it is a cycle and we have dealt with climate change as long as we have been here. We'll survive until we don't. Just like the critters that went extinct before us, during us and will continue to do so after us.

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.

The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

Another cycle will begin.
____________
Jack

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9201
Credit: 261,133
RAC: 106
Canada
Message 1515583 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 18:41:51 UTC - in response to Message 1515558.

...
The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

...

yet somehow I get the feeling that you aren't a supporter of giving women free access to contraception and abortion.

I really hope I'm wrong.
____________
"The truth which makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." - Herbert Agar

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515627 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 20:15:53 UTC - in response to Message 1515558.

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.


Yet we possess the intelligence to foresee these problems, and we have an amazing ability to adapt to our environment if we choose. We also have an innate will to survive. If there is a problem and we can do something about it, why not at least try? It sure beats sitting around waiting for an inevitable death by our own hand.

Mind you there are days I'd rather watch the whole human race perish! ;-P lol

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515650 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 20:40:27 UTC - in response to Message 1515583.

...
The real problem, as I see it, is human overpopulation. We've doubled our average lifespan, wiped out diseases that used to control our population and we keep having babies. It's likely that at some point, the bubble will burst and a real correction will take place.

...

yet somehow I get the feeling that you aren't a supporter of giving women free access to contraception and abortion.

I really hope I'm wrong.



You are.
____________
Jack

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515652 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 20:42:30 UTC - in response to Message 1515627.

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.


Yet we possess the intelligence to foresee these problems, and we have an amazing ability to adapt to our environment if we choose. We also have an innate will to survive. If there is a problem and we can do something about it, why not at least try? It sure beats sitting around waiting for an inevitable death by our own hand.

Mind you there are days I'd rather watch the whole human race perish! ;-P lol


Exactly what I'm saying. I believe that IS part of the natural cycle. Doing something is not unnatural. If the sea level is going to rise, then plan for it and adapt.
____________
Jack

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515655 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 20:45:15 UTC - in response to Message 1515652.
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 20:47:48 UTC

Why do we think we have to save every living thing on this planet? Some are not meant to continue and maybe our time to leave, to make room for something else, will come, too.

I believe we are as much a part of this planet as that bird in the tree. I believe what happens on this planet due to our presence is also part of the natural cycle, because we are here, naturally. Our minds developed naturally and what we do with our minds is part of a natural cycle.

I believe when we (mankind) leave this planet, it will be our own doing and it likely won't be from climate change.


Yet we possess the intelligence to foresee these problems, and we have an amazing ability to adapt to our environment if we choose. We also have an innate will to survive. If there is a problem and we can do something about it, why not at least try? It sure beats sitting around waiting for an inevitable death by our own hand.

Mind you there are days I'd rather watch the whole human race perish! ;-P lol


Exactly what I'm saying. I believe that IS part of the natural cycle. Doing something is not unnatural. If the sea level is going to rise, then plan for it and adapt.


But if we're doing something to cause that rise, why not try to stop that type of activity? Everything we do that negatively effects our environment also effects every other living creature on the planet. To say that our behavior is natural and that we should just adapt to the damage we've done and not try to care for the planet that nurtures us seems... not very smart. To sit back and call it 'natural' that we mess it up flies against that aforementioned innate will to survive.

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515656 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 20:45:41 UTC

The vast majority believe the earth is only 8000 years old. Is the minority wrong here, too?
____________
Jack

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515664 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 20:54:09 UTC - in response to Message 1515656.
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 20:56:58 UTC

The vast majority believe the earth is only 8000 years old. Is the minority wrong here, too?


Actually... it isn't a "vast" majority that believes the Earth is only 8000 years old. Recent polls put that number down to 1/3 of the world's population, or roughly 46% of Americans, which is still not technically a vast majority, and typically not the most intelligent of the bunch:

Americans with postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humans evolved without God's guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint "wins" among Americans with less than a postgraduate education.


Again, though, the argument isn't about what a vast majority believes... the argument is what a vast majority of experts have reason to believe.

anniet
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 5033
Credit: 229,186
RAC: 361
United Kingdom
Message 1515677 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 21:16:06 UTC - in response to Message 1515664.

The vast majority believe the earth is only 8000 years old. Is the minority wrong here, too?


Actually... it isn't a "vast" majority that believes the Earth is only 8000 years old. Recent polls put that number down to 1/3 of the world's population, or roughly 46% of Americans, which is still not technically a vast majority, and typically not the most intelligent of the bunch:

Americans with postgraduate education are most likely of all the educational groups to say humans evolved without God's guidance, and least likely to say God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years. The creationist viewpoint "wins" among Americans with less than a postgraduate education.


Again, though, the argument isn't about what a vast majority believes... the argument is what a vast majority of experts have reason to believe.



worlds oldest piece of chewed gum :)

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515698 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 22:08:34 UTC - in response to Message 1515655.

I'm looking for a middle ground. I'm not willing to go backwards. We have fossil fuels and, it seems it is plentiful in spite of the 50's and 60's predictions. Let's put our efforts into using it cleanly and wisely. Same with nuclear. I see no need to cut it's use especially to the point that it puts hurting on those that need it to survive. Cut the power to your house for a few days and things go South in a hurry. Filling your car at the pump is getting harder and harder for many, so raising the price or (combination of both)cutting production only hurts those that can least afford it.

Right now, there don't seem to be any good alternatives. The electric car is a farce....at least at the present time. It may be helpful for a time, but what happens (in an electric car future) with millions of electric cars on the grid.....a grid that is already loaded to max and in disrepair. The pollution from the exhaust pipe is just moved to a different place. The electricity has to come from somewhere.....and there are always losses when converting from one fuel to another.

One thing that is certainly true. Cold perhaps, but true. None of us on this forum will be drastically affected by a rising sea level. We won't live long enough to see it. At least I won't. I'm 74+ and everyday I wake up is a beautiful day. I've lived through many of the wild predictions of the past...most of which did not come true. I say cool it with the crisis atmosphere and deal with the problem as best we can in a calm and sane manner.

I'm tired of being "scared" to death by the chicken littles of this world.

Remember when we were told it would be hundreds if not thousands of years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be habitable again?

Remember when we were told if two or three atom bombs were exploded close enough together it would start a chain reaction and destroy the earth?

People, after awhile, get tired of the hype and exaggerations and sometimes outright lies.
____________
Jack

OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 13704
Credit: 31,703,294
RAC: 12,512
United States
Message 1515729 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 23:43:42 UTC - in response to Message 1515698.

I'm looking for a middle ground.


Me too!

Let's put our efforts into using it cleanly and wisely. Same with nuclear.


Agreed! Nuclear power can provide far more power than coal or any other source we currently have as long as we use it responsibly.

Right now, there don't seem to be any good alternatives. The electric car is a farce....at least at the present time.


Still agree with you 100%. Switching over from gas to electric only trades one addiction for the other and isn't necessarily better for the environment, especially with all the batteries that will need to be replaced and disposed of!

One thing that is certainly true. Cold perhaps, but true. None of us on this forum will be drastically affected by a rising sea level. We won't live long enough to see it. At least I won't. I'm 74+ and everyday I wake up is a beautiful day. I've lived through many of the wild predictions of the past...most of which did not come true. I say cool it with the crisis atmosphere and deal with the problem as best we can in a calm and sane manner.


Can't say I disagree with anything here either. Panicking and fear mongering won't do anyone any good. However, as the GOP constantly reminds us, punting our financial issues down the road won't solve our debt problem. I think the same applies here; just because we won't be affected by any of this, doesn't mean we shouldn't care.

I'm tired of being "scared" to death by the chicken littles of this world.


So don't be scared. Still, that doesn't mean the information given to you isn't worth doing something about, or at least being aware/conscientious about.

Remember when we were told it would be hundreds if not thousands of years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be habitable again?

Remember when we were told if two or three atom bombs were exploded close enough together it would start a chain reaction and destroy the earth?


Yes.... some people tend to over-exaggerate the issues. Again, just because the media seizes upon the worst-case scenarios that some non-scientist spouts and they run with, doesn't mean that scientists as a whole are the ones creating this fear campaign.

People, after awhile, get tired of the hype and exaggerations and sometimes outright lies.


It may be helpful to be mindful of who is saying what before we cast a large blanket on the whole of a profession and accuse them all of being guilty of our own misunderstandings or misgivings.

I certainly won't defend all the over-emotional doomsayers, but I will defend observable, scientific fact.

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515739 - Posted: 13 May 2014, 23:58:17 UTC - in response to Message 1515729.
Last modified: 13 May 2014, 23:59:43 UTC

I'm coming up on 75 now. Born in 1940. I have lived my entire life waiting for one disaster or another to happen. Some could have, but didn't, and others were probably impossible so couldn't have, but it scared the crap out of us anyway. It continues to this day. The news media wouldn't exist if the word crisis were outlawed.

No one should have to live their entire life in fear of predicted disasters that never happen.
____________
Jack

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8601
Credit: 4,257,457
RAC: 1,351
United Kingdom
Message 1515745 - Posted: 14 May 2014, 0:14:15 UTC - in response to Message 1515729.
Last modified: 14 May 2014, 0:15:46 UTC

Yes.... some people tend to over-exaggerate the issues. Again, just because the media seizes upon the worst-case scenarios that some non-scientist spouts and they run with, doesn't mean that scientists as a whole are the ones creating this fear campaign. ...

Unfortunately, the TV and news media seem to sell sensationalism and The Truth is left as a very poor impoverished afterthought...

Add ferocious Marketing and an uneducated or religiously blinded audience and...


It is amazing that any science is heard at all, let alone believed...


Note that the "pollution = global warming" story has been building the new cycle since the 1960's... And we're still on the upward curve for the pollution.

Can there be an old and grey crusade to act as good stewards to thwart some of the financial and political silliness polluting us all to hell?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

Jack
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 02
Posts: 60
Credit: 473,022
RAC: 1,197
United States
Message 1515747 - Posted: 14 May 2014, 0:22:49 UTC - in response to Message 1515729.



It may be helpful to be mindful of who is saying what before we cast a large blanket on the whole of a profession and accuse them all of being guilty of our own misunderstandings or misgivings.

I certainly won't defend all the over-emotional doomsayers, but I will defend observable, scientific fact.


Who knows where it starts? Todays article claims to be quoting two scientific reports. It also claims to quote a 1978 scientist where the word disaster is used. Are these the words of the reporter or in the source reports? I have trouble understanding why a 10' rise over....say 150 years could be a disaster. A nuisance perhaps, but certainly something mankind can work around (assuming we last that long). If we got to the moon in ~65 years of flight, surely we can solve this problem before it becomes a disaster.

I agree with you on nuclear power. The USN has been using it safely for many years. It's not without its problems, but I have doubt that they can be solved.
My son is a nuclear engineer working for the Navy. Not that it means anything here.....just an aside.
____________
Jack

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Cycles

Copyright © 2014 University of California