Ryze - Business Networking Get a Coderbuddy developer now
www.coderbuddy.com

"I Highly Recommend Them" - Magnitude.io CEO; US timezone; affordable rates; Silicon Valley leadership
Get your software built!
Buy Ethereum and Bitcoin
Get started with Cryptocurrency investing
Home Invite Friends Networks Friends classifieds
Home

Apply for Membership

About Ryze


Innovation Network
Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics
The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts
reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...Views: 270
Dec 06, 2009 5:24 pmreviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...#

James Booth
.
Whether a debate will happen between Christopher Monckton and Al Gore I think is a call for another side show
- more entertainment and no solutions to be found there.

Not properly introduced in the initial post, "Ms. Kreider" is Al Gore's spokesman and "environment advisor," Ms. Kalee Kreider, according to the scienceandpublicpolicy.org article entitled "35 Inconvenient Truths"

A call was put forth to "argue science" rather than pose "charlatans".

Complaints were registered regarding "the almost complete extinction of the practice of serious science" and "Global Warming Science" as "religion" - "distortions" and "marketing strategy" of deception.

Then, "In order to establish the validity of the human caused global warming
proposition, proponents need to carefully establish a lengthy and complicated
chain of causality"
- a reasonable acceptance that humans are contributing to the formation of greenhouses gases does not equate to "human caused global warming".

Claims and counter-claims do not support existence of a "climate crisis"
- not in terms of atmospheric temperature change; however ...
Nowhere in this so-called "debate" is there mention of short- and long-term effects on human physical health (and consequent "economics") resulting from toxins (of which CO2 is NOT one) emitted by industry, both front-end (in production cycles) and later ("after market" recycling efforts), or the sustainability of an environment polluted beyond habitation by not only human, but all life forms: human *DISease* - both physical and mental - is a significant force in the current U. S. economy.

Once again, a call was made to "argue science" rather than tend some "political stance".

A discussion of charlatans followed.

"Treat the earth with respect, as it is organic and alive" seems good advice.

The problem with portraying CO2 levels in Earth's atmosphere farther than about 100 million years ago: we can at best only guess.

The "politics" which finally allowed "global warming" to become an "accepted" issue are rooted in "economic potential" (profits) - a profit-making scheme, but nothing to do with human health or environmental sustainability.

CO2 in upper atmosphere does more to increase temperature through "trapping" yet also does more to decrease temperature by reflecting heat: what is the end result - higher or lower temperature ?

Focusing tightly on CO2 in earth's atmosphere says nothing about changes in ocean temperature due to "gyres" (islands of plastic debris which surely reflect sunlight that would otherwise penetrate ocean water), or changes in ocean temperature resulting from overfishing (which allows excessive growth of organisms that would otherwise be consumed by species now in decline): human activities which apparently are not yet "economical" to control through some taxation scheme.

Attempt was made to reduce the issue to "Socrates vs. the Sophists".

The word "charlatan" was defined and artwork on the cover of Al Gore's new book was critiqued.

Al Gore sued by over 30,000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud, finally.

Comment that Nobel Peace Prize has become "an icon or monument to a greater farce".

Comment that a Peace Prize should be awarded to whoever interrupted the "Al Gore rhythm".

No one seemed to want to mention than Nancy Pelosi is more interested in bringing hackers to "justice" that in prosecuting the conspiracy of lies exposed by those hackers.

Aussie MPs resign "in disgust over carbon tax".

Someone stepped in "netertainment" muck and forgot to take his shoes off.

Some humour and actual entertainment was shared.

Muckraking was finally interrupted by scientific opinion
... and I said I liked that.

It was pointed out that most of us are not scientists and apparently have no inclination to consult scientists or to be distracted by scientific conclusions.

A request was made to "list some basic assumptions and positions"
... to which I added some thoughts.

It was pointed out that most of what had transpired in the thread was opinion, with little science.

Comment was made that "discipline, patience, and time" would cause effort to "list some basic assumptions and positions" to devolve into meaningless polling.

Reiteration that IPCC *non-science* (majority of those "2500 scientists" are not scientists) has "demeaned and debased the practice of science".

A renewed "Global warming? Damm right" based on selected data - broadcasting "worst" news only - posing "man" (humans) as "virus".

An article by Christopher Booker on "climategate".

Comment that the quality of the "debate" has improved, accompanied by personal observations of local environmental damage resulting from "economic growth" and our need to be "responsible stewards" - that "The whole world environment has been transformed by the activities of people" - with a call to determine how much of the damage is human caused, and what can be done to change that activity.

Finally, observations on conditions of our oceans, and we can agree that "man is having an effect on his environment".

Objection to deletion of ad hominem attacks.

Comment that "There have been NO controlled experiments which show that human activity is the prodominant cause of global warming" - a good reminder that while "man is having an effect" there is more to the story.

Articles on scientific fraud, government reaction, potential consequences for fraudsters, etc.

Comments on the "economics" of "climate change".

A reversion to polarized thinking: us versus them.

Questioning who has a right to make decisions for others.

Touching on population control as a means of "saving the planet".

Personal observations of life and conditions in Copenhagen.

Dr. Albert A. Bartlett's presentation on "Arithmetic, Population, and Energy" - "if we don't stop it ourselves some other force will choose a way to force stoppage upon us" - seems to overlook the "need to keep the money going around" is itself contrary to sustainability of LIFE on Planet Earth.

Reminder that the current long-term trend of "Earth's temperature" is UP - regardless activities of man: the rise in temperature would exist even without human presence because it is largely a result of cyclical factors which have always been the workings of the Universe itself - all of which is NOT to say that "man" does not have responsibility to do his part in maintaining a sustainable environment for life on Planet Earth.

Yes, "artifacts" have been discovered - exposed as glaciers have retreated over time - and more will be found before glaciers begin to grow again, as will inevitably happen, as has always happened.

Average Global Temperature chart contrasted (for a closer look) with a Sea Level Chart, devolves to more ad hominem clutter.

"To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail".
_


My question: has anyone gained any new insights as result of all this ?


JB

Private Reply to James Booth

Dec 07, 2009 12:43 amre: reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...#

Joseph Lynders
" ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "

"My question: has anyone gained any new insights as result of all this ?"


When we stop believing in God we don't start believing in nothing. We start believing in anything. Chesterton (I think)

And that goes for scientists just as for the rest of folks.

Have a good IDea today,

12/06/09 Joseph F. Lynders FTG/M/?

Private Reply to Joseph Lynders

Dec 07, 2009 12:44 amre: reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...#

Thomas Holford
James Booth sayeth:

> My question: has anyone gained any new insights as result of all this ?


My answer to this is "yes".

However, those who have gained new insights are probably unlikely to volunteer publicly that they have learned anything new.

You can only deduce that learning has taken place by observing how people's behavior changes rather than by listening to their explanations.


T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 07, 2009 12:52 amre: reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...#

Thomas Holford
James Booth sayeth:

> My question: has anyone gained any new insights as result of all this ?


People typically change their minds slowly and in private.

Polls have shown that there has been a substantial shift in the public's thinking about human caused global warming.

I will leave it to others to articulate the nature of the shift and the reasons for it.

T. Holford

Private Reply to Thomas Holford

Dec 07, 2009 3:34 pmre: reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...#

abbeboulah
Has anyone gained any new insight...?

The question could pertain to two issues:

1) Was there information presented that was 'new' to some participants and thereby changed their state of knowledge (inducing a process of learning and insight)?

2) Observing the pattern of interaction among those who contributed posts, what might have been learned about those participants, their attitudes, motivations, and modes of discussion?

Since most of the posts consisted of quotes and reference to information that had been published elsewhere, someone who (theoretically) had already read all that information might not have any reason to change his mind about an issue, i.e. for such a know-it-all, no learning regarding question 1 would occur. This remains true even if there were 'new' items of information that merely repeated or reinforced information previously acquired.

Moreover, it is of course possible that readers of real, 'new' information either

a) did not understand it;
b) did not manage to relate it properly to their previous state of knowledge;
c) did not believe it;
and therefore did not gain any new insights,not learn anything. Or did not learn 'yet' -- that more time is needed for the learning to 'sink in'.

The interesting aspect about (c) is that it leads directly to question (2): refusal to believe an item of information is sometimes related to a person's assessment of the credibility, objectivity, sincerity of the messenger. Which is arguably influenced by such things as the calmness or shrillness of the language, the use of characterizations and name-calling, the attributions of motivations and disclosure or lack of such, of one's own motivations, the selection and omission of significant aspects in their argumentation. And from that point of view, there was a lot to be learned. Your list of information points seems to try to remove these flavors (related to question 2) and to get us to focus on question 1. This is of course appropriate and meritorious; but difficult to assess given the problems of verification available to participants in this forum. Are the lessons pertaining to question 2, by comparison, more immediately available -- and -- hmm -- interesting?

Private Reply to abbeboulah

Dec 07, 2009 4:25 pmre: re: reviewing the thread "35 Inconvenient Truths" ...#

Scott Wolpow
Many argue that humans caused the problems. Many like to blame the US and tell the others how to live. Ignoring the fact taaht they do not reallyr practice what they preach.
The bottom line is the environment that we build our civilization on is changing.
Does not matter who or what is at fault.

What matters is how we react.

Private Reply to Scott Wolpow

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics

Back to Innovation Network





Ryze Admin - Support   |   About Ryze



Ryze Android preview app

Testing Gets Real: blog on A/B testing, building businesses with feedback loops, by Adrian Scott

© Ryze Limited. Ryze is a trademark of Ryze Limited.  Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy