As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
America - Sticking it's fingers in it's ears and ignoring Climate change?
Zilla360
21st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered User regular
21st Century. |She/Her|Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered User regular
Lalalalalalala!! If the climate's a-changin, it must be because 'o dose gays and abortionists!</southernaccent> :evil:"I see it in some ways as similar to the sort-of debate that has taken place with regard to the science of evolution," said Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center. "Just as I would hope that the Smithsonian would stand firmly behind the science of evolution, it would also be my hope that they would stand firmly behind the science that supports influence on climate. Politically, they may be controversial, but scientifically they are not."
Just as the good professor says, the evidence there, and evolution is a fact, not a 'theory' (although people love to quibble over terminology, as there are no 'facts' in science, only deeper truths to be uncovered) and will be proven if and when we finally succeed in creating an artificial single-celled organism.
The truth runs secondary to money and power, basically. :?Great Commenter on Slashdot wrote:Until recently, the Smithsonian was headed by Lawrence Small. Small is not a scientist, never has been, and has no scientific background. He was president of Fanny Mae, an organization that itself has a history of distorting the facts to get the answers they like.
By most accounts, and I've talked with curators at the Smithosonian about this, Small was a terrible leader of the organization. He apparently did bring a lot of money into the organization, but you didn't see any evidence of this behind the scenes at the museum. Instead, he had almost $50,000 spent on furniture for his office, $15,000 spent on the doors at his house, spent $160,000 spent on renovating his office at the Smithsonian castle building, and by using his house to host a few Smithsonian functions, was given $1.15 million dollars in housing allowances. All your tax dollars. Not to mention, his total salary for 2007 was supposed to be $915,000- nearly a million dollars, more than the president and vice president combined. Meanwhile, science seems to have taken a back seat at the Smithsonian, and I suspect the scientists threw a party when he finally resigned. See (washingtonpost.com)
But Small is just one symptom of a much larger problem, which is appointing incompetent hacks to important government positions, and pushing politics over facts. This is what happened at FEMA with Heckuvajob Brownie. This is what happened in Iraq, when the White House sent over people who had the proper Republican Party credentials, but not the credentials to do the job; it's one of the major reasons the occupation there has been such a disaster. The problem has been summed up pretty well by the phrase, "the triumph of the hacks over the wonks". See, the wonks are the policy guys, the analytical guys who can analyze the facts and tell you what you need to do in order to achieve a desired outcome. They are the political equivalent of a computer geek, except they write policy instead of code. The hacks are the political guys, the guys who don't give a shit what the facts are, they are only there to push their party agenda. And this administration has favored the hacks over the wonks, so the result is that facts get shoved aside by politics, whether it's climate change, or the debatable effectiveness of "abstinence-only" education, or the infamous case of General Shinseki getting sacked by Rumsfeld after he said we would need several hundred thousand troops to effectively occupy Iraq.
|Ko-Fi Me! ☕😎| Steam. | PSN | ♾ (C.H.I) Ltd. |🏳️⚧️♥️
Zilla360 on
0
Posts
that said, I'm not seeing much of a logical connection between source #1 and source #2 beyond 'politicians don't like facts'.
I think they are staring the rest of the world square in the eyes and saying "If it's going to be an inconvenience to us, the rest of you can go fuck yourselves."
Stop using logic, asshole.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Never!
That's a pretty fair assessment of the situation. However, I think it's also very reasonable to hypothesize that the massive industrialization of human activity has been a significant factor (if not the only, or even the most, significant factor) in the climate changes we're seeing. The argument that we don't know how significant human causes are doesn't eliminate our responsibility for preventing/fixing whatever damage we can.
IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
yeah, largely mistaken
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11462
Lots of reading. This may take a while.
But before you start talking to me about how I'm ignorant, know that I've probably read 10 times more global warming studies than most of you have (this is not statistical, mere hyperbole), which doesn't make me an expert but does make me well read on the issue. I'm looking for balance in this whole thing, because I feel like global warming has become a religion used to sell new cars, polarize political bases, etc.
If anything, Canada and Russia will become warmer, more inhabitable places to live, and we'll all have new resorts to visit. And now the hyperlink blitz.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070404203258.5klhwqs4&show_article=1
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=1
http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=
http://newsminer.com/2007/04/22/6603
http://www.capetimes.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3844594
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5551185,00.html
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2007-04-17T223135Z_01_N17419452_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-HURRICANES-SHEAR.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/03/16/interfaith_group_braves_storm_in_climate_change_trek/
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/danish_scientist_global_warming_is_a_myth/20070315-012154-7403r/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
http://www.cgfi.org/cgficommentary/two-new-books-confirm-global-warming-is-natural-moderate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070522/sc_nm/greenland_climate_dc_1
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5225
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/14/wglob14.xml
http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2001/20010510.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3400
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
http://www.rawls.org/Global_warming_omitted_var.htm
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjgwOWEzMTUwMzc4N2U3MmFhZTdlMmJlNTQ3Nzk0NzQ=
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2037
http://www.energybulletin.net/29845.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=global+warming+swindle
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Milankovitch/
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
No kidding. Bush has been in there for six and a half years.
:roll:
But I need those icecubes for my giant glasses of whiskey!
You don't get to do that. I get to do that. :P
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
I only recently became aware of the scope by reading D&D.
What, are you new to this world? Bush has been in office long enough now for this to come as no surprise. And the fact that you think truth comes after money and power is laughable. Truth doesn't even make the top 10.
Oh I'm sorry, I guess I'll start referencing you as a source next time around. Good thing to know I can no longer trust anyone or anything other than environmental scientists that believe what you do. I'm going to ignore the ones that don't.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
As opposed to someone making the claim they've read 10 times as much about global warming as anyone else, then lists a bunch of newspaper articles?
Hmm... there appears to be a credibility gap.
Edit: here's a list of scientific organizations for and against Global Warming. It appears to be, what, like 20 to 1?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
I think that the problem is that the ocean is putting a giant ice cube in itself without us asking.
I think that the OP seems to equate America with Bush. Stuff is actually getting done on the state level, and the populace is behind it enough that Al Gore would get elected if he ran.
Word.
I would link straight to God but apparently he's unreachable at this time. Please try again later.
EDIT: I thought it funny that a Pulitzer Prize winner discussed how pollution could curb global warming. Let's hear it for smog!
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Perhaps, as was suggested, you could find some peer reviewed scientific articles.
Because it isn't helping your credibility when you are asked for reliable research to back your position and you reply with sarcastic bluster.
I love these threads.
Shinto, you're describing the debate strategy of half the people in D & D :P
Those news articles discuss scientific research. Just because you don't want to look at them doesn't mean they're false. Unless everyone in the world is now officially lying about it.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Newspaper articles are not peer-reviewed sources of information. Hell, these days they are barely edited...
I think my favorite thread of this type was the one in which a bunch of the structural engineers here beat down entropykid (I think) over the "the government set us up the bomb" theory of 9/11.
Structural Engineer: Precise, technically accurate explanation for why the planes could take down the towers. Precise, technically accurate explanation for why internal explosives certainly did not.
Entropykid: You're all buying government lies! Paranoid ranting! Non-sequitur! Paranoid ranting! Link to debunked video! I KNOW THE TRUUUUUUUUTH
Well then, I would love to send you links to peer-reviewed sources of information, except those come in JOURNALS which COST MONEY and AREN'T LINKABLE. SO unless you can cope with reporting on those studies and look them up yourself, then you are shit out of luck.
I have to go to a meeting, feel free to flame me for the fact that I don't buy into the smoke and mirrors of manmade global warming so easily. I'm sure it will be much fun had by all.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Most of us have access to databases through college or public libraries, so that's a failed argument. Secondly, the vast majority of media reporting on all science is ill-informed and sensationalistic, more reasons why they're poor sources. By the way, you might want to try calming down and acting like an adult in here. When someone questions your sources, you prove they're good or find better ones. I'd advocate the latter.
By the way, I haven't told you how to think on this issue, or even stated my position yet - simply noted that you're far from the only person here with a grounding in the issue. You seem prone to assuming things about people based on very little evidence. Not terribly clever.
Since Global Warming is such an important part of your life (considering you've read 10 times more about it then us slackers here) I imagine you'd want to visit your local library for more information.
Here's a link to one in your area. I've never heard of it, but I'm sure it's fine.
http://www.loc.gov/index.html
Damn my ivory tower position... I don't start poisoning the youth of tomorrow with crackpot theories until 9 AM.
As far as climate science is concerned though, I'm on the fence. I agree we [humans] probably aren't the sole factor in this complex equation. I do know though that Australia is experiencing a terrible drought, and that combined with more and more freak weather events it can't be completely ruled out that something is going on.
It's humorous that because newspapers aren't scientists themselves, what they report is inherently flawed despite the fact that we get every other piece of information in the world through them as legitimate sources.
So I'm done with this thread as I've attempted to bring relevant coverage of a topic, and you guys have basically said those sources are invalid and any sources I could actually give would also be invalid. This is stupid.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613 :!!:
Why don't you cry some more about it.