>> I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >> Your mind is made up already.
>> Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will >> be >> discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
>uhhhh...no. You are the one choosing to believe the 5% of experts over >the 95% of experts because it fits your political beliefs. Not me. You >will NEVER see me doing that on ANY topic. I am not delusional.
> Even if I was a world class expert myself (unlike the science >illiterates we both actually are), odds like that would make me fairly >sure I was wrong if I was on the 5% side of things. I'd start my >thinking over from scratch.
The ultimate proof of any expert's opinion is what actually happens in the future.
We will just have to wait and see what happens next.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - “In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.” -Dr. Richard Feynman, “The Character of Natural Law,” The MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.
> The first lecture with the title "What is Civilization?"
> I was not privileged to have even one university course in history or > western civ ... I have read quite a bit since my college days, but formal > education is helpful. I still like my Penguin Atlas of History books ... > thin and concise ... real concise.
> Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Recent history in four small volumes with less > than hundred pages each.
What we seem to have collectively forgotten, is that man is much, much older than civilization. Still, among many of us (including some people that you know, almost certainly) persists the idea that the world, that man, that even the universe is only 6000 or 10,000 years old. This myth dates to the dawn of civilization. If we spend some time on why that is, we may come closer to the "working definition" which you are seeking.
I am intensely interested in what came before, the history before there was history. That is why this alternate interpretation of this story, and indeed the story itself, are so appealing to me. It is a relic, and interpreted this way, and incredibly interesting relic, of all that came before, of all that was forever lost when humans collectively decided to forget the 100,000 or 200,000 years of human history that preceded us. As best we can tell, human beings just as intelligent as the average RGP poster (hah) have been around for at least many tens of millenniums, and their knowledge and history was obliterated by the early founders of our civilization, who insisted that all other styles of human life were "barbaric", or "uncivilized". Who insisted that they knew what was good, and what was evil. Who suddenly became aware of their own nakedness, and clothed themselves.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
<SNIP!>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
> I lost my religion many years ago but never lost my interest in the > spiritual. The edge between life and death ... light and dark ... real and > unreal ... these separations interest me. Concepts ... ideas ... thoughts > ... senses ... reality ... all quite interesting.
I am interested in this edge between prehistory and history, in the uncountable years of mankind before civilization, and the sudden, abrupt change that occurred, so abrupt that for thousands of years humans went on believing there WAS no man before, there was even no Earth before, nor stars, nor universe. Only modern science has truly overturned this persistent, incredibly wrong notion. How did this happen?
Do you really believe it was for the best? Any of you? Of course you do - it is difficult to imagine life as it was back then as a good thing. But I propose that it was. It was happy, it was easy. Perhaps it was not quite as easy as we seem to have it today, but it surely involved less "work". And it was, dare I say the magic word, "sustainable".
The great irony of this story, under this interpretation, is that it was taken up by the very religions and cultures that it condemns. Made their own. And lucky for us that it was, as it turns out, perhaps, to be one of the few surviving bits of wisdom from all that was known before this "edge".
Ah yes, this is the myth that states that before civilization, man lives a terrible, hard life, hunted by wild animals, living in fear for his next day. I contend that it is utterly false. Humans have very few natural predators. In ancient Africa, food was plentiful and life was most likely much less work than it is today, when we seem to have to pull more and more hours to earn a paycheck, to pay for this same food. When our efficiency only earns us more work to do. The few remaining great apes that live in their natural habitats do not seem to live a tough, threatened life. They seem to have it pretty easy, in fact, when they manage to keep us at bay. I don't believe it was any different for prehistoric man.
>> The problem with that is that we were the food.
>Ah yes, this is the myth that states that before civilization, man lives >a terrible, hard life, hunted by wild animals, living in fear for his >next day. I contend that it is utterly false. Humans have very few >natural predators. In ancient Africa, food was plentiful and life was >most likely much less work than it is today, when we seem to have to >pull more and more hours to earn a paycheck, to pay for this same food. > When our efficiency only earns us more work to do. The few remaining >great apes that live in their natural habitats do not seem to live a >tough, threatened life. They seem to have it pretty easy, in fact, when >they manage to keep us at bay. I don't believe it was any different for >prehistoric man.
Sheesh
As Mr. Hardy once said to Mr. Laurel whilst sadly shaking his head;
>>>>>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with >>>>>>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to >>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>And the lefties? >>>>>What do they want to believe?
>>>>>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>>>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it >>>>>>>was based on science and facts.
>>>>>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to >>>>>>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>>>>>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole >>>>>source of knowledge, the lefties?
>>>>>Shocking! >>>>>Shocking, I say!
>>>>>Can't we all just think alike?
>>>>The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from >>>>petroleum industry-funded studies.
>>>You got it all figgered out, don't you?
>>>You and Al Gore.
>>Care to refute what I said with actual facts?
>I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >Your mind is made up already.
Utter nonsense unless you're talking to yourself.
>Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will be >discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
You say that only because you've yet to cite a source that wasn't, in fact, funded by the oil industry.
The motivation of the oil industry is obvious. Perhaps you can explain what the UN's motivation would be for funding biased studies in support of global warming.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- >Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation >“that public policy could itself become the captive of a >scientific-technological elite.” >Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract >becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” >“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal >employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever >present - and is gravely to be regarded.”
>>> I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >>> Your mind is made up already.
>>> Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will >>> be >>> discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
>>uhhhh...no. You are the one choosing to believe the 5% of experts over >>the 95% of experts because it fits your political beliefs. Not me. You >>will NEVER see me doing that on ANY topic. I am not delusional.
>> Even if I was a world class expert myself (unlike the science >>illiterates we both actually are), odds like that would make me fairly >>sure I was wrong if I was on the 5% side of things. I'd start my >>thinking over from scratch.
>The ultimate proof of any expert's opinion is what actually happens in >the future.
>We will just have to wait and see what happens next.
I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the wise course is to take no action. -- ~ Seth Jackson
> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the > wise course is to take no action.
That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried (unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by ideology.
>> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >> wise course is to take no action.
>That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
>What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried >(unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The >cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe >levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea >seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by >ideology.
I've mentioned that concept in the past, and it's been basically ignored. -- ~ Seth Jackson
>>> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >>> wise course is to take no action.
>>That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
>>What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried >>(unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The >>cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe >>levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea >>seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by >>ideology.
> I've mentioned that concept in the past, and it's been basically > ignored.
Not ignored at all ... disputed.
The cost of reducing CO2 as proposed is not "rather small" it is destructively large.
The risk of not reducing CO2 as proposed is not huge it is unknown.
Global warming is real, the effects are only partially understood and the causes are not understood well at all. Planning for the reality of the effects of global warming is reasonable if conducted in a reasonable manner and the reality is reasonably predicted. No such prediction is available.
Confusing the causes and the effects is a political process not a scientific one. The goals of the "alarmists" are not scientific ones, they are political ones. The "alarm" changes but the alarmists are always the same. Never let a crisis go by without making political gains.
[All sides of the political spectrum follow this mantra ... you are not immune.]
>> The first lecture with the title "What is Civilization?"
>> I was not privileged to have even one university course in history or >> western civ ... I have read quite a bit since my college days, but formal >> education is helpful. I still like my Penguin Atlas of History books ... >> thin and concise ... real concise.
>> Ancient, Medieval, Modern and Recent history in four small volumes with >> less than hundred pages each.
> What we seem to have collectively forgotten, is that man is much, much > older than civilization. Still, among many of us (including some people > that you know, almost certainly) persists the idea that the world, that > man, that even the universe is only 6000 or 10,000 years old. This myth > dates to the dawn of civilization. If we spend some time on why that is, > we may come closer to the "working definition" which you are seeking.
Actually, I do not know anyone who believes that the universe is only 6000 years old. I also do not agree that the idea of creation at 6000 years ago dates to the dawn of what I would call civilization.
I do know many people that have have faith in a "god" who they believe created everything and have varying degrees of agreement and disagreement on details of "his" actions and non-actions in the current time.
I am not really seeking a working definition; rather I am seeking to discover what you might mean by the word "civilization." My post of that site was to show that I agree that such a word has many meanings and even personal meanings and definitions might change as time passes and additional thought is given to the essessence of the word.
> I am intensely interested in what came before, the history before there > was history. That is why this alternate interpretation of this story, and > indeed the story itself, are so appealing to me. It is a relic, and > interpreted this way, and incredibly interesting relic, of all that came > before, of all that was forever lost when humans collectively decided to > forget the 100,000 or 200,000 years of human history that preceded us. As > best we can tell, human beings just as intelligent as the average RGP > poster (hah) have been around for at least many tens of millenniums, and > their knowledge and history was obliterated by the early founders of our > civilization, who insisted that all other styles of human life were > "barbaric", or "uncivilized". Who insisted that they knew what was good, > and what was evil. Who suddenly became aware of their own nakedness, and > clothed themselves.
I find that all discussions of philosophy and theology often get bogged down quickly. The words are difficult to keep on meaning and the ideas are often obscure. I disagree with humans collectively decided to forget prehistory. Quite the contrary, I think humans in their own groups worship prehistory and have often made religions from it. I do not know what "intelligent" means in your context.
You seem to be visiting Animal Farm and the pigs are taking over in this part of your story.
> And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden > thou mayest freely eat: > But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of > it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
> <SNIP!>
> And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: > For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be > opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. > And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was > pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took > of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with > her; and he did eat. > And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; > and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. > And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool > of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the > LORD God amongst the trees of the garden. > And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? > And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I > was naked; and I hid myself. > And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the > tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
>> I lost my religion many years ago but never lost my interest in the >> spiritual. The edge between life and death ... light and dark ... real >> and unreal ... these separations interest me. Concepts ... ideas ... >> thoughts ... senses ... reality ... all quite interesting.
> I am interested in this edge between prehistory and history, in the > uncountable years of mankind before civilization, and the sudden, abrupt > change that occurred, so abrupt that for thousands of years humans went on > believing there WAS no man before, there was even no Earth before, nor > stars, nor universe. Only modern science has truly overturned this > persistent, incredibly wrong notion. How did this happen?
I looked and found reference to Steven Jay Gould's fiction book, "Dance of the Tiger" ... you might enjoy it. I read it a long time ago, but it is a very interesting look at a time that might interest you.
I do not think you have identified an edge at all. I do not see the abrupt change that you apparently see. I question your use of the word modern science without more.
If you like fiction set in early times, as I do, you might find something to like here:
If you prefer real science, there are other more technical materials available. Steven Jay Gould has provided a prdigious amount of material by himself.
I claim absolutely no expertise in the area at all. I have a certificate of completion of the four year off campus seminery program from the University of the South at Sawanee and I have read all four of my Penguin Atlas books ... and a couple of others, but I claim only weak education.
> Do you really believe it was for the best? Any of you? Of course you > do - it is difficult to imagine life as it was back then as a good thing. > But I propose that it was. It was happy, it was easy. Perhaps it was not > quite as easy as we seem to have it today, but it surely involved less > "work". And it was, dare I say the magic word, "sustainable".
Here you generalize too much for me. I will say that "life is good" is relative and not absolute.
I would imagine some cave men and women thought one way and others another.
> The great irony of this story, under this interpretation, is that it was > taken up by the very religions and cultures that it condemns. Made their > own. And lucky for us that it was, as it turns out, perhaps, to be one of > the few surviving bits of wisdom from all that was known before this > "edge".
I am afraid this is too deep for me to fathom. I love this sort of conversation. This point is often reached in my home after the third glass of wine. I am drinking coffee, unfortunately.
>> The problem with that is that we were the food.
> Ah yes, this is the myth that states that before civilization, man lives a > terrible, hard life, hunted by wild animals, living in fear for his next > day. I contend that it is utterly false. Humans have very few natural > predators. In ancient Africa, food was plentiful and life was most likely > much less work than it is today, when we seem to have to pull more and > more hours to earn a paycheck, to pay for this same food. When our > efficiency only earns us more work to do. The few remaining great apes > that live in their natural habitats do not seem to live a tough, > threatened life. They seem to have it pretty easy, in fact, when they > manage to keep us at bay. I don't believe it was any different for > prehistoric man.
I must repeat my theory here that we are descended from the short-dicked monkeys. Those that could not suck their own cocks tired of watching their better endowed brothers and descended to the earth and invented the wheel and stuff but found that their long-dicked brothers in the trees were uninterested. Who would have thunk it?
Those who were amused by the whole story might recover it from the archives.
As to those great apes ... isn't it now known that when a new silver back takes over, the mothers' kill their own young so the new guy is not burdened with step kiddies?
>>>>>>>>> how many times do we have to tell you to ..STOP FUCKIN AROUND .. with >>>>>>>>> facts and pictures .. The righties want to believe what they want to >>>>>>>>> believe
>>>>>>And the lefties? >>>>>>What do they want to believe?
>>>>>>>>> This shit only makes em angry and uncomfortable
>>>>>>>>I never knew that Global Warming issue was a right/left issue. I thought it >>>>>>>>was based on science and facts.
>>>>>>>For some reason, though, it's only the righties that don't want to >>>>>>>accept the science and facts. Go figure.
>>>>>>They simply won't accept all the science and facts from the sole >>>>>>source of knowledge, the lefties?
>>>>>>Shocking! >>>>>>Shocking, I say!
>>>>>>Can't we all just think alike?
>>>>>The problem is that the righties only want to accept "science" from >>>>>petroleum industry-funded studies.
>>>>You got it all figgered out, don't you?
>>>>You and Al Gore.
>>>Care to refute what I said with actual facts?
>>I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >>Your mind is made up already.
>Utter nonsense unless you're talking to yourself.
You have, in fact, already made your mind up. That's just a given.
>>Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will be >>discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
>You say that only because you've yet to cite a source that wasn't, in >fact, funded by the oil industry.
So you have indeed done the research to verify that every source I've cited was fully funded by Big Oil? You wouldn't just be regurgitating that hoary old charge about Big Oil funding?
>The motivation of the oil industry is obvious. Perhaps you can >explain what the UN's motivation would be for funding biased studies >in support of global warming.
It's very simple. Money and Power. What else is there?
It's a grab for the money generated by the industrialized nations as they put a new tax on energy consumption by the Citizens.
Never let a "crisis" go to waste.
They are looking for the money that you and I would be contributing every time we drive a car, heat a building in the winter, and cool a building in the summer, as well as any other time we use energy.
Of course, the Power comes right along with the money.
Some people spend a lot of time looking for some hidden Conspiracy. The UN is right there in the open, publishing enormous amounts of documents outlining exactly what their plans are for the World Community.
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable.” - Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit
The Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact
The global green movement places very little value on the modern industrial society that has produced huge improvements in economic prosperity, health care, human rights, education and standards of living. In fact, the green movement hates and fears western-style capitalism. To them, the loss of industrial civilisation is of no great consequence. In fact, it is one of the top priorities of the Global Green Agenda.
The green movement has been obsessed with capitalism, especially evil multi-national corporations, since its birth in the 1960s. Long before the advent of ‘global warming’, the primary objective of the movement was, and always has been, simply the destruction of energy production.
They know that the life blood of the industrial society is energy, especially fossil fuels, and a significant reduction in energy availability will deal a fatal blow to Gaia’s greatest threat – modern human society. Primitive societies are admired for being sustainable and living in harmony with Gaia. Western capitalist nations are reviled as “destroyers of the earth” which must be subdued. They make no attempt to conceal this agenda:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation." - Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level." - excerpt, UN Agenda 21
Agenda 21 – The UN Blueprint for the 21st Century
As described in my previous article on Sustainable Development, Agenda 21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life of every human on earth.
Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda 21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate 'a Local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies.” - Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said earlier, this is no secret Conspiracy. The UN is right out there in the open, declaring their goals for governance of the World Community.
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ >>------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- >>Dwight Eisenhower in his 1961 Farewell Address to the Nation >>“that public policy could itself become the captive of a >>scientific-technological elite.” >>Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract >>becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” >>“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal >>employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever >>present - and is gravely to be regarded.”
>>>> I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >>>> Your mind is made up already.
>>>> Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will >>>> be >>>> discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
>>>uhhhh...no. You are the one choosing to believe the 5% of experts over >>>the 95% of experts because it fits your political beliefs. Not me. You >>>will NEVER see me doing that on ANY topic. I am not delusional.
>>> Even if I was a world class expert myself (unlike the science >>>illiterates we both actually are), odds like that would make me fairly >>>sure I was wrong if I was on the 5% side of things. I'd start my >>>thinking over from scratch.
>>The ultimate proof of any expert's opinion is what actually happens in >>the future.
>>We will just have to wait and see what happens next.
>I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >wise course is to take no action.
I would say that the wisest course is keep on measuring global temperatures to see where the trend is now going.
It is most definitely does not include listening to the wild exaggerations and predictions of people like Al Gore.
Rule #1 in the Hippocratic Oath that doctors used to take. "First, do no harm."
COPENHAGEN -- In speech after rousing speech at the United Nations summit on global warming last week, politicians emphasized the need to protect the world's most vulnerable, who will be hit hardest by climate change. The rhetoric did little to disguise an awful truth: If we continue on our current path, we are likely to harm the world's poorest much more than we help them.
Urged on by environmental activists, many politicians are vowing to make carbon cuts designed to keep expected temperature rises under 3.6 degrees (2.0 Celsius). Yet it is nearly impossible for these promises to be fulfilled.
Japan's commitment in June to cut greenhouse gas levels 8 percent from its 1990 levels by 2020 was scoffed at for being far too little. Yet for Japan -- which has led the world in improving energy efficiency -- to have any hope of reaching its target, it needs to build nine new nuclear power plants and increase their use by one-third, construct more than 1 million new wind-turbines, install solar panels on nearly 3 million homes, double the percentage of new homes that meet rigorous insulation standards, and increase sales of "green" vehicles from 4 percent to 50 percent of its auto purchases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
As they say, read the whole thing.
This is coming from an author who doesn't even dispute the predictions of the UN sponsored IPCC.
Personally, I think one thing that we should definitely do is to build more nuclear power plants as fast as possible.
That one thing alone would do more to reduce dependence on carbon based energy sources than a glut of windmills built here, there and anywhere.
>>> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >>> wise course is to take no action.
>>That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
>>What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried >>(unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The >>cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe >>levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea >>seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by >>ideology.
> I've mentioned that concept in the past, and it's been basically > ignored.
I beat them over the head with it repeatedly. They don't care. They have the plan of dying before the extreme cost of doing nothing now comes due.
>>>> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >>>> wise course is to take no action.
>>>That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
>>>What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried >>>(unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The >>>cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe >>>levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea >>>seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by >>>ideology.
>> I've mentioned that concept in the past, and it's been basically >> ignored. >I beat them over the head with it repeatedly. >They don't care. >They have the plan of dying before the extreme cost of doing nothing now >comes due.
Bjørn Lomborg disagrees with you. Read the whole thing.
Do it quick though, before President Obama "deals" with him and those of his ilk.
>>>>> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >>>>> wise course is to take no action.
>>>>That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
>>>>What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried >>>>(unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The >>>>cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe >>>>levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea >>>>seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by >>>>ideology.
>>> I've mentioned that concept in the past, and it's been basically >>> ignored. >>I beat them over the head with it repeatedly. >>They don't care. >>They have the plan of dying before the extreme cost of doing nothing now >>comes due.
> Bjørn Lomborg disagrees with you.
No he doesn't. But your reading comprehension sucks.
IF they do way more than they need to, they spend too much. That's irrelevent to the issue of doing NOTHING.
Let's talk about your boy, though
[edit] Academic career Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, earned a master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994. He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical sciences, but is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the social sciences.
Hm... not so good.
What about his work?
Accusations of scientific dishonesty
After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.
[edit] DCSD investigation On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[3]
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice. The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
1.. Fabrication of data; 2.. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation); 3.. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods; 4.. Distorted interpretation of conclusions; 5.. Plagiarism; 6.. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. Yeah, Turbo, you can pick em.
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:34 -0600, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
>>>I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >>>Your mind is made up already.
>>Utter nonsense unless you're talking to yourself.
>You have, in fact, already made your mind up. >That's just a given.
I've made up my mind to believe the vast majority of climatologists, yes.
>>>Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will be >>>discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
>>You say that only because you've yet to cite a source that wasn't, in >>fact, funded by the oil industry.
>So you have indeed done the research to verify that every source I've >cited was fully funded by Big Oil? >You wouldn't just be regurgitating that hoary old charge about Big Oil >funding?
Every cite you've provided has been shown by someone on the ng to be an oil industry-funded study.
>>The motivation of the oil industry is obvious. Perhaps you can >>explain what the UN's motivation would be for funding biased studies >>in support of global warming.
>It's very simple. >Money and Power. >What else is there?
Science and concern for survival.
>It's a grab for the money generated by the industrialized nations as >they put a new tax on energy consumption by the Citizens.
I see. And, according to you, the US Government and Al Gore are in on this conspiracy?
>Never let a "crisis" go to waste.
>They are looking for the money that you and I would be contributing >every time we drive a car, heat a building in the winter, and cool a >building in the summer, as well as any other time we use energy.
>Of course, the Power comes right along with the money.
>Some people spend a lot of time looking for some hidden Conspiracy.
You, for example.
>The UN is right there in the open, publishing enormous amounts of >documents outlining exactly what their plans are for the World >Community.
I'm not sure what you think you've proven by cutting and pasting these quotes from an editorial website by an anonymous author.
>"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle >class - involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, >electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and >suburban housing - are not sustainable.” >- Maurice Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit
>The Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact
>The global green movement places very little value on the modern >industrial society that has produced huge improvements in economic >prosperity, health care, human rights, education and standards of >living. In fact, the green movement hates and fears western-style >capitalism. To them, the loss of industrial civilisation is of no >great consequence. In fact, it is one of the top priorities of the >Global Green Agenda.
>The green movement has been obsessed with capitalism, especially evil >multi-national corporations, since its birth in the 1960s. >Long before the advent of ‘global warming’, the primary objective of >the movement was, and always has been, simply the destruction of >energy production.
>They know that the life blood of the industrial society is energy, >especially fossil fuels, and a significant reduction in energy >availability will deal a fatal blow to Gaia’s greatest threat – modern >human society. > Primitive societies are admired for being sustainable and living in >harmony with Gaia. Western capitalist nations are reviled as >“destroyers of the earth” which must be subdued. They make no attempt >to conceal this agenda:
>"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized >civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that >about?" >- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
>"A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. >De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the >realities of ecology and the world resource situation." >- Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
>"Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound >reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever >experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and >individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial >resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental >consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and >collective decision-making at every level." >- excerpt, UN Agenda 21
>Agenda 21 – The UN Blueprint for the 21st Century
>As described in my previous article on Sustainable Development, Agenda >21 was the main outcome of the United Nation's Earth Summit held in >Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Agenda 21 outlines, in detail, the UN's vision >for a centrally managed global society. This contract binds >governments around the world to the United Nation's plan for >controlling the way we live, eat, learn, move and communicate - all >under the noble banner of saving the earth. If fully implemented, >Agenda 21 would have the government involved in every aspect of life >of every human on earth.
>Agenda 21 spreads it tentacles from Governments, to federal and local >authorities, and right down to community groups. Chapter 28 of Agenda >21 specifically calls for each community to formulate its own Local >Agenda 21: ”Each local authority should enter into a dialogue with its >citizens, local organizations, and private enterprises to formulate 'a >Local Agenda 21.' Through consultation and consensus-building, local >authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, >community, business and industrial organizations and acquire the >information needed for formulating the best strategies.” - >Agenda 21, Chapter 28, sec 1.3 >------------------------------------------------------------------ >----------------------------------------------------------------------
>As I said earlier, this is no secret Conspiracy. >The UN is right out there in the open, declaring their goals for >governance of the World Community.
>>>>I do not think that actual facts could influence you at all. >>>>Your mind is made up already.
>>>Utter nonsense unless you're talking to yourself.
>>You have, in fact, already made your mind up. >>That's just a given.
>I've made up my mind to believe the vast majority of climatologists, >yes.
>>>>Opinions and facts that go contrary to the UN funded IPCC spin will be >>>>discarded by you as being propaganda from Big Oil.
>>>You say that only because you've yet to cite a source that wasn't, in >>>fact, funded by the oil industry.
>>So you have indeed done the research to verify that every source I've >>cited was fully funded by Big Oil? >>You wouldn't just be regurgitating that hoary old charge about Big Oil >>funding?
>Every cite you've provided has been shown by someone on the ng to be >an oil industry-funded study.
>>>The motivation of the oil industry is obvious. Perhaps you can >>>explain what the UN's motivation would be for funding biased studies >>>in support of global warming.
>>It's very simple. >>Money and Power. >>What else is there?
>Science and concern for survival.
>>It's a grab for the money generated by the industrialized nations as >>they put a new tax on energy consumption by the Citizens.
>I see. And, according to you, the US Government and Al Gore are in on >this conspiracy?
Uh, I never said it was a Conspiracy. I said that the UN's goals are clearly stated in their Agenda 21.
I do not think it is a conspiracy if the planners are right there in the open about their agenda.
Do you have some other definition of "conspiracy" that I don't know about?
Is there such a thing as a "public conspiracy"?
>>Never let a "crisis" go to waste.
>>They are looking for the money that you and I would be contributing >>every time we drive a car, heat a building in the winter, and cool a >>building in the summer, as well as any other time we use energy.
>>Of course, the Power comes right along with the money.
>>Some people spend a lot of time looking for some hidden Conspiracy.
>You, for example.
(Read the above for my comments.)
>>The UN is right there in the open, publishing enormous amounts of >>documents outlining exactly what their plans are for the World >>Community.
>I'm not sure what you think you've proven by cutting and pasting these >quotes from an editorial website by an anonymous author.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ The entire commentary omitted here. The interested observer can click on the link and read it for themselves. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ The entire commentary omitted here. The interested observer can click on the link and read it for themselves. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
Now, I know you don't care to read any of those sites that are obviously funded by Big Oil.
How about Wikipedia? Do they meet with your approval?
Agenda 21 is a programme run by the United Nations (UN) related to sustainable development. It is a comprehensive blueprint of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the UN, governments, and major groups in every area in which humans impact on the environment.
Contents [hide] 1 Development of Agenda 21 2 Rio+5 3 The Johannesburg Summit 4 Implementation 5 Structure and contents 5.1 Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions 5.2 Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development 5.3 Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups 5.4 Section IV: Means of Implementation 6 Local Agenda 21 7 See also 8 References 9 External links
Development of Agenda 21 The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 14, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the programme. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference. The number 21 refers to an agenda for the 21st century. It may also refer to the number on the UN's agenda at this particular summit.
Rio+5 In 1997, the General Assembly of the UN held a special session to appraise five years of progress on the implementation of Agenda 21 (Rio +5). The Assembly recognized progress as 'uneven' and identified key trends including increasing globalization, widening inequalities in income and a continued deterioration of the global environment. A new General Assembly Resolution (S-19/2) promised further action.
The Johannesburg Summit The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) affirmed UN commitment to 'full implementation' of Agenda 21, alongside achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and other international agreements.
Implementation The Commission on Sustainable Development acts as a high level forum on sustainable development and has acted as preparatory committee for summits and sessions on the implementation of Agenda 21. The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development acts as the secretariat to the Commission and works 'within the context of' Agenda 21. Implementation by member states remains essentially voluntary.
>>As I said earlier, this is no secret Conspiracy. >>The UN is right out there in the open, declaring their goals for >>governance of the World Community.
>>>>>> I hope you're not suggesting that, in the absence of certainty, the >>>>>> wise course is to take no action.
>>>>>That is precisely what he is saying, now and all along.
>>>>>What is missing from this whole debate, and what I have tried >>>>>(unsuccessfully) to interject into it, is the cost/risk analysis. The >>>>>cost of reducing greenhouse gases to what is believed to be safe >>>>>levels is rather small. The risk of not doing so is huge. This idea >>>>>seems to be lost on most right-wingers, who are positively blinded by >>>>>ideology.
>>>> I've mentioned that concept in the past, and it's been basically >>>> ignored. >>>I beat them over the head with it repeatedly. >>>They don't care. >>>They have the plan of dying before the extreme cost of doing nothing now >>>comes due.
>> Bjørn Lomborg disagrees with you. >No he doesn't. But your reading comprehension sucks.
>IF they do way more than they need to, they spend too much. >That's irrelevent to the issue of doing NOTHING.
>Let's talk about your boy, though
>[edit] Academic career >Lomborg spent a year as an undergraduate at the University of Georgia, >earned a master's degree in political science at the University of Aarhus in >1991, and a Ph.D. in political science at the University of Copenhagen in >1994. He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical >sciences, but is trained in the use of mathematics and statistics in the >social sciences.
>Hm... not so good.
>What about his work?
>Accusations of scientific dishonesty
>After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused >of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total >of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific >Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology >and Innovation. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist >contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the >similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases >under one investigation.
>[edit] DCSD investigation >On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling >was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but >Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in >question:[3]
> Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is >deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of >the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, >however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this >characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to >the standards of good scientific practice. >The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
> 1.. Fabrication of data; > 2.. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation); > 3.. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods; > 4.. Distorted interpretation of conclusions; > 5.. Plagiarism; > 6.. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. >Yeah, Turbo, you can pick em.
Profile: Bjorn Lomborg The Danish scientist provoked fury with his scepticism over global warming. Now he’s whipping up a different storm
Single-handedly, Bjorn Lomborg caused global warming pundits to overheat beyond safety levels. The Danish heretic has been called a Nazi for his denial of the pundits’ cherished beliefs and his life has been threatened. But his latest crusade could make his own supporters explode.
The 44-year-old contrarian, who argues that spending billions on reducing CO2 emissions is a waste of money, has thrown his weight behind a wheeze to create vast clouds that would reflect the sun’s energy back into space. The plan requires a wind-powered fleet of 1,900 ships that crisscross the oceans, sucking up sea water and spraying it from tall funnels.
It is something of a U-turn for Lomborg, hailed as a people’s hero by anti-climate-change groups after his 2001 bestseller, The Skeptical Environmentalist, contended that global warming was less important than other world problems. His admission now that the subject is pressing could be seen as a betrayal.
With typical insouciance, Lomborg said he could not care less: “If that disappoints people who are sceptics, I am not the least bit unhappy.” The image of a young revolutionary is one that the middle-aged statistician has cultivated with success, turning up for public debates and business conferences in jeans and a T-shirt. With his blond hair and fey manner, he could be mistaken for an ageing member of a boy band rather than a career academic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- So, we see that he is a Statistician. A very valuable field of expertise in the study of global climate.
Of course, for us skeptics, we don't demand opinions that go perfectly in lockstep with the majority. That's for the Global Warmenists who do not tolerate Heretical thoughts.
But let us continue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Lomborg told The Sunday Times: “A lot of people really, really hate me.” His dismissive tone did not help. A pending fuel crisis? Hysteria, he said. World hunger? Baloney: food was increasing. Species extinction? Rubbish. Disappearing forests? Tosh: forest cover had increased. Indeed, he proclaimed, nearly every indicator demonstrated that man’s lot had vastly improved. “The world in decline is a litany we have heard so often that another repetition is almost reassuring,” he said. “There is just one problem: it does not seem to be backed up by the available evidence.”
Charles Clover, the environmental writer, characterises Lomborg as “a good bit of grit in the oyster” who has “ratcheted back” on his scepticism and occupies a place in the broad church of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rather than outside: “But there’s definitely a glint in his eye. It’s either madness or mischief, depending on your point of view.” --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------
Heehe I vote for mischief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Instead, he experienced an epiphany one day in February 1997 as he flicked through Wired magazine in a Los Angeles bookshop. His eye was caught by an interview with Julian Simon, the American economist, who trashed the eco-catastrophists. Lomborg went back to Denmark and with his statistics students set about demolishing Simon’s claims. “We honestly believed we were going to prove him wrong. But we suddenly realised he had a lot of correct points.” Lomborg felt cheated because “something I had spent my life believing” turned out to be at least partially untrue. Worse, he was a Greenpeace supporter who voted for a left-wing Danish party.
The result was The Skeptical Environmentalist and the vilification of Lomborg began. It reached its nadir in 2003 when the Danish committee on scientific dishonesty accused him of “perversion of the scientific message” and “systematically biased representation”. The charges were later withdrawn. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
Did you catch that last sentence? You know, the one about the charges that were later withdrawn?
>[edit] DCSD investigation >On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The >ruling >was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but >Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in >question:[3] >> Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is >>deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of >>the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, >>however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this >>characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary >>to >>the standards of good scientific practice. >>The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
>> 1.. Fabrication of data; >> 2.. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation); >> 3.. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods; >> 4.. Distorted interpretation of conclusions; >> 5.. Plagiarism; >> 6.. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. >>Yeah, Turbo, you can pick em.
> The result was The Skeptical Environmentalist and the vilification of > Lomborg began. > It reached its nadir in 2003 when the Danish committee on scientific > dishonesty accused him of "perversion of the scientific message" and > "systematically biased representation". > The charges were later withdrawn. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------
> Did you catch that last sentence? > You know, the one about the charges that were later withdrawn?
Yeah, turbo, it shows you can't read worth a goddamn.
Go read my cite again. It's right there. His BOOK was found guilty. He was found a goddamned idiot, (or, to inexpert in the field to understand the data, so it was accidental scientific fraud) THAT'S why the charges were withdrawn, you shithead. Here, read it again, just for clarity.
>[edit] DCSD investigation >On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The >ruling >was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but >Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in >question:[3]
He's a dumbshit, but the book is a load of lies anyway.
> > Lab Rat wrote: > > >> -- > > >> The disappearance of Kilimanjaro's ice fields, expected between 2015 and > > >> 2020, will be unprecedented for the Holocene. This will be even more > > >> remarkable given that the NIF persisted through a severe ~300-year > > >> drought that so disrupted the course of human endeavors that it is > > >> detectable from the historical and archaeological records throughout > > >> many areas of the world. A comparison of the chemical and physical > > >> properties preserved in the NIF with those in the water-saturated, > > >> rapidly shrinking FWG (36), coupled with the lack of melt features in > > >> the NIF and SIF cores, confirms that conditions similar to those of > > >> today have not existed in the past 11 millennia.
> > > It will *support* that view *if* the NIF disappears. > > > Lets go through he data in the paper he uses to draw this conclusion:
> > Damnit, I didn't want to have to read this closely. But I'm glad you > > made me do it.
> > > A graph of surface area loss which obviously fits an exponential better > > > than a straight line -
> > This part is debatable. Certainly, I see you what you mean, but they > > claim an R2 of .98 which is a damned good fit and I don't have any > > reason to doubt their statistics. You are right though, that by eye it > > looks like it could be fit better with a proper exponential decay curve.
Better fit isn't always good statistical practice. If there are theoretical reasons to expect a linear fit and the data provides a good match to that linear model, then an exponential model providing a better fit to the data is not a reason to think an exponential model is actually "better". This is where context becomes important, and theoretical considerations override the considerations of just blindly fitting data to an arbitrary model.
I don't know what the best model to use is here, but overfitting to the data isn't the answer.
-------- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
