Climate change: A guide for the perplexed - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist if you read this..

Wow,

The purpose of this observance is to increase awareness, disseminate information and (in some cases) raise funds for various environmental initiatives. It's not designed to solve anything; isn't intended to 'fix the planet' or anything of the sort.

Whether or not its doing anything is up for grabs, but I've found that the more people are aware of the facts in any situation, the more likely they are to give *it* their everyday attention. More attention to the problems facing our planet is a good idea in any context.

I guess I'm just unsure how this sort of thing is cause for anger or disgust.

Thanks

Would Al be invited to an oil companies propaganda debate?

We had enough "raising awareness", "attention" and gestures. By now people should know the story.
This is nothing more than repetition of a lie for the sake of making it the truth.

I am simply happy that the Earth only gets one day, but Sharks get a whole week!

The Earth is boring.

Yeah, you're right. I know that's not a sound logical argument. But I wanted to make a point.
If everybody closely follows the rules of logic, all of this environmental stuff is unknowable.

I would like you to listen to this. Download the audio file, and jump to minute 18. Listen to the end.
Then listen to thisfrom the beginning, but you can jump 3 minutes in.

If you do that, I like to hear your response.

But that is the way science works. Scientists form hypotheses, they run their experiments, collect data, analyze it, and then postulate theories if the evidence seems to confirm the original hypothesis, or the hypothesis is reformed and more experiments are run, until theories are formed to be tested. Because different scientists have different backgrounds, and the environment is such a complex system, not all are going to agree on what is absolutely going on.

In other words, its not that all of this "environmental stuff" is unknowable, it is that it is an extremely complex system that very small fluctuations, can cause major changes within the system. Thus, it may appear that this stuff is unknowable, but instead, as more knowledge is gained, the explanations change.

This is how it worked with global warming: There is a political goal, politicians pay scientists come up with a theory that would demand solutions that support the political goal. The scientists construct material to support their theory. The politicians incentivise and pressure other scientists into supporting the theory and producing more material. They declare consensus and all counter-evidence is dismissed as funded by the oil lobby.

We had enough "raising awareness", "attention" and gestures. By now people should know the story.

This is nothing more than repetition of a lie for the sake of making it the truth.

Nobody cares about the facts, why else was Monckton barred from speaking before congress. Because they didn't want to hear what he had to say.

Sounds like another conspiracy theory.

What is the political goal?

How come the wacky carbon causing warming stuff isn't a conspiracy theory? Name a scientific truth that needed to be backed up by the claim of consensus.



Making the US shut down it's economy, the politicians controlling our lives. In shor: Marxism! And of course profit for environmental groups and Al Gore's carbon credit and science fiction movie business.

Global Warming: The Real Agenda

This is how it worked with global warming: There is a political goal, politicians pay scientists come up with a theory that would demand solutions that support the political goal. The scientists construct material to support their theory. The politicians incentivise and pressure other scientists into supporting the theory and producing more material. They declare consensus and all counter-evidence is dismissed as funded by the oil lobby.

Please don't call authoritarianism Marxism. That's not what Karl Marx had in mind when he spoke of communism.

Most research on climate and the environment is done by professors and research scientists at universities. Politics has very little to do with scientists work. Sure, many are dependent on funding from the government for their work, but they are not bought off by politicians. On the other hand, scientists are bought off by private interests that want "science" to confirm what they need to protect their own selfish interest.

Anyway, there is not a consensus on what is actually happening or will happen in the future, just a general agreement on the fact that something is happening, and it is likely to be negative as far as humanity is concern. In more cases that not, the absolute deniers in the science community are in fact funded by the oil and coal industry.

Did you read that article and its links?

Tell me why the uk with so many coal powered stations wants to hear about the effect it is having on the environment?sorry but your story does not add up.Every government is trying to avoid its obligation to stop green house gasses.Its the last thing they want to hear.The only ones that are objecting to these fact are those who will loose out, oil companies etc.
You have got your conspiracy stories a bit mixed up.

Please don't call authoritarianism Marxism? That's not what Karl Marx had in mind when he spoke of communism. So global warming is going to give the politicians an excuse to shut down the economy and control our lives, huh? Conspiracy theorists have been talking about this for a long time and everytime one of the predictions don't happen they find another prediction to salvage their paranoia. Be careful with that paranoia. It can give the politicians an excuse to run your life.

Most research on climate and the environment is done by professors and research scientists at universities. Politics has very little to do with scientists work.