|
|  |
| |
|
| | The Innovation Network Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts | | Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | Views: 560 | | Jan 22, 2010 11:53 am | | Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # | 
James Booth | | .
Begin video series here:
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUD66kjLVNw&feature=related
.Private Reply to James Booth | | Jan 22, 2010 4:54 pm | | re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # | 
Thomas Holford | | I didn't watch all 9:12 of this video, but I am well aware that there are more than a few grandiose schemes to use various Rube Goldberg solutions to "do something" about global warming.
If you are not scared witless by the mindless amateurishness and extreme dangerousness of these schemes there is no hope for you.
Whatever the scheme is -- solar shades in orbit, sulfer particles in the upper atmosphere, dumping iron into the oceans -- there is really no way to test the scheme short of full scale implementation.
And if they get it wrong, an entire planet is screwed: roasted, frozen, asphyxiated, poisoned, starved, whatever.
A number of years ago, the British launched a space probe to Mars. The probe was supposed to land automatically on the planet's surface. After years of project development, a complex launch and navigation sequence, and six month transit to Mars, the spacecraft was lost.
After exhaustive investigation, it was determined that the cause of the loss was that a computer programmer had inadvertently entered ONE parameter in the probe's guidance computer using BRITISH measurement units instead of METRIC units, i.e feet per second instead of meters per second.
Call me a worry wart, but managing the climate for an entire planet would be thousands of time more complex then sending a spacecraft to Mars.
I wouldn't want to lay awake at night worrying about whether seem doofuss inadvertently released 100 megatons of sulfer into the stratosphere when they meant to release 100 metric tons.Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 22, 2010 7:04 pm | | re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # | 
Reg Charie | | Why would you worry?
You KNOW that mankind has no effect on the environment.
According to your stance there is nothing that mankind can do to change the way nature intended to be.
Don't worry...Be happy.
2009 Client SEO report:
You rank better than 4,577,263,956 other websites.
http://dotcom-productions.com
Hosting http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htmPrivate Reply to Reg Charie | | Jan 22, 2010 10:04 pm | | re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
James Booth | | .
"And if they get it wrong, an entire planet is screwed: roasted, frozen,
asphyxiated, poisoned, starved, whatever."
I quite agree.
My purpose in presenting this video was to show how much more complex the global climate systen is than it appears within the context of the current faux "debate"
We need to learn as much as we can, with no fudging of the data, and the sooner the better.
In the meantime, the less we can crap up the only place we have to live, the better.
As always, we need to achieve balance in all we do
- near as possible.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Jan 22, 2010 10:07 pm | | re: re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
James Booth | | .
Seems to me there is a certain dimming of the mind which equates lack of proof of something with an opinion that it is not happening at all.
Again, we need to relearn the meaning and use of simple words
... and abide by those rules.
In the absence of ad hominem attacks.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Jan 23, 2010 1:21 am | | re: re: re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
Reg Charie | | >>Seems to me there is a certain dimming of the mind which equates lack of proof of something with an opinion that it is not happening at all.
And who are you referring to James?
Is there really a lack of proof or a disregard for it as unsubstantiated or just plain wrong?
Is it an ad hominem attack when you bring to light the straddling of the boundaries in the choosing of sides?
If one thinks mankind cannot affect the exosphere with it's regular activities because of the immensity and resilience of the system, then following that logic, it cannot do so with a specific attempt.
2009 Client SEO report:
You rank better than 4,577,263,956 other websites.
http://dotcom-productions.com
Hosting http://0grief.com/special_hosting_accounts_for_my_ryze_friends.htmPrivate Reply to Reg Charie | | Jan 23, 2010 2:20 am | | re: re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
Thomas Holford | | Reg Charie:
> You KNOW that mankind has no effect on the environment.
Not what I said, actually.
You would have realized that if you had read my statements carefully.
If your intent is to win an argument without changing any of your beliefs, may I suggest to you a career as a ventriloquist. You can make all the smart arguments and make sure that the dummy makes all the dumb arguments.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 24, 2010 3:54 pm | | re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
James Booth | | .
Denigrating any other person does nothing to provide a sustainable future for anyone.
Vilifying any scientist does not produce results which might overcome the possibilities of *climate change* which have potential to make life very difficult not only for humans, but for all species.
Yet for some reason only an individual can be sure of, there is a tendency to attack a person, or a reputation, in frustration, perhaps for not having sufficient knowledge to understand what is happening to our climate, much less to make any decision about what positive actions to take to keep our planet liveable.
Defining "easy" terms like "climate change" is one of the first things we have to do in order to have any real, effective dialogue.
*Climate change* can refer to the natural cycles of changes in our atmosphere, or it can signify a lasting change, perhaps caused by "unnatural" input to a natural system.
I suggest that such terms are crafted by those who believe, and apparently rightly so, that most of us will not properly define such vague terminology as we take some political stance on an issue such as "global warming" - another term which needs proper definition.
Yes, there are "more than a few grandiose schemes to use various Rube Goldberg solutions to "do something" about global warming" - including "schemes" which have been ongoing for decades that we know very little about, the existence of which some people are not yet aware, schemes which may have beneficial effect, or may have made matters worse for us overall.
Being "scared witless" is not my style of operation in any case, but I do strongly protest "covert" measures which more than "experiment" with "weather modification" but now appear to have produced significant changes in our weather, weather patterns, rainfall, and the temperature in our atmosphere - measures which were not begun through any "mandate" of any people, but by agencies which have their own agendas, of which We, The People, are seldom informed.
As I have previously stated, we need good data, unadulterated science, from which we can make rational determinations of what IS happening, and then what we might do about it; therefore, half-baked schemes which further modify our atmosphere when we do not even yet know the long term effects of human "every day" action are dangerous.
As was said earlier, "... if they get it wrong, an entire planet is screwed: roasted, frozen, asphyxiated, poisoned, starved, whatever."
No "computer model" yet exists which takes into account all the variables which affect - determine - our weather and the condition of our atmosphere.
Science which improves computer models by discovering variables which must be included is required, and that science must be allowed to do its work free of political agendas and financial manipulations.
Attempting to review "current science" which has been falsified, whether knowingly or not, is of little use to any of us, and is a waste of time for which some individuals will just give up even trying to understand the situation, much less do anything about it.
Headlines and other "communications" which are blatantly untrue, intending to mislead the public in regard to something on which our survival hinges, should perhaps be considered criminal activity.
Misleading the public about something so serious "inadvertently" - by those who pretend to know something - might well lead to their dismissal as a "credible source" of vital information.
On the personal level, it is essential that we shed the voices and urgings of "commentators" and others who are paid to influence our opinions and settle down to clear thinking and a real comprehension of what we face, of what we are doing, of decisions we all have to make, on an individual level and collectively.
The *actions of mankind* HAVE effects on "the environment" without question.
Because mankind is not yet able to accurately measure what those effects are does not negate existence of those effects.
In my view, the most obvious thing "mankind can do to change" whatever effects humans are causing to our atmosphere, and to our environment, is to act in ways which *change* our atmosphere and environment as little as possible.
Balance is "the way nature intended to be" and "mankind" - humans - currently tilt the balance Nature will ultimately restore, at which point whether humans survive or not will be inconsequential.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Jan 24, 2010 6:36 pm | | re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
Thomas Holford | | James Booth sayeth:
> As I have previously stated, we need good data, unadulterated science, from which we can make rational determinations of what IS happening, and then what we might do about it; therefore, half-baked schemes which further modify our atmosphere when we do not even yet know the long term effects of human "every day" action are dangerous.
> As was said earlier, "... if they get it wrong, an entire planet is screwed: roasted, frozen, asphyxiated, poisoned, starved, whatever."
> No "computer model" yet exists which takes into account all the variables which affect - determine - our weather and the condition of our atmosphere.
> Science which improves computer models by discovering variables which must be included is required, and that science must be allowed to do its work free of political agendas and financial manipulations.
> Attempting to review "current science" which has been falsified, whether knowingly or not, is of little use to any of us, and is a waste of time for which some individuals will just give up even trying to understand the situation, much less do anything about it.
> Headlines and other "communications" which are blatantly untrue, intending to mislead the public in regard to something on which our survival hinges, should perhaps be considered criminal activity.
> Misleading the public about something so serious "inadvertently" - by those who pretend to know something - might well lead to their dismissal as a "credible source" of vital information.
I generally agree with all of this. But I think you have sidestepped some large issues.
How do you propose to deal with powerful and influential charlatans who either don't understand the scientific reality, or do undertstand it and purposely ignore it in order to gain wealth, influence, prestige, or any other human gratification?
Exhibit A: Al Gore
1. He was a C student in the only science course he took at Harvard.
2. His graduate study was in divinity school, which he did not complete.
3. He was ethics challenged as a Vice President, caught up in notorius fund-raising scandals.
4. He has written books making alarming and apocalyptic predictions of the future which have not proven to be accurate.
5. As Vice President and a powerful voice in the Clinton Administration, he installed his protege, Carol Browner (a lawyer) as head of the EPA, and she directed BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to "study climate change" (i.e. to PROVE that human caused global warming is true.) And in the process, the EPA DENIED research funding to scientists who DID NOT endorse the theory of human caused global warming. And the EPA's mammoth body of one-side research resulted in many, many competent, ethical, and reputable scientists being marginalized and discredited for being "skeptics", "deniers", and "in the pay of the oil companies."
6. As an independent investor, he has participated in the creation of a company that profits from trading "carbon credits".
7. He has strongly advocated the creation of "cap and trade" treaties among governments which would force them to use his carbon credit trading and put profits in his pocket.
8. He has authored documentaries and PowerPoint presentations which are shown in schools and which contain serious and widely criticized errors of scientific fact.
So, WHAT DO YOU DO about Al Gore and the others like him, who are spreading misinformation AND profiting from their activities?
Do you ignore them?
Do you privately disagree with them?
Do you publicly criticize them?
Do you condemn them in the loudest and most strident manner?
Do you make "ad hominem" attacks and hold them up to public ridicule?
WHAT DO YOU DO?!!!
T Holford
Private Reply to Thomas Holford | | Jan 24, 2010 8:07 pm | | re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
James Booth | | .
Excellent question.
I know most of that eight-point description of Mr. Gore to be true
- a fact or two I have not personally verified.
Most of us do not have the "financial clout" to counter the likes of Gore's campaign ...
... and I submit he was not successful in amassing his "financial clout" single-handedly.
There is much more to that "campaign" than just Albert Arnold "Al" Gore, Jr. alone.
He is a front man, Mr. Gore is, and very good at what he does.
"So, WHAT DO YOU DO about Al Gore and the others like him ..."
Elements of my answer might be found in my previous post:
First, we have to stop attacking each other, which is what we s'pose ta do according to the agenda of those behind the "global warming campaign" - and make no mistake, they have invested many millions of dollars crafting language which keeps us arguing with each other about what is really going on, along with millions more to buy off scientists hungry for funding and unethical enough to allow their "research" to be hijacked for political purposes (and who among us is so pure we might not fall into the same trap).
Second, turning off television and radio and making sure we have time to actually think independently is a huge step toward saving ourselves, the alternative being that we remain "stuck on stupid" from ingesting propaganda designed to "mold " our opinion to someone else's ends.
Cutting out the "media blitz" also helps restore our sensitivity to each other, and reawaken to the fact that we all have the same stake in this matter of "climate change" - even the likes of Mr. Gore, who I do not believe has yet found another viable planet to live on, or an alternate means to breath polluted air, although he may easily distill his own water.
We have to be able to think clearly, without all the noise blasted at us from "media" intended to make us fearful of what "might" happen, and thus *react* in some fit of panic rather than act independently and purposefully.
An extension of that is that we have to educate our own children properly, and if that means taking them out of schools which "instill" propaganda instead of *science* and *knowledge* - so be it.
Third, when we talk with each other about matters as serious as this one, we need to remain civil and even, acting as educators rather than "enforcers."
Learn as much as possible and be willing to share it, regardless the "feedback" - and part of that is being very clear in word usage, explaining as necessary, and not being afraid to explain, what you mean when you use terminology and not assuming another person is "on the same page" when using words "handed down" through media which are designed to be vague and misleading.
The more knowledgeable we are individually, the better able we are to recognize manipulations of data and other misleading or totally false "information" so we each have to do our own "homework" and not rely on some "commentator" to fill us in with "infotainment."
Fourth, "Headlines ... intending to mislead the public ... should perhaps be considered criminal activity."
That might seem a bit strong, but when the public is being misled about something so critical to human survival, is it ?
At least we have to find the courage to object to lies and distortions, call out those who broadcast such manipulation, boycott their "services" or sue them - whatever it takes to stop their abuse.
We may not have the *finances* to counter such a campaign as Al Gore fronts, but that does not mean we can do nothing.
We may not, as a citizenry, mobilize enough individuals to be aware they are being misled, manipulated, cornered, but nothing prevents us from doing such as I have already listed here, working diligently to save ourselves, and by setting a good example, encouraging others to follow us, to follow our example, since we show "it can be done."
There are no guarantees in this life, but one thing is sure: the way things are tomorrow will not be the way things are today.
The question is, how do you and I today influence what things will be like tomorrow ?
By educating ourselves, helping other people to be better-informed, as well-informed as possible, and by standing firm in that knowledge, not allowing ourselves to be caught in some muck left to imprison us.
Once educated about climate, atmosphere, weather, environment, etc., it is up to each of us to act on that knowledge, which does not mean we must enter some hermitage, but it does mean that once we have identified our own role as "changers" of environment, then we have to change our ways of doing what we do so as to reduce our individual "impact" as much as possible.
Again, such responsible living comes through what we are taught as children, how we are raised as children, and if our "public school system" works against us as a "public indoctrination system" then we need to exercise our responsibility by educating our own children at home if necessary.
If we want our children to survive, and their children, what good is there in allowing their minds to be bogged down in some political morass they cannot comprehend ?
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | Jan 25, 2010 9:59 am | | re: re: Global Warming - Dimming the Sun | # |
James Booth | | .
I know we get mad as hell about some of these things ...
We want to lash out.
In that way we diminish what power we have.
We must focus our energy on the outcome(s) we want.
Not allow our energy to be wasted in some quickie feel-good outburst.
JBPrivate Reply to James Booth | | |
| |
| |
