Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 Next
Comments 24401 to 24450:
-
Tom Curtis at 08:29 AM on 3 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Factotum @20:
1) Your definition of "conservative" is very selective. One might even say "cherry picked". Here is a fuller definition:
"Full Definition of conservative
1
: preservative
2
a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3
a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional
b : marked by moderation or caution
c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4
: of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism"The fuller definition clearly does not support your specious ad hominen.
2) The political philosophy conservatism was articulated by Edmund Burke as a reaction to the excesses of the French Revolution. He argued that the preservation of England's ancient institutions acted to avoid the excesses to be found in the French Revolution. Given the nature of those excesses, his argument cannot be considered unintelligent.
Indeed, true conservatism in politics is based on one simple principle - that our political institutions of the past have handed us a workable, if not ideal society. Given this, our natural tendency should be to preserve those institutions absent a clear and convincing argument that any change in those institutions will improve the situation. Again, this is not an unintelligent position. Quite the contrary. It is certainly far more intelligent than the position that change should be accepted for changes sake, which you appear to articulate.
3) What is missing from your ad hominen attack on conservatives is any recognition that changes need to be justified in order to be accepted. Apparently, for you, any proposed change should be accepted simply on the basis that it is a change. No requirement of evidence in favour of the change is apparently required, let alone a requirement that the evidence be robust. You would have our political institutions become as arbitrary and changable as fashion. I would struggle to find a less intelligent position.
4) Your gloss that conservatives are people who "...is someone who [do] not want to learn or is unable to learn new stuff" does not follow even from your cherry picked definition - and represents an unsupported, arbitrary insult. It requires no further refutation.
Moderator Response:[PS] To all commentators -this article obviously invites political commentary, however, please note the comments policy, specifically.
"Rants about politics, religion, faith, ideology or one world governments will be deleted."
"No profanity or inflammatory tone. Again, constructive discussion is difficult when overheated rhetoric or profanity is flying around."
Please keep this civil or risk having your post deleted.
-
scaddenp at 07:22 AM on 3 May 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #18
Fairoakien - "the higher price will not reduce cement use". You think? How about the development of carbon-neutral cement eg. see review article from Nature or here. Recent news here. How would you propose such research is paid for if not by tax? And what about the role of tax in making the new product competitive with tradition concrete or would you prefer blanket ban on traditional cement as green cement becomes available?
Of course, someone who figures how to do construction with less concrete may have competitive advantage over someone doesnt in tender which also works to reduce cement use.
If you dont like tax-based solutions, what is your preferred solution to reducing emissions?
-
Fairoakien at 05:43 AM on 3 May 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #18
In california we have cap and trade
That's added 12cents to the price of gasoline.
But what's worse its added 15Cents to the price of a bag of cement. This is Because it tajes enormous energy & heat to make cement. But how does making cement more expensive green house gases. the higher price will not reduce cement use. Its just a form a taxation. And the revebue appears to be going into the genmral fund , not even supporting green house reduction opportunities.
-
Kiwiiano at 05:31 AM on 3 May 20162016 SkS Weekly Digest #18
The thought occured that if the warmer oceans hold less oxygen they may be holding less CO2 too. Is that bad news for the atmosphere or is the CO2 chemically bound to the water, not just 'dissolved' in it?
-
factotum at 02:41 AM on 3 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
An article that I wrote after being a ron paul delegate to the 2008 Nevada state convention that I called orwells boot became #1 and has been #1, after paid links, on all search engines for the past 7 years. Do a search on orwells boot. Spend a 1./2 hour to read this 6000 word article: http://factotum666.livejournal.com/829.html
That pleasant response has lead me to do more research and I came up with this:
Look at the definition of conservative. A person adverse to change. It is someone who does not want to learn or is unable to learn new stuff. Personally? I can think of no better definition of stupid. Of course, stupid people can not follow complex chains of logical reasoning, live in a state of denial, and are often surprised by the logical consequences of their actions. When change becomes undeniable, they still deny it or are surprised by it. Sometimes they accept the new idea, and say that they have always accepted it. Stupid people are very good at self deception
Now think about scientists. If they refuse to learn new stuff they fail. There is a reason that less than 5% self identify as conservative or republican. Scientific minds -— minds that can not be both successful and stupid -— they are wired different than minds that are, by definition, stupid.
Moderator Response:[PS] This is stepping over the line. Please read and comply with the comments Policy.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 21:37 PM on 2 May 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016
Yes, it is, Barry. That's partially why I end up with two different baselines for the two temperature series, though it's manual and not a calculated figure in my graph.
-
barry1487 at 17:02 PM on 2 May 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016
Rob, am I correct thinking that the ONI data is detrended relative to global warming?
-
Ian Forrester at 11:31 AM on 2 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Digby, you can add to your list the asbestos industry and the chemical industry who denied CFCs harmed in the ozone layer.
Fred Singer has been involved with just about all of these industries.
-
Ian Forrester at 11:28 AM on 2 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
PS: I have figurd out what i did wrong. i was in a hury both times and pasted the url link into the top line instead of the second line. Sorry about that.
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:16 AM on 2 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
I've always had a gut-feeling that there was something dodgy about the GMO industry. It seems I was right.
However, has anyone noticed the pattern: a powerful industry (often American, I'm sorry to say) resorting to reprehensible methods to silence critics, bury adverse scientific findings, and sabotage attempts at regulating their industry. I can think of the following examples:
(1) Sugar industry and deleterious effects of sugar on diet
(2) Chemical industry and DDT
(3) Tobacco industry and smoking
(4) Fossil-fuel industry and climate change
(5) And now, GMO industry and deleterious effects of GMOs
Any more? I'm reminded of that saying: "A psycopath born into a poor family goes to jail; a psycopath born into a rich family goes to business school".
-
Ian Forrester at 01:12 AM on 2 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Same thing happenned again. Try copying it and pasting it into your browser window.
Moderator Response:[PS] Sorry about that. I have asked our technical team to look at the problem. I assume you are using the link button in the comment editor to create links?
-
Ian Forrester at 01:10 AM on 2 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
OK let's try that link again
I don't kinow what happened last time.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link.
-
Rolf Jander at 00:57 AM on 2 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Thank you Ian. It is refreshing to hear from someone who thinks that both AGW and the GMO industry are threats to our well being. I have long thought so myself. The Union of Concerned Scientists also campaign for action on climate change and issuses about food saftey and the risks to pollinators from big Ag.
Here in Canada, Glysophate is widely used though the government cannot show that they have proved its saftey. I am not feeling too well myself. I may well have some kind of chronic inflamation. I try to eat healthy but probably am exposed to glysophate and GMO's.
BTW your link just goes to the sks homepage for some reason. I did visit the gmwatch site. Thanks again.
Moderator Response:[PS] To all commentators: while government evaluation of science and industry influence are definitely on-topic, please do not this thread degenerate into a discussion of GM technologies. There are more appropriate websites for such a discussion.
-
Ian Forrester at 13:20 PM on 1 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Rolf, I have spent countless hours studying the similarities and differences between AGW deniers and GMO apologists. The similarities are staggering, in many cases the same people are best described as both, Matt Ridley and the Averys spring to mind. The same think tanks that attack climate science and climate scientists support GMOs and smear any independent scientist who publishes a paper showing the negative effects of GMOs. Of course these people and their organizations receive money from the companies involved in these areas. The Science Media Centre has a cabal of GMO apologists hiding under their identification as “independent experts”. They do not disclose their close financial ties to the GMO indiustry.
The big difference is that at the start the GMO apologists and their companies did and controlled the research. Any scientist wishing to study the GMO crops had firstly to get samples from the company involved and had to allow the company to vet and veto any results before they could be published. It is no wonder that the initial impression was that these crops were safe, the only research allowed out was controlled by the companies. It was only later that independent scientists such as Arpad Pusztai published results showing negative effects. The industry and its apologists were so incensed by this that they got him fired from his position at the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen. Since then there have been quite a few similar studies showing problems. The industry has responded in a similar fashion smearing and vilifying the scientists.The other big difference is the argument about consensus. The AGW deniers argue that there is no consensus regarding AGW when in fact approximately 97 % of scientists and science papers agree that there is. The GMO apologists claim that there is a consensus supporting “GMOs are safe”. This is just not true.
You are perfectly correct when you state that the science involved in rDNA technology is much more complicated than climate science. I’ll just throw out a few terms which I’m sure most people have never heard of but are critical to understanding what could go wrong with the technology: post-translational modification, cryptic transcription, horizontal gene transfer, activation of silenced genes etc.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Rolf Jander at 11:51 AM on 1 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Ian: The article linked to @11 is shocking. I have heard that these BT crops are devestaing to polinators including butterflies, but the reasearch into the effects on rats is something else again. It gives The Royal Society quite a black eye as well. The wikipedia article @9 goes over my head I'm afraid. The physics of climate change is simple enough for a layman like me but genetics is just too much.
It has always annoyed me, the implication that if one accepts AGW that one should accept having GMO's rammed down one's throat as well. As far as I am concerned the big gmo outfits are just as much of a threat as the fossil fuel interests. A disturbing of the article aspect is that a respected science organization seems to be playing ball with the gmo industry and putting the public at risk. Also disturbing is that when trying to communicate with climate deniers,we often hold up organizations such as The Royal Society as trustworthy and refer to their position on global warming. Now they have lost some of their esteem in my eyes.
-
John Hartz at 04:48 AM on 1 May 2016The climate change generation gap
Suggested supplemental reading:
Millennials love clean energy, fear climate change, and don’t vote. This campaign wants to change that. by David Roberts, Energy & Environment, Vox, Apr 30, 2016
-
Ian Forrester at 03:23 AM on 1 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
dklyer, I haven't read the book you mentioned but I have been a follower of rDNA technology since the original work by Cohen and Boyer (I was a post doc doing cancer research at the time, mid 1970's). I watched the technology develop through human insulin and other human pharmaceuticals to the prospect of using rDNA to produce GM crops. I was sceptical about their use at an early stage, I felt that they would not be good for the environment, nor a benefit to farmers since it appeared early on that it might get farmers too dependent on one particular crop, herbicide and company. Initially I had no worry about the health effects of anyone or any animal eating them since how could adding a single gene cause a problem? However, it eventually became known that it was not just one gene but several that were added to produce a GMO. Two of these added genes raised red flags to me. The first was that they were adding a very powerful promoter gene to make sure the gene of interest was turned on to produce as much of the gene product as it could. My work in cancer research involved what are known as onco-fetal genes and there gene products. These are genes which are turned on during fetal development, turned off after birth but can be reactivated either by adding a known chemical carcinogen or in an actual tumour. This meant that in normal adults there are a number of what I refer to as “silenced” genes which can become activated later in life with problematic health effects. What if the promoter gene was added close to a “silenced” gene, could it become activated with negative results for the organism?
The other red flag is the use of antibiotic resistant genes during the recombination. It is well known those antibiotic resistant organisms are a very real threat to modern medical control of bacterial pathogens. Adding them to crops which could then potentially transfer them thus infecting someone who ate the crop was very troubling to me.Of course the industry just laughed off these suggestions when independent scientists brought them up. Most of these problems have now been shown to occur, weed resistance to glyphosate, horizontal transfer, insect resistance to BT etc.
I am not completely against them but I am strongly in favour of having every new “event” independently tested over a long time period, not the 90 days usually used by the industry. Multi-generational studies should also be done.
I’m not sure if you have read any of the reports submitted to regulatory agencies for approval but they are terrible, some wouldn’t even make it to a high school science fair project e.g the evidence in favour of the Flavrsavr tomato.
www.gmfreecymru.org/documents/pusztai-fifteen-years-too-late.html
Read references at 10.
-
Rolf Jander at 02:01 AM on 1 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Thanks Ian, will read later. I agree that non GMO soloutions are great.
This organization
http://usc-canada.org/what-we-do/seeds-of-survival
is probably doing more good than the GMO companies.
Moderator Response:[PS] Fixed link
-
Ian Forrester at 01:26 AM on 1 May 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Rolf, there have been a number of crops developed to combat problems which many farmers, especially in developing countries, encounter. Drought resistance, flood resistance, salinity resistance and others have been developed. They do not use the GM technology of the large corporations (rDNA and gene silencing) but use a technology called “maker assisted selection” which allows for much faster breeding of these traits than normal cross breeding since it identifies suitable partners with much more precision.
Unfortunately these strains are developed either by university researchers or small companies and do not get the publicity and support that they should. In fact, many times these successes have been wrongly attributed to GMO technology. Sir David King, ex-UK Chief Scientist, did that on at least two occasions. Sometimes the strains are acquired by the large corporations who then add there RR gene or some other patented genes then claim to have developed “drought resistant “ strains, now owning the crop.
You can read about this successful technology here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marker-assisted_selection
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-melchett/gm-crops_b_9375382.html
-
Rolf Jander at 11:11 AM on 30 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Some great comments here. I don't trust Monsanto or Bayer as far as I could throw Exxon. But I do think that GMOs could be developed for legitamatly good reasons like adapting crops to a changing climate. The current model seems to be just an excuse to sell extra chemicals. They also use heavy handed tactics that make it very hard for farmers. Especially small farmers in poor countries.
-
uncletimrob at 10:40 AM on 30 April 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016
It's interesting that we no loger hear about the "hiatus" - not even from politicians. Perhaps its proponents are waiting for the upcoming La Nina to give them another one? The escalator is more and more scary each time I look at it.
-
barry1487 at 08:23 AM on 30 April 2016Tracking the 2°C Limit - March 2016
UK Met Office, which baselines at 1961 - 1990, and will therefore have lower anomalies relative to GISS baseline (1951 - 1980)
Dec: 1.010 C
Jan: 0.908 C
Feb: 1.061 C
Mar: 1.063 CNOAA, which uses 20th century average as baseline:
Dec: 1.122 C
Jan: 1.042 C
Feb: 1.191 C
Mar: 1.218 C -
RedBaron at 07:27 AM on 30 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
@ Hank,
I share your grumble mumble! Too often agricultural questions are posed in such a manner as to spin them! I would point out though that the primary reason GMOs might have that problem is the GMO was designed for that industrial ag system that is harmful. It is not necessary to produce food that way, and thus any GMO designed for an ecologically sound agricultural system could actually be beneficial.
Even now many GMOs are designed for use in that destructive industrial system, but designed to make them less destructive. So the template is there. It just won't happen until regenerative systems are the norm instead of the exceptions. Once that happens then GMOs designed for those regenerative systems would be profitable to develope and sell.
-
hank at 03:18 AM on 30 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
[A new YouGov poll provided yet more data, asking, “Do you think it is generally safe or unsafe to eat genetically modified foods?”.
Wrong grumble mumble question, asking this is pre-spin.
"Eat" is the wrong word. "Make" is the question and it has to be specific. Some genetic modifications some ways, and look at each.
What's the issue with gm foods? It's environmental protection, not personal poison.
If the genemod industry were to follow the path of the synthetic organic chemicals industry and the plastics industry — pollute first, no throttle unless there's immediate and serious harm turning up and attributable — it'd be a disaster.
An environmental distaster, though, not a personal mortality/severe illness disaster.
Most people dont' know and don't care.
-
dklyer at 00:02 AM on 30 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
@2 and 4, couldn't agree more although the chemicals produced by some GMO plants, that are supposed to break down in mammal digestive tracts, have shown up in human bloodstreams, including those of pregnant women. (I should add a source there but this is just a quick reply).
Have either of you read Poison Spring by E.G. Vallianatos? I suspect Ian has. I've always distrusted chemical sprays but the book was still an eye opener. From its inception, the EPA's mandate has been to protect the chemical manufacturers, not the public health. The book did not do a lot for my trust of scientists, either.
-
denisaf at 17:59 PM on 29 April 2016Climate1x - Free Online Climate Science Course starts May 3rd
I expect numerous people will find the information posted by Dr. Harris informative but that will not lead to effective remedial measures being carried out. The existing global infrastructure is having the deleterious impact of climate disruption and ocean acidification as well as pollution. The best that society can possibly do is adopt measures to assist in the powering down as the natural resources inevtibaly run out.
-
Ian Forrester at 12:34 PM on 29 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
The main reason right wingers are seen to be anti-science is because they hate government regulations and intervention. They hate vaccines because the government would like to see compulsory vaccination. They are anti-fluoride because they don't like the government adding something to the water, it could be anything not just fluoride. They hate the idea of AGW because they fear government intervention to curb the use of fossil fuels. They have completely gutted the regulatory system for the approval of GMOs and farm chemicals. They would like to see the removal of all regulatory bodies because they think that regulations affect the profits of large corporations and to heck with the health of the population. Getting rid of regulations is one of the driving forces behind those in the UK who want to get the UK out of Europe.
-
Rolf Jander at 11:43 AM on 29 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
PS. do not identify strongly as left or right wing, but am greatly concerned about environmental issues. That pretty much eliminates supporting right wing parties where I live.
-
Rolf Jander at 11:39 AM on 29 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
Personaly, on the GMO issue, it is not so much the actual produce that worries me as the pesticides and herbicides that go with them. Neonic pesticides in particular are implicated in massive bee die offs. I am not convinced of the human and environmental safety of glysophate.
-
BBHY at 11:19 AM on 29 April 2016Can the Republican Party solve its science denial problem?
I've always thought this argument very strange. The only anti-vaxer that I know supports Trump, watches Fox News, brings up the Second Amendment in every conversation, home schools his kids, and goes to bible study on Wednesdays.
But hey, I guess he is a lefty because he has doubts about vaccines, according to the popular media.
-
jimb at 09:40 AM on 29 April 2016Climate1x - Free Online Climate Science Course starts May 3rd
I noticed that #1, fletch92131 had referred to Dr. Harris by eliminating the 'Dr.' and addressing her as Ms. Pretty well didn't need to read the rest of the comment.
-
Kiwiiano at 05:26 AM on 29 April 2016Climate1x - Free Online Climate Science Course starts May 3rd
True about the contradictory stuff that may be available, but NOTHING nothing that can withstand even the briefest scrutiny.
Moderator Response:[JH] No all-caps.
-
fletch92131 at 00:23 AM on 29 April 2016Climate1x - Free Online Climate Science Course starts May 3rd
(snip) offering such a course will do nothing to slow the rise of people who are more informed Ms. Harris. They can easily find so much stuff on the web disputes of everything she could say. No wonder the threat of climate change is low on the priority list of most Americans as well as members of the world body.
Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering deleted.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
-
MA Rodger at 22:50 PM on 28 April 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
ConcernedCitizen @112.
Another take on answering your question.
Sort of yes, but only a little bit of that implied by the moon's maximum temperatures. The main reason the moon reaches 130ºC is because it has a 655 hour rotation so the equatorial moon surface is being heated by sunlight for 2 weeks at a stretch rather than the 12 hours here on Earth.
A quick look at some max/min temperatures for places on the Earth's equator shows a difference of about 10ºC night to day. This is an air temperature. I would imagine rock temperatures on Earth (which is the equivalent of what is being measured on the moon) would show a greater variation. Looking at a graph of moon surface temperatures, the moon temperature rises from 300K something like 40ºC in 12 hours.
Part of the reason for extra heating on the moon will be because our atmosphere reflects away sunlight as well as also absorbing sunlight before it reaches the ground (famously the UV component of sunlight). The atmosphere also cools the surface through evaporation and conduction/convection. I'm not sure that any of these mechanisms would be called a "GH effect" but rather the effect of having an atmosphere.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:41 PM on 28 April 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
ConcernedCitizen @112, no. Rather, the equalization of temperatures by the distribution of energy (by the atmosphere and ocean) reduces maximum temperatures and increases minimum temperatures - as anybody knows who compares maximums and minimums in a desert with those on the coast.
And in case you are wondering, the estimated 33 C increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature due to the Earth's greenhouse is relative to a situation with perfectly distributed energy on the surface (ie, all points are the same temperature, whether polar or equatorial, and whether day or night). That means it is an under estimate of the temperature impact of the greenhouse effect.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:35 PM on 28 April 2016CO2 effect is saturated
ConcernedCitizen @408, I am sure that nobody can explain it to you, as you have no interest in learning. That, at least, is evident from the straw man you construct. The actual theory is that CO2 in the tropophere at altitude z has less thermal energy than CO2 at altitude z-100 meters. Therefore the total thermal emissions by CO2 at altitude z will be less than that by CO2 at altitude z-100 meters. Individual photons will have approximately the same energy (which is a function of wavelength), but fewer of them will be emitted.
As to why the CO2 has less thermal energy with altitude, a partial answer is that because it is at a higher altitude, it has more gravitational potential energy and less energy of motion (which includes thermal energy). That relationship is further modulated by changes in pressure with altitude (decreasing pressure cools gasses). If you want to know more, you can start reading here.
In your incoherent way, you are actually denying a combination of the first law of thermodynamics, the ideal gas laws, Newton's law of gravitation, and Planck's law. Not a bad score in the science denial stakes.
-
ConcernedCitizen at 21:41 PM on 28 April 2016CO2 effect is saturated
Can anyone explain how adding CO2 causes a supposed emission from higher altitude and therefore a higher surface temperature? The suggesiton isnt that the earths atmosphere became thicker, with a vertical lapse rate movement, the suggection is that if an emitted photon is now picked up and re-emitted from 100 meters further up this photon has lost energy, and that energy has somehow got back to the surface.
Can anyone explain this to me?
-
ConcernedCitizen at 21:32 PM on 28 April 2016Greenhouse effect has been falsified
"the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator"
So GH gasses and the GH effect reduce maximum temperature too.
-
bozzza at 18:10 PM on 28 April 2016New Video: Surveilling the Scientists
@ Red Baron,
It's not up to scientists to form a coalition! Where is the method in that?
-
Digby Scorgie at 11:08 AM on 28 April 2016New Video: Surveilling the Scientists
#11 RedBaron
I was under the impression that people have been doing their damndest to communicate "acceptable mitigation strategies" to conservatives, but the conservatives are simply having none of it. In the face of such intransigence it's natural to become cynical. When the climate chickens come home to roost, one could derive satisfaction from watching the conservatives burn in the hell of their own devising. The only problem is that the rest of us will burn too. Damn! I knew there was a catch somewhere!
-
Riduna at 05:55 AM on 28 April 2016After COP21: 7 Key Tasks to Implement the Paris Agreement
Digby Scorgie
(1) Fossil fuel becomes increasingly expensive relative to renewables
-
RedBaron at 23:27 PM on 27 April 2016New Video: Surveilling the Scientists
@ william,
Not fun at all. Not only will it cost astonomical amounts of damages, untold human suffering, massive ecosystem destruction, etc...; it fundamentally highlights the failure of scientists to form an effective coalition with conservatives to propose mitigation strategies acceptable to them.
Too often I hear heavy criticism and disdane for the denialists. I do it myself, but I also offer alternatives acceptable to conservative thinking.
But ultimately until you come up with an acceptable mitigation strategy that isn't anathema to everything conservatives hold dear, AND communicate that, then denialism will continue. It has to, because in conservatives eyes the only alternatives offered are suffer, or suffer. If that's all the choices they see, then many will prefer the only way out which is deny this unwritten future will happen. It's your failure to communicate. Always remember that.
Comments like how "beautiful the irony" would be to watch the suffering just so you could gleefully proclaim "I told you so" while you waggle your tongue is not helping.
-
william5331 at 05:23 AM on 27 April 2016New Video: Surveilling the Scientists
I seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of Texas is pretty close to sea level. What beautiful just irony. Should be fun to watch them continue in this vein as the water lapps around their ankles.
-
Rob Painting at 19:28 PM on 26 April 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
See the 2nd peer-reviewed paper linked to above - the stronger trade winds during La Nina push more warm tropical water westward between the Indonesian archipelago & Australia (the Indonesian Throughflow or ITF).
The 2010-2011 La Nina coincided with an anomalously strong southward Leeuwin Current (normally weak over summer) and weak southerly winds which flow in opposition to the Leeuwin Current.
We appear to be in the positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) which should reduce the volume of warm water transported through the ITF, but on the other hand the oceans are growing warmer. A La Nina forecast to develop later this year could prove interesting come next summer.
Anyway, to give you a quick example, here's a composite of sea surface temperatures for La Nina summers excluding the exceptional La Nina of 2011:
-
bozzza at 17:55 PM on 26 April 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
Why is, "..the time of greatest risk for higher latitude West Australian coral is during La Nina...", mayI ask?
-
Rob Painting at 05:42 AM on 26 April 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
Western Australian coral were devastated by the marine heatwave of 2010-2011. See: Unprecedented Mass Bleaching and Loss of Coral across 12° of Latitude in Western Australia in 2010–11. A lot of other local marine life went belly up too including abalone, scallops, crayfish and fish.
However the time of greatest risk for higher latitude West Australian coral is during La Nina, although the 2010-2011 La Nina was exceptional and exacerbated by anomalous conditions. See: La Niña forces unprecedented Leeuwin Current warming in 2011. -
Glenn Tamblyn at 08:06 AM on 25 April 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
Thanks MA Rodger, I didn't have access to the full article.
Either way it doesn't support what the Australian reported. -
One Planet Only Forever at 00:48 AM on 25 April 2016New Video: Surveilling the Scientists
chriskoz@8,
I agree that exposing the absurdity of Cruz presented by Tom would be damaging in the mind of a person who values integrity and honesty and the advancement of humanity to a lasting better future for all. However, the portion of the population that the likes of Cruz succeed in appealing to clearly value impressions. And they are likely to like impressions that they think legitimately support the views they prefer to believe. That would lead them to accept anything that discredits or dismisses information that contradicts what they prefer to believe (probably claiming it is a deliberate deception created by someone trying to take wealth and opportunity away from them).
I consider it very dangerous to presume that the likes of Cruz , Trump or G.W. Bush are unintelligent or gullible. In fact thta type of claim would be able to be used to justify dismissing a criticism of Cruz of Trump because there would be plenty of evidence that they are not unintelligent or uninformed. It is almost beyond a doubt that they are highly intelligent and well informed and fully understand the ability to drum up undeserved popular support for attitudes and actions that are impediments to the advancement of global humanity to a lasting better future for all by creating and disseminating deliberate misrepresentations of things what they are aware of.
The potential popularity of the desire to personally benefit in ways that can clearly be understood to only temporarily boost the perceptions of prosperity of a portion of humanity (to the detriment of others, particularly to the detriment of future generations), leads many intelligent people to misuse their talents for personal gain (like trying to present an economic financial case justifying the imposition of costs on future generations by declaring that it is OK to create problems for others if you think you would lose opportunity for personal benefit if you did not continue to get away with creating problems others would have to deal with).
-
MA Rodger at 22:43 PM on 24 April 2016Corals are resilient to bleaching
Glenn Tamblyn @15.
I think the closing comments of the full article are a better interpretation of what the authors are saying:-
"Seawater carbon chemistry is a key determinant of coral calcification, and the potential for future anthropogenic-influenced declines in carbonate saturation state, and hence coral calcification, is cause for serious concern (2,4,7). However, we conclude that the rate of change in the thermal environment of coral reefs is currently the primary driver of change in coral calcification rates. Warming SSTs are resulting in (i) increased calcification rates reported here in the southeast Indian Ocean, where marginal reefs have taken advantage of warmer conditions, and (ii) recent declines reported elsewhere for more typical reef environments where thermal optima for calcification have been exceeded or resulted in setbacks in growth as a result of thermally induced bleaching. Whether the former is sustainable as oceans continue to warm is another question."
-
chriskoz at 18:54 PM on 24 April 2016New Video: Surveilling the Scientists
One Planet@7,Tom's take on Ted Cruz is more damaging to Cruz' reputation than yours is. It is just beyond believe that a guy who so utterly ashamed himself can still be a presidential hopeful. Advertise this nonsense he's just said far and wide to the american public and his chances in this election should drop to zero.
Sadly, voters rarely consider candidate's intelligence and integrity as main criteria. Popularity, fuelled by lobbying and advertising by a party, is the main criterion. Less intelligent guy is even better, because he would more likely be a puppet president, complacent to the party caucus. That's why we have candidates such as Cruz & Trump on top of Rep endorsement.
Prev 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 Next
