| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:34 Thorakh wrote: Regardless of whatever evil plans the UN has for world dominance, it still bears no relevance to the actual topic of global warming. It seems pretty relevant to the UN since they are consistently arguing for anthropogenic climate change and making proposals on how to regulate and manage carbon output.... | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote: It seems pretty relevant to the UN since they are consistently arguing for anthropogenic climate change and making proposals on how to regulate and manage carbon output.... UN resolutions and enforcement of them are basically 100% voluntary. Countries (especially the US) go against the UN all the time. The UN is basically a place to try to get people together to solve global issues, but if people don't want to cooperate they can't really force them. edit: was wrong about the geneva convention. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
just to get to the core of this thread as I envisioned it (I believe it is the wrong place to discuss the pros and cons of UN attempts at world governance ° On August 19 2013 04:52 Wampaibist wrote: is there a lag between adding green house gasses to the atmosphere and the raise in heat you should expect? Al la mass extinction style ocean methane's / volcano + climate change? I've read about the deccan traps being more like a longer lasting flood basalt, but does the full on temperature change ride hand in hand with the green house gas change? Or is there a lag period? if we could suddenly stop all anthropogenic climate change have we not seen the full change of our actions? Short answer: Yes. Long answer: There is some "direct" adjustment which occurs essentially directly if you put CO2 or any other greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, i.e., some radiation is adsorbed. Then, due to this increased head content and structure in the atmosphere, components react, i.e., other clouds can form, the ocean gets warmer, ice melts, the biosphere adapts. After a couple of years, all fast components are in equilibrium and what happens is a pseudo equilibrium: Sun Atmosphere with new increased temperature Upper Ocean (warm) Deep Ocean (still cold). If we assume constant greenhouse gases, for many centuries to come the deep ocean will heat up, and in return the atmosphere surface temperature increases also a little bit. This is called temperature commitment and it is part of scientific debate as to how much this "default" increase we have already accumulated and how long it will take to be realised. If you have any more questions on this, try to google equilibrium vs transient climate sensitiviyt or climate CO2 commitment Best regards, W | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:42 TricksAre4Figs wrote: UN [...] consistently arguing for anthropogenic climate change It seems quite reasonable to 'consistently argue' in support of anthropogenic climate change when that's what the scientists conclude. Seems irrational to argue against it in fact. Like the OP said a few posts ago, you may not value the need to address anthropogenic climate change for whatever personal reason, but you can't dismiss it as something that isn't happening (or as a "ploy" in your own words) without dismissing the entire field that studies it... | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2013 05:26 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Yes, but only if you're a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist who needs a tin foil hat and a one-way ticket to the loony bin. Otherwise no, world governance isn't real. You seem to have misunderstood. You're pointing out that the UN is setting benchmarks. I'm pointing out that this is one of many of the UN's mission statements and one of the reasons it even exists. The conspiracy theory is that you're trying to pain this as a political power grab...because apparently doing your job is a power grab...? | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
As scientific fields become more specialized and esoteric it is an ever increasing challenge. Simply telling people it would take them 10 years to understand is unacceptable but the answer has to be close enough to the truth that opponents are not compelling enough to prevent necessary change. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On August 19 2013 07:28 Velocirapture wrote: That's about as untrue as saying that "Starcraft player" and "people person" are antonyms. In reality, there's some scientists that don't have people skills and there's some that do. Same with every profession.The whole controversy around climate change is derived form "scientist" and "people-person" being antonyms. There are very highly paid professionals whose entire job is to liaise between scientists and the non-science components of business. Even calling it "global warming" goes to show that any attempt to simplify such a nuanced and complex issue is fraught with political consequences. This one blunder is enough to convince huge swaths of the population that anthropomorphic climate change is a conspiracy despite all evidence to the contrary. As scientific fields become more specialized and esoteric it is an ever increasing challenge. Simply telling people it would take them 10 years to understand is unacceptable but the answer has to be close enough to the truth that opponents are not compelling enough to prevent necessary change. When it comes to explaining difficult ideas to a wide audience, scientists do that better than anyone else. Compare them to economists, for instance, who manage to make banal concepts sound daunting. In any case, there's already a thriving profession of science journalism. It just happens that more money goes into spreading denialist propaganda. | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 07:12 WolfintheSheep wrote: You seem to have misunderstood. You're pointing out that the UN is setting benchmarks. I'm pointing out that this is one of many of the UN's mission statements and one of the reasons it even exists. The conspiracy theory is that you're trying to pain this as a political power grab...because apparently doing your job is a power grab...? No, the UN's mission statement was not regulating the world's carbon emission in it's inception... Where did you get that idea? | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 06:54 FallDownMarigold wrote: It seems quite reasonable to 'consistently argue' in support of anthropogenic climate change when that's what the scientists conclude. Seems irrational to argue against it in fact. Like the OP said a few posts ago, you may not value the need to address anthropogenic climate change for whatever personal reason, but you can't dismiss it as something that isn't happening (or as a "ploy" in your own words) without dismissing the entire field that studies it... "...that's what the scientists conclude." Which scientists? | ||
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On August 19 2013 09:27 TricksAre4Figs wrote: No, the UN's mission statement was not regulating the world's carbon emission in it's inception... Where did you get that idea? This is a straw-man argument. WolfintheSheep did not say regulating the world's carbon emission was a mission of the UN (specifically) in its inception. As I took he, he was saying the UN from the beginning was intended for certain forms of 'world governance,' and regulation of carbon emissions would fall under the umbrella of 'world governance.' Of course, what 'world governance' means exactly hasn't been made clear, but I'm just using the term very generally. On August 19 2013 09:50 TricksAre4Figs wrote: "...that's what the scientists conclude." Which scientists? I believe the purpose of this thread is to answer questions like this one. | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 09:54 micronesia wrote: This is a straw-man argument. WolfintheSheep did not say regulating the world's carbon emission was a mission of the UN (specifically) in its inception. As I took he, he was saying the UN from the beginning was intended for certain forms of 'world governance,' and regulation of carbon emissions would fall under the umbrella of 'world governance.' Of course, what 'world governance' means exactly hasn't been made clear, but I'm just using the term very generally That wasn't exactly a straw-man as carbon regulation was exactly what we were talking about contextually, so I reject that claim. Wolf made an attempt to describe the UN's intended purpose as vague "world governance" and thinks regulating carbon emission just casually fits that description. That is completely false and dangerous thinking in my view. The UN's original purpose was to maintain peace among western nations primarily. Now, however, we have the UN that is rather cavalierly assuming a new unprecedented role as the world's carbon emission regulator. THAT is my point here. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On August 19 2013 10:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote: That wasn't exactly a straw-man as carbon regulation was exactly what we were talking about contextually, so I reject that claim. Specifically, WolfintheSheep said a purpose of the UN is "setting benchmarks." In response, you said "No, the UN's mission statement was not regulating the world's carbon emission..." What you meant by this was that you don't think "regulating the world's carbon emission" belongs in the same category as some other cases of benchmark setting (I believe), but what you said was that WolfintheSheep is incorrect because he/she incorrectly asserted that a purpose of the UN is to regulate the world's carbon emissions. That is what makes it a straw-man, even if your intended meaning was not. As for my opinion on whether or not the UN should be engaging in these activities... taken straight from a basic wikipedia description of the United Nations: "The United Nations is an international organization whose stated aims include promoting and facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, political freedoms, democracy, and the achievement of lasting world peace." I definitely think this topic falls under that very wide and varied description. As others pointed out, it's not like there are strict penalties in place for countries that aren't happy with some aspect of what the UN decides. On the other hand, we should be evaluating the actions of the UN critically and ensuring we don't move some sort of an Orwellian society (or insert whatever other cliche). | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24701 Posts
On August 19 2013 10:51 TricksAre4Figs wrote: Again, our dialogue started out in the context of carbon emission benchmarks not benchmarks in general. So you say, but WolfintheSheep never mentioned carbon emissions... from what I can tell in the quote chain he was only referring more generally to what the UN does. For what it's worth I do get what you are saying, in general. | ||
|
TricksAre4Figs
United States125 Posts
On August 19 2013 10:54 micronesia wrote: So you say, but WolfintheSheep never mentioned carbon emissions... from what I can tell in the quote chain he was only referring more generally to what the UN does. For what it's worth I do get what you are saying, in general. Yes, well if you need another reason not to trust the UN you should look at this very relevant book that came out in 2011 by an excellent journalist. http://www.amazon.com/Delinquent-Teenager-Mistaken-Climate-ebook/dp/B005UEVB8Q/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On August 19 2013 10:09 TricksAre4Figs wrote: That wasn't exactly a straw-man as carbon regulation was exactly what we were talking about contextually, so I reject that claim. Wolf made an attempt to describe the UN's intended purpose as vague "world governance" and thinks regulating carbon emission just casually fits that description. That is completely false and dangerous thinking in my view. The UN's original purpose was to maintain peace among western nations primarily. Now, however, we have the UN that is rather cavalierly assuming a new unprecedented role as the world's carbon emission regulator. THAT is my point here. That's a rather random leap through history to exaggerate your point. I mean, the UN didn't even have a full year of being "just" about maintaining peace. I'm pretty sure the FAO, IMF and World Bank were all part of the UN structure within a few months of official establishment. And considering that Carbon Emissions and Climate Change clearly fall under organization jurisdiction of the WMO, WHO, IMO (and probably UNIDO and UNESCO), which have all been part of the UN for half a century or more, "unprecedented" is just flat out wrong. | ||
|
packrat386
United States5077 Posts
@GreenGringo: I'm going to do that thing you hate where I cite a huge long article for a relatively simple point. http://csis.org/files/publication/100608_Lewis_EarthObservation_WEB.pdf In this article Lewis, from CSIS explains that the scientific community hasn't been doing a very good job at explaining their data/findings. The article is pretty broad sweeping, so I'll quote the part that I find the most relevant. Operationalization is the next step for dealing with climate change—to make the data and knowledge generation by satellites and science easier to use in policymaking. Operationalization requires a new approach. Climate change has largely been an issue of science. The existing vehicles for international cooperation and data sharing are aimed at the scientific community. Effective global management of climate requires a new approach with three integrated elements—space, networks, and collaboration. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation policies, and guide planning on how to adapt to changes in the environment. Achieving such a concerted effort will require coordination must occur on several different levels if it is to have a meaningful effect. The first—the collection and measurement of relevant data—depends largely on satellites. Without the proper data, it would be very difficult to develop and aggregate a global picture of climate change and its nature and pace. It would be difficult to measure the effects of mitigation efforts, determine when or whether policies are effective, or predict when and how climate effects will affect local communities. The second level is to expand the analysis and sharing of information. In some ways, we are only in the early stages of developing a global enterprise for assessing climate change. Much of the research and analysis conducted thus far has been focused on understanding the nature and pace of climate change, forecasting future changes in Earth’s natural systems based on changes in differ ent variables, and substantiating theories about how human efforts to reduce the effects of climate change might actually have some effect. More work is needed in each area to improve our understanding and update it as the natural environment continues to change. Finally, data must move from the scientific community to the policy community—to governments and policymakers—if data are to guide change. While the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tailored analysis to meet policymakers’ needs in the hopes of reaching a global consensus for action, the challenge today is to extend and strengthen connections between the science and policy communities. A coordinated multinational effort to better inform the policy process can change this. Our belief is that a concerted effort to analyze and share data from the many national efforts could significantly advance our understanding of the risks and causes of climate change, better measure the effects of mitigation, and guide planning on adapting to changes in the environment. To this end, our recommendations follow: The U.S. approach to climate change policy needs to inform decision makers and planners in both government and the private sector by providing understandable metrics and analyses of the effectiveness of, and compliance with, mitigation programs and adaption plans. The customers for this should include federal agencies, state and local governments, private sector users, and other nations. To better serve the national interest, the United States should increase its Earth observation capabilities—especially space-based sensors for carbon monitoring—to improve our ability to understand the carbon cycle and to inform any future international agreement. This means that until these capabilities are adequate for monitoring climate change, investment in Earth observation satellites should take precedence over other space programs. Increased spending on earth observation satellites specifically designed for climate change should be maintained until the current capability shortfall is eliminated. The United States should accelerate, expand, and reinforce a National Climate Service to improve climate information management and decisionmaking. In a related effort, the United States should support the World Meteorological Organization in its efforts to create a World Climate Service System. The United States should complement its national effort by supporting and expanding multilateral efforts to coordinate Earth observation for climate change, building on existing international efforts such as GCOS. This could entail coordinated investment in space and, subsidies for ground facilities in developing countries, recognizing that the United States, EU, Japan, and Canada will bear the largest share of the cost at this time. Basically, scientists have been quite good about educating the scientific community about climate change in general and sharing data with each other, but they need to do a better job of turning that data into policy recommendations and proposals that appeal to politicians. I just want to point out that even though you're correct that scientists aren't inherently hard to understand, they haven't been doing a great job making their case to world leaders. | ||
|
HowardRoark
1146 Posts
On December 13 2011 07:08 dabbeljuh wrote: I have also encountered many non-experts who are challenged by the denialists propaganda that is propelled by professional PR institutions, backed up with a lot of money. While I cannot counter that, here is my proposition: To the OP: You sound more like a politician than a scientist and your attitude against people who disagree with you feels a bit smug. You lose credibility when you use the term "denialist". Also, you use the term "Climate change" and not "man made climate change". I doubt anyone _deny_ that climate do change. Science must be based on scientific method and nothing else. Mann sum up everything that is rotten with climate science: instead of doing unbiased science he went political, and his main aim seemed to be to denigrate his "opponents". Science should and MUST speak for itself, and when people like you start to use derogatory names on people questioning your science you should instead be happy and strive to better the science and not bend the facts or start hinting vaguely at people "backed up with a lot of money or being propelled by professional PR institutions". The science should be able to speak for itself. I am thinking about the Einstein-Bohr debates, and realize something have gone terribly wrong with today's "science" and especially climate science when every climate scientist sound like a politician instead of a scientist. I feel Freeman Dyson sum it up well: "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." Would you say Dyson is a denialist backed up by the oil corporations and the powerful PR institutions as well? Somehow I feel the climate scientists themselves are the biggest obstacle in enlightening people in anthropogenic climate change. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On August 19 2013 00:11 Prog455 wrote: I am not all that much into it, but as far as i can tell there is no such thing as global warming. The right name is climate changes, because while we are indeed (at least in Europe) breaking the heat record almost every summer, we are also having the coldest winters. I just googled "coldest" and "warmest" and in Denmark we had the coldest May and April in 17 years and the warmest August in 12 years. In regards to volatile weather you just need to turn in the TV to see what is going on around the world. Another reason that climate changes is a better name than global warming, if because we don't know how the changes is going to affect us. As you may know the weather is heavily influenced by sea currents, but if the temperature changes we don't know how this is going to affect sea currents, and therefor don't know how it is going to affect the weather. Another thing to keep in mind is that even small temperature changes may be a tipping point. Right now a big concern is that the Siberian tundra is melting. The problem is that there is currently a lot of methane hidden under the tundra that will cause even bigger changes if it is released into the atmosphere. DISCLAIMER: I am by no means an expert on this subject so take everything i say with a grain of salt. It is called global warming because the global mean surface temperature is increasing. This has been verified by thousands of temperature stations around the world. However the repercussions of this is predicted to be bigger differences in climate, causing climate change. Scientists believe that the recent changes in climate further strengthen this argument. So in actual fact both is happening, but both terms refer to different phenomenon. The irony in your suggestion and many others who have made similar statements is that anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is much much easier to prove, while anthropogenic climate change is much harder to prove and can never be a 100% conclusive link despite all the evidence. The funniest part about the whole debate is that sceptics are trying to refute the global warming argument rather than the climate change argument. Just look at all the retarded "global cooling" graphs, and nonsensical reasons to global warming articles. I have yet to see one on climate change. Refuting global warming is like trying to tell people that gravity no longer exists. You can't fake the stats of 10,000 temperature stations around the globe pumping out gigabytes of data, not even viable for a conspiracy theorist, especially when you can just get the data manually yourself. The models (http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings) clearly indicate the earth is warming, and if you tie that to the amount of CO2 released in the atmosphere over the same timespan you'd have to brainwash yourself into thinking that there was no correlation. Unless you are so retarded at seeing correlations, that if someone gave you a children's toy, you'd still try to fit the square block into the circle hole. Any 12 year old could link the increases in global mean temperature with CO2 emissions as a school science project. Both graphs look almost identical, just the temperature increase is lagged by a few years and both are pretty much flat prior to mass manufacturing. If sceptics were smart, they would try to refute climate change, not global warming. The fact that they don't means that there is obviously a hidden agenda. | ||
|
stroggozzz
New Zealand81 Posts
On August 19 2013 12:58 HowardRoark wrote: To the OP: You sound more like a politician than a scientist and your attitude against people who disagree with you feels a bit smug. You lose credibility when you use the term "denialist". Also, you use the term "Climate change" and not "man made climate change". I doubt anyone _deny_ that climate do change. Science must be based on scientific method and nothing else. Mann sum up everything that is rotten with climate science: instead of doing unbiased science he went political, and his main aim seemed to be to denigrate his "opponents". Science should and MUST speak for itself, and when people like you start to use derogatory names on people questioning your science you should instead be happy and strive to better the science and not bend the facts or start hinting vaguely at people "backed up with a lot of money or being propelled by professional PR institutions". The science should be able to speak for itself. I am thinking about the Einstein-Bohr debates, and realize something have gone terribly wrong with today's "science" and especially climate science when every climate scientist sound like a politician instead of a scientist. I feel Freeman Dyson sum it up well: "My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have." Would you say Dyson is a denialist backed up by the oil corporations and the powerful PR institutions as well? Somehow I feel the climate scientists themselves are the biggest obstacle in enlightening people in anthropogenic climate change. The denialists call themselves denialists. There is nothing derogatory or smug about the OP that i can see. He is trying to educate people on a very serious issue, and in my view that's a very constructive thing to do for society. As far as the Dyson quote is concerned it seems completely ridiculous to me to suggest that climatologists aren't welcoming criticism. Climate change denalists should be deserving of far more criticism because they are wrong. For example I would criticize someone much more if they went around claiming 2+2=3, than someone that claimed 2+2=4. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
Maestros of the Game
BSL Team Wars
Afreeca Starleague
Snow vs Sharp
Jaedong vs Mini
Wardi Open
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
LiuLi Cup
The PondCast
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
