Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Ah, but if such company were in cahoots with other companies and they tracked your use of credit cards, buying, etc., along with other non-internet data, they might score you on your avoidance of using social media and the internet too. They might hit you with a negative score for being per their model "antisocial."
    That's what I meant with my last remark there, I have actually had the question asked…

    "Why don't you have a GPS car, a internet connected phone, Or a FB account …. Do you have something to hide ?"

    Luckily I work in a branch where *everyone* has something to hide, and they pay for it even


    I fear an average Chinese farmer can't explain it away so quickly...sadly.

    Doesn't matter if you have plenty of wealth and pay in cash,
    Cash is under pressure too, there are already serious limits on what you can buy and pay professionally at least.
    Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      Cash is under pressure too, there are already serious limits on what you can buy and pay professionally at least.
      Banks are required by Federal Law to report all transactions that involve $10,000 or more, or consistent series of deposits or withdrawals that add up to that threshold amount in a short period of time including those involving several banks. This is especially troublesome to those in the medical marijuana business where FDIC insured banks will not handle accounts of such a business or that of an individual in that business due to the fear of the RICO laws.
      https://finance.zacks.com/federal-ba...cash-1696.html
      “Breaking News,”

      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

      Comment


      • So ... about the "publish or perish" and "peer review" matters, here' an interesting and lengthy article addressing some shortcomings therein. Admittedly may be a bit long and hard for some to follow, but others may see how it cracks the lid of a "Pandora's Box" of sorts ...

        Nick Brown Smelled Bull

        A plucky amateur dared to question a celebrated psychological finding. He wound up blowing the whole theory wide open.
        ...
        It was autumn of 2011. Sitting in a dimly lit London classroom, taking notes from a teacher’s slides, Nick Brown could not believe his eyes.

        By training a computers man, the then-fifty-year-old Brit was looking to beef up his people skills, and had enrolled in a part-time course in applied positive psychology at the University of East London. “Evidence-based stuff” is how the field of “positive human functioning” had been explained to him—scientific and rigorous.

        So then what was this? A butterfly graph, the calling card of chaos theory mathematics, purporting to show the tipping point upon which individuals and groups “flourish” or “languish.” Not a metaphor, no poetic allusion, but an exact ratio: 2.9013 positive to 1 negative emotions. Cultivate a “positivity ratio” of greater than 2.9-to-1 and sail smoothly through life; fall below it, and sink like a stone.

        The theory was well credentialed. Now cited in academic journals over 350 times, it was first put forth in a 2005 paper by Barbara Fredrickson, a luminary of the positive psychology movement, and Marcial Losada, a Chilean management consultant, and published in the American Psychologist, the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the largest organization of psychologists in the U.S.

        But Brown smelled bullshit. A universal constant predicting success and fulfillment, failure and discontent? “In what world could this be true?” he wondered.

        When class was over, he tapped the shoulder of a schoolmate he knew had a background in natural sciences, but the man only shrugged.

        “I just got a bee in my bonnet,” Brown says.

        ***

        Before enrolling in the positive psychology program at the University of East London, Brown had been in a self-described “rut.”

        The married father of two had graduated from Cambridge University in 1981 with a degree in computer science, and spent most of his career as an IT networks operator at an international organization in Strasbourg, France.


        After nearly twenty years in the position, stretched thin between technical duties and managerial headaches, he was looking for something new. So he jumped at the chance to transfer into human resources when it presented itself. The move didn’t deliver the change he was expecting, however. Still operating in a large bureaucracy—the same organization, in fact—Brown was now tasked with promoting staff welfare. But he had “little leeway to make decisions,” and was constantly signing off on stuff he “thought was just plain wrong.” Adding insult to injury, when charged with renewing his company’s suppliers list for training and coaching materials, he wound up interacting with “nuts” and “charlatans,” people who listed reiki and crystal healing among their interests, or resorted to “hand-waving” when selling their wares.

        He was fed up. Coming up on fifty, his mother ailing, “the general BS, the constant, not particularly high, but nonstop level of moderate dishonesty,” was beginning to wear on him.

        Then one day in November 2010, Brown happened to find himself at a Manchester conference attending a talk by popular British psychologist Richard Wiseman, who had written a book called The Luck Factor.
        ...
        https://getpocket.com/explore/item/n...=pocket-newtab

        Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          So ... about the "publish or perish" and "peer review" matters, here' an interesting and lengthy article addressing some shortcomings therein. Admittedly may be a bit long and hard for some to follow, but others may see how it cracks the lid of a "Pandora's Box" of sorts ...

          Nick Brown Smelled Bull

          A plucky amateur dared to question a celebrated psychological finding. He wound up blowing the whole theory wide open.
          ...
          It was autumn of 2011. Sitting in a dimly lit London classroom, taking notes from a teacher’s slides, Nick Brown could not believe his eyes.

          By training a computers man, the then-fifty-year-old Brit was looking to beef up his people skills, and had enrolled in a part-time course in applied positive psychology at the University of East London. “Evidence-based stuff” is how the field of “positive human functioning” had been explained to him—scientific and rigorous.

          So then what was this? A butterfly graph, the calling card of chaos theory mathematics, purporting to show the tipping point upon which individuals and groups “flourish” or “languish.” Not a metaphor, no poetic allusion, but an exact ratio: 2.9013 positive to 1 negative emotions. Cultivate a “positivity ratio” of greater than 2.9-to-1 and sail smoothly through life; fall below it, and sink like a stone.

          The theory was well credentialed. Now cited in academic journals over 350 times, it was first put forth in a 2005 paper by Barbara Fredrickson, a luminary of the positive psychology movement, and Marcial Losada, a Chilean management consultant, and published in the American Psychologist, the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the largest organization of psychologists in the U.S.

          But Brown smelled bullshit. A universal constant predicting success and fulfillment, failure and discontent? “In what world could this be true?” he wondered.

          When class was over, he tapped the shoulder of a schoolmate he knew had a background in natural sciences, but the man only shrugged.

          “I just got a bee in my bonnet,” Brown says.

          ***

          Before enrolling in the positive psychology program at the University of East London, Brown had been in a self-described “rut.”

          The married father of two had graduated from Cambridge University in 1981 with a degree in computer science, and spent most of his career as an IT networks operator at an international organization in Strasbourg, France.


          After nearly twenty years in the position, stretched thin between technical duties and managerial headaches, he was looking for something new. So he jumped at the chance to transfer into human resources when it presented itself. The move didn’t deliver the change he was expecting, however. Still operating in a large bureaucracy—the same organization, in fact—Brown was now tasked with promoting staff welfare. But he had “little leeway to make decisions,” and was constantly signing off on stuff he “thought was just plain wrong.” Adding insult to injury, when charged with renewing his company’s suppliers list for training and coaching materials, he wound up interacting with “nuts” and “charlatans,” people who listed reiki and crystal healing among their interests, or resorted to “hand-waving” when selling their wares.

          He was fed up. Coming up on fifty, his mother ailing, “the general BS, the constant, not particularly high, but nonstop level of moderate dishonesty,” was beginning to wear on him.

          Then one day in November 2010, Brown happened to find himself at a Manchester conference attending a talk by popular British psychologist Richard Wiseman, who had written a book called The Luck Factor.
          ...
          https://getpocket.com/explore/item/n...=pocket-newtab
          I actually read your crap link. Getpocket still remains a crap source of info.

          Disprove this NASA link and i will be impressed.

          https://climate.nasa.gov/
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

            I actually read your crap link. Getpocket still remains a crap source of info.

            Disprove this NASA link and i will be impressed.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/
            I doubt you understood what you read, nor it seems picked up on this detail;
            " This article was originally published on October 17, 2013, by Narratively, and is republished here with permission. "

            NASA has to prove to me, not the other way around.
            You are too much a confirmed fanatic believer to be impressed by anything that counters your religion, track record establishes that.

            Comment


            • Next week's Arctic blast will be so cold, forecasters expect it to break 170 records across US

              ...
              This week's cold snap is only an appetizer compared with the main Arctic blast that's coming next week, meteorologists said. That freeze could be one for the record books.

              "The National Weather Service is forecasting 170 potential daily record cold high temperatures Monday to Wednesday,” tweeted Weather Channel meteorologist Jonathan Erdman. "A little taste of January in November."

              The temperature nosedive will be a three-day process as a cold front charges across the central and eastern U.S. from Sunday into Tuesday.

              The front will plunge quickly through the northern Plains and upper Midwest Sunday, into the southern Plains and Ohio Valley Monday, then through most of the East Coast and Deep South by Tuesday, the Weather Channel said.
              ...
              High temperatures on Monday may be stuck in the teens and 20s in the Midwest and around the Great Lakes. It could be the coldest Veterans Day on record in cities such as Chicago and Minneapolis, according to the Weather Channel.
              ...
              https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...L&ocid=msnbcrd

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ace View Post

                Yes, some of the predictions have been wrong but no area's been accumulate 100% and any good scientist will admit it. The fact is that we have seen more unstable and aggressive weather changes in the past years that is a bit worrying. Plus I don't see any harm in helping the environment anyways, it doesn't hurt to help make a better world.

                I've said my peace...
                Very good. That's how I feel.
                "Advances in technology tend to overwhelm me."

                Comment


                • It isn't that the models have been wrong it's that they have been consistently wrong in one direction for decades. That most likely points to a flaw in the least understood aspect, the positive feedback loop. That doesn't mean that runaway warming will not happen but it does imply that we can't say it would not happen independent of human activity.

                  Because the models have been so bad at prediction the responsible thing to do is back up and reconfigure the research effort to determine background temperatures. We have focused so much effort on the role of co2 that actual climate science has advanced at a snails pace. That may have been justified when the threat of runaway warming seemed plausible but the lower than expected temperature give us a bit of breathing room.
                  We hunt the hunters

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                    It isn't that the models have been wrong it's that they have been consistently wrong in one direction for decades. That most likely points to a flaw in the least understood aspect, the positive feedback loop. That doesn't mean that runaway warming will not happen but it does imply that we can't say it would not happen independent of human activity.

                    Because the models have been so bad at prediction the responsible thing to do is back up and reconfigure the research effort to determine background temperatures. We have focused so much effort on the role of co2 that actual climate science has advanced at a snails pace. That may have been justified when the threat of runaway warming seemed plausible but the lower than expected temperature give us a bit of breathing room.
                    The problem with the modelling is that those making them assume correlation equals causation in a complex system where they can't begin to eliminate all the variables. That is, the anthropogenic CO2 is the cause has become gospel much like the Earth is the center of the universe was centuries ago. We simply don't know enough about the planetary environment to eliminate other potential causes for sure. I trot out jet contrails as one. Climate researchers weren't even looking at these as a potential cause until 9/11 suddenly gave the NOAA solid data on what happens when you have none over the US for a week. Now it's taken seriously as a potential cause, although some true believers are trying as hard as they can to deny it, much like the Earth is the center of the universe believers did. After all, it challenges their core beliefs of a lifetime. That can be hard to swallow for some.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      The problem with the modelling is that those making them assume correlation equals causation in a complex system where they can't begin to eliminate all the variables. That is, the anthropogenic CO2 is the cause has become gospel much like the Earth is the center of the universe was centuries ago. We simply don't know enough about the planetary environment to eliminate other potential causes for sure. I trot out jet contrails as one. Climate researchers weren't even looking at these as a potential cause until 9/11 suddenly gave the NOAA solid data on what happens when you have none over the US for a week. Now it's taken seriously as a potential cause, although some true believers are trying as hard as they can to deny it, much like the Earth is the center of the universe believers did. After all, it challenges their core beliefs of a lifetime. That can be hard to swallow for some.
                      I don't think there is much doubt that co2 causes some warming so it was never unreasonable to study it's effect and to even hypothesize that it was the main culprit. That contrails may be an additional factor just points to the complexity that the researchers acknowledge at least to some degree.. The problem I was addressing is that we set up a research system that was paid to primarily research the effects of co2 and that is what it did.

                      Ignoring the corruption that is part of any human endeavor it was the design of the research that from the beginning was fatal. Since the consequences were presumed to be so dire insufficient time was allocated to the planning process and no provisions were made for generating or studying alternative hypothesis or establishing a temperature bench mark. Even worse entrenched bureaucrats were directing the process who had political motivations and were answering to an even more distorted bureaucracy at the UN. There is very little transparency in any of these organizations so the normal scientific process was cut off at it's knees.

                      We need to completely reorganize the research effort making it entirely transparent and open it up to non governmental players.

                      We hunt the hunters

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        . I trot out jet contrails as one Climate researchers weren't even looking at these as a potential cause until 9/11 suddenly gave the NOAA solid data on what happens when you have none over the US for a week.
                        Link for Climate research paper dated 1998.....

                        5 second google search that any 6 year old could do.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                          Link for Climate research paper dated 1998.....

                          5 second google search that any 6 year old could do.
                          NASA says contrails are a possible cause:

                          https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley...04/04-140.html

                          The NOAA says contrails effect climate:

                          https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/...itions-surface

                          And it's getting more attention finally:

                          https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...et-ncna1034521

                          http://sustainableskies.org/contrail...limate-change/

                          https://weather.com/science/environm...global-warming

                          https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cts-of-contra/

                          Comment



                          • Not my point learn how to read, my post was less than 20 words and you still manage to screw it up......

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jutland View Post


                              Not my point learn how to read, my post was less than 20 words and you still manage to screw it up......
                              Thank you for the gratuitous ad hominem.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jutland View Post

                                Link for Climate research paper dated 1998.....

                                5 second google search that any 6 year old could do.
                                The link you DID provide is to the main/home page of Nature and using their search tab with the phrase highlighted in red above one gets this to work from;
                                "Showing 1–50 of 401 results"

                                So which of those 401 are you referring?
                                Or do we have to wait for you to have your sixth year birthday to be more precise and specific?
                                Last edited by G David Bock; 09 Nov 19, 11:30.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X