Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 07:56 AM CDT

Quote by: RochaMalhada Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: MotherofMeursault From the beginning my questions have been: What is to be done? and What is the mechanism by which it will be done? These are political considerations, not scientific ones. Do you accept the scientific facts? As in, what 97% of climate scientists completely agree on? Because most climate deniers do not agree on the science. Victor. That is not even an answer to the questions, Victor They've been asked so many times in here, I gather by your silence and attempts to divert the point of focus that there is no answer.

I'm not answering those questions because they are not the right ones.

Look, how can I say something about what is to be done if we have no agreement about the problem to be addressed?

Just to stereotype the discussion: If I think that climate change will wipe Bangladesh off the map in 20 years and New York and Miami in 40, then I may feel justified in advocating strong measures. If you think that the only effect is that we can start growing grain on the south pole then no such measures are needed. So then you see me advocating measures that you think are unnecessary and so you accuse me of ideological reasons. And then we get into an ideological discussion while we should be discussing basic science.

This is the last time I'm saying this: you guys are skipping a step.

Victor.

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 08:57 AM CDT

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html

Some more science. Johnson is a physicist it seems.
I'm in Key West, gonna be off the grid for awhile, got to enjoy the
place while it's above water...

Daug

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:29 AM CDT

Quote by: Daugrin http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html Some more science. Johnson is a physicist it seems.

Yes, this is indeed written like a scientific article....

Anyway, last updated 2005, and probably based on ideas that predate that by some years. We've learned things since then.

Johns*t*on seems to assume some uniform melting. This is not the case. There are some scary tipping points.

Arbitary link-because-I-have-no-time-to-do-your-googling:http://planet3.org/2012/04/30/witnessing-a-glaciers-race-to-the-sea/

Look, you seem to grasp at every tidbit that supports your preconceived notions. Why is a badly reasoned, or at least grossly out of date, web page (I see no evidence that the guy actually published this in peer-reviewed literature) so much more convincing to you than the scientific literature, where people actually have to stand up to serious scrutiny?

Victor.

EDIT much better link:http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527444.500-major-antarctic-glacier-is-past-its-tipping-point.html
What is happening is that glaciers do not melt uniformly: they melt partly from below, developing a "water slide" that dunks them straight into the ocean. We have only recently realized that this sort of thing can happen, and we don't understand all the mechanisms, but it's fairly scary.

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 09:54 AM CDT

If we spent half as much time getting to know one another as we do convincing each other we are right and they are wrong - we'd be in a much better position to do something - anything.

This polarity is exactly what maintains the status quo - which these days is quite cancerous. As radical as two people of strong conviction believe themselves to be - they are actually creating a world neither of them wants to live in by protecting their turf.

I could be completely wrong about this.

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:06 AM CDT

Quote by: bud If we spent half as much time getting to know one another as we do convincing each other

You may have a point. I've met one of our misguided friends ;-) in person and over beer, and my view of him is now positively coloured by the memory of that meeting.

Not sure how to turn that into a scalable strategy though.

Anyway, any MJer coming through Austin will be happily treated to beer and food of choice.

Victor.

* Post Removed *
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:18 AM CDT

* This message has been removed *

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 11:47 AM CDT

Quote by: VicDiesel Quote by: bud If we spent half as much time getting to know one another as we do convincing each other You may have a point. I've met one of our misguided friends ;-) in person and over beer, and my view of him is now positively coloured by the memory of that meeting. Not sure how to turn that into a scalable strategy though. Anyway, any MJer coming through Austin will be happily treated to beer and food of choice. Victor.

If the scalable strategy is to get what we want and believe that this is right and best for all - then it takes a lot of patience. First we have to define our common ground and expand out from there. The more compassionate we are with each other the better our chances are of convincing each other of anything. Everyone fears change - some just fear it more than others.

I realize this sounds like dumb hippie shit - but it's what I believe.

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 12:52 PM CDT

Quote by: Daugrin gonna be off the grid for awhile.

bye

Re:Warm isn't it?
Friday, July 20 2012 @ 10:43 PM CDT

I have yet to read this in detail, but the timeliness of the article seemed apropos:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Re:Warm isn't it?
Saturday, July 21 2012 @ 07:57 AM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi I have yet to read this in detail, but the timeliness of the article seemed apropos: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719 Global Warming's Terrifying New Math Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe - and that make clear who the real enemy is By Bill McKibben July 19, 2012 9:35 AM ET If the pictures of those towering wildfires in Colorado haven't convinced you, or the size of your AC bill this summer, here are some hard numbers about climate change: June broke or tied 3,215 high-temperature records across the United States. That followed the warmest May on record for the Northern Hemisphere – the 327th consecutive month in which the temperature of the entire globe exceeded the 20th-century average, the odds of which occurring by simple chance were 3.7 x 10-99, a number considerably larger than the number of stars in the universe. continued...

Invoking the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"...

Question: Why is this journalist being quoted as an expert?

He has no degree in science of any type, except for "honorary degrees." He's a popular journalist, one who has been at the forefront of the global warming movement. I'm sure he considers his agenda to be correct, but it is an agenda nonetheless.

I thought only science was to be entertained (according to our resident expert), and not opinions from people without the right kind of science degree (let alone no science degree). At least that is what I have been hearing. I'm just trying to understand the ground rules...

From his bio on his website:

Time Magazine called him 'the planet's best green journalist' and the Boston Globe said in 2010 that he was 'probably the country's most important environmentalist.' Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, he holds honorary degrees from a dozen colleges, including the Universities of Massachusetts and Maine, the State University of New York, and Whittier and Colgate Colleges. In 2011 he was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

But I suppose his accepted view does validate his "bonafides"...

back to our regularly scheduled programming...