S
Stephen Timmis
As you say... HAPPY NEW YEAR!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-..._4499119.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-..._4499119.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics
The USA and Europe are comparable in size, but Europe has over twice the population and is culturally far more diverse. What annoys me a little is the propensity of Americans to interpret everything through the lens of their myopic division of the World into Democrats and Republicans. There are far more shades in Europe. I'm a Brit, right? We think differently from Americans, just as we do from the French, Germans, Italians, Scandinavians, Spanish and all the rest.
My views on the global warming issue have nothing to do with my political views, which can't be categorised as right or left. For the most part, I think politics stinks and my opinions of politicians of all stripes is extremely poor. Global warming is, or should be, a scientific issue, but most politicians aren't scientifically educated, so are easily led by the nose by green activists because they want to look good. They'll let it drop like a ton of bricks as soon as some semblance of sanity returns. There are signs this is starting to happen.
Americans should stop with the cultural imperialism and the projection. The world just around the corner will belong to the emerging nations, who won't be giving up their chance for industrial and economic development because of a Western fad.
I can't tell if this is more sexist, Marxist, or atheist, but whichever it is, it shows quite a lot of built in prejudice. Regarding your comment to Enrique, please curtail your desire to write remarks of that nature.
Speaking of the assumptions you've made, you might consider me to be a bit of an anomaly then because, demographically speaking, I don't match your expectations at all. I am a white male from Minnesota, a vegan, artist, former resident of Hollywood and New York who worked in entertainment and media, currently live in a socialist country (the Netherlands), do not have a car, had long hair and am good at Yoga. However, I am a conservative (or to be pejorative, a "right-winger"), do not buy the idea of climate change based on the flaws I've seen in the model, I do accept the reality of paranormal experience, do believe in God (though not as strictly represented by come religious doctrines) but do not go to church.
In my PhD-related work I have found that it is very difficult to make behavioural predictions based on demographic data except in very narrow contexts.
AP
I can't tell if this is more sexist, Marxist, or atheist, but whichever it is, it shows quite a lot of built in prejudice. Regarding your comment to Enrique, please curtail your desire to write remarks of that nature.
Speaking of the assumptions you've made, you might consider me to be a bit of an anomaly then because, demographically speaking, I don't match your expectations at all. I am a white male from Minnesota, a vegan, artist, former resident of Hollywood and New York who worked in entertainment and media, currently live in a socialist country (the Netherlands), do not have a car, had long hair and am good at Yoga. However, I am a conservative (or to be pejorative, a "right-winger"), do not buy the idea of climate change based on the flaws I've seen in the model, I do accept the reality of paranormal experience, do believe in God (though not as strictly represented by come religious doctrines) but do not go to church.
In my PhD-related work I have found that it is very difficult to make behavioural predictions based on demographic data except in very narrow contexts.
AP
As to the action/non-action... again, I agree, there seems to be a lot to sort out. I was just listening to an excellent interview on Rick's BATGAP show and the guy related a story about how his guru ran this one guy ragged with chores around the ashram. The guy complied without complaint, but wondered if he would progress given that he never had time to meditate. finally, after six year, his master said, you're done... you're karma has been burned off. he then went on to achieve success very quickly.
Beyond your important point, Alex, of being careful to equate certain policies with the more "spiritually enlightened" attitude, I think I also appreciate Rick's point of view, which unless I'm wrong is something like: a properly detached Buddhist (or generally spiritual) viewpoint does not preclude action in the world. I was reminded of something either Joseph Campbell wrote or said, or maybe the religious studies author Karen Armstrong, about Chinese or Japanese warriors who would have a metaphysical perspective where they realize it's all a cosmic "game" and within that see their opponent as an extension of themselves (the oneness) but nevertheless within that field of action act.
I do remember something similar in this passage of Campbell in the Power of Myth series that always stayed with me (especially when already pretty young I would espouse a more metaphysical perspective and be attacked for "political incorrectness" because of it). Campbell is describing a metaphysical attitude that says that the the universe and existence is joyful, it can be affirmed, even with all its horror (a more Eastern outlook), and then Bill Moyers says that if you accept that, then what's the point of doing anything - forming laws, fighting battles, etc.? And Campbell said:
That is not the necessary conclusion to draw. You could say, "I will participate in this life, I will join the army, I will go to war", and so forth... "I will participate in the game"... Heraclitus said that for God all things are good and right and just, but for man some things are right and others are not. When you are a man, you are in the field of time and decisions. One of the problems of life is to live with the realization of both terms, to say, "I know the center, and I know that good and evil are simply temporal aberrations and all that, in God's view, there is no difference."...
So Jesus says, "Judge not that you may not be judged". That is to say, put yourself back in the position of Paradise before you thought in terms of good and evil... There are two aspects to a thing of this kind. One is your judgment in the field of action, and the other is your judgment as a metaphysical observer. You can't say that there shouldn't be poisonous serpents - that's the way life is. But in the field of action, if you see a poisonous serpent about to bite somebody, you kill it. That's not saying no to the serpent, that's saying no to the situation. (Power of Myth, p. 65-66)
I could also so interpret Paul's saying: "to be in the world but not of it". To (try to) identify with the transcendent viewpoint, while living and acting in the world of duality.
What that says about CAGW I don't know. :D
I don't know off hand if you think there is evidence for ψ or not, but if you do, you must realise that you are going against the accepted wisdom of science (trotted out over and over again).Sorry to be blunt, but I can only hope that if Skeptiko continues to post on global warming Alex will invite some of the vast majority of professional climate scientists who believe that global warming is real and serious rather than cherry-picking from the very small minority who disagree (and who often receive their funding from political and economic interests hostile to the implications of global warming). Otherwise, Skeptiko will have jumped the shark into pseudoscience by denying vast amounts of inconvenient scientific evidence.
I don't know off hand if you think there is evidence for ψ or not, but if you do, you must realise that you are going against the accepted wisdom of science (trotted out over and over again).
Like me, you probably look at all the evidence for various ψ phenomena and wonder why science can be so blind.
I see huge amounts of evidence that Global Warming was wrong - in particular - the predictions for global temperature showed an ever rising curve - based on increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, but the reality has been flat for about 17 years! Flat - no warming at all! What did the climate scientists do about that? They came up with an hypothesis that the warmth had stopped going into the atmosphere and was instead going into the deep oceans, whose heat capacity means that it is impossible to measure! They also - and this was a clever trick - changed the name of the problem from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so that they could blame any freak weather on the dreaded CO2!
Imagine if Alex simply interviewed conventional neuro-scientists and psychologists about ψ - just how much information would we glean from that? Most scientists are like most people - if there are parts of their story that are really weak, they try to avoid discussing those aspects. Of course, a few very able scientists, such as Freeman Dyson, feel more able to discuss the tricky issues, and you might want to explore what he has written about Global Warming.
I'd rather Alex didn't pursue this further because it is very off-topic, but if he does, I suggest he interview the climatologist Judith Curry, or the statistician, Steve McIntyre, or Anthony Watts - a meteorologist and then interview a mainstream climate scientist and pushes them to answer the tough questions.
I am still a pretty green person, and it really hurts me to see how green ideas have been perverted in this way, so that serious issues such as the loss of rain forest are sidelined in favor of a non-issue whose ultimate purpose seems to be to make a lot of rich people much richer at the expense of the poor. Do you think the energy companies in Britain mind being forced to sell an expensive luxury product rather than cheap power? Of course they don't! Do you think the poor have the money to pay for luxury electricity - of course they don't!
David
I have asked to have my account deleted, but they have not obliged... So...
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...esumed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/golden-toad
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/baiji-dolphin
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/hawaiian-crow
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/pyrenean-ibex
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...esumed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/spixs-macaw
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...d-extinct-in-the-last-decade/liverpool-pigeon
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...t-in-the-last-decade/west-african-black-rhino
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...t-in-the-last-decade/black-faced-honeycreeper
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...umed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/alaotra-grebe
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...ed-extinct-in-the-last-decade/holdridges-toad
http://listverse.com/2009/07/25/10-recently-extinct-animals/
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/recently-extinct-animals-list-470209#slide-1
http://www.buzzfeed.com/katienotopoulos/17-animals-that-became-extinct-in-our-lifetime
As you say - Not hard at all
1. Golden toad: reportedly extinct: probable cause: chytrid fungus from introduced West African clawed frog.I am not referring to “almost extinct,” “on the brink of extinction,” or “reportedly extinct.” I am discussing the actual extinction of species as confirmed by the relevant authorities.
This is a genuine question, how many of the deniers have spent as much time looking at the mainstream climate change science as they have the debunking sites?
I think you have it wrong. Few climate scientists will openly stand up and challenge the so-called consensus, but that's because they're spineless cowards and want to ensure the continuation of funding. It's a situation that applies in other fields, too. If you read AR5, it is full of caveats and surprisingly tentative. What happens is that the report for policymakers is crafted and controlled by the politicos and, not to put too fine a point on it, lies through its teeth, often saying the reverse of what the scientists are claiming.Sorry to be blunt, but I can only hope that if Skeptiko continues to post on global warming Alex will invite some of the vast majority of professional climate scientists who believe that global warming is real and serious rather than cherry-picking from the very small minority who disagree (and who often receive their funding from political and economic interests hostile to the implications of global warming). Otherwise, Skeptiko will have jumped the shark into pseudoscience by denying vast amounts of inconvenient scientific evidence.
Please be specific: what is it you think I am denying? Has the world warmed by about 0.8 deg. C since the mid-19th century? Yes. Is CO2 a so-called greenhouse gas? Yes. So what am I denying, exactly?
My questions are relevant, and are asked at the highest levels in academia
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...e-white-maes-are-more-likely-climate-skeptics
Few climate scientists will openly stand up and challenge the so-called consensus, but that's because they're spineless cowards and want to ensure the continuation of funding.
It IS some sort of a weird cult, the way they deny or distort empirical evidence. it's cold as hell, it's getting progressively colder, still, they deny all that a grosso modo. The dude who is sitting in his ship, trapped in the ice whose existence he is denying, tweeted yesterday "it's so warm it's raining"…. Amazing…. http://www.foxnews.com/weather/2014/01/02/storm-may-bring-up-to-foot-snow-in-northeast/
The link I gave proved no such thing. It showed recovery in the Arctic and expansion in the Antarctic. Nor do I deny that some species are in danger and a few may have gone extinct. I challenge the opinion that there is a "mass extinction event" that is caused by anthropogenic global warming. Much more of an issue in extinctions are other anthropogenic influences like the introduction of foreign species, poaching, forest clearance and genuine causes of pollution. I'm a strong environmentalist: I just don't believe that AGW is a serious issue because the evidence varies from tenuous to fraudulent. While we focus on AGW, genuine anthropogenic issues are being ignored and in some cases exacerbated.I was talking in a more general case. The only things I have to go on regarding your opinion is what you have denied in this thread, such as the arctic ice disappearing (where the link you gave me actually confirmed that it was). You are also denying that we are living in a mass extinction phase. Only the other day I heard a scientist who specializes in this area confirming this. He was nothing to do with climate science btw.
The thing that I find compelling is that so many scientists who study nature are seeing radical changes. They are nothing to do with climate science, so I suspect they are not biased either way, they are just reporting on what they find.