We have to plant 100,000 trees to offset the effects of Live Earth...

Be positive as you give good and much happiness as you make a better world for everybody and do something so we can see it from google earth for the next 40 years

 

Sorry anions... I cut down a tree only a little while ago for pure pleasure - and exercise and the fireplace...

But still, mostly for pleasure!

If you add the tree I taught my oldest son to cut down at the same time (it's a guy thing, cutting down your very first tree with an ax at the age of six), then I'm afraid you're back to 100.001 trees... Sorry

/miko67

PS: for the politically correctees who would otherwise swarm my rep-page in a matter of seconds I suppose I have to come clean and remind everybody that I planted around 500 trees in this very forest with my grandfather over 30 years ago, so I'm allowed!!!

 

I could have said singers, dancers, philosophers, poets, or cooks but yeah there was at least subconscious reference to you. It kind of bothers me (with an engineering (non-speculative science) degree and a Masters degree focused on quantitative sciences) when those from non-scientific backgrounds or those from speculative sciences make scientific pontifications.

Please spare us your word of the day; "man made" works better than "anthropogenic" and it has a smaller carbon footprint. Please spare us your "heavy majority of scientific opinion" blah blah blah. "heavy majority of scientific opinion" are chasing research grant money and "heavy majority of scientific opinion" told Christopher Columbus he would sail off the edge of the earth. The heavy majority said Semmelweis was wrong for suggesting that obstetric doctors should wash their hands after morgue visits.

 

This is precisely my point, buddy. You don't know the first thing about me, but make assumptions and attack on a personal basis whenever the first whiff of a contrary view comes out. Because you are insecure.

Though my honors work (and abortive PhD study) from Berkeley was in political science, I spent a good many years lost in abulia; some many years spent in social science, and a fair time travelling the halls of the "hard sciences" as well - earning an unblemished record (in other words, 4.0) in chemistry (through physical), some basic physics, physiology, biology (through micro.), and some mechanical engineering. Some of that work went to good use in my erstwhile life as a professional brewer - and I still happen to simply enjoy quantitative methods. I spent a perfect summer only recently at U of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in two courses in statistics and quantitive analysis, again earning a 4.0 in each. (By the way, if anyone wants some great papers authored by yours truly on "implementing a bottle conditioned and cask ale regimen in the brewery," with a full treatment on QC protocols and microbiological and other assays, or a paper "On converting from the use of whole hops to isomerized hop extracts," let me know!).

Your childish rant is just that, and it shouldn't matter a whit what brownie points any of us earned in coursework - though I would wage my coursework, grades and honors earned therein all stand up just fine, relative to yours, methinks. Your egoism and tragically, myopically fascistic worldview of "hard" v. "speculative" sciences (a weak, and weakening division, anymore) lessens your credibility, though I doubt you'll see it. Holding to such distinctions, as you do, is simply an artificial safety net that says nothing about what we know, or how we think. Those of us with brains enough realized long ago that it was only after graduating that real learning takes place.

"Anthropogenic," I'm afraid, came out in discussion with my buddy Lorien, who used "anthromorphic," [sic] I think it was. I enjoy words, and as I am, I suppose, a bit of the schoolmarm, I used this in gentle counterpoint. Apologies - it appears I've frayed your tender panties over a word.

As to the "heavy majority" issue, can't help you there. I'm convinced, and glad for my conscious choice. Additionally, I borrow from the tradition of philosophers, too, who posit the creed that given that the possible stakes are higher than any of us would wish, I'm hedging my bets regardless. I notice you, and D16, hid from answering this question put to you earlier. Your choice, of course.

 

That's probably because it's analagous to saying, "don't go outside or a meteor will fall on you." If it were true, it woud be a reason not to go outside, but that has nothing to do with whether it's true or not. And there are other reasons for the powers that be to be promoting this. Again, follow the money.

 

I appreciate the reply, Briant. But I don't think that's an accurate or fair analogy. We're dealing in probabilities, as everything we're talking about are theories. If you are equating the likelihood that a meteor will fall on you or me with the likelihood the "man-made global warming" (Lorien's "anthromorphic global warming," "AGW") theory is correct, I'd say I'd have to disagree with you; based on the evidence I've seen, there is a higher probability that AGW holds water than I will get beaned by a meteor.

Given that, I again ask - at what level of probability do you hedge your bet, given the potential stakes?

With peace to Tbarr, D16, yourself, all others of like mind, at the end of the day, I must really admit a religious stance. I'm pretty much done with modernity and what we men have done with it. I'm growing content to go Thoreau, play with my son, write books, and live in another place - if only of mind and imagined worlds - since this one is too damned ugly.

Just don't piss in my pond.

 

It's hotter in Costa Rica. That's why I go to the beach as much as I can.

The fact of the matter is that also the proceeds of Live Aide Concert 20 years ago went to waste. Dictators of African nations didn't allow the food for the poor to enter the country and most went to waste.

Of course, you will never hear such thing in the news, especially when the liberals financially (sometimes indirectly thru the power of promotion) benefit from it.

 

Which one do you like better? morphic or genic? Anthropomorphic (formed by man) and anthropogenic (caused by man) both have merit. I think the second one actually works better. I've seen both commonly used, though. AGW is easier to type; that's for sure

It's really not fair. (As an aside, its hard to listen to knee-jerk reactionism on either side, when clearly not much thought has been put into the position.)

I've documented my problems with AGW for a while, on my blog and on here. At times I question my own beliefs, but more often than not I feel vindicated by recent findings in the climatology field. More and more scientists come out and say that the alarmists are exagerrating reality. Our understanding of climate history is wrong in many parts of the planet. Greenland most recently. While Al Gore is no expert on this; many of the claims he makes in his movie (that is forced to be shown to kids in schools now) have been proven incorrect or, at best, extremely misleading. Discovery Channel, on their "blue planet" series (which was great, overall, BTW) was very misleading in the episode on the glacial regions - the announcer said 90% of ice is in the arctic. When it's not. It's in the antarctic. Other factual issues abound in the discussion as well.

I think this is a pretty easy question to answer. If we take the IPCC report as the bible to global warming; worst case scenario is something like 30-55 cm of ocean rise over the next 100 years. In the near term, a theoretic global warming would actually increase vegetation and not be a bad thing.

And given that the poles/glaciers are not even responding to global warming as many models predicted; I think - at best - global warming is an issue that simply needs more study. The amount of good data we have - about 50-60 years - is not enough to judge the history of planet. Much of what we think we know is contradicted by ice core samples and rock cores as well. I don't think the 100 or so weather gauges we have on antarctica - compared to the thousands we have in europe or america - is enough to paint a good picture of what is going on.

Drastic action - I don't believe is needed - certain not economic destroying action as many people seem to push for. This is different from many 'moderates' on the issue that simply preach conservation, renewable energy etal. Those are the good things that arise from the discussion.

Science is not run by consensus, it is run by data, hypotheses and experimentation, don't you agree? 500 years ago, scientific consensus held that earth was the center of the universe. Less than 200 years ago, scientific consensus held that man did not evolve from apes. Consensus has a history of being wrong and misinterpreting data. Science is fluid, it changes as new data is discovered and interpeted. Recently, GW has a history of burying or altering contradictory data - which usually happens when politicians are included in the discussion.

 

Thanks for the grown up rant. So what degrees do you have?

 

Great, well reasoned post, Lorien, thank you. I will look more deeply at what you write. I absolutely agree science is based not on hypothesis, but data and rigorous theory. However, I am also not so sanguine that "data," any more than "history," is a pristine product, a diamond undersoil, merely waiting to be uncovered. Data mining is rampant, on all sides, in any scientific debate, and it behooves us all to be honorable when pursuing the discovery of nature. Additionally, at some point, we all rely on secondary evidence, since none of us are in the field. Hence, issues of authority must come into the fray. But as you, and Tbarr point out, "authority" itself has a tarnished history. I know you are an honorable person, and I always appreciate your intelligent, thoughtful posts.

I took your "anthromorphic" to be a typo, originally, for "anthropomorphic," then was confused by the usage - I derive "anthromorphic" to mean "in the form of man," as the suffix stem - morphos, from the Greek, is "in the form of" or "in the shape of," and is not an active verb. Again, I love language - no jest, do you have a source for your usage? I'd love to see it.

 

The problem I have with all this is that, as you know, they were trying to scare people about global cooling about 30 years ago. They say they have better models and data (e.g., from satellites) now, but, if you listen to what they say and their solutions, it sounds like money from you to them (e.g., carbon tax). It's not whether the earth is hotter or colder, it's whether it will be affected positively by their ideas. That I doubt. I suspect this is a natural cycle and spending trillions (again they would not be spending it--you would) is not something I would want to do based on their data. After the Iraq war and the Chinese food poisoning (if they really cared about safety, would they let uninspected Chinese food into the US?), it's a bit hard to take these people seriously.

 

Am I alone in wondering - does the man read? Didn't I cover this?

Apparently, writing is similarly a problem. Just a few from your blog on writing a resume:

.


How about literacy, for starters? Basics, brother. Basics.

 

You mentioned a bunch of classes and an "abortive PhD" attempt. So I was just wondering, do you have a BS, BA, MS, MA, MBA or ??

 

OK. Now, I said abortive PhD study, to be precise. Now, I know this really seems to be troubling you, so how about a game? At the very least, to enter into PhD study, would a "bunch of classes" have sufficed?

<<Sigh>>. B.A., distinction in scholarship, political science, UC Berkeley. 3.97 GPA. Equivalent of just under a degree, in units, in "hard sciences" on top of my (once and future chosen) social science degree. 4.0 in all the sciences, hard, soft, sort of squishy, you name it, along with flotsam and jetsam along the way - languages, medieval english history, the philosophy of science, you know - school, that precious time to be paid to think, until you have to think for real. One "B+," in, I think it was, German political development. Hence the 3.97. Accepted into the PhD program but a shitty divorce and the death of both parents, I freak, and go be an actor. Light speed ahead, 20 years, 4.0 in statistics and quantitative analysis, summer, 2005, U. of Michigan summer intensive in quantitative methods.

Now, again, in purple prose, my earlier point: Who fucking cares? This is what you want to hang your hat on, the name of the major on your degree? Weak, brother. Weak.

 

It's an interesting discussion happening here. If I can add my thoughts to it:

One of the constant reminders that the public gets every day about the green movement is how "all of us must do our part". Aside from educating the public about how to reduce, reuse and recycle, an individual won't have the sort of mass scale impact on the environment as the military, industrial or business sectors. Ask yourselves why the message has been delivered to the average citizen that the planet is in trouble and we have to all do something about it when you drive by every office building at night and see florescent lights burning inside all night long with no one there? The discussion about conserving gasoline has heated up again and alternatives are presented to the public about how we can take mass transit and carpool to get to our daily work, but has the military cut back on its petrol consumption? Do you know how many flights are flown each day across the United States military, how much fuel is consumed without the operators ever having to be concerned about the cost of it or the impact to the environment? The pressure is on us, the little man, when practically no pressure or criticism is being directed on the large impacters on the environment.

The green/environmental movement can be used to make money and distract people away from its true issues, just as the same strategy can be used for any other topic.

 

It's a good debate, to hear everyone's opinions.

Just about your view: " an individual won't have the sort of mass scale impact on the environment as the military, industrial or business sectors."

If we all do something small, it will make a big difference. I have the same view as you, that if I turn my computer off, it will have no effect on the main scale, but...

if I turn my computer off when I don't use it, forever, and thousands of other people do the same thing around the world, I'm sure it will have an effect. All the little things add up, with other people, over time.

 

In summary, you have an Bachelor of Arts degree, no Masters, no PhD. Got it.

 

So how do you feel about megacorporations or sectors of government with tens of thousands of employees that waste energy and materials? My point is that the majority of the PSAs and the message getting out is all about what you can do...where is the message to IBM, Exxon and government about ways to save energy? Over half of the energy bought for the military goes to the Air Force and three-quarters of that is oil/petrol. If we can do more so can they. Why doesn't Al Gore ever talk about how much oil is consumed by big business and the government/military?

 

I have worked for "mega corporations" (GM, United Technologies, Nissan) and they all attempt to use the minimum amount of energy and material to meet customer requirements and regulations. They are vastly more efficient with their resource than we consumers are.

You seem to be concerned about how much fuel the military uses. How big is their usage compared to all consumers? I am guessing it's less than 10% of we use and I wouldn't want a bunch of dead soldiers because their hybrid Jeep was too slow.

 

Gore knows that he will influence more people by aiming this at society and its citizens. The government is obviously not going to listen to an ex-vice president for many reasons. Private companies would have more interest, and today in business, companies are turning over to more environmental practices, because that is where consumers are aiming for.

The military is always going to be there, burning fuel, and stealing petrol. They are there to defend your country, and they are not going to risk using solar power to power their bases - that is obvious.

We are more influenced by Gore than the government/military, and it is up to us as we can change more than them.