I have recently become aware of two camps of thought with regard to global warming/climate change, niether one relating to religion vs science. On one side is the internationally recognized theory of rapid devastating change and on the other a token uncertainty of the actual changes occuring in terms of what effects we may be facing and how quickly they will emerge.
As a "regular sort" I don't really know a lot of the science involved with our changing conditions and so I guess that puts me in between the two in this arguement. They both have very valid points and the answer to this riddle is important- so what do you all think?
Yes I understand reproductive dynamics in population. BUT having one sex temporarily "out of order" has never been tried, so I'm just putting out that idea... I have no idea how we'd sell that idea to the procreating hubs of the planet, probably some kind of world action/plea...
Also, regarding infant mortality, it was commonly held knowledge that birth rates were very high preceding colonialism. However several more recent anthropological studies (looking mostly at Africa and NA first nations as far as I can tell) are demonstrating that women had much more control over their reproduction/fertility than was previously thought. Of course the debate will rage on for years, but it's worth looking into. Lactational amenorrhea I find most interesting.
I will put your reading suggestion on my list, unfortunately the list is very long :( especially now that I'm back in school, a g a i n !
Seth...solar homes and hybrid cars are exactly what you say, not as economical as the previous standard. We must buy them to make the prices come down and alter the way we think. Prius buyers were aware of the lack of pay-back long ago. They bought them because they were a statement and a contribution/solution to the pollution problem. The US government realized that the cost of the "Clunkers" program far exceeded the savings, this program was introduced to stimulate the economy, re-align people's thinking regarding economy cars and lastly, to reduce the carbon emissions of America's fleet.
"Right Action" "Proper Thought" and "Positive Attitudes" towards our problems such as GW, will certainly cost us more. We are trying to solve the problems and the solutions are definitely going to cost us...but as more and more people get on this responsible band wagon, the production costs for these technologies will come down.
For thirty years, the Kyocera corporation (you may know them if you have one of their cell phones) has had a CEO who made it a policy to provide affordable solar panels despite the fact that year after year they lost money on the deal. The 'free market' never would have supported his action. However, after thousands of homes in Japan now get much of their electricity from the sunlight that was falling on earth all along, Kyocera is now making a profit.
Invest in Kyocera solar. They know more about manufacturing a product that will, most certainly, make giant gains on the demand side going forward.
Also - just so you know - what were once naval yards in Philadelphia are now being developed to provide an initial 400 new jobs making thin film solar for business applications at far reduced prices. Thin film makes less electricity per area applied, but also is far lighter and easier to install as well as being cheaper per electricity produced. Since office uses have an abundance of unused surface area available for successful thin film application; we will see a boom in the production, a subsequent fall in price due to scale, and improvements in the technology that comes with greater production, demand, and competition.
I would like to note that if you are human you are biased. It might be helpful if folks quit telling people they are biased. We already know that. So let's get to the content.
One AGW alarmist associated with the UN this week said that we couldn't stop GW catastrophe even if we wanted to. It will all be over in 2050 (2048 by some models..hehe). So what's the big deal? Next topic.
And another thing...I keep reading "we know", "we know", "we know". What do we know? Can everyone check their epistemology and tell me what piece of our epistemology we are using here "to know"? I think it is authority. Before I say anything more, will anyone who is a legitimate climate scientist please raise your hand?
OK, so if no climate scientists are in this discussion who have collected raw data themselves and created models and understand all the various methods for measuring temperature and know how to properly do statistical analysis, can you admit that you only really know what some authority or consensus of authorities told you about AGW?
And about that consensus of authority, the one that is various and independent. Check out the Wegman Report. Check out Section 5 (page 38) Michael Mann and his buds have a regular Facebook friendship wheel going on.
Climate science is not a hard science. It relies on statistical analysis. You can do a lot of cool things with statistics.
Well, at least now I know what equinox's biases are for sure. Thanks for trolling me, pal.
The Wegman Report is a politically induced report (big surprise that the anti-science GOP was behind it) which has been refuted by the National Research Council's report issued a few weeks earlier.
And as to epistemology, equinox, why don't you let us know how you know the earth orbits the sun, that we are composed of atoms, what the speed of light is, etc. You absolutely do not know these things solely by dint of having had them revealed to you by some authority. If you truly think that our collected body of scientific knowledge is just a matter of listening to authorities, then I don't know how you could have come to the conclusion that there is no god. If you're just going to trash our knowledge as second-hand, then you have no basis for stating anything that you know. Quoting the WSJ or the Wegman Report certainly doesn't cut it.
Of the members of the National Research Council board, some have some associates with climategate and institutions that have used the same data as CRU & Mann:
Dr. Ralph J.Cicerone
Dr. Eric J.Barron is associated with Penn State, Michael Mann & CRU in Climategate emails and NASA.
Dr. Robert E.Dickinson is associated with Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Dr. Inez Y.Fung is associated with Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Dr. James E.Hansen is associated with NASA GISS, Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Mr. Thomas R.Karl is associated with NOAA and Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Dr. Richard S.Lindzen is accoiated with IPCC, Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Dr. James C.McWilliams
Dr. F.Sherwood Rowland
Dr. Edward S.Sarachik is accoiated with Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Dr. John M.Wallace (Mike Wallace) is associated with NOAA, Mann & CRU in the Climategate emails.
Dr. Vaughan C.Turekian
You are smearing the reputation of climate scientists in order to tarnish their work. That scientists are human is no shock. Pettiness and frustration in the face of an underhanded PR campaign against one's work is one thing. Fraud and conspiracy are quite another. So far, there is no evidence of fraud and/or conspiracy. Even if there were at CRU, that would in no way invalidate the work of all the other climate scientists around the world.
Why don't you question the independence of anti-AGW research, data, and results?