We need to do something!

[Leonardo maia]

We are scientists, but we are the minority. The global population don't have enough information to stop pollute or awareness other person.

Imagine one world inhabited by scientists, would be a dream, everybody knows what to do to preserve oceans, rivers, forests, the nature in general.

We need do something.

This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.

But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

 

Link removed by Moderator

 

Thank you, Leonardo maia.

[CaptainPanic]

A world with only scientists would be a nightmare. We would never agree on anything.

 

But I agree that good education is very important (if that's what you meant to say).

[dimreepr]

We are scientists, but we are the minority. The global population don't have enough information to stop pollute or awareness other person.

Imagine one world inhabited by scientists, would be a dream, everybody knows what to do to preserve oceans, rivers, forests, the nature in general.

We need do something.

This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.

But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

 

My URL: link removed by Moderator

 

Thank you, Leonardo maia.

 

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Phi for All

[CaptainPanic]

[...]unfortunatly polititions are just as bad [as scientists] at agreeing.

It's not the same:

 

A government formed by scientists would never even arrive at the decision making, because they would get stuck discussing the measurements and conclusions. We would never arrive at any new situation.

 

At least politicians will force decisions sometimes. Most of the time, it's the wrong decision, or at least it won't improve the situation... but at least ther eis change. And with luck, and by iterations, given enough time, we get to a desirable situation.

 

I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

In a plane full of scientists, they would all be doing calculations, and measurements. And everybody would be attending the last presentation in the back of he plane by the time they hit the mountain.

In a plane full of politicians, there would be 16 pilots, and 48 copilots. Nobody would know how to fly a plane... but at least it would be changing course all the time. With ups and downs, there is at least a small chance it misses the mountain.

 

(Yes, I exaggerate).

[Phi for All]

This is the reason that I registered, that write for you and that I criated my blog (yesterday), to give culture and information to more people to get.

But I need your help to disclose this blog and to create others.

 

Link removed by Moderator

 

Thank you, Leonardo maia.

!

Moderator Note

Sorry Leonardo maia, if this is the only reason you joined, you'll have to look elsewhere. We're not here to advertise for you.

 

If you would like to stay and discuss science, you are more than welcome. After 30 posts, you can even create a blog here, which may give you even better exposure. But it's our policy not to let new members link to outside sites. We get too many spammers to allow it.

 

I hope you stay, and I hope you participate, and I hope you create a blog here.

[Moontanman]

captain panics right but unfortunatly polititions are just as bad at agreeing. I liken this problem to a plane full of people argueing over how fast to hit the mountain.

 

 

I have to agree with this model of human behavior, we seem to have an innate desire for someone in charge to make a decision. A leader if you will, up until quite recently, historically that is, humans tended to gather around one strong individual who made all the decisions. This worked out well for simple agrarian societies and loyalty to the local Lord or King, if he made good decisions, insured every one got to eat for the winter among other things. The idea of rule by some sort of consensus is relatively new and has some kinks to work out, the problem is we might ruin things before we work the kinks out of the system.

Edited December 21, 2011 by Moontanman

[Phi for All]

I have to agree with this model of human behavior, we seem to have an innate desire for someone in charge to make a decision. A leader if you will, up until quite recently, historically that is, humans tended to gather around one strong individual who made all the decisions. This worked out well for simple agrarian societies and loyalty to the local Lord or King, if he made good decisions, insured every one got to eat for the winter among other things. The idea of rule by some sort of consensus is relatively new and has some kinks to work out, the problem is we might ruin things before we work the kinks out of the system.

What's really stupid is, in the US right now, the two party system we've got is so evenly split that most of what one party does is opposed by the other party, even if it's a good idea. All the good that gets done by one side is unraveled by the other side as soon as they can.

 

And it doesn't help that the Republicans are trying to woo the average Joe by making science and intellectuals out to be untrustworthy. I can understand the motivation to undermine public education so they can privatize it, but they're actually dumbing down the populace with this campaign against anything that requires study and rigor.

[JustinW]

From a political view it works both ways. The conservative doesn't want industry regulated(jobs lost) based on speculation and an environmentalist wants to regulate on speculation no matter how many it puts out of work.

 

Or, the environmentalist want the world saved, because no one will have a job if the earth is destroyed, and the conservative just uses that as propaganda to get the struggling worker on their side. You see...both ways.

 

This is a matter of suggesting climate change is man made, or induced by man made emmisions, which I still don't know if I believe. I guess this would be the place to argue such since we are in earth sciences.

 

 

I don't believe I agree with you Moontanman. You can go back through history and find democracy in many different forms. From government to military decisions. I don't think it is as recent as you suggest.

 

 

It's not the same:

 

A government formed by scientists would never even arrive at the decision making, because they would get stuck discussing the measurements and conclusions. We would never arrive at any new situation.

I believe it would probably be based on the method that is used by scientists now to make decisions. Just take the best model you can come up with at the time and run with it.

 

P.S. If you had a plane full of scientists, at least they would be able to calculate with what force they will hit the mountain as a last ditch effort at further knowledge. The polititions would float safely to the ground from being so full of hot air.

Edited December 21, 2011 by JustinW

[Moontanman]

I don't believe I agree with you Moontanman. You can go back through history and find democracy in many different forms. From government to military decisions. I don't think it is as recent as you suggest.

 

 

Possibly I mislead you by using "historically recent" Go back far enough and you will see lots of odd forms of governance, but until the last few hundred years almost all of humanity owed allegiance to some sort of king or lord then back to tribal leader to head man of the village, even if this man more or less ruled because everyone thought he was a good leader once he was in that role his word was law, the middle ages is a good example of a leader leading because someone else, usually the church gave him the power to do so. Democracy is quite rare in the past, and quite possibly now as well if you really get down to it....

 

What's really stupid is, in the US right now, the two party system we've got is so evenly split that most of what one party does is opposed by the other party, even if it's a good idea. All the good that gets done by one side is unraveled by the other side as soon as they can.

 

And it doesn't help that the Republicans are trying to woo the average Joe by making science and intellectuals out to be untrustworthy. I can understand the motivation to undermine public education so they can privatize it, but they're actually dumbing down the populace with this campaign against anything that requires study and rigor.

 

 

Politics in the US has degenerated into the equivalent of a school yard bullies running the show because they can and crying like little children when things don't quite go the way they think they should. The older I get the more the government looks like a group of little kids fighting over the ball.... while the school house burns down...

[JustinW]

Yes I get what you're saying. I was thinking about the role of the Roman senate. Although it could be argued that they still had a Cesear to answer to. Military decision was also based upon democracy for a length of time.

 

Also good political analogy.

[Phi for All]

From a political view it works both ways. The conservative doesn't want industry regulated(jobs lost) based on speculation and an environmentalist wants to regulate on speculation no matter how many it puts out of work.

I don't think that's a conservative stance, I think it's a corporate one. Regulation eats into profit, but it also usually represents the best balance of efficiency and safety. Corporations want to shave every fraction of a percent they can from operating costs. A true conservative appreciates spending the right amount of resources on doing something safely rather than underestimating and having huge expenses when something goes wrong.

 

Or, the environmentalist want the world saved, because no one will have a job if the earth is destroyed, and the conservative just uses that as propaganda to get the struggling worker on their side. You see...both ways.

It should be obvious to everyone by now that non-sustainable policies are, again, the cheap workhorse for corporate short-sightedness. Saving the world is only expensive when it's opposed by those who want their money quickly, at the expense of those who come after.

 

This is a matter of suggesting climate change is man made, or induced by man made emmisions, which I still don't know if I believe. I guess this would be the place to argue such since we are in earth sciences.

Everyone I see who is opposed to AGW always suggests that correction will be too expensive, and they always overlook the fact that if everyone were to get behind it, it would be half as expensive as they're leading everyone to think it will be.

 

 

 

 

 

@ the OP, I think a world full of any one type of people would be horrible. If everyone was a scientist, the music would probably suck, the fiction would be boring and the architecture would all be right angles.

[JustinW]

I don't think that's a conservative stance, I think it's a corporate one. Regulation eats into profit, but it also usually represents the best balance of efficiency and safety. Corporations want to shave every fraction of a percent they can from operating costs. A true conservative appreciates spending the right amount of resources on doing something safely rather than underestimating and having huge expenses when something goes wrong.

Again Phi, you show me the error of my ways. I was trying to corrolate environmental regulations to corporate employment, and visa versa. Regulation is not good for buisness. Regulation blocks and sometimes cuts growth of employment. That is the point that I was trying make, that conservatives argue for job growth over environmental regulation when there is no consensus for environmental outcome. But on the other hand some regs are necessary for environmental quality. But to base regulation off of opinions or findings that don't even hold consensus is to stunt job growth.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45752318/ns/us_news-environment/ case in point. Now don't get me wrong, I know there is a need to cut down on pollution for health reasons. But I can't shake a nagging feeling that if the emmisions from these plants weren't linked to medical problems, the EPA would've found another route, such as man made global warming, etc...

Edited December 21, 2011 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Regulation blocks and sometimes cuts growth of employment.

I disagree. If anything, a regulation requiring cost-benefit analyses or safety-testing before a new product is sold to the public actually employs more people, since someone has to do the testing or analysis compliance. Remove the regs and you lose those compliance jobs too.

 

What you actually have here are corporations who know a product will sell for x under current regulatory cost models. If they can make the regulations go away, claiming it will create more jobs, they can save the regulatory costs and treat it as profit.

 

These are the same corporations who promised job creation if the Bush tax cuts were extended. You haven't forgotten that little lie, have you? How well did THAT work out for us?

[kitkat]

Possibly I mislead you by using "historically recent" Go back far enough and you will see lots of odd forms of governance, but until the last few hundred years almost all of humanity owed allegiance to some sort of king or lord then back to tribal leader to head man of the village, even if this man more or less ruled because everyone thought he was a good leader once he was in that role his word was law, the middle ages is a good example of a leader leading because someone else, usually the church gave him the power to do so. Democracy is quite rare in the past, and quite possibly now as well if you really get down to it....

 

 

 

 

Politics in the US has degenerated into the equivalent of a school yard bullies running the show because they can and crying like little children when things don't quite go the way they think they should. The older I get the more the government looks like a group of little kids fighting over the ball.... while the school house burns down...

 

Yes, and those bullies are forming a army against us as we speak. Yahoo news - North Dakota - police are gearing up in military uniform and obtasining the newest and greatest weapons.

[mississippichem]

A world with only scientists would be a nightmare. We would never agree on anything.

 

I disagree.

No one else did, so I had to.

Edited December 21, 2011 by mississippichem

[CharonY]

I disagree with you disagreeing.

[Phi for All]

I disagree with you disagreeing.

I guess we just need to agree to disagree with you disagreeing.

[hypervalent_iodine]

I guess we just need to agree to disagree with you disagreeing.

I disagree.

[mississippichem]

If it wasn't paradoxical to disagree with all of you simultaneously I would.

[iNow]

Sorry Leonardo maia, if this is the only reason you joined, you'll have to look elsewhere. We're not here to advertise for you.

Quote within post #3 was missed.

[JohnB]

I disagree with both the title of the thread and the OP.

 

People don't need to do "something", they need to do the "right thing". Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic classifies as doing "something", getting to the life boats is doing the "right thing". Too often in climate there is way too much emphasis on doing "some thing" rather than doing the "right thing".

 

As to a world run by scientists I have but one word "Eugenics". Science and politics don't mix because politics is essentially about morality, defined politically as "what the electorate will put up with". Science is amoral, it cares not whether we like or dislike the findings, the facts simply are. If the "facts" are based on a misthought pseudoscience, then the ramifications are terrible, as history has shown.

[Phi for All]

Quote within post #3 was missed.

Thanks, good catch.

 

I disagree with both the title of the thread and the OP.

 

People don't need to do "something", they need to do the "right thing". Rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic classifies as doing "something", getting to the life boats is doing the "right thing". Too often in climate there is way too much emphasis on doing "some thing" rather than doing the "right thing".

Now that's what I consider to be a good, conservative reply. For too long, corporations have tried to conflate free market economics and deregulation with being conservative. Doing the smart thing, doing the right thing is not giving huge corporations carte blanche with respect to our safety and environment. When it comes to emissions and their affect on climate, why is it NOT conservative to want to do the right thing?

[JustinW]

I do believe that I agree looking at it like that. Something that came up recently here in the states didn't make too much sense to me. Opposition for building the pipeline from Canada. Now it seems to me that that pipeline would provide a ton of jobs over several years or more, but it is opposed for environmental reasons. I didn't quite understand the logic of opposing. It would seem that there would be more pollution put off by the trucks that have to ship it now. The pipeline would eliminate the need for all of that haulage. And if maintained would seem like a cleaner solution from an environmental stand point.

[JohnB]

Phi, while I am in the category of "conservative", I don't see my comment as such. To me it is simply a good way to run a society. A good "people" society is one in which there is freedom for the people and the government enforced laws only come into play when a person does something that inhibits others. To the conservatives that I know, this applies to business as well. A "free market" is one in which there are few restrictions on business except where it effects the public good. Relate to other businesses in any way you wish, use whatever processes and chemicals you wish, just don't dump the rubbish into the waterways or air. Dispose of your waste properly.

 

The last bit is where many conservatives in government have fallen down badly.

 

WRT the CO2 question there are those who think that these emissions are detrimental to the public good and should be stopped before we reach some sort of Thermageddon. I happen to disagree with this position. However that doesn't stop me from expecting scrubbers in the smoke stacks to filter out airborne particulates, mercury, etc from the exhaust gas and sedimentation ponds and filters to clean the waste water before discharge. I don't mind if an entire mountain is mined for resources, but I do expect the mining company to clean up the mess when they are finished. These things are simply the cost of doing business in a free market, like the cost of building and maintaining a warehouse.

 

When it comes to emissions and their affect on climate, why is it NOT conservative to want to do the right thing?

 

This will take the thread squarely into politics. What is the "right" thing to do? What is the Cost/Benefit? Will spending large amounts now on mitigation substantially reduce the future costs of adaptation?

 

More specifically, exactly what future problems is this "right thing" supposed to solve? It cannot solve the problems caused by climate change because the climate will always change and those problems are therefore endemic and outside human control. (unless you are claiming that mankind can in fact control the climate) Will it solve flooding due to extreme weather? (Personally I would think that dams and levees would be more use in flood mitigation than getting your electricity from windmills, but that's just me. )

 

Similarly, if third world (poor) economies are less able to deal with the effects of a changing climate, and given that removal of energy poverty is the first step to the removal of poverty in general, then which is the "right" thing to do? Help them build power stations to generate cheap power so they can advance their economies as fast as possible or shackle them with expensive electrical power, thereby slowing their growth and also their ability to adapt to climate change?

 

Or let's make it real and right now. At Durban COP 17, Oxfam put forward the idea of an extra tax on fuel oil for shipping. The grounds being that more expensive fuel would encourage fuel efficiency and cut CO2 emissions. This is therefore the "right" thing to do. I'm sure most "warmers" would agree on that. However there are some 900 million people who are undernourished on this planet and they depend on imported food to survive. Strangely enough this food doesn't arrive all by itself but in great, big ships. Those ships use fuel oil. So the result of this particular "right" thing would be to increase the cost of food to the poorest people on the planet. Is it still the "right" thing to do?

 

So what specific "right" things do you want and what specific problems will this solve? And will it be cost effective? Essentially these are the conservative questions. The problem is that those who want to "do something" have as yet been unable to answer these rather basic questions satisfactorily and when faced with this reality have simply resorted to name calling. But seriously, why should I be expected to support your course of action if you cannot explain exactly what the actions are and the problems those actions are going to solve? If you can't show that what you want to do is in fact the "right" thing to do, why get huffy if I simply don't agree?

 

Edit to add. A further question is that since there has been no harm caused anywhere by the rather modest .8 degrees of warming so far, on what factual basis is the idea that there is a "problem" that we need to "do something" about founded?

Edited December 22, 2011 by JohnB

[Phi for All]

I do believe that I agree looking at it like that. Something that came up recently here in the states didn't make too much sense to me. Opposition for building the pipeline from Canada. Now it seems to me that that pipeline would provide a ton of jobs over several years or more, but it is opposed for environmental reasons. I didn't quite understand the logic of opposing. It would seem that there would be more pollution put off by the trucks that have to ship it now. The pipeline would eliminate the need for all of that haulage. And if maintained would seem like a cleaner solution from an environmental stand point.

Well, if you're talking about the Keystone Pipeline, there are some issues that came out after approval was given. It turns out the Texas-based environmental assessment company that gave the green light had a financial interest in the pipeline's approval. Cornell University did a separate study and found that only a fraction of the promised jobs would actually happen. Much of the opposition is from Canada, because they would actually lose more jobs to the US.

 

The opposition from the US came from an unlikely source, the mostly Republican Nebraska farmers who didn't want the pipeline going anywhere near the Ogallala aquifer. President Obama announced that they'd have to reroute around the sensitive areas, and the Republicans are using this to slam him as being against job creation, and the whole thing is getting tabled until after the election next year.

 

Honestly, I wish Obama would stand up and call the Republicans on this crap and point out that the greatest opposition comes from part of the Republican base. He did the same thing with the debt ceiling, refusing to bring it to the public's attention that the Republicans had happily approved Bush's raising of the debt ceiling FIVE TIMES, but refused Obama's request, caused us to lose credit rating, and then, you guessed it, blamed Obama for the whole thing. Obama's desire to not burden the public with political snarls and leave it to the "professional politicians" is his biggest failing, imo.

 

Phi, while I am in the category of "conservative", I don't see my comment as such. To me it is simply a good way to run a society. A good "people" society is one in which there is freedom for the people and the government enforced laws only come into play when a person does something that inhibits others. To the conservatives that I know, this applies to business as well. A "free market" is one in which there are few restrictions on business except where it effects the public good. Relate to other businesses in any way you wish, use whatever processes and chemicals you wish, just don't dump the rubbish into the waterways or air. Dispose of your waste properly.

 

The last bit is where many conservatives in government have fallen down badly.

We've talked about this before. Oz still has a realistic understanding of what "conservative" means. In the US, the mega-corporate political lobbies have spent huge amounts of capital to equate conservatism with patriotism (at any cost), free market business (at any cost), and anything that's NOT what the Democrats think is important (at any cost). It's led to some very strange and warped interpretations of the Republican platform that Eisenhower had helped to make a respected stance. The crazy has them now, and the corporations can spin them like tops, always to the "right", of course.

 

Similarly, if third world (poor) economies are less able to deal with the effects of a changing climate, and given that removal of energy poverty is the first step to the removal of poverty in general, then which is the "right" thing to do? Help them build power stations to generate cheap power so they can advance their economies as fast as possible or shackle them with expensive electrical power, thereby slowing their growth and also their ability to adapt to climate change?

I've always said that third world countries don't need more electricity, they need more efficient appliances. If we spent a tenth of what it would cost for hydro-electric dams and gave every household on the grid a modern refrigerator and a washing machine, we'd solve their power problems AND gain the trust and admiration of the populace.