It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
But low-grade shitehawks like Tommy Robinson are to be believed apparently.
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/132880/tommy-robinson/p1
The point is that, whatever the cause, the solution is not going to be achieved by everyone being nice.
Take this article:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/experts-warn-trump-epa-meddling-scientific-method/575377/
"For decades, they write, the EPA and other federal agencies have followed a “two-step process” when consulting science: First, scientific staff have reviewed existing research and summarized and synthesized it for political staff. Then that political staff “can accept, ignore, rerun some of the analysis, or reinterpret the results.”
This process essentially erects an apolitical wall between the agency’s scientific staff and its policy makers, and it has been endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Science, the authors say. But every single one of the proposed EPA reforms breaches that wall, allowing political staff to dictate the terms of scientific analysis and synthesis to scientists.
“It’s extremely problematic to start to limit what the scientific analysis can actually do within the agency. It cuts into the science, a place we’ve never been before,” Wagner told me."
How do you reason with federal agencies who don't want reasoned scientific analysis? How do you reason with supporters of politicians who want these changes to occur?
Debating with those who dislike climate change for more emotive reasons rather than scientific reasons is never going to work.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
We don't want nice. One can deny climate change in the most beautifully polite prose imaginable. What is needed is a reasoned response and a belief in evidence-based analysis.
The scenario you detail: it's likely we'd have gone over the tipping point if the only way to stop climate change was to erase huge tracts of societal behaviour.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
One of the few successes so far has been the stopping of the sale of incandescent light bulbs above 60W, and even that met with a lot of resistance. People are selfish and complacent, and don’t like to be made to take anything other than the easiest option.
Worse than that, sometimes governments get it wrong - pushing diesel cars even when there was widely available evidence that it was a bad idea is the most obvious example.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
yes ,and hand out Tartan lap rugs and Thermos flasks to every other old Gifford
Should INCREASE speed limit ........pathetic limit from days when cars had under-engineered brakes just inconveniences people who have good cars
100mph in off peak /free flowing times
Maybe limit built up areas of stop/start driving in suburbs where kids play and people walk on pavements
Its the same as plastic pollution- 95% of the plastic in the ocean comes from just two countries yet we have the smug satisfaction of reducing single use carrier bags by almost 100%. Its like putting a flag filter over your Facebook profile picture with “I’m helping” written underneath. We both know a French flag doesn’t do anything to stop ISIS but people feel virtuous doing it.
There is not enough pressure on the USA, China and India to clean up in every respect.
My other grievance is the rampant hypocrisy- people tell others to fuck off for not believing in climate change or tell others to drive slower but quite happy to buy a guitar made from endangered wood finished in an environmentally hostile substance or consider flying 8000 miles to save a few quid in tax and/or getting around CITES rosewood ban.
You have a reason for the happenings I wrote about in the OP then? Even discounting the summer bedding plants and the roses being in bloom in November, how do you explain the cowslip being in flower or the cherry blossom being in full flower or the sparrows fixing up the nest? These events do not happen until well into spring. Something is happening.....
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
God exists.
Fairies live at the bottom of my garden.
Football is amazing.
The Earth is flat.
Climate change/global warming is not a scam.
I only believe one of the above to be true, but I know I would be wasting my time trying to convince anyone on the internet who disagrees with me.
I also appreciate that no one in the internet can persuade me otherwise.
I will therefor continue to trust trust the work of scientists over anyone else.
So the problem isn't that the information isn't out there. You then have to look for other angles. Is the information presented in a way that people understand? You could say that journals offer technical and simple versions within an entire report. So some of the blame has to fall on people themselves. Some can't be arsed to read up for themselves and some come to a subject area with their own opinion already established and no amount of rational discourse can sway them.
Ivory towers: how can a scientist who studies airborne pollutants and asthma rates in cities for instance be living a life disconnected from reality? The ones who are disconnected from reality are the anti-vaccine brigade. Far too often scientists are portrayed by elements of the media with their own agenda as being distanced from the working man.
We have lost areas where public debate would happen. The focus is on academia and safe spaces stifling debate: so the reduction of unions has caused debate to stifle. Loss of organisations where debate would happen, sports to clubs. One of the things I've been reading a lot into over the last few months has been the erosion of traditional working-class societal structures and common elements like sports, religion, social life, all of these acted as public debating areas. These are just as important as debates within the upper echelons of academia or political organisations.