Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The psychology of climate change denial.
Not that it will change anybody’s mind, but……http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/50034
Particularly fascinating is the profile characteristics of many climate change deniers.
In response to rfs1975,
This video misrepresents Piers Forster, and I suspect it also misrepresents others depicted. Forster has differences of opinion with mainstream scientists on the causes of global climate change (the relative roles of oceans uptake, forest uptake, black carbon, cloudiness, radiative heating/cooling, methane release, polar melting, etc.) and not on the reality of change. In fact, this year he has written a paper on the effect of climate change on African migration.
This quote (misusing ‘descent’ for ‘dissent’) sums it up pretty well, I think:
“Climate deniers will happily mis-quote, quote out of context, lie etc any apparent voice that supports their opinion. Climate change is complicated and will have genuine voices of descent [sic] with regards to process and conclusions, it is the true scepticism of science, denialism however, will seize on anything and polarizes any minor differences and uncertainties. Because of the nature of the internet the words of Piers Forster will be around for decades as will Myles Allen and will be quoted by those who share none of the other views of the scientists and will dispute CO2 as a GHG.”
[quote=”BillNew”]Well ….
Regardless of which camp that you’re in … it’s pretty much universally recognized that one volcanic eruption pumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than years of human activity …
So … before I start walking my happy butt to work, lets see if we can find a way to drive some big ass corks in those things … :lol:[/quote]
Well, not quite.
“The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere.” (Sceptical Scince)In my professional experience of 50 years, and decades of teaching global ecology/biology, I know of no scientist who as produced valid data on volcanoes producing more atmospheric carbon dioxide than human activity. That includes undersea volcanoes. Period. Fact – not belief or faith.
The only exception would be an input on a day timescale when there are multiple eruptions. In that case the daily volcanic input of CO2 MIGHT approach that of human activity. More worrisome from volcanoes is sulfur dioxide.It’s always amusing to me how people who deny climate change based on political, religious, and social preferences will use long-debunked information to deny the reality of climate change. It reminds me of Senator Imhofe’s trick of bringing a snowball into the Senate chambers late last Spring and offered it up as proof the warming does not exist. He of course represents the oil state, Oklahoma. Oh, and he also denies fracking as a cause of Oklahoma’s earhtquake which have increased from less than 10 per year in 2008 to many hundreds per year in 2015, in lockstep with the increase of fracking. I expect Imhofe will bring an ice cube to the senate – the last bit of ice in the Arctic Ocean.
There’s a reason that over 98% of scientists who actually know the science, accept the reality. It’s knowledge and facts, not belief
.A new and [b]unbiased[/b] study on GMOs has come out that should allay those who object for non-scientific reasons. Of course, there are some who remain adamant in the face of facts.
http://www.care2.com/causes/gmos-may-be-safe-to-eat-but-some-are-still-bad-for-the-planet.htmlNow, for those climate change deniers…..
Amazing how this topic, like norovirus on a cruise ship, keep popping up on blogs and forums (or, in the original Latin, ‘fora’.
Most people, including the Feds, can’t really define what is/ is not, a GMO.
To be accurate, any modification/domestication/bred-for-economics of a “useful” species is a GMO; many are result of milennia of selective breeding, as is well known.Genetic modification by any other name is a topic in the March issue of the magazine Scientific American. gMOs are of four types: Mutagenesis, Gene Silencing, Cisgenesis and Transgenesis. Only the last is recognized by the USDA as a GMO, though scientifically they are all GMOs.
Example: all commercial bananas (which are all “Cavendish” varieties) are a result of gene silencing. A new mutation of the fungus ‘Tropical Race 4’ is now devastating bananas worldwide. Cavendish has no resistance to TR4. What will happen when TR4 hits Costa Rica? Bye-bye bananas. The government will have to raise taxes on expats to cover the aggie losses. Trials are underway to develop a GMO banana to resist TR$.
Another example: Have you eaten any soy products lately? Over 90% of U.S. soybeans are transgenic, i.e., GMOs.
Regardless of how you feel about Monsanto et al., (personally, I think they are all greedy heartless thieves) GMOs are not only here, but a valuable and necessary adjunct to civilization.
PEH
If there ever was an argument for GMOs, particularly for economic reasons in Ticolandia, this is it:
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/49351
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemileia_vastatrixI wonder what the Costa Rica economy would look like without bananas and coffee.
[quote=”residencial”]I did not see any “payment information” on Lundquist’s website. So I talked to a couple of people who took the tour and I became concerned because they had to send a deposit to his family member in the states and then pay George in “cash” when they got to CR. BUT…they were not given any written receipts. That is weird.:?:[/quote]
George is reliable. His son in Texas takes the initial deposit; The balance is ‘in cash’ because of the check cashing problems at C.R. banks (sometimes 30 days or more).
PEH[quote=”pharg”] I have no insight into the future, other than to hope none of the current crop of far right wing yahoos fade away ASAP.
PEH[/quote]
(Meaning, of course, that they are providing so much entertainment that it becomes too easy a task to separate the bovine excreta from the facts. Sort of like Tico politicos.)[quote=”slackerbill”][quote=”pharg”]
After living in Tibas for an extended time in 1979, many shorter visits in the 80s and 90s, and seeing the accelerated decline in financial, social, and economic rule changes that seem(!) to target gringos throughout the past decade, we have decided to forego moving to Costa Rica.
PEH[/quote]I am constantly trying to find out what unhappy surprises my wife and I would have if we actually follow our plan to retire in CR mid ’16.
Your comment is taken seriously. Would you say the declines you mention are worse than those now or soon to be occurring in the US?[/quote]
In response, for us, the move would not have been for financial or health reasons, but for the joie de vivre of the country. Without that, the impetus declines. Despite many ups & downs in the U.S.in the past 40 years, on the whole (excepting the overwhelming and depressing stupidity and venality of 99.9% of politicians), we are satisfied with our life in Florida, and will be occasional tourists as needed. I have no insight into the future, other than to hope none of the current crop of far right wing yahoos fade away ASAP.
PEH[quote=”Scott”]The after they make guns illegals we’ll all be safe… The criminals will willingly give them up and we’ll all live in a no-crime paradise.
Because it worked so well when they made drugs illegal, right?
We all know that nobody buys illegal drugs anymore… What an incredible success the ‘war on drugs’ was…
When will people wake the f.. up and realize that the ‘war on drugs’ is simply the government keeping their profit margins high…
Opium practically built the British ‘Empire’ and the Americans are trying hard to maintain their ’empire’ using the same raw material.
Scott-
regardless of how one feels about the 2d amendment (for USA gringos) and regardless of the (US or UK) governmental role in illegal drugs over the past 150 years, in my view the analogy between gun control and drug control is a false one.
Drug addiction is mediated by a primitive area of the brain [pleasure center]. Fixation on guns often [but not exclusively] originates in a need for dominance [or fear], and is primarily a male phenomenon. As an unscientific observation, I would guess that the size of the gun is inversely related to the effective and size of the owner’s penis.
[my 10 colones]
PEHWe took George Lundquist’s tour (twice, 2010 and 2014) and Chris Howard’s tour (with ARCR seminars, twice, in 2011(?) and 2014).
All four were well worth the time, effort, and cost; different styles, different approaches, different information but all unquestionably useful (as is varied information on this site through the years). Definitely recommended.
After living in Tibas for an extended time in 1979, many shorter visits in the 80s and 90s, and seeing the accelerated decline in financial, social, and economic rule changes that seem(!) to target gringos throughout the past decade, we have decided to forego moving to Costa Rica.
At some point it may dawn on the government that there is an applicable tale, something about a goose and golden eggs.
PEH[quote=”Scott”]I am not American but certainly believe that a ‘US Ambassador’ should be setting an example for others and showing his loyalty to the USA first.[/quote]
One of the founding principles of the USA is the separation of church[or synagogue] and state – that is, religion and politics do not mix. That same principle prevents religious Xmas displays on government property. If this news item is true, you have to agree that he is separating religion and politics, but in a very unfortunate way, giving a negative impression of himself and his commitment to the job… but on the other hand, most ambassadors are political hacks, not chosen for their statesmanship.[quote=”Scott”]
What do you think?
Does Costa Rica not have the right to do so?
[/quote]Of course Costa Rica has the right – a better question might be, is there a rationale for doing so. As with most bureaucracies, decisions are usually made without or despite a rationale. Looks like this would be no exception.
GMOs are a volatile topic. Despite the lack of evidence (that is, statistically valid double-blind experiments under real world conditions) that human health is at risk, a certain portion of the population has a knee-jerk reaction to those three letters.
It’s ironic that nearly everything we eat is a GMO. Would you want to eat the original tomato (first cultivated 14 centuries ago, not with several hundred varieties)? How about the original potato (first cultivated over 1o,ooo years ago, now with over 1000 varieties)? These are genetically modified from the original; the difference is the time involved, and the methods used. Do you eat meat? All domesticated animals, same thing.
Suppose you were to say “Ban GMOs, they are all potentially dangerous”? Absurd. Analogous to saying “Ban all people, they are all ignorant”, when in reality there is only a subset of humanity that is ignorant; they are not stupid, just somewhat lacking in rationale.
