A inconvenient truth?
Dec 16
With this title, the former candidate for the White House, Al Gore, for many serious and thorough politician should have won the presidential elections in 2000, at the expense of the hated Bush, won an Oscar for best documentary. Yes, incredible, a very political emulating Michael Moore.
The documentary, I think, I confess that I have not seen, is about climate change, in general, and the terrible influence that humans have in this process, in particular.
Gore thus became the World Apostol against climate change, a position that he would, soon after, he awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace.
The issue of global warming and climate change has been in the media, more or less regularly since then, but has been in recent weeks when it has become more important.
On the one hand by the proximity, start the day 18 of a world summit on the topic, which will bring to the international community, both by politicians and scientists. In recent days some media are trying to plan the theme "crusade" with apocalyptic messages certainly, such as "Save the World." In addition, numerous events have been called in which all sheep which we must participate to require our politicians to get involved in the problem, and if not too much to ask, they give you a solution.
In parallel, has broken the "climategate", which, thanks to or because of, according to the sympathy that you have the collective, a group of hackers has published a list of emails exchanged between scientists' Research Unit Research Unit, British University of East Anglia ", apparently a world reference center on the subject.
In these emails scientists talked among themselves how to "cook" the data in your reports to have a greater impact, and when these did not yield the expected results, ie an inexorable trend towards warming, would cause unimaginable disaster directly be manipulated to avoid any result contrary to this thesis. In other emails, which for some will be a behavior such as "Robin Hood", but it seems to me an alarming cynicism, directly it was said that you would have to handle, because if not multinational companies sponsoring some of these studies would no longer allocate funds. In other words, a great example of what a scientist should not do, whose mission should be to disseminate the results of their research, although these are different from trying to prove the thesis.
The odd thing is that scientists do not deny the existence of these emails, so that evidence obtained by the hackers must be overwhelming, simply speak of "phrases taken out of context." However, in the end the defense has been that this is the work of groups that deny the evidence and all they want is to discredit them. In other words, to reveal an irregularity, which has all the earmarks of being a hoax, is what to criticize, and manipulate a variety of reports something lawful, justified because the cause does not sound a bit Machiavellian?
A popular phrase says "There are lies, damn lies and statistics". Without being a professional researcher, some statistics, pure and applied, I have had to study in this life, I estimate that about ten or twelve subjects at university, I think the phrase is not so misguided, that is, it is relatively easy, since a series of data and with a little skill in defining the relevant variables in the model, get the results you're looking for something that is vital when your funding depends on it. That's another small detail: if ordering the report, and therefore pay, want a result, it's better you give it, because if not you'll run the other scholarship, salary ...
Personally I liked reading on the subject was a novel by Michael Crichton "State of Fear", in which the author, though it was, and I say was because he died recently, best known for science fiction titles such as "Jurassic Park "" Dam "or" Next ", was a tireless researcher, who was documented for three years, the final appendix of literature on the subject is over 25 pages-.En criticizes the novel, not so much the concept of change, as the climate has always been changing throughout history, but the amount of vested interests, and therefore huge amounts of money that moves globally and essentially manipulating shamelessly exaggerating the consequences of the effects of this change.
Among the many examples that should make us think, something that should always be done before any issue is presented as a dogma, is that of the temperature data. It takes relatively long time series to see global trends of at least 100 years. Many of the observatories that meet these conditions were 100 years ago in the countryside, but now, by the growth of cities are in the midst of an urban core, and this, by itself, is able to explain variations as some of which are used to realize the magnitude of the problem.
As one good friend, one thing to be green, and quite another to be "ecologeta." I completed that instead of "econazismo" which is what is practiced many times, do echo "logismos" especially a lot "logismos."
That is, using small and reasonable steps, go changing things about light bulbs here, less abuse of the lighting there, a more rational use of heating, without recourse to any law to do so- and end with small, simple gestures like these, and technological improvements in energy that the problem will come.
I tend to be quite pessimistic about the human race in general, but far from seeing an apocalyptic future that many stakeholders as we paint what many environmentalists live professional and lobbies if the inconvenient truth is that this problem be solved by a series of measures logical and gradual in the coming years? I think in the future the weather will be our main concern. I have no crystal ball to know what will be, but I think we still have cold winters, and water for showers. Spain will not be, at least to climatic effects, such as Morocco.
It brought to speculate, I see real potential as an energy source of nuclear fusion, which when developed will be clean and inexhaustible and much cheaper than renewables. Because, if we are very environmentally friendly energy X is 1, and the renewable 5, most will choose X.
Finally, it has made me out a brick, with messages such as "Here comes the sandman climate change," think a little:
The climate is somewhat more complex and chaotic, in fact, to model using chaos theory, what makes us see and although humans can have some influence is more than questionable that is essential for its modification.
I think this issue is key in the following words:
"AGW", or what is it that global warming is caused by humans.
I will not get to discuss whether temperatures are rising, it is obvious that if what is being discussed is:
1 .- If this increase is unusual and catastrophic.
2 .- If this price increase is caused by man.
Data demuestrans the rise is not unusual, in fact between 800 and 1300 AD records indicate that average global temperatures were higher than the current (hence the graphs presented by environmentalists always start later than those dates). After that moment came the so-called Little Ice Age, which fell much temperatures.
Given that it is unusual, it is difficult to say which is catastrophic for the planet (hottest time has passed and here we are), so if you can happen is that a change in our living conditions.
Whether it is caused by man, that in the industrialized era has swollen to burn fossil fuels coal and spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, what burned before to produce these temperatures? Perhaps no environmentalist has come up with the following theory I propose: Atlantis really existed was hyper and had no contact with the rest of the planet. These Atlanteans hipercontaminaron the planet causing a rise in sea level that flooded and extinguished forever their civilization. The subsequent cooling as the planet became assimilated the vast amounts of CO2 they emitted.
Glaciations has been for many thousands of years, and colder periods warmer than today in which the man had no significant activity on a large scale environment. This makes it very difficult to ensure that the sole cause of global warming is human activity.
I'm not saying that we should not care for the world to worry about recycling, and so on. What I am saying is that there is no rigorous scientific data demonstrating that word "anthropogenic".
Greetings.
JIB
Thank you, JIB, for the additional contribution of historical data. He knew the "The Little Ice Age" 400 years ago, but problems involving length of the text and I get quite dense bricks, I could not get.
The two points you mention are just what he meant, but ultimately I think they have been diluted in the rest of the post. Thank you for the synthesis. There can be more successful.
I love you bring ironic version.
Sometimes irony is one of the few resources we have, the reductio ad absurdum, to counteract many of the views that have been made on the subject.
I see that we gain on the input level, and always using education, intelligence, and fair play, which is what we must never abandon
I'm not totally disagree with that man had anything to do with climate change is occurring, one conclusion seems extremely capitalist (if not right). It is clear that there have always been changes in the planet, both ups and downs of temperatures, but right now, man is accelerating that process.
Also, behind it, hide companies that benefit from all this (see the case of influenza A) and those who are interested in this debate there.
For me, no discussion, the planet is changing, we have loaded hundreds of animal species, the Amazon is more fucked up today Berlusconi and only we can alleviate what Gaia is suffering.
You're mixing apples with oranges. As is the politically correct conclusion becomes right and capitalist. Capitalism on what I have my doubts, because both sides are strong vested interests. Not only is the industry concerned. The lobbies, environmental groups, which although they seem very noble and selfless in practice as companies that need funding to survive, the "green" industry, which also consume resources create a large group, with great force of pressure, such As has been shown these days.
I think it has become clear that something we had to do, but what is at issue is whether it is so catastrophic, a planet uninhabitable within 100 years, type "2012" or "The End of Days" as we believe.
That's where I disagree, or JIB either.
Adaptable, I thought you'd have more sympathy for the hackers who have raised the doomsday scientists mamoneo, and this should give us food for thought.
Issues such as the ozone hole. It was the apocalyptic theme of the 90, we would be without an atmosphere, but it took some extent, not traumatic, and I have not gone back to talk about, and in theory the CFC's famous were molecules that were to be present in the atmosphere at least 50 years because they were degraded, but we see here. So I think that the correction factor that we must apply what we have on these issues is brutal.
On the side of the hundreds of species that have disappeared is called evolution. Most are plants and insects, and yes, I will have little environmental awareness, but fuck me for example in my area, which is also yours, spraying is prohibited in the summer and we had enough of mosquitoes. No sprays are also loaded if the "Samarucs" you see your lack that we do, and if you really want them saved, because an aquarium and organize trips.
As for the Gaia hypothesis, I wanted to leave the subject. It's like communism on paper looks very nice, but in practice it leaves much to be desired
Regarding this hypothesis, I think, encouraged by environmentalists, has been magnified, while its author, James Lovelock, if I remember correctly, over half denying it, because he thought he had misrepresented.
Personally I ended fed-if not up to the f ... - the subject, because I had a science teacher, back in those years when there was still BUP, which had set a target minimum, which meant I could go out in all course examinations, and if the failure suspense.
To finish I would do with a phrase from famed economist John Maynard Keynes "In the long term, all dead", to revive a little flame. I know perfectly what I expose myself to call.
PS: The adaptable and inadptable with opposing views, those who follow us and believe they are the same person, may be surprised ...
Lord adaptable thing is as follows:
The "scientists" of East Anglia have manipulated the data that was removing those stations where the temperature had dropped, and thus staining his theory preset.
Once published the post, with lots of raw data sheets, a guy who specializes in statistics and statistical treatment of data has been made to review.
Steve McIntyre, the statistician is called Canadian, has rebuilt the charts, with their own raw data from the University of East Anglia (which are the parents of the hockey stick graph that shows the brutal rise in temperature), and has seen not only the temperatures have not risen in recent years but have fallen slightly.
Mind you, we're talking about half the world. That does not have SIGINFO heated areas. What it says is that they cool areas are on the whole, larger, or cooled more than it heats up.
If you want to see the graphics I leave the direction in which you can see:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/27/yamal-a-divergence-problem/
The second graph is the evolution of the last two thousand-odd years and the fourth since 1850.
I think that speaks for itself.
JIB
ME matter between balls and two thirds of the other graphs, sudan me whiskers with the theme of samaruc, mosquitoes and other beings tocapelotas.
The problem is that both two are two people who care between nothing and nothing at all for the environment.
You see, I do not speak with temperature graphs (apples and you say you meninas), only that we must care for the planet, not wipe out green and natural areas, not to exploit the land until nothing remains.
We are accustomed to living well, but for example:
- If you can go in fifth with the car, do not go into fourth.
- If you do not remove the cardboard hurts, do it. Same with oil.
- Do not shower for 10 minutes, do it in 6 ... and so laaaaaaargo.
That the species is called evolution ... shit, it seems incredible that someone you say that the cultural level (you may have seedy-cultural level). I mean the topic of sharks (eg, we kill because we are afraid), the killing of seals, dolphins, elephants, tigers, etc ... follow or understand?
I must also say that I pass through the lining (of pants) all green convinced, because as you say, there are vested interests.
That said, I only asked for a little more respect for the planet and making it up. A good listener, few words are enough. I said. : /
Adaptable, please before you get stupid, read the last two lines of my first answer.
And be cuidao you are not going to irritate the nerve to spend so much things by lining
Adaptable, although we are at home, we must treat with respect to our guests. So far in this our blog, courtesy prevail and the white glove, however there is disagreement in ideas. This is not to graze the "trolls", so I do not care what the balls and the other two thirds, this much. As young children, you apologize, and you send a bto to JIB.
JIB, you agree and do not enter the cloth.
As for the personal, let it, because although I do not think we're too environmentalists, not that thou be too. In fact, being more consumer, you may be even less. Posts to exploit topics ...
We take care of the planet was in the first post, which he tries, it is another thing-get-it, is to advocate for "environmentalism" that is, which explains the car, recycling, turning off lights , do not let too many appliances plugged in when you do not need ... That's what I said, but the showers to the military, especially for some times, I have my reservations.
By the way, I miss a Xaviju in this post. We are always some play ...
NO I have to apologize to anyone because I have not missed anyone. I say that as I could have said a damn disguised minaret. Simply, that so much theory and expert on the subject, what for? all. Let us and we live with our conscience and the collective has long since ceased to exist.
Kitchen heard
Okay, simple souls, the problem is not change itself but the speed at which it is occurring.
Let's see, to believe that the problem losque No man is. If not, see if you are an eccentricity of Earth's orbit, and entoces yes we can take for fucking it fails to return to your site ...
With so much we needed that man is back ...
For those innocent souls believe all the tenets of doom. As I think it's clear what speed is relative and depends on the kind of math you use, the answer to JIB, with articles which, although cumbersome for mathematics is illuminating.
Even at the risk of sounding cynical, if possible, the usual answer with a quote from one of the most influential economists of S XX: John Maymard Keynes, that after exposing a series of measures which could stimulate the economy, but with the that there was a risk of leaving harmful effects in the long run, next generation, said: "In the long term, all dead." That's it.
The climatic effects can not cover measured by a trend of the last 20, 30, 50 or even 100 years. Yes for us, mankind, the navel of the world, or of creation, according to the beliefs of everyone, it seems an eternity, but it is a spit in an ocean compared to the age of our planet, so it can be an anomaly in a series even glacial.
What happens is that our time scale is very different because we passed this ephemeral world in which we try to leave our bit.
Posts to do science fiction or history, I doubt very destructive for the human species resulting from loading the planet. At best we annihilate us, and the planet will regenerate, returning to a place of green pastures, virgin forests, clear rivers ...
At the end until it has turned into poetic vein ...
We will continue
So let's cut down the Amazon (for example), total, "long-term all dead."
Harm with Bitch t'ha Amazon!! From here to defend the non-extinction of "the Fartet Samaruc i", the great contribution of "The World Safor to biology."
Yes, that's the idea: While we do not have anyone to leave this planet ... If you have something like what we rephrase. Total, already known to be correct ...
Well ... you've earned champion a PIN, a title and Gallifante ... all at once!
Well, the data is there. I merely present the views of experts in the field. But of course, unadaptable man, if you prefer the views of the physical cousin Rajoy ...
There are scientists, it is clear that climate change live, but ahy others not, and their opinions, and I base my opinion. It's easy, give us time or remove some or other reason.
In addition, certain that this climate change is very good for people that want to beach in Albacete.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm
Even former CRU director admits that things are not as clear as they claimed.