Great spelling there.. it is a hard word to remember, seeig that they have oly bee aroud for a few decades..
And yes turnersville ad KR, real bad people trying to save some of whats left of this planet.. shame on them. And also shame on them for trying to get nintendo to be open about their numbers so consumers can make informed choices..
I don't think your average person has a problem with environmentalism (sans the idiots in the SUVs but hopefully gas prices will obliterate them). I do have a problem with Greenpeace as I don't see their actions as helping the cause. Their sensationalist, shock tactics have backfired long ago and today all environmental movements are hindered because of the "boy who cried wolf".
It is a shame because there are real environmental problems which should be addressed like electronics recycling. I have a lot of gizmos and when I'm done with them I'd like to be able to take them back to a store I bought them from and recycle them. I can do that with some things but not all.
Here's the deal dude. Shame on you for hiding behind the guise of "informed consumerism". If you had "informed" yourself on Greenpeace and the people who run it you'd look into why one of the Co-Founders of Greenpeace felt the need to quit.
As far as "what's left of this planet" goes, that's the exact kind of useless drivel that Greenpeace wants you to spread. Shame on you for being a mindless automaton.
I agree with you jus10 that the "5 to 12" message is getting rather tired. Thats why I do like graphs like this. Its this kind of information that can affect consumer behavior. I for one would like to know the footprint of any product so i can make my purchasing decisions accordingly. With apple it was Greenpeace who got them to be open about their policy, making environmental responsibility a factor when looking at 2 competing products seems like an important step.
I agree with you jus10 that the "5 to 12" message is getting rather tired. Thats why I do like graphs like this. Its this kind of information that can affect consumer behavior. I for one would like to know the footprint of any product so i can make my purchasing decisions accordingly. With apple it was Greenpeace who got them to be open about their policy, making environmental responsibility a factor when looking at 2 competing products seems like an important step.
Your funny Fred, are you saying that we don't have an issue with pollution, habitat destruction and extinction of species? Or are you just upset with Greenpeace for some reason? You don't have to like or agree with everything an organization does to support their goals. And flawed as they may be, I'm pretty sure their intentions towards the environment are pretty good.
Well David, what I am saying is that just like anything that gets this kind of airtime that "Global Warming" is not as bad as we are being led to believe. It's all just a shell game. The actual unadulterated numbers do not back up the claims that are being made by multiple groups. The changes we are seeing in our environment are negligible. But because someone somewhere needs some money for a study on something they tie that change into global warming and all of a sudden some money shows up in their coffers. If you want an interesting (if fictional) take on this you should look at State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He uses real science to back up his story, and there is a a lot of bonafide data in there. I'm not saying it's the freaking Bible (so don't start) but it does offer a good perspective.
Here's a question for you who are buying in to the hype. When was the last time you looked at the numbers yourself. Most of you are fairly intelligent, right? Educate yourselves! Just because Kermit the Frog (who I like, REALLY!) shows up in a Ford ad and starts belting "It Ain't Easy Bein' Green" as he drives over Ms. Piggy in a hybrid SUV doesn't make "Global Warming" real!
OK Fred lets try this. The graph, which this whole thread refers to isn't actually about global warming per se, its about " toxic chemicals and recycling " this is a related subject, but its not really the same. now, if you want to put a fictional book up against the scientific method, maybe you should just stick to the bible. If you however choose to go for the scientific method, you might understand that it doesn't mean that you have to check all the number or do every test yourself, there is a clever thing called "peer review" that tries to separate the good shit from the bullshit, thanks to peer reviewed publication we can keep up with the basics without checking all the numbers ourselves. Now is it perfect? No. But so far it has proven to be the most effective tool to understand reality.
Those gadgets you have in your pocket work because scientists use these methods, (sure, they need the occasional SF writer to know where to go) most of the things we touch today are made partly thanks to the discoveries science has given us. Now, why not believe this same scientific method when it tells us that adding some ingredients to our environment is a bad idea? Sure this biosystem has been around for a long time, but are you saying that's why it isn't fragile? I mean, if we wanted to, couldn't we make enough poison to kill most life on the planet? So we obviously have the power to change things. Now if we can do it on purpose, couldn't we also do it to a lesser extend unknowingly?
1 last thing, that corporations are "greenwashing" their products doesn't mean there isn't a real problem
David. You cannot negate the facts that are brought up in the book just because the story is fiction. If a Harry Potter book said that the sky is blue would that then cease to be a fact? I'm familiar with the scientific method. I learned it here:
I like it because it has pictures so my feeble mind is attracted to it. (SHINY!) It's funny, I don't see "peer review" in there anywhere. And as far as that goes if all the scientists who agree with each other sign off on each others stuff then you've got what we have here. Those who disagree are labeled as callous lunatics who hate the planet! I'm not a scientist but if it looks like BS, and it smells like BS, I'm not going to taste it just to be sure, I'm going to accept it as BS.
The thing with science is; It works. I didn't read Crichton's book (more of a cyberpunk reader myself) but I did read some things about his position on global warming and it seems he has a pretty strong opinion there. I am skeptical about anyone who claims to know better then the going scientific consensus, but i believe my skepticism wouldn't get in the way of accepting new and compelling evidence. So if tomorrow a new and better explanation would come by that is in line with the observations and measurements I will be sure to look into that also. Thats what those who favor the scientific method has been doing for a while; looking for the simplest most elegant explanations. It happens that now, the overwhelming consensus points towards a spherical earth, E=MC squared and global warming, but if you have a theory that points in another direction and you're willing to back that up with facts you can submit a paper any time. What I have a problem with is the cherry picking of evidence that seems to be all the rage the last few years, it seems to just get us deeper into the crap every single time. (maybe thats the stuff you're smelling)
Ok, so a couple of points for you before I move on with my life here. First. Your examples of the scientific method in action are poor in relation to the point you are making. We know that the Earth is spherical because we have directly observed it. E=MC2 is accepted as fact. But Global Warming is a newer theory and while it's acceptance as fact is going largely unchallenged, I believe that goes back to this hype machine, and that is not a good thing because it have not been definitely proven.
Your "simplest most elegant solutions" (Occam's razor?) do not ALWAYS bear out as fact. The simplest solution tends to be correct but then again, what is there that is simple about climate change or it's study?
Bottom line, I do believe that there is climate change. It's an observable fact. I do believe that we should take care of our home (Earth). But I have not seen anything that proves a definite link between the two things. Short of rampant polluting on a global scale (over an extended period), or nuclear holocaust I just don't think that we have the power to screw up this planet. And in reality the planet would recover, we'd just be screwed.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Gree-peace
Great spelling there.. it is a hard word to remember, seeig that they have oly bee aroud for a few decades..
And yes turnersville ad KR, real bad people trying to save some of whats left of this planet.. shame on them. And also shame on them for trying to get nintendo to be open about their numbers so consumers can make informed choices..
Wait...you dare try to correct their spelling??? Did you check your own post? I see a few mistakes...
Whahahaha, great observatio mate.. really, brilliat...
I don't think your average person has a problem with environmentalism (sans the idiots in the SUVs but hopefully gas prices will obliterate them). I do have a problem with Greenpeace as I don't see their actions as helping the cause. Their sensationalist, shock tactics have backfired long ago and today all environmental movements are hindered because of the "boy who cried wolf".
It is a shame because there are real environmental problems which should be addressed like electronics recycling. I have a lot of gizmos and when I'm done with them I'd like to be able to take them back to a store I bought them from and recycle them. I can do that with some things but not all.
Also, can I buy an "n"?
Here's the deal dude. Shame on you for hiding behind the guise of "informed consumerism". If you had "informed" yourself on Greenpeace and the people who run it you'd look into why one of the Co-Founders of Greenpeace felt the need to quit.
As far as "what's left of this planet" goes, that's the exact kind of useless drivel that Greenpeace wants you to spread. Shame on you for being a mindless automaton.
I agree with you jus10 that the "5 to 12" message is getting rather tired. Thats why I do like graphs like this. Its this kind of information that can affect consumer behavior. I for one would like to know the footprint of any product so i can make my purchasing decisions accordingly.
With apple it was Greenpeace who got them to be open about their policy, making environmental responsibility a factor when looking at 2 competing products seems like an important step.
I agree with you jus10 that the "5 to 12" message is getting rather tired. Thats why I do like graphs like this. Its this kind of information that can affect consumer behavior. I for one would like to know the footprint of any product so i can make my purchasing decisions accordingly.
With apple it was Greenpeace who got them to be open about their policy, making environmental responsibility a factor when looking at 2 competing products seems like an important step.
(Sorry for the doublepost)
Your funny Fred, are you saying that we don't have an issue with pollution, habitat destruction and extinction of species? Or are you just upset with Greenpeace for some reason?
You don't have to like or agree with everything an organization does to support their goals. And flawed as they may be, I'm pretty sure their intentions towards the environment are pretty good.
Well David, what I am saying is that just like anything that gets this kind of airtime that "Global Warming" is not as bad as we are being led to believe. It's all just a shell game. The actual unadulterated numbers do not back up the claims that are being made by multiple groups. The changes we are seeing in our environment are negligible. But because someone somewhere needs some money for a study on something they tie that change into global warming and all of a sudden some money shows up in their coffers. If you want an interesting (if fictional) take on this you should look at State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He uses real science to back up his story, and there is a a lot of bonafide data in there. I'm not saying it's the freaking Bible (so don't start) but it does offer a good perspective.
Here's a question for you who are buying in to the hype. When was the last time you looked at the numbers yourself. Most of you are fairly intelligent, right? Educate yourselves! Just because Kermit the Frog (who I like, REALLY!) shows up in a Ford ad and starts belting "It Ain't Easy Bein' Green" as he drives over Ms. Piggy in a hybrid SUV doesn't make "Global Warming" real!
OK Fred lets try this. The graph, which this whole thread refers to isn't actually about global warming per se, its about " toxic chemicals and recycling " this is a related subject, but its not really the same.
now, if you want to put a fictional book up against the scientific method, maybe you should just stick to the bible. If you however choose to go for the scientific method, you might understand that it doesn't mean that you have to check all the number or do every test yourself, there is a clever thing called "peer review" that tries to separate the good shit from the bullshit, thanks to peer reviewed publication we can keep up with the basics without checking all the numbers ourselves. Now is it perfect? No. But so far it has proven to be the most effective tool to understand reality.
Those gadgets you have in your pocket work because scientists use these methods, (sure, they need the occasional SF writer to know where to go) most of the things we touch today are made partly thanks to the discoveries science has given us. Now, why not believe this same scientific method when it tells us that adding some ingredients to our environment is a bad idea?
Sure this biosystem has been around for a long time, but are you saying that's why it isn't fragile? I mean, if we wanted to, couldn't we make enough poison to kill most life on the planet? So we obviously have the power to change things. Now if we can do it on purpose, couldn't we also do it to a lesser extend unknowingly?
1 last thing, that corporations are "greenwashing" their products doesn't mean there isn't a real problem
David. You cannot negate the facts that are brought up in the book
just because the story is fiction. If a Harry Potter book said that
the sky is blue would that then cease to be a fact? I'm familiar
with the scientific method. I learned it here:
http://www.makeitsolar.com/images/chartmethod002.jpg.
I like it because it has pictures so my feeble mind is attracted to
it. (SHINY!) It's funny, I don't see "peer review" in there
anywhere. And as far as that goes if all the scientists who agree
with each other sign off on each others stuff then you've got what we
have here. Those who disagree are labeled as callous lunatics who
hate the planet! I'm not a scientist but if it looks like BS, and it
smells like BS, I'm not going to taste it just to be sure, I'm going
to accept it as BS.
The thing with science is; It works. I didn't read Crichton's book (more of a cyberpunk reader myself) but I did read some things about his position on global warming and it seems he has a pretty strong opinion there.
I am skeptical about anyone who claims to know better then the going scientific consensus, but i believe my skepticism wouldn't get in the way of accepting new and compelling evidence. So if tomorrow a new and better explanation would come by that is in line with the observations and measurements I will be sure to look into that also. Thats what those who favor the scientific method has been doing for a while; looking for the simplest most elegant explanations. It happens that now, the overwhelming consensus points towards a spherical earth, E=MC squared and global warming, but if you have a theory that points in another direction and you're willing to back that up with facts you can submit a paper any time. What I have a problem with is the cherry picking of evidence that seems to be all the rage the last few years, it seems to just get us deeper into the crap every single time. (maybe thats the stuff you're smelling)
Ok, so a couple of points for you before I move on with my life here. First. Your examples of the scientific method in action are poor in relation to the point you are making. We know that the Earth is spherical because we have directly observed it. E=MC2 is accepted as fact. But Global Warming is a newer theory and while it's acceptance as fact is going largely unchallenged, I believe that goes back to this hype machine, and that is not a good thing because it have not been definitely proven.
Your "simplest most elegant solutions" (Occam's razor?) do not ALWAYS bear out as fact. The simplest solution tends to be correct but then again, what is there that is simple about climate change or it's study?
Bottom line, I do believe that there is climate change. It's an observable fact. I do believe that we should take care of our home (Earth). But I have not seen anything that proves a definite link between the two things. Short of rampant polluting on a global scale (over an extended period), or nuclear holocaust I just don't think that we have the power to screw up this planet. And in reality the planet would recover, we'd just be screwed.