![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Opera tribute not too inconvenient for Gore
http://music.guardian.co.uk/classical/story/0,,2283007,00.html
Some people never learn. In 3 years, chances are the main issue will be global cooling, not global warming, so the opera would have to be rewritten...
The legendary La Scala opera house in Milan has commissioned a full-length work to be based on [Gore's] book, An Inconvenient Truth, and the Oscar-winning documentary of the same title. ... La Scala's artistic director, Stephane Lissner, told a press conference the new opera had been commissioned from an Italian composer, Giorgio Battistelli. He said it would be staged in 2011.
Some people never learn. In 3 years, chances are the main issue will be global cooling, not global warming, so the opera would have to be rewritten...
no subject
no subject
no subject
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
second, the currently observable minor warming is mostly due to the Sun's activity, not humans.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA203.html
third, the ROI for any effort to reduce greenhouse gazes is absurdly low (the Copenhagen consensus - which is not without its own problems - gave it the lowest priority). aiming low - at replacing imported fossil fuels with, e.g., bacteria-grown alternatives - has a better chance to develop into a long-term solution than huge national endeavors like carbon sequestration etc.
fourth, it is not clear that the warming is going to be universally harmful - some regions will suffer, some will benefit. e.g., perennial grasses will become a viable crop alternative in the US.
finally, global warming is a global source for money and publicity (just like the nuclear winter was in 1970-ies), so I am extremely skeptical about any research financed by the UN global warming committee (just like I am skeptical about anything coming from the UN).
It's like the recently founded anti-corruption committee in Russia - you have to give a $1 million bribe to be a member.
no subject
I don't have the knowledge to judge that evidence. But looking critically at the two link you send me, this is what I see. The first talks about one winter (!!) of temperature drop as the evidence of "global cooling" (nu c'mon) and shows the graph that ranges over 20 years. Such a small range is likely to obscure any significant long-term trends and exaggerate local fluctuations. Gore shows a graph that covers a much longer range, if I remember correctly.
The other place claims to be a "national center", while sporting a dot-org rather than a dot-gov domain. You and I can get together and open such "national center" in your garage, if you have some spare time. So, I choose to trust the climatologists, who have Gore a B+ for the scientific accuracy of his movie.
As to the ROI - I don't think that 's relevant at all.
And regarding it being a global source of publicity - still, I don't believe in conspiracies in science, because science is driven by curiosity and human vanity to be the first to discover the truth.
no subject
кстати, на той же гелогии мне рассказали, что когда-то давно на земле было ровно два материка, не помню как назывались но одно из слов было похоже на гондон, а потом бах, и их у нас теперь целых шесть.
и все-это до того, как сей бренный мир посетила нога человека.
эти исторические факты мешают мне поверить, что новый хренак так уж действительно начался в 1979 ((а не шел подспудно веками, как вышеперечисленные явления, а данных у нас про то, что было до двадцатого века очень мало), и так уж сурово связан с людьми.
вот хороший сайт, где ББЦ сурово обьясняет скептикам, типа моего реакцинного мужа, что парниковый эффект есть, и люди в нем виноваты.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
no subject
I think Gore was giving a good explanation about the dinosaurs and why this is not equivalent to that, but I've watched so many movies since Inconvenient Truth, that it's all a blur by now... Like Likvidaciya, three nights in a row till 2 am - still don't understand who the enemy was (ili eto u menya krysha edet, ili u rezhissera, no hto eti podpol'schiki posle voiny??? Dazhe u nas na Zapadnoi Ukraine takih hlopcev ne bylo.)
no subject
It may very well be occurring (for all I know) .
I mostly hate propaganda (on both sides).
I just wish both oil-diggers and alarmists would shut up for a year, remove all their money from this project, and let the scientists speak.
Thank, I think, most scientists will say that they need another hundred of years to collect more data (and this would be the most reasonable thing to do).
Likvidaciya-Alkin, eto zh UPA. Ukranian National Army, or whatever it was called :)
no subject
Seriously, I am now talking about any specific political happenings, just the climate (and what world are we leaving to our kids, of course). And I actually sense it outside the US much more sharply than inside. Last summer I was flying Icelandair to Norway, and the brochure in the seat pocket said that Icelandic glaciers are a must-see wonder, but hurry to book your Icelandic vacation now, because they are disappearing at the speed of x per year. It felt absolutely chilling. And then in Norway we were in a small town in the very North, and they had an Arctic museum with a big section on the effects of global warming on the Arctic region - oh, man. Again, I am no expert, but from whatever they were covering in their exhibit, it seemed absolutely non-controversial from a scientific perspective, and was not presented as an opinion or one of many possible explanations. And Iceland and Norway are far from politicized hysterical countries, they just happen to be in the climate zone that is getting the first blow. I am afraid that in another 20 years the data will obvious to the naked eye. :(
Ok, da nu ee pered snom, etu temu. What on earth is UPA??? All right, I am calling Jay to ask, his Ukrainian history is much better than mine.
no subject
Украинская Повстанческая Армия.
Воевала на три фронта:
1. против "жидов" (погромы)
2. против вермахта
3. против РККА.
what did you expect? "no hurry, the glaciers are millions of years old and will be here long after the humanity is gone"?
come on - this is a travel brochure!
The bottom line is:
"The UN-paid human rights activists say that the Jews are murders and rapists".
"The UN-paid scientists say that the global warming is real and caused by humans".
"same difference".
no subject
it's not "same difference".
I wish you stayed with the issue at hand, and didn't bring up other issues that are not linked with this one.
Scientists who receive the grant are still honest experts in the area and their opinion should be trusted. Btw, these scientists might very well be jews (or spaniards) pro or against israel, love or hate gays, pro-choice or pro-life, none of this matters. The is an empricial question.
There are poeple who know how it should be studied and they study it.
there is no reason not to trust their investigations, regardless of the monetary source (this goes for both the alarmists and the sceptics).
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Iceland and Norway benefit from all this hype and travel directly.
I completely disagree with Semka's bottom line. I don't think it's "same difference", although I do have a general mistrust in the UN. I also have general mistrust in oil diggers. Everybody has their own agenda.
But the "consensus" hype benefits several important players within the UN and it's not true. there are plenty of sceptics among scientists, but now that so much money is invested into it, and propaganda is active on both sides, I have not clue who to trust.
"Consensus" or no "consesnus", GW maybe happening. or not.
no subject
no subject
your sourse should be experts.
check the name of the scientists who are pro-GW, check if you trust their credentials, check if they publich in p-reviewed journals etc, etc.
do the same for the sceptics.
funding can come from Bill Gates or the Big Blue Bird, just diregard it for now.
no subject
Jen'k, it's a pretty cynical statement.
Look, we are developing an environmental health portal for kids at work. I am not a climatologist, but I've been looking at a lot of articles and websites lately, from places like EPA, for example (Environmental Protection Agency), or NASA. From all the mainstream stuff I've seen, it looks like human contribution to global warming is pretty much a scientific consensus, not to mention the global warming phenomenon itself. Again, I don't have the expertise to evaluate the argument itself, but I don't see a wide range of diverging opinions. Here is a direct quote from a NASA page, "A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming." (http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html)
Where I see a wide range of diverging opinions is in grassroots websites and postings that mushroom on the Internet. People link to all kinds of places to support all kinds of opinions. In one comment in your LJ, someone sent me a quote from a Washington Post article. The author is a "director" of something-or-other, and wrote a book about global warming being a fluke. A quick google search reveals that he was accused of presenting inaccurate scientific data in the book, by three independent scientific organizations, and the court of whatever Scandinavian country the book was published in ruled that its data was fraudulent indeed.
Yes, there are *some* (*few*) scientists who disagree with the majority consensus. But then there is Peter Duseberg, a distinguished professor of microbiology at Berkeley, who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS. And then there is Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry and the major force behind the intelligent design "theory". So what? There are always a few conspiracy theorists in science, but when you look at the history of science, you won't find a single case of true conspiracy, funding or no funding. Science is driven by incurable curiosity to discover the truth. There is a lot of vanity there, but it's the kind of vanity where they want to get famous by making a major contribution that will withstand the test of time. Also, true breakthroughs make it into the scientific mainstream very fast - it did not take Darwin years and years to convince his colleagues that he was right.
Ok, Jen'k, I've said it all and won't say any more. Arguments like this don't usually lead to any opinion change on either side, anyway.
no subject
yeah - contribution, bit causality.
as I said: there are more important things to worry about, and there are many many many more efficient ways to use our money
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
ISTR
no subject
Now, I read this cite: http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
and everything makes sense, untill I come to the "analyzing" part.
and then I see that GW predictions is based on computer modeling, which in turn based on all kinds of assumption.
actually, IPCC itself agrees with me, as they put the following disclamer:
"It is important to recognize that projections of climate change in specific areas are not forecasts comparable to tomorrow’s weather forecast. Rather, they are hypothetical examples of how the climate might change and usually contain a range of possibilities as opposed to one specific high likelihood outcome."
(taken from here http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/futurecc.html)
Now, if IPCC itself tries to protect its ass by in effect saying that GW may not be "one specific high likelihood outcome" then I really don't understand what all this "consensus" talk means. It's like saying-yeah we believe it with the data we have now, but we are open to the possibility that it mayby unlikely. If this is their statement, then yes, there is a concensus among all the scientists :)
Here is a link to the Statment from the American Associaton of State Climatologists (2001), read it when you have time: http://www.stateclimate.org/publications/files/aascclimatepolicy.pdf
I found their following statement reasonable:
"Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate."
Honestly, I just hate when a scientific issue becomes a political one (and yes, I'm cynical about everybody - marketers, Al Gore, oil diggers, travel agents), pretty much everybody who got involved, and there are no independent scientists any more.
Again, i'm not saying that GW is not happening (may be it's even of anthropogenic nature), i don't have any opinion about it. I'm just saying that it became a charade, and what used to be scinece became a stage for oscars, operas, revenues, fame and political agendas.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
no subject
yes, and what can be more satisfying in this respect than testifying before a Senate panel!
Biologists do not receive funding just for supporting Darwin.
Climatologists do.
at any rate, as I said before, the right way to select priorities is by considering ROI, probability, and discounted consequences.
global warming does not fair well on all 3.
(it is probably slightly more important than asteroid collision, but not by much).
overpopulation is a much bigger problem.
no subject
ROI is crucial in figuring out what to do, I agree completely.
Probability - comparable to the probability of asteroid collision?? Man, I hope you are right, but I fear it's more like the probability of colliding with an asteroid that's 20 feet away.
Discounted consequences - don't know the term. But overpopulation is a huge problem that directly feeds into global warming (if we agree that it exists), no?
no subject
losing $100 in 10 years is the same as losing $100*exp(-10r) today, where r is the annual risk-free interest rate.
overpopulation is a problem which feeds into everything - war, poverty, hunger, thirst.
it is caused by irresponsibility on an astronomical scale - people who cannot feed their existing children are having more children.
no subject
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
actually, I think that I know nothing about either climatology nor this debate, so I'll stay away from this discussion.
no subject
(I don't argue with either you or S. just plain funny).
btw, in Stony Brook I took geology, and our professor was fully convinced that greenhouse effect exists, and the consequences will be dangerous for humanity.
He listed all bunch of possible reasons for it (Vulcanic activity, solar activity, even platforms' movement could be a contributor), but from what I see, all these reasons existed in 1995 when I was a student. They all died since then, and we are left with human activity.
no subject