| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | Thanks Tilo, the best yet in my opinion. I had been toying with
You're Wrong
but I suppose this is too confrontational. |
Then how about, Why I am Smarter than You.
Of course, the whole point of it is that your argue it is your "tools" (i.e. Applied Epistemology) that make you smarter---not innate ability necessary. You reveal this at the end: That those who hear the talk have the capacity to be just as smart or smarter, if they only adopt the tool-kit.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Tilo Rebar
In: Sussex
|
|
|
|
At last, one of the younger generation who has defeated the brain-washing and looked at the facts - not a bad music video, but would have been better if I Deutsch sprach and didn't have to read the subtitles...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AybBEuIpy44
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
Just saw this story myself. Love it!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
Sting (Saviour of the Rain Forests) might be a tad pissed-off with this report.
Much green-friendly campaigning has been premised on the assumption that converting chunks of the Amazon to farmland is a irreversable one-way trip to disaster.
But the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has just published a report to explain the presence of various large human-dug ditches and earthworks criss-crossing today's thick Amazon jungles.
Dr John Carson of Reading University explains that the rain forest grew after the farm land, not before.
But I still like Sting's music.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
A UK government study has just concluded that people concerned about global warming, on average, use more electricity than climate skeptics.
On the (inverse!) correlation between environmental belief and energy use;
'Taken all together, householders who strongly agreed they were not worried about climate change because it was too far in the future in fact used less electricity rather than more, counter to the hypothesis that households concerned about climate change use less electricity.'
The study noted however that this was largely due to the fact most climate skeptics were older and poorer than people who expressed strong feelings about green issues.
'However, we found this was largely due to the effect of age, as older households were much more likely to agree with this statement, and also had lower energy consumption.'
As I'm getting older and poorer by the day, but hopefully wiser, I feel a certain affinity towards this.
The study is available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/326075/Electricity_Survey_2_-_Savings__beliefs__demographics_150514.pdf
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Just to bring you up to date on The Film.
1. The film which Hatty and I made about the distribution of deserts based on the script that you have read (and occasionally contributed to) in this thread is more or less finished. Some animations and some maps have to be added but the final form is now established. It consists of four slightly sub-half-hour programmes designed for TV and/or the internet. And, put together, a DVD.
2. It is presently entitled Re-Thinking Climate Change on the basis that this will encourage maximum neutral uptake. As this new title indicates, pretty much all the general anti-academical diatribing has been removed in the interest of greater flow (plus it went down badly at trial screenings).
3. You will be invited in due time to take part in the final final formulation of the film as well as the initial stages of distribution.
4. Our next Grand Projet was to be, as those of you following us on the Mega-Talk channel understood, Megalithic. However, it may be advantageous -- just in case The Deserts turns out be successful -- to have another Earth Sciences smasherooney to hit them with.
5. But we are undecided at this moment. Accordingly Hatty is going to explore (with Boreades who has come up with a new mapping whiz over on the Megalithic Forum) whether my Glastonbury Talk plus the material we've uncovered on the Mega-Talk thread can be converted into a full four half-hour TV series/internet offering/DVD.
6. Meanwhile I am myself today (ONO) starting a new script based on SLOT theory to see how or whether it fits into the TV format now I know roughly what I'm doing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry, Nadine Unger, published an article in the New York Times entitled "To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees", based on the argument that trees which are a dark colour warm rather than cool the earth's surface, particularly in northern latitudes, and by emitting 'volatile organic compounds' contribute to air pollution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0
It's caused a ripple. The response among the chattering climate groups is that 'the science is wrong'. Their response to a non-scientist would presumably be the same with added 'effs' and but's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
|
Brave it is for Nadine Unger to stick her head so high above the dogma. But where's the ripple?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
The responses are in some ways more revealing than the article. Unger's article is 'wrong' according to a bunch of climate scientists, many of whom are affiliated to the IPCC, predictably enough, with no positive comments appearing anywhere. Google 'Nadine Unger' and you get the impression she has been denounced by the entire scientific community, though not specifcally by atmospheric chemists.
One response mentions the lack of proper modelling which, as Mick says in his talk, is obviously unfeasible. Some use the 'peer-reviewed journals', showing references etc., argument, which Unger has done elsewhere, presumably to little acclaim.
The Daily Mail would publish this piece but The Guardian definitely wouldn't. Maybe the NYT falls somewhere in the middle or perhaps the American readership is in general more environmentally sceptical than in Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
What tends to be forgotten.....
Our woodland has never been denser in Europe, that is because we cleared rambling slow growing forests and replaced it with very dense quick growing managed woods.
This is because wood is such a valuable product, man will always seek to replace it.
It is called progress.
You clear forests (which are a nightmare to navigate) and plant dense managed woods, which take up a lot less room.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
