- This topic has 1 reply, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
[quote=”imxploring”][
Seems the “expert” (via the EPA and Christie Todd Whitman) told us the dust cloud blanketing lower Manhattan after 9/11 didn’t pose a health and safety hazard. Were they simply wrong or was their “expert” opinion based on something other than science? Or were they right and the health issues faced by rescuers, those who believed the “experts”, just an aberration?
[snip]
Because the facts and information presented as well as the rules (science) are subject to the interpretation of individuals with different views and agendas wishing to shape the result into something they feel is correct.[/quote]Whitman was a poor choice as head of EPA – most of her pronouncements were politically vetted by the White House with a brief nod to science [in my view].
But it’s much harder to argue with the interpretation of HARD FACTS such as:
-carbon dioxide traps reflected solar heat in the atmosphere
-for the first time in several million years, atmospheric carbon dioxide surpassed 400 parts per million.
-for the last 800,000 years, carbon dioxide varied from 180-280 ppm.
-the increase from 280 to 400 coincides EXACTLY with the Industrial revolution when the use of fossil fuels started.
-the carbon dioxide increase was about 0.7ppm per year in the 1950s, but since 2000 it has been 2.1ppm per yearNow, to me these facts are pretty conclusive for global WARMING (but not necessarily applicable to other facets of global CHANGE – but there are still too many people who refuse/ignore/deny these facts. For Costa Rica, warming may be hardly noticeable in the short [annual or decadal]term, but by 2100 it will be quite different. Precipitation patterns and biodiversity changes are another story.
PEH
I haven’t even touched on the issue of global warming or climate change. We all have our opinion. Science like statistics can be interpreted or out and out manipulated to serve any argument. Are humans having an impact on the plant? No doubt! The real question is to what degree and what will the end result be. That is as far as I think one can go without working a crystal ball!
The issue I have with this entire conversation is the use of so called “experts” and Internet sources to make an argument or challenge the position of others. TIME is the only true arbiter of what is reality. Unfortunate but true. And even then we see history and reality manipulated by those with agendas looking to control information and the effect it has on the masses.
The interpretation of facts and rules that exist in the world, be they physical science or social law, is really the issue. Then there are the political challenges to the truth which additionally cloud the issues and the transfer of truth as I brought up with the entire 9/11 situation and the EPA.
It’s not really apples and oranges. Science and the law are both sets of rules that are subject to change at their very base as well as being subjected to the interpretation of individuals, even so called experts that can’t agree! It’s HUMAN NATURE. I stand by my challenge to the use of “experts” as used as validation in any issue, be it the law or physical science. The internet gives EVERYONE the ability to distribute information today to those seeking to make or challenge a position. That isn’t entirely a good thing.
Check this link and see what I mean.
The internet allows a vast variety of opinions and positions to be put out there! Are they right or wrong?
Pull out some text books written 100 years ago by the “experts” of that era and compare it to the accepted science of today and see just how wrong the “experts” can be when their facts are tested by time.
All I know is the rain started early this year an our well is suppling all our irrigation needs 60 days early than last year!
Yeah – off the paid water and at 5.5 acres thst’s nice.
🙂
[quote=”sweikert925″][quote=”imxploring”]
The issue I have with this entire conversation is the use of so called “experts” and Internet sources to make an argument or challenge the position of others. TIME is the only true arbiter of what is reality. Unfortunate but true.
[/quote]
With regard to climate change if certain experts are right then there are actions we need to take NOW to forestall serious consequences. Yes, we can wait until the evidence is clearer but that would be pretty foolish.[/quote]In a better world, opinions [and votes] about our changing world would be based on knowledge and understanding. There is a (FREE!) online course concerning global change and human health, taught from Harvard, at:
https://www.edx.org/course/harvard-university/ph278x/human-health-and-global/573Harvard (pronounced ‘Hahvid’) also offers other courses for free, but this Fall they will start charging for them.
Although it has been up and running for a week, I suspect you can still jump in if you’re interested, and if you have no bias against the intellectual rigor of Harvard.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
