A Forum For All Things CPAP
https://www.cpaptalk.com/
Good grief.SMenasco wrote: ...Look at all the hateful responses I get when I express an opinion.
One last question: How many of you lefties have ever created and provided jobs, or had to scramble to make a payroll when the money wasn't there?
Fair point, snuginarug.You posted while I was posting, and I hadn't tumbled to the realization that he was trolling. No more peanuts for troll from me.snuginarug wrote:Don't feed the troll. I gave him a few peanuts, I admit, but I regret it.
I didn't start this global warming thread.
It was started by someone with an agenda who wanted to opine about why some science they support is not accepted at face value.
I responded to statements I do not agree with.
I was attacked when I posted that I support the profit system,
and was even accused of supporting the death of babies
Most of the time I try to be respectful. However, this snide, vile thought process that generated the dead baby remark by whatever a BlackSpinner is, gets the Leftie Elitist Grand Award. The name certainly fits well. It has always been beyond my understanding that marxists, socialists and anarchists just don't connect the dots regarding the tremendous uplifting of life provided by a profit-based economy.
Dead babies? What a poisonous attitude!
by a leftist liberal elite capitalist hater.
And you're lecturing me on my behavior?
Hey, Mars; piss off, asshole.
So, in closing, I have spent too many days on this earth doing a myriad of risky activities to worry one whit about what you think is accepted speech or activities.
I checked the urban dictionary, and your question is apt. I don't know the answer. Some people thrive on negative attention. That's all I really noticed about this person, not his motives and deliberate intentions.Elle wrote:How do you tell a troll from an angry combative person? It seems like some people go looking for an argument but there are also people come on just to torment or mock. The internet is a world I am still adapting to (after many years).
Well done Mate.SMenasco wrote:Thanks to all of you for explaining the intent of all my remarks and dressing me down. I humbly apologize for all the stupid statements I made and after reading all the entries of this post, and especially the articles, I have turned over a new leaf. I now understand the error of my ways and support all your viewpoints.
Quite frankly I think it is too late. We have seen on this Forum how supposedly sensible people ignore evidence that conflicts with what they want, or chose, to believe. Add more power and money to that equation and rationality has no chance, and neither has the planet
13 December 2011
Global Warming (Thinkstock: Comstock)
Roadmap to extreme danger
by Geoff Davies
Climate negotiators in Durban have agreed to a "roadmap" that would leave the world at high risk of severe or catastrophic global warming.
They have belatedly agreed to discuss adopting outdated targets that would not come into force until 2020, far too late by current climate criteria.
Recent studies require greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced much faster than previously proposed, to give us even a moderate chance of keeping warming below two degrees Celsius. Meanwhile the climate science now says the threshold of "dangerous" warming is only 1C.
The world has warmed about 0.6C since the 1970s. If currently advised reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were realised there would still, by recent calculations, be a 90 per cent chance global warming will exceed 2C. This used to be regarded as the threshold of "dangerous" climate change, but is now regarded as the threshold of "extremely dangerous" climate change. At that level, global warming effects would be widespread and severe.
However, somewhere between about 2C and 4C lurks a tipping point, beyond which global warming will run beyond human control, driven by natural feedback mechanisms that drive temperatures higher, perhaps to 6C or 8C, no-one knows. 4C would already imply severe effects, plausibly "incompatible with an organised global community". Higher temperatures could result in the extinction of half or more of the world's species and the deaths of much of the human population from starvation, disease and war.
To have even a moderate chance (one in two or one in three) of staying below 2C, the rich countries need to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions immediately, and emissions by developing countries must peak no later than 2020. In both cases subsequent reductions of emissions must be by as much as 6 per cent per year, which is much faster than anything contemplated at present.
These conclusions are from a paper by Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows and published by Britain's Royal Society. A good summary, with additional graphics, is given by David Roberts at Grist. Professor Anderson is a leading climate researcher at a leading institution, the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research. The paper synthesises a large amount of work on current climate science and on the effect of projected emissions. This means it is not just the opinion of a couple of excitable scientists. The authors are in a position to reflect the current state of the science.
Two things have changed over the past few years. Climate science has shown that the planet is more sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought. At the same time scientists have realised that the key constraint on emissions is the cumulative total amount of carbon dioxide that has been emitted, because the carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a century or more. Aiming for reductions by 2050 is not enough, especially if emissions rise in the meantime. There is only so much more carbon dioxide we can emit, and most projected reduction paths have considerably exceeded that budget.
Many previous strategies tried to soften the policy requirements on other ways as well. For example, they assumed steep reductions in emissions could be postponed until new technologies were developed, like carbon capture and storage (CCS). But CCS has so far been only a pipe dream and a distraction. Meanwhile political procrastination has wasted more precious time.
The reductions that policy makers have been arguing about, but not yet implementing, were supposed to meet the 2C target with some reasonable assurance - say a better than two-in-three chance. Instead the chance is down to 10 per cent or less. There is a 50 per cent chance currently proposed policies would result in 3C warming. For all we know, that could give us a 50 per cent chance of runaway warming and the ultimate global catastrophe.
If airline staff told you your plane had a 1 per cent chance of crashing, would you board it? Well, we have been planning a flight that would supposedly give us a 33 per cent chance of very severe weather and perhaps a 10 per cent chance of crashing. Do you still trust the planners? Now it turns out the chance of very severe weather is actually 90 per cent and the chance of crashing is 50 per cent.
We should also bear in mind that uncertainty cuts both ways. So far the scientific assessments of the danger have proven to be underestimates. Although the projections from two or three decades ago are proving broadly correct, the Earth is actually responding faster than anticipated. So even this assessment could prove to be too optimistic. The most critical uncertainty is that it is very hard to determine where tipping points might be. For all we know, the climate might already be tipping.
Professor Anderson concludes that:
The prospects for avoiding dangerous climate change, if they exist at all, are increasingly slim.
Actually the technical means to reduce the danger are available. The obstacles are mainly psychological and political. It has been known for some time that the quickest and most cost-effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to dramatically increase the efficiency with which we use energy. For example our buildings can be built to use only 10-20 per cent of the energy they presently use. Cars could still be twice as efficient. Many factories can reduce their energy needs by 50-80 per cent. If clear incentives, information and assistance were deployed, we would soon discover many more ways to save energy.
We are so wasteful, compared with current best designs, that we are wasting money as well as energy. The cost of big gains in efficiency will therefore not be large. The costs will certainly not wreck the economy, that is disinformation put about by the fossil fuel industry.
As our need for energy declines, renewable energy sources become more sufficient and more cost-effective, so there is a double bonus. Even better, the same approach to increasing energy efficiency can also increase the efficiency with which we use other resources, so our heavy footprint on the Earth can be lightened. We can stop polluting and degrading water, soil, forests, habitats. This approach yields a triple bonus.
Other claimed solutions, such as CCS or nuclear power, bring spinoff problems rather than spinoff benefits, and don't even address the broader environmental problems. Besides, CCS is still mostly fantasy and nuclear power takes so long to develop it would be much too late. Replacing coal with natural gas, which generates less carbon dioxide, is also quite insufficient.
You don't hear about the clean, efficient approach because it would reduce the profits of the fossil fuel and other industries that profit from our wastefulness. Politicians will only find the will to challenge them when enough of us challenge our politicians.
You also don't hear about this approach because mainstream economists are wedded to perpetual growth. These are the people who brought us the Global Financial Crisis. Increasing numbers of non-mainstream economists are now saying the mainstream is deluded and practising pseudo-science. They don't even include money and debt in their fancy computer models of the economy. Hard to believe.
The other reason we don't hear about the clean, efficient approach is because it is hard to hear bad news and be told we have to change our ways. Yes, it is challenging. No, the messenger is not an alarmist, it is the news that is alarming. No, the remedy need not bring great hardship, and in many ways our quality of life would improve as we move off the materialist treadmill.
Some people claim there is no global warming. The current state of the evidence makes such people flat-earthers. Many others deny we are the cause. The most prominent of these deniers are not scientists, they are media people or politicians, so how could they know? They claim they are backed by scientists, but only a tiny fraction of climate scientists dispute the majority message. They claim there is no evidence, but there are many lines of direct evidence.
The deniers claim there is a scientific conspiracy, but that is just rubbish. What about the motives of ExxonMobil, which funds denier web sites to create confusion? They claim the "climategate" emails proved the conspiracy, but that is one of the biggest beat-ups ever. The scientists involved were discussing some peripheral data, not the overall state of the planet. They used some intemperate language among themselves. Newsweek called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal".
Some of the more thoughtful sceptics discuss the scientific uncertainty, but conflate this with the policy question. Of course there is uncertainty in the science. The policy question is what to do about the risk that the science is right. We have known all along that decisions would have to be made before the picture was clear, because the warming effects of greenhouse gas emissions are delayed. We will not feel the full effects of the gases already emitted for another decade or two. The policy question is whether preventative action is good insurance, especially as the premium is not so expensive.
In this situation we can only try to make the best assessment. The people who can best assess the climate are those who have been studying it all their lives. The role of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has been to distil the collective judgement of climate scientists. The message has been clear and getting clearer for two or three decades. We seem to be in great danger.
It is time to stop indulging the deniers. Science is about figuring out how the world works. Climate scientists have been telling us increasingly clearly that we have a problem.
We need to listen, and we need to act, and very soon.
Dr Geoff Davies is a retired geophysicist and Visiting Fellow at the Australian National University. He blogs at http://betternature.wordpress.com
and the previous research is at -
Study links low intelligence with right-wing beliefs
by wency leung
Researchers have found a possible explanation for why certain people are prejudiced: they’re less intelligent.
Children with lower general intelligence are more likely to become prejudiced as adults, according to a Brock University study.
The study, published in the journal Psychological Science, examined data from two large-scale British studies, and found lower intelligence scores in childhood were predictors of greater racism in adulthood, which the researchers controversially explain is brought about by adopting right-wing ideologies.
A secondary analysis of data from a U.S. study also showed those with poor abstract-reasoning skills were more likely to have anti-homosexual prejudice, partially linked to authoritarian attitudes.
Lead researcher Gordon Hodson told LiveScience that the results of the study indicate a vicious cycle, in which people with low intelligence are drawn to socially conservative ideologies. In turn, those ideologies can contribute to prejudices.
“Socially conservative ideologies tend to offer structure and order,” he said, explaining why those with lower intelligence may gravitate toward the right. “Unfortunately, many of these features can contribute to prejudice.”
The researchers found that people with lower intelligence also tended to have less contact with other races and groups, which, Dr. Hodson said, supports previous research that determined interacting with other groups is mentally challenging and cognitively draining.
Dr. Hodson explained the findings do not mean all liberals are smart and all conservatives are stupid, LiveScience.com reports. “There are multiple examples of very bright conservatives and not-so-bright liberals, and many examples of very principled conservatives and very intolerant liberals,” he said.
Previous research has suggested that the brains of conservatives and liberals are wired differently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Red or blue? The shape of your grey matter may reveal your political stripe
by wency leung
Liberals and conservatives don’t think alike. And it turns out the structures of their brains are often different too.
A new study from researchers at the University College London have found that people who consider themselves liberal tend to have a larger anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain believed to be have an “executive function,” which controls how we process information. Those who consider themselves conservative tend to have a larger amygdala, which is linked to emotional detection.
The scientists say their findings match previous evidence that liberals are better at dealing with conflicting information and that conservatives are better at recognizing threats.
“Previously, some psychological traits were known to be predictive of an individual's political orientation,” researcher Ryota Kanai said in a press release. “Our study now links such personality traits with specific brain structure.”
Scientists don’t know, however, whether the structure of the brain determines political orientation – or whether it’s the other way around. The shape of the brain changes as we get older and is shaped by experiences. Some people also change political views.
The researchers say further study into the differences in brain structure may also be able to explain why some people don’t care about politics at all.
Public discussion enters the age of the uninformed
By ABC's Jonathan Green
Updated May 10, 2012 08:32:32
Keating courage Photo: Former prime minister Paul Keating thought nothing of speaking his mind. (ABC News: ABC)
Can somebody tell me what happened? Can someone explain how in the space of just a decade our public discussion has been hijacked by the ignorant and the bigoted and their boosters in the mass media?
And there's a more important question, how did the once authoritative political class let it happen?
You may or may not have watched Four Corners on Monday: a gripping report that recalled the High Court's Mabo finding in 1992 and Paul Keating's subsequent political quest to put legislation round the court's repudiation of terra nullius and enshrining of native title. The history of our Commonwealth has had few more significant - or challenging - turning points.
Like all documentaries of this type, the Four Corners report did more than simply shed light on its central subject. There was much else to see besides, little snippets that also illuminated the political and media culture of the time. This exchange between Paul Keating and a talkback caller on John Laws' 2UE morning program in 1993 was stunning, an absolute show stopper.
Caller: Good morning.
John Laws: Okay, the Prime Minister is here.
Caller: Yes, good morning. Just a very broad question, Mr Keating, is: why does your government see the Aboriginal people as a much more equal people than the average white Australian?
Paul Keating: We don't. We see them as equal.
Caller: Well, you might say that, but all the indications are that you don't.
Paul Keating: But what's implied in your question is that you don't; you think that non-Aboriginal Australians, there ought to be discrimination in their favour against blacks.
Caller: Not... whatsoever. I... I don't say that at all. But my... myself and every person I talk to - and I'm not racist - but every person I talk to...
Paul Keating: But that's what they all say, don't they? They put these questions - they always say, "I'm not racist, but, you know, I don't believe that Aboriginal Australians ought to have a basis in equality with non-Aboriginal Australians. Well, of course, that's part of the problem.
Caller: Aren't they more equal than us at the moment, with the preferences they get?
Paul Keating: More equal? They were... I mean, it's not for me to be giving you a history lesson - they were largely dispossessed of the land they held.
Caller: There's a question over that. I think a lot of people will tell you that. You're telling us one thing...
Paul Keating: Well, if you're sitting on the title of any block of land in NSW, you can bet an Aboriginal person at some stage was dispossessed of it.
Caller: You know that for sure, do you?
Paul Keating: Of course we know it for sure!
Caller: Yeah, [inaudible].
Paul Keating: You're challenging the High Court decision, are you? You're saying the High Court got this all wrong.
Caller: No, I'm not saying that at all! I wouldn't know who was on the High Court.
Paul Keating: Well, why don't you sign off, if you don't know anything about it and you're not interested. Good bye!
Caller: Yeah, well, that's your ...
Paul Keating: No, I mean, you can't challenge these things and then say, "I don't know about them".
John Laws: Oh well, he's gone.
It really sets you back in your chair. From a contemporary perspective this seems an extraordinary act of political courage, of reckless honesty. A politician on talkback radio telling someone with no real knowledge of the issue beyond a gut feel that it rankles their deepest prejudices, that they are not entitled, under those terms, to enter the discussion.
You just know that today, the caller would be indulged; their opinion flattered with undue attention. So it is that today we see a political discussion that rather than excluding or marginalising the voices of the uninformed, angry and blindly polemical, is in fact conditioned, directed and dominated by them.
Look at our endless to and fro over asylum seekers... a debate in which the national government happily sets aside its obligations under international law and convention, never mind any reasonable notion of what is moral, in order to placate a vocal core of constituents whose shallow xenophobia and nebulous economic anxieties are amplified by talk back radio and the tabloids of TV and print.
Same for climate change. Five years ago we had something near to a national consensus based on unambiguous science, a consensus cynically talked down often through shorthand distortions and misrepresentations pitched at the uninformed.
Today few politicians dare confront these tides or take a stand against it. The tail has wagged the dog.
Where Paul Keating thought nothing of speaking his mind, Julia Gillard sits in the same studio as Alan Jones, is called a liar to her face and brushes off the insult. This is not an audience the modern politician dare offend and the result is to diminish the authority of our leaders. Team it with the reflex anxiety over every nuance of polling and we end up with a discussion that is easily mired in misconception and the darker sub currents of the national psyche.
To be reminded of Keating's boldness and certainty is to recall that we have lost more than his trademark arrogant pugnaciousness in the intervening decade. We've also lost political leadership, surrendering it to belligerent ignorance at high volume. You get the feeling that the modern politician, seeing that Keating talkback video would be schooled: "see that's the arrogance that cost him''. And that's cost us.
Jonathan Green hosts Sunday Extra on Radio National and is the former editor of The Drum. View his full profile here.