Earth Hour: Turn Off the Lights!
- Thread starter SirJosephPorter
- Start date
Sad and irresponsible.
Nope, can't figure that one out. You're going to have to explain how those words apply.
I didn't like the idea and I didn't participate. However I did participate in a differnt demonstration. I fail to see why I shouldn't, after all it's a free country, right? I'm allowed to protest, am I not?
Where did you get that idea? The WWF said it was about global warming. Their supporters said it was all about global warming.
Extrafire, all this ranting tells me one thing. You just can’t stand the fact that environmentalists pulled a spectacular sight, one billion people united to take a stand in favor of environment.
No amount of ranting and raving against WWF (which is a universally respected organization, in spite of what you say) will disguise your dismay and disgust at one billion people for not standing with you in opposing environmentalism.
So believe what you will, believe that nobody participated in earth hour (Was the whole thing perhaps a giant hoax perpetrated by the environment Nazis?) or that one billion people turned their lights on more than usual (as you did), it makes no difference to me (or indeed to most environmentalist).
It is usually difficult to get people to support environmental causes. Anti-environmentalist promises them jobs, money, prosperity etc. Environmentalist can only promise them that their children will not live in a polluted world. Normally environmentalists lose most battles, the business usually wins out.
So it is all the more remarkable that one billion people banded together to make a symbolic statement in favor of environment. Tough on anti-environmentalists, I know, but learn to live with it.
I for one am looking forward to the next earth hour. I hope next year they shoot for 2 billion. If they can go from 2.2 million to 1 billion (sorry, 2.2 million to zero according to you) in two years, sure they can go from one billion to two billion next year.
Your side (anti-environment) usually wins. How does it feel to be on the losing side, for a change?
So do you, Extrafire. You are apparently trying to convince us that what, zero people participated in the event? I must say, I have rarely come across such virulent, hostile anti-environmentalism before. You are trying to convince us that the whole thing was a flop, without any evidence to back up your contention.
You don’t have a single website giving your number (zero or whatever you think it is), just your personal opinion. And we are supposed to accept your rant against WWF and against environment at its face value, without any evidence.
Well, maybe some will, but not me.
Incidentally, it may interest you to know that even far right website like worldnetdaily reported that one billion people participated. Editor of worldnetdaily, Farah urged his followers to turn on their lights more than usual.
So it must have been particularly galling for him to admit that 1 billion people participated. It must have been a bitter pill to swallow. But though belonging to far right, at least he is honest.
Which is more than can be said for some (or indeed, most) anti-environmentalists.
Globalization and Autonomy
"In addition to this issue of animal welfare, there is also a great deal of controversy surrounding WWF's relations with Indigenous and traditional peoples. Although WWF claims to maintain partnerships with Indigenous peoples who live in ecologically-sensitive areas, complaints about WWF's treatment of Indigenous peoples have emerged all over the world. One complaint is that the establishment of Protected Areas and National Parks has often led to the eviction of Indigenous and traditional peoples from their lands and has cut short the land claims being made by these peoples.
There are also concerns about the conflicts of interest that arise from the funding relationships that WWF has with governments, multilateral agencies, and private corporations. Corporations such as Shell, ExxonMobile and Monsanto are major funders of WWF, meaning that WWF is allying "with forces that are destroying the world's remaining ecosystems" (Chapin 2004). This funding has several consequences. For example, WWF cannot ally itself with Indigenous peoples who are fighting these corporation's activities without endangering their funding, and their government and corporate ties mean that they may not oppose the government corruption and inaction that is often responsible for environmental degradation. WWF excuses its lack of action in "national matters" with the suggestion that they wish to remain apolitical, but critics believe that WWF is more concerned with the science of biodiversity than social realities."
SirJosephPorter, you bandy about the term "anti-environmentalist" (often spiced up with "rabid") with offensive and insulting intention, quite obviously. And of course, that includes anyone who did not sing the praises of the 'trick', 'sham' and 'flimflammery' (according to your bible, the Globe and Mail) of Earth Hour.
Please tell me: do you really believe that people who disagree with you and WWF want our children wallow in contaminated mud? Do you think that we hate clean water in our lakes and rivers? Do you accuse us of purposefully dirty the air we breath? In other words, do you think that we are suicidal idiots?
What you call anti-environmentalist, we call pro-human. That would, of course, surprise you and the WWF who prefer lives of animals to lives of conservative humans.
Please tell me: do you really believe that people who disagree with you and WWF want our children wallow in contaminated mud? Do you think that we hate clean water in our lakes and rivers? Do you accuse us of purposefully dirty the air we breath? In other words, do you think that we are suicidal idiots?
What you call anti-environmentalist, we call pro-human. That would, of course, surprise you and the WWF who prefer lives of animals to lives of conservative humans.
This is where we differ (in principle). I would suggest that science possesses knowledge in the area, but that depth of knowledge is no where near being thorough enough to pin-point significant causation on humanity (ie primary or significant driver of change).
Just my opinion.... Your opinion differs and that's fine.
That's what models are used for. Not just in climate science, but in medicine, animal science, applied sciences, biochemistry, etc. My project used more than one model. I used a model to project the growth of my trout, and I used a model to predict the amount of a pigment deposited in the flesh, and then I built a statistical model that included two time variables and the dietary treatment to assess differences in test means.
Do you know what the coefficient of determination is? It's the amount of variability in the dynamic system that your model can explain. By adding factors, or removing factors, and comparing this value, you can make conclusions about which factors are significant, and which are not.
Are you familiar with Hansen's models? His 1988 B scenario returns a warming rate of 0.25+/-0.05 ºC/decade for the period 1984 to 2008. The GISTEMP land ocean index gives a warming rate of 0.22+/-0.07 ºC/decade for the same period.
That's model range 0.2 to 0.3 ºC/decade, observed range 0.15 to 0.29 ºC/decade. The two overlap, and are not significantly different.
Without knowing 100% of the systems interactions and functions, we can still make meaningful interpretations, and predictions.
You study trout? Cool! A friend in school studied the salmonids and their hydrodynamics following Victor Schauberger's vortex theories. Without modeling there would be no evidence to show a trouts shape can propel it up stream with little effort or sit motionless in fast moving water. Neat stuff.
I doubt this morgan fella could comprehend how that data fits into everyday life and the world around us.
I doubt this morgan fella could comprehend how that data fits into everyday life and the world around us.
What I can't figure out is with all this light shutting off is how many of us light up the whole house in the first place. If were participating I'd only be shutting down one light saving a whoppong .013Kw/H
It shows the that without looking for and compiling data the obvious things in this world go overlooked.
Man would have been flying far earlier than 100 years ago if man was looking at fish instead of birds.
It is neat stuff. It would be impossible to get feed conversion ratios of 1.5 (some farms are actually getting less than 1.3) without the body shape. If you look at differences between Atlantic salmon, and chinook salmon, we can see that the energy required is greater for chinooks. The body form of chinooks includes a wider girth than the Atlantics, and the drag coefficient is responsible for the higher feed conversion ratio (about 2.0) in the chinooks.
Have you ever heard the expression:
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
The effectiveness of any model or statistical analysis lies the the nature of the assumptions upon which the model/analysis is based... You can refer to all form of data, but if it is not taken in a realistic and reasonable context, you can manipulate that data to support any contention that you desire.
I'm guessing that you are prone to snap-up and swallow anything that purports to be based on 'data' as reality, much like the trout that your friend studies.
My buddy mentioned feeding depth, salinity and water temp being a factor in shape and musculature as well, even subtle differences from each sweet water spawing system. I bet you too could talk shop for hours.
Who is lying and why? You never did say what spurs on the interglacial warm periods. Any idea or are you still just guessing it's cyclical?
Oh probably. My interests are more in the physiology and biochemical aspects of fish health and homeostasis. I did have a few labs in aquacultural engineering that dealt with body shapes. For the most part, that class was focused on designing rearing systems.
My thesis which is due very soon is titled:
Evaluating the effect of supplemental astaxanthin in the feed of rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss L., on the stress response following an acute stressor.
Turned out very well. Still have to analyze the plasma cortisol, but I found significant effect of pigment on blood glucose levels. An unanticipated effect was also found, flesh colour deteriorated over the course of the stress response. Have some good references on that now, should be a very good discussion. I was a little dismayed that there were no effects at 6 weeks. It seems like 12 weeks was needed to build up adequate amounts of the pigment in the flesh.
lol If data isn't reality then it must be fiction.
If data shows something to be generally true then that's what it does. If you have 950 bits of data that show something to be the general trend and 50 bits that vary, it's pretty safe to assume that the majority of the data shows the trend and the 50 bits are due to an unknown factor. It doesn't mean you should throw the entire idea out, it means you could investigate what the unknown factor is.
To say our understanding of climate is lacking is obvious, but to say until we have complete knowledge of it, we can't make reasonably accurate predictions about it is silly.
We don't know absolutely everything about evolution either, but we have a pretty good idea about it.
That saying is just that, a saying.
In terms of identifying the catalyst to warming periods, if I had the definitive answer to that, we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?
Let me put the question to you in alternate terms: How is the climatic system different today when compared against the spectrum of repeated incidences of fluctuations on the globe evidenced through the paleo-climatological record?.. Are you able to (definitively) capable of pointing to man-made emissions as a primary causasl factor?... How realistic are the underlying assumptions and statistical model upon which you base your conclusions?