Earth Hour 2009

[Balschoiw 0]

Statistics are flexible and google can be used to prove almost everything.

Judging the effects of global warming imo only works when looking at the complete picture. Sealevels and temperatures are on the rise as a result of altering seastreams that are influenced by changed winds that are a result of global warming. Glaciers are melting in recordtime, permafrost areas are turning into mudareas and in arctic regions people are buying agricultural equipment because the ice is melting away and allows them to farm in some regions.

The global warming may not be totally human-made but for sure the human pollution is the biggest non-natural influence on the ecosystem and devastating a complete planet is not really smart, even financially-wise. The costs of the pollution will oneday come back on everybody for profits that are made right now. Just look at the Canadian Oil-sand industry that pops up right now. They catapulted Canada among the biggest polluters of the world in just a few years for the profit of the usual oil-companies that exploit and pollute a region for some decades and leave burnt ground when they leave. As long as profit is the number 1 priority on the world we will in the end kill ourselves.

Imo we need more pirates !

[someboy 0]

LOL!!! Nice one. Yeah, bring some pirates!!!

[bravo 6 0]

Statistics are flexible and google can be used to prove almost everything.

I can tell you Statistic study can be what ever you want, depending on who/brain/mind is doing the Analysis and for what purpose.

I'll point you out a good and a classic reference to what I'm trying to say: How to Lie with Statistics.

We all must understand that everything works like a cycle.

Its perfectly normal that the sea levels are rising up again, not because of us, because of how things really work.

Its the Science That Counts not the "Religion".

[kavoven 4]

Statistics are flexible and google can be used to prove almost everything.

I can tell you Statistic study can be what ever you want, depending on who/brain/mind is doing the Analysis and for what purpose.

I'll point you out a good and a classic reference to what I'm trying to say: How to Lie with Statistics.

The bigger your feet are, the higher your income will be.

Guess the correlation

[bravo 6 0]

There are always "Outliers" you know..

People normally ask:

What is an OutLier?

But in fact they should be asking:

Why is it an OutLier?

Quote[/b] ]"The fact that something is far-fetched is no reason why it should not be true; it cannot be as far-fetched as the fact that something exists."

Green, Celia

The Decline and Fall of Science

Aphorisms (p.1)

Anyway only few will understand what i mean.

edit: Just let me add this one too:

Quote[/b] ]"In almost every true series of observations, some are found, which differ so much from the others as to indicate some abnormal source of error not contemplated in the theoretical discussions, and the introduction of which into the investigations can only serve, in the present state of science, to perplex and mislead the inquirer."

Pierce, Benjamin

The Astronomical Journal (p.160)

[someboy 0]

Nice video bravo6, looks really interesting (could only watch first part, will watch the rest when I have time).

Regarding the book about "how to lie in statistics", yeah it is true that it is easy to "fix" your models so you can make any explanation you want. However, I any person with deep understanding of statistics and statistical regression should be able to detect those kind of things. You don't just throw a neat graph and say "hey, this looks nice, so A must cause B". You have to actually give details on the process by which you obtained that model. Those processes rely on quite well regression and error-measuring methods. Usually these reliability measures are simply based on the occam's razor principle: given two contradicting models explaining the same data, the simplest one is usually the correct one.

Fortunatelly scientists are aware of these things.

Regards.

[Spetz 0]

I personally believe that our 'green' initiatives should be more focused on reducing unnecessary consumption instead of global warming, many of you on these forums are from European Countries, where the cost of energy and consumer discretionary goods are higher then in North America. Therefore, they try to use less of the resources on a household basis. Even though they don't lower their quality of life, (actually European lifestyle is better then the 'American Dream' lifestyle)

I have grown up the traditional American/Canadian way. My Dad was an Accountant that drove a Pick-up truck(Ford F-150), Why? because it was comfortable to drive on the road. My Mother Drove a Ford Explorer, Why? because it was safe and reliable to use in the 'great outdoors.' (Both are not true, SUVs roll-over easly and we lived in suburbia, the only 4x4 we ever needed was over pot-holes in the road, also FORD>Found On Road Dead) The Company that my Dad worked for provided Free water and Electricity(we had a Electric water heater) so we basically had no value of energy or resources, we could leave the hot tub and Sauna on all month if we wanted to, (we rarely did cause that would break the heating Units)

but today times have changed, my family fleet consists of Fuel Efficient Japanese vehicles, we moved to Toronto, our quality of life hasn't been lowered, we use resources a lot less even though the cost isn't tremendous. This transition wasn't even that hard to get used to. maybe the energy shock during hurricane Katrina was a bigger shock.

In America, they believe any movement to improve efficiency of consumption as an attack on their way of life. Which is not true, the American way of live is possible on a reduced consumption of resources and ussage of renewable sources of Energy. I think eventually once, oil prices go back up to $100 a barrel permanently there will a transition

[someboy 0]

Agree on the need to focus on reducing resources and energy consumption. However I believe that the high focus on global warming is more due to the media. I guess the apocalyptic side of temperature increase and sea level rising provides nice news that allow easily "catching" spectators.

Resource reduction comsumption policies should come from governments in order to be effective (through taxes, supporting research on alternative energy sources, etc), unfortunately in many cases these policies have a high political cost.

[Spetz 0]

Thought I would share a picture of Toronto during Earth Hour

[someboy 0]

Nice!! Good job there.

Not sure how it has gone around the world...

I spent my earth hour in a train, so not even needed to turn off any lights (well, I got home at 9:25 and sat in a chair in the darkness for five minutes )

[kavoven 4]

The photo looks quite impressive

[Student Pilot 0]

I am not going to debate the scientific or statistical arguments of global warming. I am not going to debate whether or not we should adopt green policies "just in case" global warming is real. I am not going to try to say how many scientists and governments agree with my point of view and thereby make my point of view right. What I am going to say is:

While earth hour was occurring we in Wisconsin were getting a large snowfall. Having had record snowfalls this year and really cold temperatures, I am tired of snow. I say turn on as many lights as possible, churn out carbon dioxide pollution, and start cutting down some trees so that this damn place known as Wisconsin starts warming up a little.

That's all.

-Student Pilot

[someboy 0]

Or.... you can always go live somewhere warmer....

[Student Pilot 0]

I plan to, once I graduate college. Until then, it's

[MehMan 0]

That's what you get for being so near to Canada!

[Supernova 0]

Thought I would share a picture of Toronto during Earth Hour

What a bunch of saps. Earth hour is the biggest ****** since WMD's.

[jakerod 254]

Quote[/b] ]What a bunch of saps. Earth hour is the biggest ****** since WMD's.

Because turning off lights hurts everyone on Earth right?

It isn't like there is any negative thing that happened because they turned off their lights. Hell they saved money by doing so but <sarcasm>yeah you're right what a bunch of saps.</sarcasm>

[echo1 0]

It isn't like there is any negative thing that happened because they turned off their lights. Hell they saved money by doing so but <sarcasm>yeah you're right what a bunch of saps.</sarcasm>

But were there any lasting benefits from all this? Fact is, everyone will forget about it in a few weeks. Nothing permanent has been accomplished because some organizations think that its more important to get on the news than to do something that might have a lasting impact. The problem comes when the general populous is bombarded with so much of this bollocks that they lose sight of the real issue and become completely disinterested with it.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I'll stop breathing 1 second every three seconds to avoid sending too many carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

[someboy 0]

Quote[/b] ]But were there any lasting benefits from all this? Fact is, everyone will forget about it in a few weeks. Nothing permanent has been accomplished because some organizations think that its more important to get on the news than to do something that might have a lasting impact. The problem comes when the general populous is bombarded with so much of this bollocks that they lose sight of the real issue and become completely disinterested with it.

The goal was to make more people aware of a problem, and so to urge politicians to actually make something about it. Organizations themselves cannot solve the problem, as they are not in charge of governments. Getting on the news is the most they can do, so don't blame them.

I don't think that getting a lot of information about this issue makes people disinterested on it, rather the opposite.

[echo1 0]

The goal was to make more people aware of a problem, and so to urge politicians to actually make something about it.

Raise awareness of what problem? The environmental issue that everyone has known about for at least a decade? Not a day goes by where I hear or see people talking about global warming on various media, or see ads for recycling or energy saving products. The problem is not with a lack of awareness, it's to do with people not knowing how to make a difference.

Quote[/b] ]Organizations themselves cannot solve the problem, as they are not in charge of governments. Getting on the news is the most they can do, so don't blame them.

Bullshit. That's just a variant of the "I'm just an individual, what can I do?" argument, and shows complete lack of imagination. They could have done something useful. Like a campaign to get people to use energy saving bulbs, or wash their clothes at lower temperatures. There's so many little changes that people can make that can have a lasting positive impact on the environment which they could have capitalized on. Instead they wasted it on some pointless publicity stunt. Does it bother you to realize that everytime you post something to defend its merits, you are actually undoing any benefit to the environment that it may have caused?

Quote[/b] ]I don't think that getting a lot of information about this issue makes people disinterested on it, rather the opposite.

I think it's a quite well known phenomenon, especially with charity ads. People get bored of hearing the same stuff over and over again. They got disillusioned when they feel they can't do anything to cause a tangible change. The net result is that people don't care. If you're going to try and make average Joe Soap play along with you, do something that makes him/her feel like they're making a difference.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]What a bunch of saps. Earth hour is the biggest ****** since WMD's.

Because turning off lights hurts everyone on Earth right?

It isn't like there is any negative thing that happened because they turned off their lights. Hell they saved money by doing so but <sarcasm>yeah you're right what a bunch of saps.</sarcasm>

They turned them back on again didn't they?

[someboy 0]

Well, maybe the expression "Raise awareness of the problem" was not the most correct one, my fault. What I pretend to say is that the governments are the one that MORE can do about it. If politicians see that actually a lot of people is concerned about this problem, they will include green policies in their programs (as in the end their goal is to get the most possible votes).

Sure individual actions can also help adress the problem, and I totally support campaigns that aim at this, I did not pretend to say the opposite. In this case this specific campaign was aimed at other specific purpose, and I don't see anything bad with it. I do not see is as a "waste of time", as you do. Having done this campaign does not mean they cannot do more campaigns.

I was not aware that my posts were having a negative effect on environment... Guess they should add the variable "someBoy's posts on BIS forums" to the climate models in order to make them correct.

I still have the opposite view regarding excessiveness of campaigns. Not getting any information would make me think that the problem might have actually got solved. Constantly getting information reminds me that the problem is still there. "Not becoming disillusioned" is not going to solve anything...

[USSRsniper 0]

Earth Hour 2009!!! Stop breathing for an hour to save the earth  

turning off the light will save you some money on electric bill, but it will do nothing good for our planet. You light might be off, but factories still pollute the air, and coal power plants still work

[someboy 0]

Hey Baff1, still waiting for a link to that wrongly created NASA model you talked about a few posts ago!