En furetant les manchettes du BBC, j’ai trouvé cet article…Parait qu’un type est entré dans un restaurant à Londres et a décidé de se couper le penis! Mais ce qui est encore plus bizarre c’est le nom du resto (facilement visible dans la photo mais aussi cité dans l’article).
Très bizarre...
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
More on Global warming
As I was doing my research yesterday, an interesting article caught my eye: it was BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change published in the research magazine Science in 2004. I've taken the liberty of quoting a couple of paragraphs from the article. It should be kept in mind that this article was written in 2004 - about 3 years ago.
"The authors analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). .... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.” (my emphasis added)
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.”
I thought these two paragraphs were rather enlightening.
More on the question of scientific consensus: There is a Wikipedia entry entitled "Scientific consensus on climate change" which IMO pretty much ends the discussion on the global warming, unless one chooses to argue that the opinions of groups of scientists is meaningless. The entry lists 14 US and international organizations which state, in one way or another, that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming or that that the particular organization is in agreement with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; see my previous post). These organizations include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Research Council, and American Association of State Climatologists. The only dissenting organization is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. (I wonder why that is?)
"The authors analyzed 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9). .... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.” (my emphasis added)
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.”
I thought these two paragraphs were rather enlightening.
More on the question of scientific consensus: There is a Wikipedia entry entitled "Scientific consensus on climate change" which IMO pretty much ends the discussion on the global warming, unless one chooses to argue that the opinions of groups of scientists is meaningless. The entry lists 14 US and international organizations which state, in one way or another, that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming or that that the particular organization is in agreement with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; see my previous post). These organizations include the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Research Council, and American Association of State Climatologists. The only dissenting organization is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. (I wonder why that is?)
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Earth Day, Global warming, and Jeff
I found it rather funny that I had a long discussion about global warming with Jeff as we were playing RavenShield last night, on the eve of Earth Day...
I won't attempt to summarize our discussions. I was rather distracted by trying to survive in RvS and to try to follow the thread of my discussion with Jeff as well as to recall some of the major research conclusions concerning global warming. (I don't multitask very well, just ask my wife.) You see, Jeff is not convinced that global warming exists at all, and that scientists of like mind (either for or against the conclusion of global warming) banded together and that there was no consensus conclusion that global warming was a 100% certainty.
Well, it got me to thinking. I had recalled a study that, in my mind, was pretty conclusive. Well, I was wrong. In fact, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report that:
(Incidentally, I had blogged earlier on the allegation that the Bush administration attempted to muzzle its own climate scientists and suppress research results. The attempt by any government to muzzle its own scientists is despicable - and the Bush administration is by no means alone!)
So, while in the mind of this group of scientists it is very likely that the gases that contribute to global warming are of anthopogenic origins, what should be done about it?
Well, I'm not an expert, but I figure we need to do something, and to do it now. We don't have time to screw around. My first thought is that we have to limit the output of greenhouse gases (ergo, the Kyoto Protocol). I'll have more to say about Kyoto when I've researched it properly and thought about it.
Happy Earth Day, everyone, and especially you, Jeff! ;-)
I won't attempt to summarize our discussions. I was rather distracted by trying to survive in RvS and to try to follow the thread of my discussion with Jeff as well as to recall some of the major research conclusions concerning global warming. (I don't multitask very well, just ask my wife.) You see, Jeff is not convinced that global warming exists at all, and that scientists of like mind (either for or against the conclusion of global warming) banded together and that there was no consensus conclusion that global warming was a 100% certainty.
Well, it got me to thinking. I had recalled a study that, in my mind, was pretty conclusive. Well, I was wrong. In fact, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had concluded in its Fourth Assessment Report that:
"It is very likely that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, butNow, as a person familiar with the workings of the scientific community, it is very unlikely (read: impossible) for the community to come to an absolute consensus on just about any topic except the existence of gravity - and even there, I'm not so sure. The fact that the term "very likely" was used (the term used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement, of an outcome or a result) exceeds 90% certainty - and this, of a group of 600 international climate experts from 40 countries, including the US.
relative contributions from different source types are not well determined." (p. 4)
(Incidentally, I had blogged earlier on the allegation that the Bush administration attempted to muzzle its own climate scientists and suppress research results. The attempt by any government to muzzle its own scientists is despicable - and the Bush administration is by no means alone!)
So, while in the mind of this group of scientists it is very likely that the gases that contribute to global warming are of anthopogenic origins, what should be done about it?
Well, I'm not an expert, but I figure we need to do something, and to do it now. We don't have time to screw around. My first thought is that we have to limit the output of greenhouse gases (ergo, the Kyoto Protocol). I'll have more to say about Kyoto when I've researched it properly and thought about it.
Happy Earth Day, everyone, and especially you, Jeff! ;-)
Friday, April 20, 2007
Columbine and Virginia Tech
In future years, the week from April 16th to 20th will hold some very sad anniversaries - the massacres of Columbine in 1999 and this year's Virginia Tech.
What's particularly disturbing is that IMO we are no closer to really understanding the "whys" that drove Messrs Harris and Kliebold to kill than on the day it happened - and that these kids' parents testimony will be sealed for 20 years (see Columbine questions still unanswered - MSNBC.com.)
In the wake of Seung-Hui Cho's rampage at Virginia Tech, the same questions will be asked: Why did it happen? What can we do to prevent this from happening again? But I don't expect any answers that will really help us know why it happened, because the ones who know killed themselves.
It's predictable: Messrs Harris, Kliebold and Seung-Hui will be vilified in the American media; more stringent security will be set in place; and much talk, but no action, will be made on gun control. And as days turn into months, and then years, no massacre will have happened, and we may think that, somehow, we have solved the problem.
And then it happens again.
And I expect it will happen again, because IMO there is a fundamental malaise in our society, one that fosters alienation. Maybe not an active alienation, in the sense that society has excluded these young people (though there is evidence that Harris/Kleinbold and Seung-Hui were bullied), but rather that they chose to be alienated from other people. Why that was, I have no idea, but I wonder if the answer lies in what was sealed...
What's particularly disturbing is that IMO we are no closer to really understanding the "whys" that drove Messrs Harris and Kliebold to kill than on the day it happened - and that these kids' parents testimony will be sealed for 20 years (see Columbine questions still unanswered - MSNBC.com.)
In the wake of Seung-Hui Cho's rampage at Virginia Tech, the same questions will be asked: Why did it happen? What can we do to prevent this from happening again? But I don't expect any answers that will really help us know why it happened, because the ones who know killed themselves.
It's predictable: Messrs Harris, Kliebold and Seung-Hui will be vilified in the American media; more stringent security will be set in place; and much talk, but no action, will be made on gun control. And as days turn into months, and then years, no massacre will have happened, and we may think that, somehow, we have solved the problem.
And then it happens again.
And I expect it will happen again, because IMO there is a fundamental malaise in our society, one that fosters alienation. Maybe not an active alienation, in the sense that society has excluded these young people (though there is evidence that Harris/Kleinbold and Seung-Hui were bullied), but rather that they chose to be alienated from other people. Why that was, I have no idea, but I wonder if the answer lies in what was sealed...
Sunday, April 15, 2007
US generals urge climate action - BBC News
I never would have believed it, but American generals have come out in favor of U.S. action to address climate change (see BBC NEWS "US generals urge climate action").
It seems that former US military leaders say that "global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."
General Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, said that: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism. We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
I doubt that Bush will listen to their voice of reason...
It seems that former US military leaders say that "global warming poses a serious threat to national security, as the US could be drawn into wars over water and other conflicts."
General Zinni, a former commander of US Central Command, said that: "It's not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism. We will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we'll have to take an economic hit of some kind. Or we will pay the price later in military terms. And that will involve human lives. There will be a human toll."
I doubt that Bush will listen to their voice of reason...
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Skep's "new" Home Page
I've had to establish a new home page as a result of consolidating my "identities." Sadly, I've had to delete the old website, but the new one, I hope will be better organized and more readable.
My "new" website can be found at http://skiamachist.googlepages.com.
My "new" website can be found at http://skiamachist.googlepages.com.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Freedom of speech on the internet (?)
For some time now, actually since my friend P. ran afoul of her workplace's internet police, I've been thinking of the question of freedom of expression on the internet through blogs and posts. This morning, I read an interesting article by Heather Mallick on the CBC website. If you're not worried about Big Brother monitoring your on-line access, then read it at work... ;-)
On another note, I've taken a few days off to visit a friend in Waterloo and visit dad-in-law in London - with interesting side-trips as I travel. More on that later.
On another note, I've taken a few days off to visit a friend in Waterloo and visit dad-in-law in London - with interesting side-trips as I travel. More on that later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)