If something was wrong THEY would tell us.

As the number, and severity, of changes in our climate, ecosystem and skies increase, I am shocked by the lack of credible answers coming from the scientific community. Instead of sending teams to Greenland, where we lost the ice sheet in four days time, they are under the ground in Switzerland and France, looking for the "God" particle.
As a summer full of the usual scientific conferences comes to a close, a review of the proceedings reveals no answers, just more requests for funding. They know the Earth is changing rapidly, they just need 30 more sensors to measure how much. A review of the abstracts from the International Symposium on Space Geodesy and Earth Sciences, which just wrapped up in China, explains this silence. Page after page of important issues, worthy of immediate attention, are discussed, all need more study, more funding. My personal favorite is a study on the Dead Sea, apparently after much study they have determined the surface of that Sea rises as the water above it evaporates! Shocking.
After reviewing, and in disgust writing off, the entire summer as more of the same, I did a check to see if the first week of September offered any hope. I wish I had not as the first study I saw, and no, this is not a joke, was about the rate at which HARD CANDY dissolves in your mouth, including graphs.
physicsforme.wordpress.com...
Start demanding some answers, start asking questions, and perhaps this nonsense will stop.

ahh.. but then they'd lose out on all that grant money and would have to get real jobs where they'd have to actually work to earn money...

reply to post by Trublbrwing


I have known and talked about this for some time now, we haven't had a single ner technology delivered since the 1950s, everything we havve today we had then, they have just tweaked old tech. Computers, had em, they are just smaller and faster, nothing has changed really, cars, had em, they just get better gas mileage and cost a lot more, airplanes, had em, not only did we have them, the best plane ever made, was made in the 50s, the SR71 Blackbird, which still holds every record for a winged aircraft ever set, surpassed in speed and altitude, only by the space shuttle. Which isn't an airplane, it is a space ship. Cell phones, are just a computer and a walkie talkie combined, nothing new, it is just tweaked old tech.

The point I am trying to make is, that from 1900 to 1950 we went from the way things were in the old days, to the way things are now, in less than 50 years, and have not gone any further really at all, in the proceeding 62. This has always made me question....why?

It is my belief that we are intentionally being held back, out of fear, or perhaps even wisdom. As to go much farther, requires that redgular folks have posession of very powerful, yet potentially very dangerous, technologies.

If it is fear, I can understand, to some extent, as most are not ready to be inposession of a nuclear reactor to power their homes or vehichles etc. As this gives regular men the potential that is at present only available to governments.

If it is wisdom, I refer you to the above mentioned reasons as they are still just as valid in this case.

Originally posted by Expat888
ahh.. but then they'd lose out on all that grant money and would have to get real jobs where they'd have to actually work to earn money...

In almost every case the data needed to figure out current problems is four years or four billion dollars out. I for one could care less about the orbit of Pluto, we've got a problem on the front porch.

true so true its not just mushrooms that are being kept in the dark when i bought my first plug in usb bongal for the internet the licence for it in the info was dated 1985 ? shows what they keep from us

The Canadian government has done just that,cutting environmental research in areas that may affect there agenda..
PM Harper is accused of pushing through a slew of policies weakening or abolishing environmental protections – with an aim of expanding development of natural resources such as the Alberta tar sands,so they can clear the way for a pipe-line to the USA.
In short they will NOT tell us,because THEY WON'T KNOW..

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
As the number, and severity, of changes in our climate, ecosystem and skies increase, I am shocked by the lack of credible answers coming from the scientific community. Instead of sending teams to Greenland, where we lost the ice sheet in four days time, they are under the ground in Switzerland and France, looking for the "God" particle.
As a summer full of the usual scientific conferences comes to a close, a review of the proceedings reveals no answers, just more requests for funding. They know the Earth is changing rapidly, they just need 30 more sensors to measure how much. A review of the abstracts from the International Symposium on Space Geodesy and Earth Sciences, which just wrapped up in China, explains this silence. Page after page of important issues, worthy of immediate attention, are discussed, all need more study, more funding. My personal favorite is a study on the Dead Sea, apparently after much study they have determined the surface of that Sea rises as the water above it evaporates! Shocking.
After reviewing, and in disgust writing off, the entire summer as more of the same, I did a check to see if the first week of September offered any hope. I wish I had not as the first study I saw, and no, this is not a joke, was about the rate at which HARD CANDY dissolves in your mouth, including graphs.
physicsforme.wordpress.com...
Start demanding some answers, start asking questions, and perhaps this nonsense will stop.

edit on 9-9-2012 by Trublbrwing because: broken link

Here's an idea:
Change your career path, get your PhD in the appropriate relevant scienceS (emphasis on the 's' since you'll need more than one specialization), and get to work on solving this planetary problem that some seem overly concerned about, yet essentially powerless to do anything in regard to it.

If you've got your Bachelor's already, then at most you're looking at another 8 years for the PhD., and since you'll be applying yourself to multiple concentrations, you can probably have all your bases covered in 12 years.

12 years is nothing on the geological scale, so, have at it. The Earth will 'wait' kinda, for you to get your degree on.

Things to consider while working out how to solve the planetary 'problem':
1. The Solar Cycle, so, you'll need some astrophysics as it relates to how the huge fusion reacotr that our star is works.
2. The Carbon Cycle as it relates to carbon dioxide build up (a green house gas) and and how oceans play a part in recycling carbon dioxide that works in a larger cycle dealing with ...
3. Ice Age cycles
4. Then, there's also the Milankovich Cycles that also need be accounted for.

and that's just a small part of it.

It's a pretty complex problem dipping into many several specializations, none having the whole picture.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


This is because all the scientific studies are very worrisome...at least, all the ones we're interested in. Very troubling analysis and all that stuff. No news is good news, they say; well, I think no news is an indication that the people who have the most reason to lie to us finally realized it.

For every question we answer we get at least 5 more. You act as if you think Science is the answer for everything, or there is some sort of magic bullet that if we could just find it would fix all the problems with the climate. Climate is out of our control, always was, always will be. Adjust.

Science evolves. As we do. I doubt you could read any paper published in any scientific journal that disagrees with anything said in any post here.

Even scientists that were 99% sure about [x] are now openly saying they are only 50% sure about [x] things now, due to new data they used to be a lot more certain about.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Science changes it's views due to what's observed.

Faith is the denial of evidence so that faith can be preserved.

Most scientists long ago left the bandwagon of corporate greed and pollution, we only have a few stragglers left in our midst.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Science evolves. As we do. I doubt you could read any paper published in any scientific journal that disagrees with anything said in any post here.

Even scientists that were 99% sure about [x] are now openly saying they are only 50% sure about [x] things now, due to new data they used to be a lot more certain about.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Science changes it's views due to what's observed.

Faith is the denial of evidence so that faith can be preserved.

Most scientists long ago left the bandwagon of corporate greed and pollution, we only have a few stragglers left in our midst.

edit on 10-9-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)

if truth were a fire you would be in the ocean with that comment.

most scientists are bank rolled by the same corporate greed that bankrolls our elected officials and government agencies.

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Science evolves. As we do. I doubt you could read any paper published in any scientific journal that disagrees with anything said in any post here.

Even scientists that were 99% sure about [x] are now openly saying they are only 50% sure about [x] things now, due to new data they used to be a lot more certain about.

That is the difference between science and religion.

Science changes it's views due to what's observed.

Faith is the denial of evidence so that faith can be preserved.

Most scientists long ago left the bandwagon of corporate greed and pollution, we only have a few stragglers left in our midst.

edit on 10-9-2012 by ZeuZZ because: (no reason given)

if truth were a fire you would be in the ocean with that comment.

most scientists are bank rolled by the same corporate greed that bankrolls our elected officials and government agencies.

Whilst I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel I have to resposte it, due to sciences very own recent advancements.

I am very much am swimming in the pollution ridden ocean that corporate greed has dealt us. I #ing hate it.

I hate the mathematical lianear-lism that predicated the swamp of pollution I have to swim in to give you this message. But please, ask yourself.

Did the people that caused this mean to do this?

Or where they just just following the journal of 'the times' ... that said they could do this ... and it was fine?
'coz science said?
They did not mean to cause any more harm than then have.

They were people lead astray by the method. The method of science.
Lead astray by the doctrine ... of science.

They will learn. You will will be amazed how stubborn scientists will be, sometimes.
BUT, if you actually confront them with empirical evidence about their actions. they will change their minds.

They did not choose to do this.

They were TAUGHT to do this.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


i think they realized that technology was starting to free people, so they started holding it back.

imagine if you had unlimited power in your house. that's one less bill, one smaller paycheck for someone else.

imagine if your car was powered by the same source. and it ran for years and years without additional fuel.

thats an average of $3000+ a year on gas for every american driver that someone else is not collecting.

technology is a direct threat to the elites wealth. bottom line.

and since they own most of the tech firms directly or indirectly either thru stock, venture groups, banks and financing, they will not further anything that will jeopardize their wealth and entitlement over other people.

its a matter of survival and their way of life.

Originally posted by all2human
The Canadian government has done just that,cutting environmental research in areas that may affect there agenda..
PM Harper is accused of pushing through a slew of policies weakening or abolishing environmental protections – with an aim of expanding development of natural resources such as the Alberta tar sands,so they can clear the way for a pipe-line to the USA.
In short they will NOT tell us,because THEY WON'T KNOW..

www.guardian.co.uk...

I saw that coming when they started seeking membership in the G7. The beauty of Canada has always been it's natural resources combined with a nation of people committed to preserving it. Once you step off that path all of America's problems will be yours as well. Having lived there myself I am deeply troubled by that.

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
As the number, and severity, of changes in our climate, ecosystem and skies increase, I am shocked by the lack of credible answers coming from the scientific community. Instead of sending teams to Greenland, where we lost the ice sheet in four days time, they are under the ground in Switzerland and France, looking for the "God" particle.
As a summer full of the usual scientific conferences comes to a close, a review of the proceedings reveals no answers, just more requests for funding. They know the Earth is changing rapidly, they just need 30 more sensors to measure how much. A review of the abstracts from the International Symposium on Space Geodesy and Earth Sciences, which just wrapped up in China, explains this silence. Page after page of important issues, worthy of immediate attention, are discussed, all need more study, more funding. My personal favorite is a study on the Dead Sea, apparently after much study they have determined the surface of that Sea rises as the water above it evaporates! Shocking.
After reviewing, and in disgust writing off, the entire summer as more of the same, I did a check to see if the first week of September offered any hope. I wish I had not as the first study I saw, and no, this is not a joke, was about the rate at which HARD CANDY dissolves in your mouth, including graphs.
physicsforme.wordpress.com...
Start demanding some answers, start asking questions, and perhaps this nonsense will stop.

edit on 9-9-2012 by Trublbrwing because: broken link

Here's an idea:
Change your career path, get your PhD in the appropriate relevant scienceS (emphasis on the 's' since you'll need more than one specialization), and get to work on solving this planetary problem that some seem overly concerned about, yet essentially powerless to do anything in regard to it.

If you've got your Bachelor's already, then at most you're looking at another 8 years for the PhD., and since you'll be applying yourself to multiple concentrations, you can probably have all your bases covered in 12 years.

12 years is nothing on the geological scale, so, have at it. The Earth will 'wait' kinda, for you to get your degree on.

Things to consider while working out how to solve the planetary 'problem':
1. The Solar Cycle, so, you'll need some astrophysics as it relates to how the huge fusion reacotr that our star is works.
2. The Carbon Cycle as it relates to carbon dioxide build up (a green house gas) and and how oceans play a part in recycling carbon dioxide that works in a larger cycle dealing with ...
3. Ice Age cycles
4. Then, there's also the Milankovich Cycles that also need be accounted for.

and that's just a small part of it.

It's a pretty complex problem dipping into many several specializations, none having the whole picture.

edit on 10-9-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)

Adding one more person to the endless pool of individuals who line up for peer review won't change a single thing. The world doesn't need another scientist, it needs a leader to point the ones we already have in the right direction. Somewhere along the road science went from producing results to producing revenue, and those studies which threatened to disrupt the revenue streams were simply ignored.
I don't need to spend 12 years, or even 12 days, studying that which is clear and obvious to me.
1. The Solar cycle- The natural 11 year cycle is clearly not the culprit here, the only link is an obvious increase in radiant heat caused by changes in the Earth system.
2. The carbon cycle- The single biggest stumbling block in climate science, again not directly responsible for the current crisis. Acidification is increasing due to mixing, or rather lack thereof.
3. Ice age cycles- There isn't a single ice core on/ or still in the planet matching current conditions. This isn't a cycle, it's a natural disaster.

Originally posted by Iamschist
For every question we answer we get at least 5 more. You act as if you think Science is the answer for everything, or there is some sort of magic bullet that if we could just find it would fix all the problems with the climate. Climate is out of our control, always was, always will be. Adjust.

Trillions of dollars have been spent with the understanding they would MONITOR certain systems for changes. Once changes were identified, it was assumed they would work together to develop action plans, this didn't happen. If my job is to work in a convenience store, and I see a broken window with crows flying out carrying bags of candy, it is assumed I will take the necessary action to report and contain the problem. Taking notes of the wind velocity, number of crows, types of candy etc. is a waste of time, no matter how well that report is written.

reply to post by Trublbrwing


I think you're being short sighted in only looking at the past few hundred thousand years.

Broaden your view into the tens of millions of years timescale.

Consider we once had an atmosphere thick and dense enough to support dragonflies with 3ft wingspans.
Consider we once had a climate hot enough that there essentially wasn't a winter (as we know it) for millions of years.

Short sighted humans.

reply to post by ZeuZZ


I much prefer this quote from Carl.....
"We have designed a civilization based on science and technology and at the same time have arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster. We may for a while get away with this mix of ignorance and power but sooner or later it is bound to blow up in our face."

I think the most important thing is to recognize the errors that got us here, change the current system that allowed that to happen, and most importantly, re examine our priorities so that money isn't the fuel that drives the engine of science.

Pure research has no place then?

Oh, btw. The candy study? It was published as lesson in how a research project should be done. Sort of a school science fair type thing, it didn't cost anyone anything. But, according to you we have enough scientists so never mind.

"It was more like a Sunday afternoon project," says Andreas Windisch. "When we got the results, we decided to put it into a paper and send a draft to a educational journal to use it as a nice example for school classes," he says.

www.npr.org...

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by Trublbrwing

 

I think you're being short sighted in only looking at the past few hundred thousand years.

Broaden your view into the tens of millions of years timescale.

Consider we once had an atmosphere thick and dense enough to support dragonflies with 3ft wingspans.
Consider we once had a climate hot enough that there essentially wasn't a winter (as we know it) for millions of years.

Short sighted humans.

I understand what you're saying, but here is the problem....
Conditions today, at this exact moment, will NEVER be duplicated, the system evolves and there will likely never be another dragonfly with a 3ft wingspan. In other words, waiting for a natural cycle to correct the problem is like denying the problem, it isn't effective. While it's true the planet has gone through extinction events before, none of them are exactly the same, thus they are not useful models.