It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by rickymouse
...
Why not spend your time at a bbq at the local beach than sitting at an airport and in a jet to spend time with people you may never see again. I liked flying in a jet, I learned it was fun in one trip, it got boring after that. Why not support your community instead of exporting your money to a distant community or country. Take care of your own by supporting your own.edit on 23-2-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by jonnywhite
You may be right in some way. No doubt there're things we don't know. Scientists get hot headed sometimes. However, did you know that the last time our planet had similar Co2 levels was millions of years ago? A recent study says 15 million years ago. Back then sea levels were 100 feet higher and there was little ice on Antarctica and temperatures were several degrees higher.
...
Thing is, anytime we change the Co2 level as rapidly as we have, we're taking on a risk. We're thrusting Co2 levels to a level they were at millions of years ago and don't expect consequences? How can there be no consequences? This is an experiment, whether you want to admit it or not.
What's happening right now is an experiment. There're so many things we're changing. In the end, you may be right that more Co2 will make plants stronger, but as far as I'm concerned, you may be wrong. And there might be many things you're skipping past that will spell doom for this world. I'm sorry, I do not have the same level of confidence that you do in our ambitions on this planet.
...
We have some scientific understanding of many of these issues but not nearly enough, and the application of our scientific understanding of how policies influence social norms is inadequate. The academy, therefore, needs to increase its capacity to work with policymakers to effectively use existing knowledge on policy–behavior–norm interactions and to generate needed new insights in a timely fashion.
We have three recommendations for improving this process:
(1) the greater inclusion of social and behavioral scientists in periodic environmental policy assessments;
(2) the establishment of teams of scholars and policymakers that can assess, on policy-relevant timescales, the short- and long-term efficacy of policy interventions; and
(3) the alteration of academic norms to allow more progress on these issues[
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In order to play an effective role, then, the academy will, itself, need to reflect on its own professional norms as
potential obstacles to constructive engagement.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The academy needs to do what it can—and more than it is doing now—to deliver on this more promising
environmental future
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
This article arose from discussions at a meeting sponsored by the James S. McDonnell Foundation, Newport Beach, California, 20–22 January 2009.
...
We agree that social norms are important, but social
norms and values shift in complicated and often unexpected
ways (Ehrlich and Levin 2005) and respond to myriad
forces at both lower and higher levels of social organization
(Ostrom et al. 2002). If no tipping point is reached, a minority
of the population potentially shoulders the burdens of
proenvironment behavior; moreover, their efforts alone are
unlikely to have a sufficient impact on the types of emerging
environmental challenges that the world faces. Substantial
numbers of people will have to alter their existing behaviors
to address this new class of global environmental problems.
Alternative approaches are needed when education and persuasion
alone are insufficient.
Policy instruments such as penalties, regulations, and
incentives may therefore be required to achieve significant
behavior modification (Carlson 2001, House of Lords 2011).
Policies apply to everyone in a particular jurisdiction and, as
a result, ensure that the burdens of proenvironment behavior
are widely shared, which increases the probability of
measurable positive outcomes.
...
Originally posted by AndyMayhew
read it?
comment on what the paper says, not what people want you to think the paper says?
It's a paper about the role of the academy, nothing more - though I confess I'm slightly confused as to which academy!
Originally posted by rickymouse
The reasoning behind this cannot be compared to Hitlers actions. You have no concept of how Hitler really was.
Originally posted by rickymouse
The carbon at ground levels is not a problem, the CO2 in the atmosphere is the problem. Make big parks full of trees near the cities and they will tie up the carbon. Evidently you haven't done much open minded research on this. I know that I will never convince someone who is set in their ways to listen to reasoning that challenges their beliefs.
A substance in the air that can be harmful to humans and the environment is known as an air pollutant. Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made. Pollutants can be classified as primary or secondary. Usually, primary pollutants are directly emitted from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption, the carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle exhaust or sulphur dioxide released from factories. Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact. An important example of a secondary pollutant is ground level ozone — one of the many secondary pollutants that make up photochemical smog. Some pollutants may be both primary and secondary: that is, they are both emitted directly and formed from other primary pollutants.
Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:
Sulphur oxides
Nitrogen oxides
Carbon monoxide
Volatile organic compounds
Particulates
Persistent free radicals
Toxic metals
Chlorofluorocarbons
Ammonia
Odors
Radioactive pollutants
...
Carbon dioxide CO2 levels outdoors near ground level are typically 300 ppm to 400 ppm or 0.03% to 0.040% in concentration.
Carbon dioxide CO2 levels indoors in occupied buildings are typically around 600 ppm to 800 ppm or 0.06% to 0.08% in concentration. You'll find this data in many indoor air quality articles and books and it's consistent with what we find typically in our own field measurements.
Carbon dioxide CO2 levels indoors in an inadequately vented space with heavy occupation is often measured around 1000 ppm or 0.10% in concentration. I have measured levels around 1200 ppm in occupied basement offices in a hospital where the staff worked in an area which had no decent fresh air intake into their ventilation system.
In 1989 I also measured 1200 ppm at chest height in the center of the sanctuary in a Jewish synagogue during the high holy days in a small New York city. I also observed people nodding off. We were never sure if it was a droning sermon, exhausted worshipers at the end of a long week, or the CO2 level. But there was no doubt that we were not meeting recommended ventilation standards for that space.
Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
1,000ppm or more? That's ridiculous. Standard indoor air quality is supposed to be lower than that, 600ppm is usually the threshold where people start to feel uncomfortable breathing, at 1,000ppm people begin to get bad headaches, feel nauseous or fatigued. Using indoor air as an example to say that high levels of Co2 are okay just shows how little you understand science. Solar radiant heat, reflecting and trapping that heat isn't really an indoor issue, is it?
Originally posted by rickymouse
CO2 is not technically a pollutant, you are right about that. If concentrations of any natural molecule build up in the atmosphere though it causes changes in the atmosphere. We ignored real science before, creating a false idealism that the world is big enough that all the changes we made to it would be absorbed and it would repair itself. That is true but what we do creates a change and that change could bring along mans extinction. I do not consider that a bad thing though since we are destroying the environment.
Originally posted by rickymouse
Maybe you can't believe the truth. Maybe you believe god will take care of it or that the world is immortal. Everything can die, nothing is immortal.
...
Current warmth seems to be occurring nearly everywhere at the same time and is largest at high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Over the last 50 years, the largest annual and seasonal warmings have occurred in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Because these areas are remote and far away from major cities, it is clear to climatologists that the warming is not due to the influence of pollution from urban areas.
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
...
Originally posted by rickymouse
Hitlers environmental concerns were not evil. Just because he was a little crazed and ruthless does not mean every single thing he did was bad. Your insight is misguided, you need to look at the big picture.
Originally posted by rickymouse
I think the chemicals we are creating are much more detrimental to the environment than the CO2 myself.
Originally posted by rickymouse
If we lowered our unnatural chemicals and restricted the bioengeneering of our foods the earth would be better off.
Originally posted by rickymouse
We need to use caution when making changes and reevaluate the changes we have already done.
June 05, 2003 - (date of web publication)
A NASA-Department of Energy jointly funded study concludes the Earth has been greening over the past 20 years. As climate changed, plants found it easier to grow.
The globally comprehensive, multi-discipline study appears in this week's Science magazine. The article states climate changes have provided extra doses of water, heat and sunlight in areas where one or more of those ingredients may have been lacking. Plants flourished in places where climatic conditions previously limited growth.
"]Our study proposes climatic changes as the leading cause for the increases in plant growth over the last two decades, with lesser contribution from carbon dioxide fertilization and forest re-growth," said Ramakrishna Nemani, the study's lead author from the University of Montana, Missoula, Mont.
...
Originally posted by rickymouse
We have accelerated the CO2 levels that reach the upper atmosphere as we made things more and more efficient thinking that they won't hurt things.
Originally posted by rickymouse
Burning coal leaves soot, the soot. If the soot does not form than that means there is more pure CO2 released into the air. Cleaner burning means more CO2 reaching the upper atmosphere.
Originally posted by rickymouse
...
If they would have just redone the engines and lowered our use of fuels we would have been better off but then there would have been less money for oil companies and consequently less good paying jobs for workers. That is a no no for the Economy. I see that their screwed up philosophy coupled to greed is causing us harm.
Originally posted by rickymouse
So believe what you want, it is your right but don't push your screwed up perception on others. I like to look at both sides and examine the evidence that is related to side effects. It seems to me that our competitiveness and lack of fully evaluating things in this country is a major problem. Mankind has not ever in our recorded history created such an environmental impact as we have today.
Democratising Global Governance:
The Challenges of the World Social Forum
by
Francesca Beausang
ABSTRACT
This paper sums up the debate that took place during the two round tables organized by UNESCO within the first World Social Forum in Porto Alegre (25/30 January 2001). It starts with a discussion of national processes, by examining democracy and then governance at the national level. It first states a case for a "joint" governance based on a combination of stakeholder theory, which is derived from corporate governance, and of UNESCO's priorities in the field of governance. As an example, the paper investigates how governance can deviate from democracy in the East Asian model. Subsequently, the global dimension of the debate on democracy and governance is examined, first by identification of the characteristics and agents of democracy in the global setting, and then by allusion to the difficulties of transposing governance to the global level.