Out of the Blue

We had the most shocking experience with Barnes & Noble, where MrsBlue has maintained a loyalty to the bookstore to the extent that she orders books online from them rather than Amazon. The dust jacket on a book she ordered arrived with a large tear, so we went to the bookstore to exchange it. When she found the one copy in the store, the pages were filthy, but the cover was intact, so I suggested we might just be able to exchange just that. That's where the "fun" started. In an effort to maximize bureaucracy and minimize customer service, the process was to actually return the book in the system, rather than just switch the covers. This meant the system wanted another 13-or-so dollars, which was the price difference between the online book and the store-bought book. As crazy as it sounds, they were unable to reconcile this (they didn't seem that concerned with trying), and were only able to accept her return for a refund so she can go buy it online again. Well guess what? Now she's ordering it from Amazon, so whatever spiteful rivalry there is between B&N online and their stores is spiting themselves. The silliest thing is this failure to take the easy path to satisfy a once-loyal customer is how the copy of the book in the store was already damaged, so they needed to return it anyway. Pitiful.

Bookish Links: Thanks Ant and Acleacius.
Play: Zombie Crypt 3.
Sirtet.
Links: THIS Is Why Vine Was Invented. Thanks nin.
Stories: Man Saves His Dog from Sinking Yacht, Then Comes Back for Wife. Thanks nin.
Owners of killer dogs could face life in prison.
Media: Football on your Phone - Manning Brothers Music Video. Thanks Miss Awesome.
Everything Wrong With District 9.
Star Trek is much sillier when voiced by the cast of Archer.
Woodworker does crazy stop motion video of his project.
Follow-up: Conservative media’s attacks on climate science effectively erode viewers’ belief in scientists.
View : : :
96 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older
96.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 9, 2013, 12:22
Prez
 
96.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 9, 2013, 12:22
Aug 9, 2013, 12:22
 Prez
 
Yeah no worries guys. I thought the tone was getting a bit contentious ("hostile" was too strong a word really) but it was a good discussion. As always I'll digest what I've learned in it and see if my stance needs adjustment.

When I was in college a few years ago I was tasked by my Geology professor to write a thesis to support my stance that global warming wasn't happening. The catch was that I could not use any interpretive sources - I could only look at the raw data and research methods used in that data. Not only did the exercise teach me that I was wrong, it taught me to not trust sources that claim to interpret the data objectively for you (Fox News, John Cook) when you can look at it yourself. I found that while the findings were impressively thorough, I questioned how they arrived at their conclusions.

For example, to demonstratively prove something is having an effect, typically scientific methods require two sets of test groups. When doctors are trying to figure out what the effects of a drug are, they have two groups of equal composition to observe - one is given the drug and one isn't. This can reliably prove which effects are drug related and which are likely coincidental. With Climatology, unfortunately scientists are unable to make that comparison. There was no real data that I could find that would show how much climate change would have occurred over the same period of time if humans were not present. True, data exists that shows that recent warming is accelerated over the rate of warming that began around100,000 to 150,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. However data also shows that rate of warming is not constant due to a myriad of factors, telling me that accelerated warming alone is not definitive proof of an exacerbated warming effected by humans. To be clear, this does not disprove a single thing scientists are claiming; it merely in my mind calls into question whether the lion's share of the warming we are seeing is really humanity's fault.

Hopefully that one example sheds some light how I came to doubt some of things others take as foregone conclusion, and why it's not as easy as just posting some links.

This comment was edited on Aug 9, 2013, 12:49.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
95.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 9, 2013, 08:38
95.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 9, 2013, 08:38
Aug 9, 2013, 08:38
 
Climate change is a direct result of population change. If all of the developing countries adopted something similar to China's One Child policy, we could probably reverse much of the harm we've done to the environment without ever having to stop using fossil fuels.
94.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 9, 2013, 07:30
94.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 9, 2013, 07:30
Aug 9, 2013, 07:30
 
jdreyer wrote on Aug 9, 2013, 06:50:
It looks pretty obviously to my eyes an attempt by entrenched interests and their allies to maintain the status quo. But if there are objective stories supporting this side, I want to read those.

There aren't any, that's why no one has linked some. People tend to have opinions about global warming that are based not in science but in their political ideology. Global warming is established fact at this point, it's putting your head in the sand to deny it. The 70s was 40 years ago, things are a lot different now and we're starting to see the differences in our weather patterns and measurable ice flow from glaciers and the sea.
Avatar 57682
93.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 9, 2013, 06:50
93.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 9, 2013, 06:50
Aug 9, 2013, 06:50
 
Prez,

I agree from a political standpoint that it's easier to build consensus for clean air and water (and energy security given that oil comes from Arabia) than it is for global warming which is a "lobster in the slowly warming pot" problem.

But most scientists have neither the time nor inclination to be political. They look at their data, and it points toward the fact that humans are pouring billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere and CO2 is a gas that traps heat. That melts some permafrost, which releases methane, trapping more heat, thawing more permafrost, and we have a nasty feedback loop. Scientists report this conclusion unconcerned that it might affect the business practices of the corporations selling largest commodity (oil) on the planet. It's not spin in their eyes, just their conclusions based on the data.

I wasn't being hostile asking you for links. I'm genuinely interested in honest debate, as I've only ever seen attacks and spin from the pro fossil fuel side. And all of those anti-GW stories have been either by fossil fuel funded think tanks or the obviously partisan Fox News. It looks pretty obviously to my eyes an attempt by entrenched interests and their allies to maintain the status quo. But if there are objective stories supporting this side, I want to read those.
If Russia stops fighting, the war ends. If Ukraine stops fighting, Ukraine ends. Slava Ukraini!
Avatar 22024
92.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 23:17
92.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 23:17
Aug 8, 2013, 23:17
 
Thanks for the replies Prez.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

This document makes it very clear what the responses were and how the question (#2) was worded. I can understand distaste with media spinning and tone on both sides of the debate but you're wrong to diminish the consensus.

Here's another:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html
Avatar 17249
91.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 14:17
Prez
 
91.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 14:17
Aug 8, 2013, 14:17
 Prez
 
I did a really bad job of explaining this but one of the points I tried to make was that it has been the gross exaggeration of impending catastrophes (the commercials in the 70's of a future where kids need to put on space suits to play outside because of the damage we did to the globe and Al Gore's claim that the earth only had about 10 years before it became unliveable...that he made in 2005 - things better start hurrying up!- just to name 2) that has caused people to doubt science in this area just as much, maybe even more, than conservative media.

I mean how many people actually watch/listen to hacks like Beck and Hannity? I contend that many, many more are skeptical about climatology than consume that garbage, meaning there are more reasons for why so many people are ignoring climate science than just what the article is saying. I say it's due in large part to a "boy who cried wolf" syndrome with alarmist predictions that don't come true. Al Gore aside, I don't claim that leftist spin is anywhere near what the right wing spin is, because it obviously isn't.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2013, 14:45.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
90.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 12:13
90.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 12:13
Aug 8, 2013, 12:13
 
Prez wrote on Aug 8, 2013, 11:35:
Again, while I understand the desire for clarification, I am apparently an outlier in my beliefs here so I see very little to be gained by laying out my case here in what amounts to hostile territory.

I'm a long time holder of outlier opinions so I get it but I don't really see anyone being hostile though, people just want to see the basis of your opinion. If you don't want to post it then hey fair enough but to their point of view it undermines the credibility of your points.

Anyways to each his own and all that I guess, I definitely agree with the article though and think that there is a lot more undermining of credible scientific consensus than there is alarmist left wing spin. The former tends to be taken a lot more seriously than the latter too.
Avatar 51617
89.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 11:35
Prez
 
89.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 11:35
Aug 8, 2013, 11:35
 Prez
 
I think people are just asking you to provide some sources and whatnot for your opinions by the way. I know I'm curious to see what you're basing this stuff on.

Again, while I understand the desire for clarification, I am apparently an outlier in my beliefs here so I see very little to be gained by laying out my case here in what amounts to hostile territory. Especially considering how lengthy and time-consuming endeavor it would be! (Yeah, I'm lazy) With an educational equivalent of a 2 year nuclear physics degree from the USN I have just enough of a scientific background to understand the scientific methods used in data collection and analysis but not anything beyond that, so I am not going to be changing anyone's mind with my expertise, that's for sure.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2013, 11:41.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
88.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 10:09
88.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 10:09
Aug 8, 2013, 10:09
 
I don't look at it as some kooky mother gaia left wing shit, earth has been around for 4 billion years and will be around long after we're back to amoebas waiting to evolve again. Earth doesn't care but all of us that live on it walk a fine line between survival and extinction. While the biosphere is fairly robust and elastic, evolution of species to adapt to change takes time and I think we're starting to see evidence that we're impacting other species that support our life on this planet faster than they can adapt naturally. No one thought twice about using chemical sprays but suddenly we realize oh shit, without bees to pollinate we're in serious trouble. It's a very intricate web of dependency and we're just another node despite our attempts to elevate ourselves above everything else.

I don't really care a whit about what the planet "feels" but I do empathize with other species that we're affecting and what sort of state we're leaving the planet for both ourselves and future generations. Natural climate change we can't do anything about but I think it's fairly well accepted at this point that we're beyond "natural".
Avatar 51617
87.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 09:49
87.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 09:49
Aug 8, 2013, 09:49
 
You are right about that number Prez, it is indeed fishy. Whats fishy about it is that its not 100%! Im guessing there are two reasons for that, first of all global climate changes are still not very well understood. Secondly a small but vocal number of climate scientists are in the pockets of the multibillion dollar industry that I DO NOT INTEND TO NAME.

I understand where you are coming from Prez, and its not all doom and gloom I agree, the Earth is a pretty robust biosphere which is capable of taking quite a beating and balancing this shit out (as climate records of the past have prooven) but for the first time in history there is this spike in the ice (and other) records which wasnt there before, and we have no fucking idea how much beating our biosphere can take before it all goes to hell, literally. It might even recover in a few thousand years, but will we? Or will our deformed and mutated descendants forever be cursing our names while they roam the wilderness
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
86.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 09:47
86.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 09:47
Aug 8, 2013, 09:47
 
that the severe effect mankind was having on climate constituted a crisis and demanded immediate and drastic measures to counteract.

I think if you look at the scale of the planet and then compare our timeline on it to that it should seem pretty apparent that action is required. I don't think we need daily news alerts or something but we ignore problems until they're too late so it's better to take action now while we can. We used to be comforted by the fact that it would only affect future generations but I've seen plenty of real and statistical evidence of climate change in my life time already.

I think people are just asking you to provide some sources and whatnot for your opinions by the way. I know I'm curious to see what you're basing this stuff on.
Avatar 51617
85.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 09:31
Prez
 
85.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 09:31
Aug 8, 2013, 09:31
 Prez
 
@ Sepharo -

I appreciate you actually taking the time to read and digest what I was trying to say. As for the ensuing posts not jiving with what my previous points seemed to be saying I would say that the limitations of the web forum debate (walls of text shot back and forth with little chance of clarification on the bits that may seem confusing or contradictory to the reader) and my own limitations in communicating my points (it all sounds so salient and concise in my head! ;)) are the main culprits I think.

Hopefully if I give one example of what I consider spinning the data you'll at least start to understand where I am coming from. There's a number going around (and frankly I am surprised it didn't come up in this debate) that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that the rapid warming and the increase in extreme weather occurrences over the last few decades is due to man-made global warming. Presumably someone reading that would be convinced of the overwhelming consensus among the earth's greatest minds and be impressed enough to be willing to do (and agree to) anything to stop or even reverse the effects no matter how debillitating to their current way of life. The problem is that that is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

When I first read that number I was ready to "throw my lot in" so to speak with those who want to take drastic steps to save the environment. I mean, how selfish does someone have to be to continue to live however they want if it means the planet might die because of it, right? Then I read more on the survey that led to this "consensus". Things started to smell a little fishy. The questions on the survey did not at all reflect what the many climatologists supposedly agreed on according to the findings! The question asked was more along the lines of "Is it your scientific opinion that humans are responsible for at least some level of global warming?", which is a far cry from what they were trying to claim was the consensus - that the severe effect mankind was having on climate constituted a crisis and demanded immediate and drastic measures to counteract.

I could go on with several more, but suffice it to say that what is being presented isn't always what is being claimed by scientists. To be clear, I love science and have the utmost respect for science and scientists - apologies if I gave a different impression. But after being drug along like a fool so many times with disinformation in my life, I have developed a keen (maybe even an unhealthy) skepticism about everything I am told. That's all that is behind it. No underlying whacko conservative agendas here, I promise!

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2013, 09:42.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
84.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 09:29
84.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 09:29
Aug 8, 2013, 09:29
 
Order of preference, 1. Local used bookstores, 2. Amazon. 3. B&N
Avatar 56259
83.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 08:29
83.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 08:29
Aug 8, 2013, 08:29
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Aug 7, 2013, 09:11:
And in about 10 to 15 years Amazon or someone locally will have the "food stuff" also figured out with drone based delivery etc. Can't wait ;P

All large stores in the UK have done this for some time. You pay for the delivery but it turns out to be much cheaper as you are not subjected to all the psychological tricks that you encounter in a supermarket (or just plain old greed).
Avatar 54867
82.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 07:40
82.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 07:40
Aug 8, 2013, 07:40
 
Dades wrote on Aug 7, 2013, 22:15:
If you want to avoid them just because then whatever works for you, books will always be around so everyone can be happy.
It is not "just because", I don't see any advantage for me. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now, maybe I'd feel differently if I traveled a lot, or some other factor which might make an e-reader make sense. But as it is now in my situation they are, in my view, purposeless duplication. I'm simply trying to discount this idea that "if you like books, you'll like e-readers". Sure, some will -- and some won't.
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
81.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 07:18
81.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 07:18
Aug 8, 2013, 07:18
 
I have to say that Im sick and tired of all the hate that the scientific community has to endure due to the activities of certain 'think' tanks which are mostly funded by conservative and/or religious groups. This is not limited to climate science by any means. Everything from physics to medicine, to evolution is disputed and ridiculed at every point. This has taken such extremes that speculative conspiracy theories have arisen and taken hold in peoples minds and even such simple principles such as the scientific method are disbelieved.
I come from a scientific family background and it pains me to see this. Even certain friends of mine who I admire and respect in most regards go totaly bonkers when anything of any scientific regard enters the discussion. I guess thats the other coin of TEH INTERNET, for every voice of truth there are ten others drowning it out with their wild crazy horseshit...
I have a nifty blue line!
Avatar 46994
80.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 8, 2013, 00:02
80.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 8, 2013, 00:02
Aug 8, 2013, 00:02
 
I think what you're saying is reasonable. It's good to be skeptical about everything. But you're going against the scientific consensus, and claiming that that consensus is itself spin. Other posters (and the article) have claimed that attacks on climate science have poisoned the public against scientists. You claim that you don't listen to that media and have arrived at your own conclusions about why the climate scientists are biased. I'd like to know how you did that. Maybe you'll convince me to be less trusting of that scientific consensus.

As you probably know, I do the majority of my research at wikipedia. I make sure to check the citations, article history, and talk page in addition to the article itself. I feel this gives a great critical summary of both sides of any argument because despite some beliefs that wikipedia is biased in someway there are always debates/arguments/edit-wars going on about the controversial subjects. Like someone mentioned earlier much of the fud about humanity's role in climate change is coming from those who stand to lose when green house gasses and pollution are curbed. Of course the opposite can be true as well but I'm not going to allege a vast conspiracy to arrive at scientific consensus simply to make some al gore bucks on green energy. Some, hopefully most, scientists really do it for the science.

edit: Your last two posts before my reply were actually more reasonable than the one I initially replied to and the one before that.

This:
Too many scientists are spinning the data and experiments to fit their pre-conceived notions rather than allowing their research to shape their conclusions which has also helped weaken the public's trust in climate science.

And this:
You are flatly incorrect about the amount of empirical data that is presented as is from what I have seen. It is a political issue, which means that all too often the truth is skewed depending on who is talking. Your bias has blinded you to objectivism.

The bottom line is that the evidence is strongly in favor of the conclusion that the earth is indeed warming. But those who claim that it also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a man-made phenomenon (with many supposed "scientists" among them) are spinsters - there is far from overwhelming evidence of that. The jury is still out on that as far as I am concerned.

Don't seem to match with this:
ALL climatologists agree man is responsible for some global warming.

And this:
As I tried to explain it would be far more effective to sell green initiatives by the tangible positive results they can and will yield in the short term rather than the typical bogey-man fear mongering about some far-off disaster that has long since started falling on mostly deaf ears.

You might be confusing media fear mongering with scientists fear mongering. I haven't really seen much of the latter.

This comment was edited on Aug 8, 2013, 00:18.
Avatar 17249
79.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 7, 2013, 22:42
Prez
 
79.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 7, 2013, 22:42
Aug 7, 2013, 22:42
 Prez
 
Sepharo wrote on Aug 7, 2013, 20:51:
Prez wrote on Aug 7, 2013, 16:07:
Sounds like conservative media got to you Prez.

Nope. Don't watch or listen to it, and don't listen to people who do. You are flatly incorrect about the amount of empirical data that is presented as is from what I have seen. It is a political issue, which means that all too often the truth is skewed depending on who is talking. Your bias has blinded you to objectivism.

The bottom line is that the evidence is strongly in favor of the conclusion that the earth is indeed warming. But those who claim that it also proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is a man-made phenomenon (with many supposed "scientists" among them) are spinsters - there is far from overwhelming evidence of that. The jury is still out on that as far as I am concerned.

But where do you get this stuff if you're totally disconnected from media? Are you doing your own research? Can I see what you've published?

I know that sounds antagonistic but I just don't get your approach. How can you claim that you avoid the "it's not man-made" spinning but then claim that scientists who point towards man-made global warming are themselves spinning. Says who? Says what research?

I admit I haven't read the article yet but that headline seems to be describing you.

I was in the middle of typing a response but decided it isn't worth continuing this. What I wrote so far stands on its own well enough. Especially since the tone is turning full on hostile.
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Avatar 17185
78.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 7, 2013, 22:15
78.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 7, 2013, 22:15
Aug 7, 2013, 22:15
 
Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 7, 2013, 22:01:
I admit, it was a little bit smart ass, but thought it was well deserved considering every single advantage you listed was of no interest to me. I have seen several e-readers owned by others including paperwhite, and frankly I've never been particularly impressed. But hey, whatever floats your boat. *shrug*

I think someone who likes books will like ereaders is the bottom line. Functionally they don't differ much from a book and arguably have some improvements in the ability to customize text size and font choice. You can put multiple books in one and the battery life is outstanding, I get easily a month on my Kindle despite reading daily. I still read regular books because ereaders aren't good for every situation but neither are regular books for that matter. Getting a leather case really made the ereader feel like a book again, I transition from both types of reading easily now.

If you want to avoid them just because then whatever works for you, books will always be around so everyone can be happy.

- DADES - This is a signature of my name, enjoy!
Avatar 54452
77.
 
Re: Out of the Blue
Aug 7, 2013, 22:01
77.
Re: Out of the Blue Aug 7, 2013, 22:01
Aug 7, 2013, 22:01
 
I admit, it was a little bit smart ass, but thought it was well deserved considering every single advantage you listed was of no interest to me. I have seen several e-readers owned by others including paperwhite, and frankly I've never been particularly impressed. But hey, whatever floats your boat. *shrug*
“Extinction is the rule. Survival is the exception.” -- Carl Sagan
96 Replies. 5 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  ] Older