Slashdot Mirror
Heavier Rainfall Will Increase Water Pollution In the Future (nationalgeographic.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from National Geographic: If climate change continues to progress, increased precipitation could mean detrimental outcomes for water quality in the United States, a major new study warns. An intensifying water cycle can substantially overload waterways with excess nitrogen runoff -- which could near 20 percent by 2100 -- and increase the likelihood of events that severely impair water quality, according to a new study published by Science. When rainfall washes nitrogen and phosphorus from human activities like agriculture and fossil fuel combustion into rivers and lakes, those waterways are overloaded with nutrients, and a phenomenon called "eutrophication" occurs. This can be dangerous for both people and animals. Toxic algal blooms can develop, as well as harmful low-oxygen dead zones known as hypoxia, which can cause negative impacts on human health, aquatic ecosystems, and the economy. In the new study, researchers predict how climate change might increase eutrophication and threats to water resources by using projections from 21 different climate models, each of which was run for three climate scenarios and two different time periods (near future, 2031-2060, and far-future, 2071-2100).
With runoff from farming in all the surrounding countries and a very small connection to the Atlantic the Baltic sea is suffering severely from this problem.
When it is blowing from the east or southeast the coast up to Stockholm is covered in algea.
After all something like 78% of the air we breathe is nitrogen.
Let's pray for a drought in California.
Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
It seems I read a couple of years back that climate scientist saying due to climate change we were going to have a drought that lasted 100 years. Furthermore, if I recall right they were predicting the end of farming as we know it...
Did I miss something, or are things being turned on their head?
Phosphates have already been banned in dishwasher detergents since 2010 (that's why your glasses have been getting so cloudy and scale is building up), and phosphates aren't in hand soap and shampoo. And high phosphate fertilizer is already being banned in the US. So there isn't additional phosphates going into the water system beyond today's rates.
So basically, global warming is no longer causing droughts, but now 20% more rain. Again, it all points to conditions for increased vegetative growth, which means higher food stocks and more CO2 processing. Sounds great to me!
But only this one. The increase in rain is real starting around 2005. I don't buy the Global Warming Claim that it's CO2 caused because both the Pan Evaporation Rate and the Precipitation measurements by weather stations agree that it started only after 2005. The issue is a bit more concerning when you're no longer blind to the Global Warming Hype Train. I'd love to publish the facts on it too but Eleven Hundred Dollars to publish seven pages and some graphs is a bit outside of my price range.
Exactly this. The real problem is soluable nitrogen fertilizer used on lawns and crops. The lake near my house 70 years ago had good water clarity and supplied ice to the city, it was cut up and delivered to iceboxes. Now it's a green sludge in the summer and it's even pretty bad in the winter time (from all the dead algae). The only real difference is all the fertilizer used upstream. It's even worse in places like Florida where massive blooms from farming choke wildlife out as it washes out to sea.
Increased nitrate runoff means that the waterways get choked with nitrates and algae growing so fast that it created an anaerobic environment when it dies. This is the reverse of what you were thinking it said.
It doesn't make sense with what I know of the real world.
Well, of course, most people know very little about things that are so complex that computer models are used for them. That's the whole reason for those models.
Ezekiel 23:20
or your method - "I analyze comments and give my opinion but do not back it up with more than conjecture."
If we were talking about pure rainwater falling directly into bodies of water, it would. But we're talking about runoff. After that initially pure water runs over the land it's not so pure by the time it reaches a natural water body.
Take an empty cup and fill it from a city gutter during a heavy rain. Now drink it. Not an attractive proposition, is it?
In the case of eutrophication, we're worried about fertilizers applied to crops and lawns. This is in the form of various highly soluble nitrogen and phosphorous salts which are highly soluble and readily washed away. People use these highly soluble compounds because they stimulate rapid plant growth. These do the same thing for microorganisms when they reach a marine or fresh water body.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's both.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Have gnu, will travel.
For those who are merely confused and ignorant, yet not fully deprived of intellectual honesty or interest in learning, here are two excerpts from Wikipedia that may help:
“Assuming high growth in GHG emissions (IPCC scenario RCP8.5), presently dry regions may be affected by an increase in the risk of drought and reductions in soil moisture. Over most of the mid-latitude land masses and wet tropical regions, extreme precipitation events will very likely become more intense and frequent.” (in “Effects of global warming”).
“The warmer atmospheric temperatures observed over the past decades are expected to lead to a more vigorous hydrological cycle, including more extreme rainfall events. Erosion and soil degradation is more likely to occur.” (in “Climate change and agriculture”).
Even chaotic systems tend to have macrostates. Knowing all microstate details is rarely needed or desirable.
Ezekiel 23:20
That's 80+ years from now, in other words we have time.
I hear that the sea levels are rising.... at about a foot per century. We can adjust to that without getting all in a panic.
I've been told that the corn belt is moving north. Unless this happens in the span of a single growing season then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Farmers already rotate crops for reasons of keeping soil in good shape. If over a few decades the rotation of crops needs adjusting then they'll figure it out.
Rain this, droughts that, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blah, blah blah. We got this figured out.
We've all been hearing this panic for decades now. All we are doing is getting the next generation stressed out over nothing. They are getting bombarded with climate change disasters in movies, cartoons, in the news, and on and on. Kids can't get away from this but when they grow up and have to deal with this on their own they will realize like I did that this is a big nothing.
A quick read of the comments on this article so far tells me that I'm not alone in how I feel on this. The climate change alarmists have been pushing the panic button so often for so long, with nothing to really show for it, that no one pays attention any more.
Here's the problem now. If this climate change that is coming is in fact a real problem then we're all screwed anyway because no one listens any more. Because the climate change alarmists would not police themselves and point out bad science when it came up no one can tell what is true any more.
Again, 80 years, we have time.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Some people will get more rain, mostly places that already get a lot of rain, and other places will get less rain. Mostly places that already only get a little bit.
You're confused because there is more than one place. Sorry it is all so confusing.
I can't tell whether or not you're serious, or contrived an excellent example of the anecdotal fallacy.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Where I live we have increased incidence of toxic algal blooms in mountain lakes that have no upstream agriculture or residences at all.
Having an anecdote provides you with negative knowledge; you didn't learn anything, but you thought you did.
"That's just math and I question its validity. It doesn't make sense [to me] with what I know."
It always cracks me up to find people on the interwebs who don't even know what a computer is. Don't worry, don't worry, you don't need to know what it all means. You don't need to worry about where pr0n comes from, or how the trucks get the data down the information superhighway. Just trust that there are kittens in the tubes and everything will keep moving, and if not, just click reload for a couple hours.
Torrential rains in Japan at historic levels caused landslides destroyed homes and farms. Thousands evacuated from homes. Meanwhile in Tokyo drainage systems are being upgraded. Flooding nothing new but prior mitigation efforts still fall short sometimes. Trying to keep up with nature requires prioritizing. Bet Tepco wishes it prioritized that Higher Fukushima wall , oh well hindsight.
It always cracks me up to find people on the interwebs who don't even know what a computer is.
It always cracks me up when someone with a 5 digit ID tries to be snarky and then falls flat on his face because he doesn't know that computer doesn't sprinkle magic pixie dust on mathematical models, miraculously making them super-duper awesome-accurate.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
Of course, it's meaningless to begin with. "Change" is what the climate DOES, always has, always will. The entire Gore-ful panic is designed to separate the people from their money and to allow the politicians to fun things forever.
And how is it that you know that climate has changed in the past. Do you really believe the scientists who told you this? They are the same scientists who you don't believe when they tell you that AGW is a problem. Are you just going to cherry pick based on what you want to believe?
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
The term "climate change" is a kind of short-hand, which refers to the changes that are caused by human activities on top of natural climate variation. The one thing that more than anything else defines man-made climate change is the increased energy retention in the atmosphere, that we can measure as an increase in the average temperature across the whole planet and smoothed out over a relatively long period of time, which is above what we would have expected to find from natural causes. But locally, on a day to day basis, there will be big variations in temperature, and secondarily in air pressure, wind speed, humidity, precipitation etc - the tendency is to make these variations stronger, so droughts may become worse, rainfall may become heavier, storms more violent, heatwaves hotter and more frequent, and yes, you will in places see much more snow and more severe cold snaps.
There is an experiment that I think most will have seen in school at some point, which explains a lot about this: You take a large glass tank with water, place a Bunsen burner under it, and drop a crystal of some water soluble colour over the flame; what you see is the colour rising up, then curling back down - ie turbulence. If you measure the temperature in different places, you will probably get high readings in the column over the flame, but low readings in an area around the flame, where colder water is being sucked in - and high readings near the top edges as well; this also happens to our atmosphere: the flame is hot near equator, the air rises and blows up to the polar regions, where it is sucked down, because cold air is suck in near the ground at the equator. One of the major differences is that the atmosphere is a very thin layer: 10 miles deep, spread oout over a circumference of 25000 miles, which would correspond to the glass tank in your school laboratory being 10 cm high and 250 m wide, which means that any turbulence becomes much more localised, which translates into the much more chaotic system that is our weather.
The reason it is confusing is because articles like this one are designed to scare people into making the decisions preferred by the authors rather than to allow people to make informed decisions. The author does not want people to make an informed decision because if they do they will probably not make the decision he or she would prefer.
This has been the problem with the AGW alarmists from the beginning. From the beginning, the point of the theory has been to scare people into certain political decisions, not to predict how the climate will behave in the future. As long as it does the first it is irrelevant to the people involved how accurately it does the second...which is why it has done such a poor job at the first.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It dilutes it from larger areas by concentrating it into small areas. Look at all the rivers on a land map and realize that those are the singular channels for large rain run off for the entire land mass. Now what happens when a large amount of material is rapidly dumped into those small channels? You get higher concentrations of dissolved chemicals per unit volume of water compared to surrounding areas. This eventually builds up and puts nitrogen stress on a downstream area according to the logic.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
This article points out the problem clearly. When Rick Perry answered an ambiguous question with an answer which did not support AGW alarmism (it also did not support AGW denialism either) the American Meteorological Society called him out on it. Yet, the AMS remained silent when various members of the previous administration told outright untruths that advanced AGW alarmism. If they want to be taken seriously, scientists need to call out those who misrepresent the science in order to advance political agendas with which the scientists agree, not just those who are advancing political agendas with which they disagree.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
Of course, it's meaningless to begin with. "Change" is what the climate DOES, always has, always will. The entire Gore-ful panic is designed to separate the people from their money and to allow the politicians to fun things forever.
And how is it that you know that climate has changed in the past. Do you really believe the scientists who told you this? They are the same scientists who you don't believe when they tell you that AGW is a problem. Are you just going to cherry pick based on what you want to believe?
When someone says 'according to my research, X seems to be the case', people will generally say, meh, ok.
When someone says 'X is the case and therefore everyone must do Y' people get very suspicious, especially when Y is something that enriches the speaker at the expense of the audience.
Add in bits like 'or humanity is domed' or 'even if I am wrong the risk is too great to ignore' and you lose even more credibility. Spokespeople who do not practice what they preach will quickly show any cause to be a scam, even if it is not(or not entirely).
If enough time passes that some of those dooms-day predictions turn out to be provably false, then you lose even more credibility.
Unfortunately, even if AGW turns out to be an immediate existential threat to humanity, the politicians and other shysters have driven it's credibility so far underground that the name had to be changed twice(global cooling -> global warming -> climate change). And the continued exaggerations and FUD are taking it past the point where for many people, an unwashed hobo yelling about martians on a street corner while wearing a placard saying 'the end is near' is more credible.
TL;DR:
The scientists with no vested interest in what we believe are much more credible than the people who try to control others based on FUD, even if that FUD may have some scientific basis behind parts of it. (and that FUD makes any real science related to it much harder to believe)
It's all global warming, regardless of whatever it is and it's all bad. Even if it is something that seems good like less drought.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This does not stop the problem of not going Green, but.. They could dig holes for lakes that would collect the excess rainfall, and meter it back out of the lake as things dry up. No more houses on low lying land - or you could elevate the houses on hills - or even on flooding planes make houseboats, disguised as houses, but float in emergencies.
Actually, it's a pretty convenient theory.
If global warming is a thing, either it will get wetter or it will get drier.
If it gets drier, of course drought, sky falling, etc as per the news in California for the last couple of years.
If it gets wetter, as this article asserts, it will be terrible for all sorts of reasons.
It's a perfect theory: no matter what happens, it can be interpreted to be bad, and it's humans' fault.
It used to be that the weather just changed, and we didn't try to blame anyone for it.
-Styopa
Ah cynicism, the metaphysical mechanism that can be used to mask ignorance for every possible outcome.
harmful low-oxygen dead zones known as hypoxia
I know Slashdot is full enough of pedants, but hypoxia is a name for the phenomenon/condition - not the name of the place. You could call it a hypoxic zone. You could call the state of the area hypoxia. You can't call the place hypoxia.
I don't know anyone that would not admit that pollution is a problem. Plastic waste from _all_over making up huge masses in the oceans is an easy example. TFA and AGW proponents both have the same problem, which is complaining about the wrong stuff. Nitrogen is fertilizer for plants, and CO2 is converted by plants into O2. If those two things are really a concern, simply allowing plants to grow is the best possible answer. Do away with Nitrogen or CO2, and all the plants die. With them, goes the humans and everything else.
We don't see any reasonable presentation of the problems, and the solutions presented are to simply get rich scams for the wealthy as they spread around the wealth of the middle class to make all the peons poor. Win-win for those few, and a big middle finger to the rest of humanity.
Looking at your list, amazing that you put leaded gasoline and ozone into your list. CFCs were banned in the 70s because it was found to be harmful, and SCIENCE was able to prove it. Lead is harmful to humans and causes all kinds of problems both physically and mentally. Again, SCIENCE was able to prove it. We not only banned leaded gasoline, but leaded paint, lead pencils, and lead plumbing. People overall didn't have any problem with the solution, which was an outright ban.
These claims of CO2 BAD! and Nitrogen BAD! are false claims, easily provable by SCIENCE. Get the claim right, and people would listen. Get the right solution, and people will listen. "GIVE DE GUBMT MONEY!" is NOT a solution!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
No.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those .... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Actually, I do computer models and I farm and I am a scientist. So I know a lot about the real world, computer modeling and such. Your attack is not valid. Try debating the issue rather than attacking the person.
http://www.channel3000.com/new...
Well sure, but if they are only going to call out people they disagree with politically and not those they agree with (especially when the latter get the science more wrong than the former, as in the article I linked previously) people are going to realize that they are hypocrites and their "science" is being conducted to advance their politics.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
First, it is near certain that gas/diesel will be nearly, if not fully, done being used for transportation. By 2040, if not closer to 2035, the majority of vehicles will be electric, though it is possible that later on, something like H2 could take over for some vehicles.
Secondly, Farming is undergoing MASSIVE changes. by 2050, if not sooner, most of it will not only be automated, but possible green-housed. Regardless, we will no longer see the massive spraying of fields that we see today. Instead, it will be DIRECTLY applied to the plant. That will include fertilizers as well as pesticides. The nice thing is that it will be a FRACTION of the amount that we currently use.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
False, and even a cursory study of history proves you false. "Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science". Examples are so easy to find that any citation request will be met with riducule!
I take your word that what you are calling "False" must be false, but it sure is not my statement no. 1 re-quoted above.
A. Are you saying scientists are experts in convincing people to do things ?
B. Are you saying scientists possess the skills required to convince people ?
Any of these are not coming out in your words.
As for me,
Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science".
I agree to all of these, so I don't see which statement of mine you are saying is "False" here, and what evidence you are presenting for it.
I would be inclined to believe you are replying to some completely different post from what you intended, but you quote extensively from my post.
When the solution presented to the masses is "GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY" you bet your ass we need to know why
Ok, but you are yet to explain why scientists need to be the ones telling you why. Which is why I mentioned beforehand the idea of division of labour.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
As individuals, they sure have political beliefs. As only scientists, they have zero skills to propagate their political beliefs.
As scientists as well as individuals, assuming at least 1000 scientists in this world, it is statistically impossible you will agree with political aspect of all of their statements.
But how does it mean all scientists need to do a "better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just" ? I just demonstrated many of them are very likely incapable of doing what you ask of them.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Your statements were exactly quoted from you. GO BACK AND READ! I didn't cherry pick fragments, I quoted your whole damn statement and split it based on YOUR numbers 1 and 2.
A. Are you saying scientists are experts in convincing people to do things ?
B. Are you saying scientists possess the skills required to convince people ?
Yes! See Tesla and Edison, or Flat Earth, or Nuclear Fission! Scientists DO know how to convince people and DO so all the time. They have to petition people for money, and loads of funding comes from THE PUBLIC as well as Government(s).
You don't make any sense after that. _You_ said that scientists don't need to present information because people don't need to know (division of labor and all that). I said that they did need to present information and gave justification (my money is mine and you have no right to steal it).
Either, you lack the skills required to debate in the given language (English) or you are a complete moron.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Right, except that when you almost comprehended my point, instead of thinking, "Oh, yeah, you're right" you phrased it as me "fall[ing] flag on [my] face." That's pretty daft. You proved you can count to 5, but why is it that when I talk about what a computer does you start talking about magic pixies?
Are you that context-challenged? You just don't like me, so you presumed that I'm incorrect about everything, so you see me saying something and you just say the opposite. Only you don't realize my level of knowledge on the subject, and don't actually consider the details, so you don't give yourself any chance at all to say something that is even correct, much less interesting.
No, computers aren't magic pixie dust. They're just fancy fucking calculators, "DDDDDUUUUUUUUUH!" Fuck-an-A why do you not know something that basic yet?! A computer model isn't magic pixie dust that might just be a pooly cast spell, no, it is just fucking math. You can work it all out without the computer if you don't trust computers. The computer has absolutely nothing to fucking do with the model, which is actually just a mathematical model. It is like calling algebra a "computer model" because you were using a computerized calculator. It might be a useful description for people who would probably also want to use the computer tool, but it doesn't mean it is some type of new mysterious unknown thing that has to be Trusted.
Your thesis is that unless scientists are expert politicians, they'll be accused of being political.
That may or may not be true, but it contains nothing having to do with science, or any argument for a better way for scientists to communicate the science. You're just demanding that they also be politicians, and accusing them of being politicians if they refuse. They're not going to engage you in that discussion, because there is no benefit.
You will call scientists whatever pejoratives you want to. It isn't something they caused, though. It is just you and it is your own responsibility what you say.
I would be inclined to believe you are replying to some completely different post from what you intended, but you quote extensively from my post.
I often feel the same way when he replies to my posts.
Unfortunately, even if AGW turns out to be an immediate existential threat to humanity, the politicians and other shysters have driven it's credibility so far underground that the name had to be changed twice(global cooling -> global warming -> climate change).
"Global cooling" was never really a thing. It got some attention in the 1970s but even then a survey of the literature from 1965 to 1979 found over 6 times as many papers on global warming as on global cooling.
"Climate change" is a term that has been around since at least the 1950s. In 1956 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
So nothing has really changed, just different things get emphasized at different time.
And the continued exaggerations and FUD are taking it past the point where for many people, an unwashed hobo yelling about martians on a street corner while wearing a placard saying 'the end is near' is more credible.
I see exaggerations and FUD from climate science deniers about what climate scientists have said and even some of that from some people who accept what climate science is saying but I've seen very little exaggeration or FUD from actual climate scientists who are usually pretty careful about what they say.
Let alone that science isn't done by consensus, It's done by repeatable testing and validation of theory.
You are right that science isn't done by consensus. Consensus occurs in science when a particular point is settled enough that scientists would be a wasting their time to continue contesting it.
Well, then I will continue to conclude that their "science" is designed to advance their political agenda, not to increase knowledge. And since their "science" is designed to advance their political agenda, I see no reason to believe their conclusions logically follow the facts.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, my thesis is that if scientists use their "science" purely to advance their political agenda, their "science" cannot be trusted.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
In as much as they possess the skills required to convince people, they are scientists *and* good petitioners. A person could play different roles even in your limited understanding of the world, I hope ?
Please quote when I said people don't need to know. I now rephrase to avoid the specific misinterpretation that you are drawing due to your limited understanding of the world :
1. Scientists do not need to know how to convince people
2. There exist other people who can translate scientists' papers into "people language ". Because while there may be scientists able to don the hat of " people person ", it is not a logical expectation that all scientists can do it well.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
OK, conclude that. Or you might try to find out what science means. I can hope, can't I ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Awesome! I am eagerly waiting for a proof of your thesis. Beginning with a scientific definition of "cannot be trusted".
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Please quote when I said people don't need to know. I now rephrase to avoid the specific misinterpretation that you are drawing due to your limited understanding of the world :
Your words are pretty straight forward. If you intended a different set of words and a different message rephrase your position.
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those .... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
Oh wait, you just did try to rephrase. Your latest post attempts to the goal post from "scientists don't need to convince people" to Scientists are too dumb to understand rhetoric and Powerpoint and we shouldn't expect them do to it well. Which is a different message but still false. Scientists _DO_ all the time. You don't have to the a front man, but you have to present both science and results people want to see in order to continue doing science. Whether it's your boss, the government, a University, or the public, someone has to write the checks.
Don't project your shortcomings on the rest of humanity, but do open your eyes and see what the rest of humanity does.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
There is no goal post shifting going on, if that is what you mean. You interpreted a set of sentences in a particular manner, I told another interpretation of it, which is what I intended.
Take "Everyone need not know / do everything."
1. Know : Scientists need not know how to convince people (especially non scientists).
2. Do : Scientists need not do the job of convincing people.
You don't have to the a front man,
Which is what I intended to convey, I hope in a better grammar, and I hope this means "a scientist doesn't have to be a front man".
Anyway , essentially you do understand. I rest my case. Any specific questions about this, or you'll just try a general misinterpretation again ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Both the Florida blooms and I do have information from the department of natural resources stating that nitrogen and phosphorus are to blame for that particular lake (omitted for anonymity) but the DNR is actively managing both to stop algae growth in streams and lakes statewide. But facts probably don't interest you and you seem the type to think man made CO2 emissions don't matter along with the rest of the pollution spilling into the environment.
There are lots and lots of different ways to screw up your water, if you don't manage it well. 1930 the river that runs through my town was colored red and all the resident fish died. People didn't like it, they made rules, the water recovered. Now it is fairly clean and there are lots of fish and wildlife.
Florida has worse problems, like that you're going to be in the ocean in less than 200 years.
Humans have always had uproars about ridiculous and meaningless differences.
The only real effect of these imbecilic ploys has been to deflect, subvert, and otherwise distract public attention from the truly important discussions affecting real events and actually relevant outcomes of the effects of climate change on the natural systems of the planet.
Now can we get on with a comprehensive discussion about the relevant topics?
PlaynBass
Aighearach (97333) has provided an anecdote that simply illustrates how he/she can provide us with negative knowledge which he/she thinks proves a point.
Aighearach (97333) does not provide us any supporting facts to account for how the local algae blooms could possibly occur from entirely natural causes, or even how these seemingly natural blooms must be unconnected to undisclosed or unstudied effects of Man Made Climate Changes that might have affected the natural processes of those lakes.
While there may be a number of potential causes for the effects described by Aighearach (97333), without the complete information set, this anecdote is merely more negative knowledge, and so is also worthless in the form it has been presented, ie: Broken Logic.
PlaynBass
If the scientists do not want people to react to the reporting of it they need to do a better job of calling out those who are using it to advance the political ideas they agree with and not just those who oppose their political preferences.
No, they need do no such thing. Neither does my position come with an automatic assumption of public outreach, especially not when it comes to policing politicians. Your logical fallacy is 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy'. It's essentially all you have since you don't have any facts on your side. Well, that and more direct forms of dishonesty.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
You are correct. they do not need to do so, but since they do not I do not need to consider them honest arbiters of facts.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
They may not be honest arbiters of sound bites, but the facts are the contents of the research papers, not the science journalism. Have you perhaps met any Communication majors at university? Would you have trusted them to sit in on a physics exam for you? I'm sure you can contrast this with the typical holder of an advanced research degree. Now, seriously: what about these two fields and groups of people do you think has a strong overlap?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Not being a hype man, pitch man, or front man does not mean that you are not out convincing people that your science is good. You and I may see more of that type person since that's what both gets ratings on TV/Radio and promotes a social message that people want you to hear, but that is a very tiny percentage of the science community.
You specifically denied the need for promotion at the onset, then changed the mark to "they are too dumb to do so", and again to "they don't need to be a celebrity type. That is moving the goal post each iteration of your position, which is still false.
All of those positions is very insulting to those of us who see the world for what it is, and especially insulting to scientists doing the work. I can find countless papers and interviews with scientists, all written using language and rhetoric which promotes their science and discoveries.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Ok, so "general misinterpretation" it is.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.