The thing that boggles me is that the hackers (thieves) tried to upload the stolen emails on a site where some other climate researchers blog. I'm not at all surprised by the fuss Glenn Beck and such are making. Are they forgetting that just maybe we aren't supposed to steal info? Admittedly, maybe greater transparency into the statistical process and grumpy personalities might be useful. But... maybe not. I generally grok the math, but then, I spent some time in grad school messing with this stuff, and goodness knows I'm rusty. And a lot of folks aren't as numerate as might be useful to them... **grumble**
  • 10:46 Involved in conversation about God, world as it is...I find I can discuss this without having same belief in God as my friend has. Cool.
  • 12:04 Did I mention it's SUNNY??!! Glorious!!
    (Must rest now; was stacking some wood in lovely sun + breeze. Slowly, I promise! Very slowly!)
  • 17:05 Uncut version of client newsletter finalized, as are newest contacts. Phew. Now to make website version, cut version, & get it mailed.

Re that God bit: One thing I found interesting was how in the course of responding to some posts recently is that many of us responding felt it needful to clarify our own lack of similar belief. Some of us, not so much. So I was wondering: is it necessary to say you don't share the same ideas (full disclosure sort of thing)? If someone asks for "your thoughts and prayers be with us" or something like that, do you find it needful to explain that you can't quite do as they ask because your beliefs are different? What if the requester is a believer in Faeries, or Norse Gods, or Christian God, or Judaic God? Does how you respond change? What if the believer is sort of similar to you in belief, but not quite? What if you are vastly different? What if the requester is atheist or agnostic, and asking only for well-wishes, and you want to also pray for them?

I'm perfectly happy to talk about my beliefs, but I'm not always sure that mine are particularly relevant to a conversation. This leads me to wonder: can one discuss, debate, analyze, and tease out theological ideas without getting into one's own beliefs, and still do this honestly? I hope so, since that's what I've been doing...I feel like I can ask relevant questions, suspend (as it were) my own disbelief (if any) long enough to say "if so, then what about...?"

Anyway, this natter is mostly an outgrowth of thinking about stuff [info]jaipur has been posting, but not just there (of course); my family has a fairly diverse range of beliefs from member to member, and I'm often interested in exploring the consequences and ramifications of a set of beliefs without wanting to get into who's got the truth of it and whether or not we should agree. I suppose this ties into my sense of a sort of independence of validity (someone's feelings about a circumstance can be valid and appropriate regardless of whether I would have the same feelings about or in those circumstance).

Clearly, I am beginning to ramble. Ooops. Better head off to bed. Or to watch some very silly TV streaming on Hulu. ([info]jere7my, thanks for the recommendation for FlashForward. I like the characters less than in Fringe but think (so far) the story has more interesting layers. Fun combo.)

daily scatterstatus: Ewwwww! Cool.

  • Oct. 13th, 2009 at 11:30 PM
In which a title is almost as long as a post...
  • 11:36 *http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/09/verizon-faces-boycott-threat-for-sponsoring-west-virginia-rally-against-climate-action.html
    There are ways to write to Verizon W also. It just boggles my mind that people are insistent climate change is a hoax and the evidence has been slowly, steadily, accumulating for decades. I'm not saying any one particular model/set of predictions is right. I'm just saying that there's significant existing evidence of change in the past century(based on my reading of the journals, mostly in the 1990s and intermittently in the '00s; I tend to not rely on the news media/press release versions), and definite increasing understanding of interconnections and synergistic feedback, and what we seem to understand at the moment leads to some pretty serious outcomes (even the "mild" ones), even when we change our choices and lighten our individual, corporate, and aggregate effects.
  • 20:52 I made curryish stir fry (butter, onion, celery, chicken, peanut oil, garlic, cashews) & M said (unprompted), "Mmm, delicious!" **pleased!**
    I'm not a very confident cook. I don't enjoy cooking meat (one of the reasons is the ecological costs I'm causing without necessarily bearing). However, that aside, apparently I am occasionally competent at both. Yay!

daily scatterstatus

  • May. 4th, 2009 at 11:31 PM
from ping to twitter to LJ with LoudTwitter

links to climate change info

  • Jul. 12th, 2007 at 7:59 AM
Spent some time this early a.m. checking out
http://www.eredux.com/ -- looks at some energy consumption stats and demographics, both in the US and world wide. Vermont's a serious slacker on the public transport stuff (as of 2002 data) but was doing well in terms of not putting out CO2. It doesn't sure CO2 adjusted per capita, though, so our low impact is more likely due to fewer people in the state rather than actions by those people.

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics --lists the usual objections to global warming/anthropogenic global warming, and arguments against. Not enough of the counterpoints have links to scientific articles -- for that matter, neither do the objections, which is less surprising, but there is some research behind some of the objections. However, the site may be a really useful resource.

http://www.realclimate.org/ -- this one also has an LJ feed (http://realclimate.livejournal.com). This a blog that examines and discusses some of the detailed science of climate change. Some of the articles are very well done (by which I mean very clearly phrased and lacking utterly in snark). Some read a little hand-wavy, which might be the difficulty in explaining a topic, and might be a writer. Added it to my friends list.

This was all more or less via another article on my flist, from worldchanging: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007016.html

Time to feed the dog, get on with the kid and work bits of the day.

feed the body & soul

  • Dec. 16th, 2006 at 10:25 PM
Fantastic day with [info]lepi, [info]turbocat, some 2- and 4-leggeds from Faerie Court Farm, and other good friends. Made even more wonderful because cookies began, continued, became even more numerous....

Mmm, cookies.

Yesterday scanned 4 or 5 pictures (old and new), which I will post after I have a chance to format them for the web. Yay for doodleworks. Am making progress on a series of 3 sample illustrations for a kids book, and am in consequence discovering I know jack-all or less about the colors of shadows, let alone where they go, and then let alone again how I can put them there on the page. Hrmph.... Not knowing about the ok-ness of web publication in advance of paper-book pub (should I be so lucky), I'm not posting these for feedback, but wish like heck I were.

In other news, for [info]ruthling: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005599.html
Portland [the one in Oregon] is rolling out onstreet bike parking to accommodate the myriad of cyclists who need a place to stash their bikes while they work, shop, and plot to change the world.


In case you wondered why knowing about climate change/global warming is important:
when at customs, the officer of Homeland Security asks about the goal of my visit, I proudly tell him about the training. He goes: “Why that’s a mistake! They will brainwash you! They claim it's all about that carbon dioxide...but do you even know how much carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere?” I do - 380 ppm (parts by million) - but quite frankly, I’m thrown. I get myself together and tell him that there’s a non-controversial correlation between the CO2 levels and the global temperatures averages, and also about how CO2 triggers the atmosphere to take up more water vapor, which in turn also works as a greenhouse gas ... but to no avail. The people in line behind me are stunned, and so am I. I thought I was going to Tennessee, but somehow I landed in the State of Denial.

...Two hundred people coming from all fifty US states, from Slovenia, Uganda, Bali, Mexico, Canada and Belgium (supposedly, out of 4500 applicants for that session). The youngest is 14, the oldest must be the mid to late sixties. There are scientists, business-owners, students, editors, post-doc researchers, sales executives, professors, lawyers, architects, engineers, actors, nurses, writers, physicians, ministers, etc. All committed to do something about the climate crisis.
via http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005588.html