Underneath each post at Arctic-news blog is a link enabling things to be discussed at facebook.
To contact Sam Carana, go to facebook.com/SamCarana where you can send a private message. At facebook, you can also contact many of the contributors to the Arctic-news blog and comment on their posts.
To further discuss things, consider posting in one of the following groups:
• Arctic-News
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews
• Climate Plan
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ClimatePlan
• Electric Transport
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ElectricTransport
• Renewables
https://www.facebook.com/groups/renewables
• Biochar
https://www.facebook.com/groups/biochar
• Geoengineering
https://www.facebook.com/groups/geoengineering
• Climate Alert
https://www.facebook.com/groups/climatealert
Some people have suggested for Arctic News to post conclusions and action points as bullet points, to enable easy sharing and to get more publicity and discussion in the media. Some also suggest that this, in turn, can help to get these conclusions published more in scientific journals. They argue that their inclusion in peer review papers could add credibility and exposure, thus helping to spread the message.
Arctic News encourages discussion and publicity that can help spread the message, without seeking publication in scientific journals. Such publication can come with long delays and with censorship or demands for softening or changes of wording, at the expense of urgent warnings that should sound hard, loud, fast and wide, as soon as they emerge. Moreover, delays and censorship could taint the very message that needs to be spread.
Indeed, there is a problem with "peers" and lobbyists who seek censorship over publications. The issue is that views from "peers" and lobbyists can be tainted by privilege and by association with polluters. Look at the UK Parliament, where most members of the House of Lords are Life Peers. Some are appointed on the basis of their hereditary title, some because they are Bishops of the Church of England. Similarly, universities get more status and thus more grants from government and income from students if their studies appear more frequently in scientific journals and if the authors speak at conferences, even if the studies have little news to add. Rather than wisdom, insight and expertise, scientific journals and conferences can lose their mission and instead focus on exploitation of status, privilege and undeserved authority.
It's also important to look at the difference between academic activities and scientific research.
Academics are typically connected to an educational institution. They may claim that this gives them a superior view and they may look down upon people who conduct research independently. But how much of their status is privilege? An academic can be someone who teaches while or without doing research at an educational institution, e.g., a professor can check schoolwork, at any level, while having some academic credentials, but without ever having directly engaged in scientific research or in associated field work. Academic can also mean not having a practical importance - an academic argument is one that might be used for teaching but it may not have any use outside the classroom. Some academics may work at academic institutions without ever having engaged in field research. They may work as teachers, tutors or lecturers. Academics may publish papers that may quote other papers, but without adding new, verifiable insight.
Indeed, there is a problem with "peers" and lobbyists who seek censorship over publications. The issue is that views from "peers" and lobbyists can be tainted by privilege and by association with polluters. Look at the UK Parliament, where most members of the House of Lords are Life Peers. Some are appointed on the basis of their hereditary title, some because they are Bishops of the Church of England. Similarly, universities get more status and thus more grants from government and income from students if their studies appear more frequently in scientific journals and if the authors speak at conferences, even if the studies have little news to add. Rather than wisdom, insight and expertise, scientific journals and conferences can lose their mission and instead focus on exploitation of status, privilege and undeserved authority.
It's also important to look at the difference between academic activities and scientific research.
Academics are typically connected to an educational institution. They may claim that this gives them a superior view and they may look down upon people who conduct research independently. But how much of their status is privilege? An academic can be someone who teaches while or without doing research at an educational institution, e.g., a professor can check schoolwork, at any level, while having some academic credentials, but without ever having directly engaged in scientific research or in associated field work. Academic can also mean not having a practical importance - an academic argument is one that might be used for teaching but it may not have any use outside the classroom. Some academics may work at academic institutions without ever having engaged in field research. They may work as teachers, tutors or lecturers. Academics may publish papers that may quote other papers, but without adding new, verifiable insight.
Scientific research may require getting grants or some other means of funding, such as through a University or research institution. Such an institution can have strict guidelines and can help give studies more exposure, but backing by such an institution does not guarantee an outcome with important scientific discoveries. In fact, while authors may declare no conflicts of interest, some of the funding for the institution where they work may actually come from sources with vested interest in specific findings.
Indeed, there comes a point at which one must question the effectiveness of the joint activities of academic institutions, the publishing in academic journals, the issuing of reports and news releases, the conferences and political negotiations. Has all this become tainted by privilege and held captive by lobbyists, resulting in an outcome that is running counter-productive to the need for climate action? What is the role of the media in this?
Scientific research must follow the scientific method, which means the outcome must be able to be verified not by financial or academic clout but by the method of research itself, which includes the designing, conducting and monitoring of tests, including - crucially - repeatability of the tests.
The way the outcome of research is published shouldn't determine its importance or even its validity. While scientific journals may seek to publish high quality and important research, they can also cause undue delays and even censorship of important findings and conclusions. Importantly, they can ignore important findings that are regarded to be outside their interests.
Some people may feel exposed or challenged by the approach of Arctic News, which is to analyse recent data and findings of recent studies, make visualisations and discuss things as quickly as possible, without paying anyone and without getting paid, so also without having to ask for permission first. Time is of the essence! Conclusions are added in posts on social media, where they can be instantly discussed and where comments can be added to clarify things.
Speed in getting things posted doesn't come at the expense of accuracy and scientific rigor. Posts will typically go to great lengths to point out how conclusions are reached, by adding links to studies, to referring to earlier posts and to relevant information for further background. This enables conclusions to be repeatedly verified by anyone who wants to go through the references and repeat the analysis independently. Verification can take place anywhere, i.e. not just in the research labs or libraries in the ivory towers of universities, but literally anywhere by anyone with a phone, thus adding a new layer of access and participation to the concept of universality. At the same time, the Climate Plan - developed and recommended by Sam Carana - seeks decentralization of the implementation of climate-related policies, pointing at the decades of failed policy recommendations by the United Nations. The Climate Plan calls for sets of feebates, preferably implemented locally.
Speed in getting things posted doesn't come at the expense of accuracy and scientific rigor. Posts will typically go to great lengths to point out how conclusions are reached, by adding links to studies, to referring to earlier posts and to relevant information for further background. This enables conclusions to be repeatedly verified by anyone who wants to go through the references and repeat the analysis independently. Verification can take place anywhere, i.e. not just in the research labs or libraries in the ivory towers of universities, but literally anywhere by anyone with a phone, thus adding a new layer of access and participation to the concept of universality. At the same time, the Climate Plan - developed and recommended by Sam Carana - seeks decentralization of the implementation of climate-related policies, pointing at the decades of failed policy recommendations by the United Nations. The Climate Plan calls for sets of feebates, preferably implemented locally.
Importantly, feedback is welcome and constructive discussion is encouraged! If people have other ideas and if that makes sense, posts at Arctic News can be changed at any time to reflect that, or new posts can be added with interesting new or different views. If someone has a better idea, that will be welcomed with gratitude and the person will be given credit for bringing it up or pointing it out, and if they like to, contributors will be highlighted.
Posts added at Arctic-news.blogspot.com are shared both at Sam Carana (profile page at facebook) and at Arctic News (public group at facebook) where content and details of posts can be discussed further. This approach enables issues and posts to be discussed, and details to be added and improved where things aren't clear enough.
Sam Carana is editor at Arctic News. Questions have been asked about this. A response was made part of the profile image (see inset in the image below).
Mind you, those asking such questions are usually not genuinely seeking an answer, it's more likely an effort to divert attention away from conclusions. Some people just dislike the message, whoever happens to be carrying it, but since they fail to come up with arguments, they instead resort to attacking the messenger. Efforts to attack the messenger actually prove that they have no arguments and this should be even more reason for people to closely look at conclusions and warnings posted at Arctic News, and to share them.
The point is that whoever happens to deliver the message, the importance is in the message itself. What should make people feel obliged to discuss things further is that, once the situation becomes clear, the duty to act is also clear, given the impact that the temperature rise can be expected to have. The temperature rise affects everyone in the world, not just a few professors who may have an academic interest in the matter. While some issues could become more clear with further research, the wider situation has been dire long enough for many conclusions to be drawn, discussed and considered widely, such as:
Points for discussion:
• Temperatures are rising strongly
Mind you, those asking such questions are usually not genuinely seeking an answer, it's more likely an effort to divert attention away from conclusions. Some people just dislike the message, whoever happens to be carrying it, but since they fail to come up with arguments, they instead resort to attacking the messenger. Efforts to attack the messenger actually prove that they have no arguments and this should be even more reason for people to closely look at conclusions and warnings posted at Arctic News, and to share them.
 |
| [ from earlier post ] |
The point is that whoever happens to deliver the message, the importance is in the message itself. What should make people feel obliged to discuss things further is that, once the situation becomes clear, the duty to act is also clear, given the impact that the temperature rise can be expected to have. The temperature rise affects everyone in the world, not just a few professors who may have an academic interest in the matter. While some issues could become more clear with further research, the wider situation has been dire long enough for many conclusions to be drawn, discussed and considered widely, such as:
Points for discussion:
• Temperatures are rising strongly
• The temperature rise is accelerating
• The speed at which the temperature is rising is unprecedented
• Activities by people have caused the temperature to rise for thousands of years
• The speed at which the temperature is rising is unprecedented
• Activities by people have caused the temperature to rise for thousands of years
• Pledges by politicians have failed to halt, let alone revert the temperature rise
• Scientists and academics have largely failed to convey the need for urgent and effective climate action
• Temperatures are on track for a huge rise due to greenhouse gas concentrations and further contributors
• Temperatures are on track for a huge rise due to greenhouse gas concentrations and further contributors
• Further contributors include El Niño, feedbacks, further emissions and a reduced aerosol masking effect
• Warnings about a huge temperature rise have been posted for many years and have been largely ignored
• Recommendations for improvements, in particular in the form of local feebates, date back many years
Discuss things at this post.
1 comment:
The Climate Plan calls for comprehensive action through multiple lines of action implemented across the world and in parallel, through effective policies such as local feebates. The Climate Plan calls for a global commitment to act, combined with implementation that is preferably local. In other words, while the Climate Plan calls for a global commitment to take comprehensive and effective action to reduce the danger of catastrophic climate change, and while it recommends specific policies and approaches how best to achieve this, it invites local communities to decide what each works best for them, provided they do indeed make the progress necessary to reach agreed targets. This makes that the Climate Plan optimizes flexibility for local communities and optimizes local job and investment opportunities.
Click for more on multiple lines of action, on recommended policies, and on the advantages of feebates.
New comments are not allowed.