RSS Feed (All Graffiti)
Loading ... 09 Jun
DPTV-172-2006-06-09
What Do You Think? Rate This Show...
(1 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Loading ...
show notes:
Editorial on Global Climate Change - transcript of this editorial is on the previous post - Click here to read transcript
Credits
- Opening Comment by Adam Curry of Daily Source Code
- First ending clip - Addicting Bleach video
- Second ending Clip - Star Wars in 30 Seconds by the Bunnies
- Music - Derek K Miller - Washing Off Like An Aardvark
Shameless begging
- Call our viewer voicemail and leave a question for Lucian Solutions - US 831-307-6143
- Vote for us at Podcast Alley
- Subscribe or Leave a Comment on iTunes
The downloadable video file is a cross-platform standard MP4 encoded with 3ivx. This file will play in ANY standard MP4 video player or on ANY video enabled computer. The file should play ‘as-is’ and no alteration or re-encoding of the file is required (including on a Windows Media Player and/or a Quicktime Media Player).
what episode of Planet TV,showed an assembly-line production building at the atomic/sub-atomic level…….”nano” tech.
Just catching up on the podcasts. Normally I wouldn’t provide feedback on 3 week old episode as only timely feedback matters. But in this case the issue itself is timely - even if my feedback is not.
Thank you very much for this episode. While I do not watch Planet TV Daily for editorial opinion, in this case I think it was quite appropriate. Your analysis was objective and well thought out, and your passion for de-politicising the discussion was palpable.
It takes courage to speak out on such matters. But it takes knowledge, objectiveity, and insight to speak out intelligently on such matters. Thank you.
I have seen the film “Inconvenient Truth.” Yes, there is rhetoric and politics within it. But it has served to stimulate a discussion of the facts (such as your listeners email to you and your response) in a political enviroment that has attempted to squelch aid discussion.
Please keep up the excellent work! Your new child already has reason to be proud of Dad!
News Release
The Inconvenient Truth Realized through
“The Awareness AND Action Channel”
(Vancouver, Canada June 14, 2006) Podcasters, Talk Hosts and Thought Leaders involved in all things green, environmental, scientific, political and social now have a new channel to help get their message out about issues including global climate change and what we can all do about it.
The Awareness AND Action Channel http://www.AwarenessAndAction.com, through podcasts and Internet audio programs assists people in gaining the facts and information they need to cause action in their own community on this, the most important issue of our time.
“I was so deeply moved by the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” says speaker and life enhancement expert Allan Hunkin, “that I came home and immediately started to work on what our company could do to help people learn and understand”
“I believe Al Gore is accurate in where we are at now with global climate change and that in his words we have less than ten years to get the right polices and procedures in place in order to ward off a global catastrophe Hunkin stated”
”I believe that if you give people the facts, in a rational way that ignites their mind and heart, they will do the right thing almost every time. As communicators and thought leaders we are the ones on the front line of ideas, ideas that will evolve into vision and leadership, that will preserve and improve our way of life and elevate our humanity. Avenues like The Awareness AND Action Channel will serve an important role” Hunkin said.
“I have been interviewing thought leaders on this subject for some time now on my podcast so we already have over 20 interviews available to listen or download on the Channel and we we’re looking for more. Any message that is informative, education, inspirational and/or a positive call to action it is welcome” Hunkin said.
The Awareness AND Action Channel is free to access as are all 51 Channels in the Success Media Group network. Podcasters and Hosts pay a small monthly fee to have their programming available.
For More Information contact:
Allan Hunkin
The Awareness AND Action Channel
http://www.AwarenessAndAction.com
info (at) awarenessandaction (dot) com
Phone 604-261-5105
Lucian, my response to your presentation would actually be to not favor one prediction or another. As I percieve your data, there are two very possible paths. Action A would be to do nothing which may either have no effect or cause harm. Action B would be to take action (reduce emissions etc.) which could either have no effect or do good. I guess I see action B as the more reasonable. As we are taught in medicine (I’m a nurse remember) ‘First and foremost…cause no harm’. I don’t have to come to any philosophical or political conclusions to arrive at that. I suppose I see the political perspective to be *what* is now done in the name of Action B.
BTW, thank you ‘unimpressed’ for the thought provoking discussion. Um…meet over in the forums for more of the same?
Hey Everyone,
First I would like to say that I really appreciate the discussion thread that this has begun. I always like to hear opposing views and new perspectives. Planet TV viewers have (without exception) been both literate and polite in all of their correspondence with me and with each other. That is one of the things I am most proud of, and it is a testament to the demographic that watches our show. My editorial was not actually a response to any one viewer and I must apologize because that is what I said. I have received many emails regarding this subject and all of them were polite and friendly. My editorial was really meant to be a response to the subject - and how strategic analysis was the basis for my position. Although my editorial is certainly a presentation of my opinion and position, I did not really intend this to persuade anyone to change their mind.
Professionally, my analyses are never used to change someone’s position on any subject (although I do present and compare the factors on all sides). Nor are they used to determine what will or will not happen (although I do find and make predictive patterns). The sole purpose of my work is to determine what the strategic implications are for any action or inaction. Then, from those implications, a course of action is recommended. The course of action is recommended and chosen only because of strategic issues (and only to achieve strategic advantage). For instance at the highest level of my analysis, climate change may or may not be occurring. If it is Not occurring, then there are two possibilities of action. First, do nothing. If climate is not changing, then we do not need to take any specific action to stop or alter any contributers to climate change. We can continue to monitor and record data as usual. We can continue to study the issue at greater length and learn more. With this course of (in)action, we can have a greater understanding of the problem(s) and take more accurately informed action if and when it becomes necessary. The second possibility is to take some preventative action anyway. In this action, even if climate is not changing, we take specific actions to stop or reduce factors that might pose a threat to climate change. We monitor, study and refine our actions as we learn more. With this action, we can determine by direct experiment if our actions appear to have any measurable effect on climate.
That’s the first half of the top level analysis (if climate is Not changing).
If climate IS changing, then my analysis considered the two areas I outlined in my editorial summary. What type of climate change; natural or artificially caused; short or long term? At each of these points there are two strategic possibilities: action or inaction. Climate may or may not be changing. If it is changing, it may a temporary fluctuation or it may be long term shift. It may or may not be a natural phenomenon. We may or may not have had anything to do with it. All of the previous statements may be true - or not. But none of these things were important in my final analysis recommendation for action. My conclusion was based only on these two points. One, the only way to determine for certain if our actions could possibly have an effect on climate, is to stop our actions and measure the reaction of the climate (like with the example of ozone). This would be important to know whether the change is natural or not. For instance, even if the phenomenon was completely natural, if it was going to be a catastrophic, we would certainly want to try to stop it (as we would with an approaching meteor). And two, since the implications of what we know about large system dynamics suggest that we will not know that a major shift has begun until it begins, and because both the math and the study of real life storms say that a major shift will be catastrophically violent, then doing nothing is (strategically) the greater risk. Neither of these points are requisite on climate change actually occurring or with us having anything to do with it.
Finally, my analysis was only one in a high level chain of analyses. My work focused on the relevance of evidence causality in climate change. Another dealt with the politics; another with the industrial manufacturing; and another with the economic implications of climate change. These strategic analyses will also be added to analyses regarding the peak oil question (whether or not we are running out of petroleum). Analyses like mine (and my colleagues’) is not meant to persuade anyone’s opinion on this matter. Each one of the points can be disputed in some manner - even facts. For instance, although all of our record keeping data-sets say that temperatures are in a warming trend, we only have records for a couple of hundred years (at most). A completely accurate counter-point would be that over the last 3 billion years, the planet has shown a complete and virtually unchanged cooling trend (which is true). Also, our very understanding of complex system dynamics says that we cannot predict weather for more than a couple of weeks (at the most) with any accuracy.
However, strategic analysis is not used to determine the truth or reality of a subject. It is meant to determine how to achieve a strategic advantage. Strategic analysis is used to determine the best (most reasonable) response considering all of the factors and implications. It is not necessary to believe in any of the specific underlying factors (or for them to actually be true) in order to decide that any particular strategy is the most reasonable response. In fact, strategic analysis is based on weighing the implications of all sides of each factor whether true, false or in dispute.
Lucian
To Elaine,
Educational only in now I know what Lucian’s official position is on global warming; even though, it seemed pretty clear beforehand. I have a hard time taking things as factual by the lone claim that something is “fact”. True it may be fact that the numbers that they come up with, in these astronomic equations of chaos dynamics come up with, various sums, ratios, averages, etc. Keep in mind that the numbers were entered and interpreted by humans. Humans are fallible. Do the numbers mean what they think they mean? Could they possibly enter every pertinent variable? Of course not! How can I believe these so called “scientist” that can’t even predict the weather for next week, let alone the fate of the human race due to climate change?
Basically, I just want to others to keep in mind the other side. Yes, it was a well written editorial. Yes, he did his research. Does that make everything he said fact? No. Does he have a valid argument? Perhaps. Due to the nature of a podcast it would take well over 30 minutes to properly show the research, numbers, theories, and tables to prove their validity. I’m not calling him a liar by any means don’t get me wrong. But I’m not about to form my opinion solely on one man’s well written emotionally driven editorial.
Lucien, as I read and then watched your editorial on global climate change, I remembered my class in macro economics that pointed out that politics and economics are much the same thing.
An elected official is placed in office to decide how money collected will be spent for the benefit of the people. A hard choice must be made when a leader needs to decide between the economic benefit of continuing with existing policy or the benefit to humanity derived from change.
You as a scientist are not politicizing the issue except to the extent that by confronting people with the findings, they then have to choose which economic policy to embrace. The presentation of facts is not a political issue. What to do about it, unfortunately, is.
Yes Lucian a compelling case made in terms I can understand thank you so much.
I will tell others of your excellent programme.
to ‘unimpressed’: Does not the explanation serve as education itself? That was just the point for me. It was not just a personal reply to an insult or challenge; it was a scientific explanation to a query (no matter how that query might have been phrased). Personally, I had never heard the issue presented this way at all. Perhaps I live under a rock. Then I dare say it’s a very crowded rock. My only disappointment with the episode was that it was too short. I would have greatly appreciated some graphic examples or websites or the like to accompany the editorial. I find that multisensory examples help us non-braniac types.
Here’s hoping that Lucian will add that later.
Lucian,
First off I’m a fan of the show. Each episode is well thought out and informative. However, with regards to this particular episode; I feel was probably the worst I’ve seen. Now, I’m not going to argue pro or con on the debate of global warming in this forum here. I feel that both sides have good reasonable arguments. The fact that you let the letter of one viewer(at least from what I gathered from the podcast) get so under your skin that you felt that dedicating an entire show as a rebuttal is disreputable.
Also, I have yet to cast a vote for your show because I don’t care to give in to demands. I have by word of mouth told several friends about the show.
hey lucian,
june 9 show was brilliant, thank you.
on a lighter side of things, in regards to the life size alien made out of car parts. my wife and i just got back from thialand, there are whole stores full of this stuff.
aliens, predators in various shapes, sizes and forms, plus some star wars stuff. i have a picture of a life size r2d2 with a built in working car stereo. let me know if you want a look at it, i will send it your way.
Aaron Peacock
vancoucer, bc, canada
also known as the home of your man derek
Lucian…I agree with Dan and Elaine. That’s the best darn presentation I ever saw. (or have ever seen, depending on your location and education.)
Lucian (and Dan). THANK YOU! I am not an engineering student, I’m not a mathematician, I don’t even always spell well.
I’m a nurse. A Critical Care RN, yes, but a pretty average human being intellectually. I have wanted to understand the various issues around global warming, but there never seemed to be a non-political, non-emotional explanation of it that made any sense at all. (Dan, is it possible your friends’ policy had anything to do with that?) This is the first essay on the topic that made 100% sense with real, objective DATA. You actually presented this complex topic in a way that I, Joe-Average, could understand! You weren’t trying to convince me of a political or religious position. You weren’t trying to guilt trip me into thinking your way or buying some contrivance of your own design. You explained the issue using Math and Physics and afterall…isn’t that really the language of God in His Universe?
Thank you sincerely.
Thank you also for this show! You regularly succeed in entertaining my family right into a new understanding of …something…anything…lots of things. Ahhhh…feel those brain cells stretch!
Elaine
Lucian,
My name is Dan I’m an adult engineering student at Milwaukee School of Engineering in Wisconsin. I’ve been following the topic since the early nineties; I understand and agree with your position completely. Furthermore I have never heard or read anything on the subject stated so complete, and succinctly. However in my experience discussing this with people who lack understanding in scientific method, they will often respond in an emotional manner and become unwilling to listen to facts or reason. I’ve found this to be the most frustrating obstacle to informing others. My best friend recently told me that I cannot expect anyone to grow mentally or evolve in any way just because they should or because I want them to. Because of this I no longer believe it is responsibility of the educated to inform the less knowledgeable on topics that invoke such a response but rather to take action regardless of how we are viewed or scoffed at.
Love the show,
Dan Novobielski