So, about a year ago, I began to research an article based on observations I was making of "things" going on with Mother Earth....but I could find no corroborating evidence to support my position and conclusions, rather the opposite, so I let it drop, and never finished the article.
After all, it would have been only an opinion essay, not backed up by facts.
NOW, however, I find I am vindicated, and the support for my position is now making the news...so at this point, it's "old news," and I still don't feel the article would gain the needed traffic, since the scientists have reversed themselves, and now "everyone" already knows what's going on.
Give it a go anyway, Liz. There is a plethora of articles on the Internet about global warming, urban farming, habitat damage, etc. I've blogged about all those topics on my website, but had links to corroborate my opinions.
If you're just now finding validation to your subject matter, I'd say you'd be a pioneer and should go for it. Someone has to start somewhere. Why not you?
Publish the sucker!
Go for it, MsLizzzy! Jodah, Glenna, me and others have written on Mother Earth and ecology. There are many topics to go into when choosing this subject. I just edited my Mother Earth hub this morning to bring it up to date.
I look forward to reading your thoughts on Mother Earth.
There probably is no topic of greater importance to society right now, and there are still multitudes who want to look away from it. Reviewing some of the programs and talks given on global climate change might be a great approach as well as an emphasis on the role of the "man-on-the-street". This audio lecture/interview by Tim Flannery whose credentials are stellar has enough areas to cover 10 hubs! I know you mentioned your research, but I think you'll really love this, DML! http://www.alternativeradio.org/collect … ts/flat001
Maybe you'd be interested in reviewing Naomi Klein's book/film "This Changes Everything."
In 1990 or thereabouts, I interpreted for a deaf student in a Meteorology class. The professor indicated the droughts and unprecedented weather changes that would be occurring because of CO2 emissions. I used to call up on talk radio to a guy named Joe Soucheray in Minneapolis who mocked climate change and urged everyone to "up their cylinder index" (increase the amount of their engine use).
The recent talks in Paris COP2 climate conference have made a tiny bit of progress in drafting a document, but that document is felt to be extremely inadequate. It's a beginning, but articles like the ones you're talking about are needed to promote change before it's just too late.
Looking forward to reading your hubs on this extremely important topic!
If we're talking about climate change/global warming, then I'm not seeing any scientists reversing themselves. The majority of the scientific community has been warning about this for decades.
What has changed is that SOME of the climate change deniers are backing down in the face of the bleeding obvious, and admitting that climate change is real after all - though they still question whether it's caused by human interference or not. The deniers are mainly funded by big business, (who are willing to sacrifice anything, including their kids' futures, to avoid affecting their profits), so they were getting a huge amount of media and online attention at one point, particularly in the US.
I think you can easily outrank scholarly articles with some basic SEO. Scientific articles are not written with that in mind. You might want to consider a "curated" article that offers scientific research in support of your position, that would be useful for those wanting a better understanding of the current thinking on climate change.
Would you like to play?
Expires in 5 minutes.
Then I guess I'm out of the game...LOL
It's not a matter of just "publishing the sucker," I never wrote it after those initial research attempts. got no further than the title.
I made a television documentary 30 years ago about the greenhouse effect, anticipated climate change etc. Scientists warned of the hole in the ozone layer, rising sea levels and unseasonal weather extremes if we didn't make immediate changes. Of course most people chose to ignore them.
Over the years, I've done my part regarding lifestyle choices to try and reduce emissions etc. Sadly, I am greatly outnumbered and I've found myself watching the scientists' predictions become reality.
Having had decades to reflect on their warnings, I no longer live alongside the beach. I live in the mountains, safe from inevitable rising sea levels and damage from sea storms and tsunamis.
May I suggest an article on how the extreme weather pattern of recent years is no different than 100 years ago. You will find plenty of material. As a skeptic of climate change, especially the exaggerated claims, I see just the opposite. People are beginning to realize the failures of past climate predictions. The latest meeting in Paris on climate change is a glaring example. The agreements reached is so weak, it is dependent on optional participation. In the next few years, I predict there will be a watershed moment when climate scientists must answer for their failed claims.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, jacklee Im. There is no doubt that climate goes through cycles, and always has.
However, there is also no doubt that human activity and pollution have radically and rapidly altered those changes, making them more severe and more frequent.
There you go, MsLizzy - a good subject for your hub, what you said.
Really, I like some proof of that.
I point to one example you might want to research. The storm in Galveston 1900.
Compare that to Katrina.
Also, check out the storm records for the last 100 years. The data is readily available.
I like to see you come up with your claim.
I'm not going to use this forum to argue the matter. We disagree, and that is that.
(but do note that Wikipedia is not generally considered an authority or reliable resource.)
That is true about Wikipedia, since anyone can sign up to go in and edit or create articles.
I get that. On controversial topics such as politics and celebrities, I generally agree. On most other topics, I find them pretty good. If you don't want to rely on wiki, there are other sources such as newspaper articles from those periods and farmer's almanac.
From my examination, I find no increase in extreme weather in mainland USA, if anything, the last 10 years have been relatively quiet.
I often check with Wikipedia on certain subjects. I also check the resources where their information comes from. I am not saying Wikipedia is not a site to use, I just think that information should be sourced properly and confirmed before using it. Quite often an editor has not given proper reference to sources or has written the article like a blog with personal opinions - that is when a note at the top of the Wikipedia article says it needs confirmation or a re-write.
You can't possibly say you "find wikipedia pretty good" for other topics unless you also do your research on other sites as well, and then compare them with the Wikipedia page. In which case why bother with the Wikipedia page?
I don't know how accurate Wikipedia is - but I know that on the subjects I do know about, they have been very inaccurate in the past. I have a login to Wikipedia and I check those articles every six months or so - and I nearly always need to remove incorrect information that's been added in that time.
Incorrect information can LOOK perfectly legitimate - just because something is written in a scholarly manner doesn't mean it's right.
Also America is not the only country in the world - perhaps you'd like to look at the UK right now, or the weather in Australia over the last few years.
Am I understanding what you are saying? that wikipedia is totally worthless...
So all these people volunteered their own time without being paid just want to deceive the rest of us for fun or something worse. I don't buy it. There is a reason why somethings are used and others not. Wikipedia for the most part are pretty good. It is self policing that keeps it in check. Where there is controversy, it is flagged on the top page. I use wikipedia for many information that are not controversial. Apparently, so do many others. I agree the US is not a representation of the whole world but it is one data point. The fact that climate is changing all over is the norm not the exception. That is why I suggest doing an article on the extreme weather that is being claimed. If one goes back in history a hundred years, you will find extreme weather then and now. In addition, you will find natural phenomenon that affected weather such as volcanos and asteroids. None of those are due to human activity.
I used to be one of those volunteers! I don't think people join to deceive, but I have seen lots of examples of people joining to push their own agenda.
Also, although it is policed, it's not nearly as closely monitored as it used to be - because they don't have nearly enough volunteers now. That means misinformation can be on the site for months before anyone notices.
To give a trivial example - in belly dance, people add a section about dancing in a particular country, where they will claim a particular school or festival is the best - which it isn't, it just happens to be their school. Also there are people who THINK they know about the history of belly dance, and add in common myths without any supporting evidence (belly dance originated with a fertility goddess, or it grew out of childbirth rituals, etc ).
I'm not active on Wikipedia now but I still check that page every six months or so - and sure enough, those people have been at it again, and NO ONE else has flagged them as suspicious or removed them.
That kind of problem is particularly bad on controversial subjects, where both sides may add or delete information to make the other side look bad.
Thanks for the inside scoop. It is always good to get information first hand. I will be more careful in using wikipedia.
I wonder if Wikipedia will eventually have to introduce ads and start paying its editors.
I started on Wikipedia early on, when there weren't the same opportunities to write on article-writing sites. It was a good outlet, a way to write on subjects I was knowledgeable about and feel it had value - and I think a lot of other volunteers were there for the same reason.
As the article-writing sites grew in popularity and we all started realising we could write elsewhere and actually earn a good income from it, we all started cutting back our Wikipedia work in favour of places like Helium and HubPages. Wikipedia has been struggling to get enough volunteers to keep the site afloat for a long time.
You're right Marisa, the weather in the UK and here in Australia has been extreme in the past few years. From my own observations/experience of the climate and temperatures in various parts of the country, the weather is definitely changing.
I don't know if you get news of our bushfires and floods in the USA, but we are currently having both in different states. In the past few days, 121 homes have been destroyed in Western Australia, while in New South Wales, there are severe floods and evacuations.
Perhaps jackclee lm is correct in saying that extreme weather has always happened, but I don't think it has to the extent it is now. Climates are always subject to change, and I think the current changes are exacerbated by greenhouse gases and human activity.
OK, some climate skeptics will disagree with me, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I happen to believe in climate change and global warming.
Snakesmum, that is the frustration for some of us skeptics. There are people who are convinced of climate change but are not open to facts. There are existing weather events on record going back at least 100 years. It would be so easy to go and check the claims of climate scientists that recent events are extreme and abnormal. It is just not true. My contention is that this will be resolved in a few short years. Either they are correct or they are wrong. It has been 10 years without a category 3 storm or higher to hit the US Mainland. It is already past the point of reason. It will take a few more years for the die hard to be convinced.
So are you looking at other places in the world at all? We have just had major floods in the UK, with bridges and buildings that have stood since the 12th century being washed away - which tells you something as they have not been at risk before.
Australia has also had major events.
The recent floods in the UK have mostly been caused by lack of river dredging as per EU directives. In times past, rivers were dredged, and the silt and gravel removed was used to build up the banks. Now, any removed material has to be disposed of elsewhere according to EU requirements. That is, if the river is allowed to be dredged in the first place.
It's lovely having unspoiled rivers that are a haven for wildlife, but not to the detriment of human habitation.
Also, if planners continue to allow building on flood plains, those new flood defences mean that the water has to go somewhere - and nowadays it goes to places that have never been flooded before.
You might have noticed that there has been no flooding of the Somerset Levels this year because the man-made rivers, the Kings Drain and Sedgmoor Drain have been dredged as originally intended. Also, I believe they have restarted the huge pumps that were turned off in the late 90s, when the MoD handed responsibility over to the Environment Agency.
Yes, I agree, the rain has been unprecedented, but most of the flooding could have been avoided with correct management. The EA is a total waste of resources.
We have the same problem in the US with the EPA. They have caused more damage to our environment in the case of Colorado. Check out my hub on that fiasco.
I guess we'll both have to wait and see for a few more years then, until the answer is obvious one way or another. We'll just have to agree to disagree in the meantime.
The fact that you were able to make these observations before they were proven suggests you have a talent for anticipating important things around you. I think people would be interested to read the way you view important issues and what thoughts you may have for the future.
I see Wikipedia as a non-authoritative source of information authored by amateurs; pretty much the same as I view Hubpages to be honest.
Anybody can sign up there, write anything they wish and, what is worse, tamper with other people's contributions to their heart's content. The fact that all contributions are anonymous means it is impossible to see whether one person/group is trying to impose its agenda on a particular topic area.
I use Wikipedia as a way of finding additional search terms to search elsewhere for the information I need. I would never dream of using any information I find there without verifying it elsewhere. I do wish Google search would stop jamming it down people's throat as a prime source of information!
That begs a good question. Why would google promote Wikipedia as showing up high on page ranking? Does wikipedia pay google? or is it because it satisfy the SEO criteria that google implements in its search engine and that HubPages take advantage of as well.
I agree wikipedia is similar to Hubpages in the sense that anyone can write an opinion. The difference is that Wikipedia does include sources and links to other relevant material. Where there is controversy, someone does flag them as suspicious. That is non existent on HubPages.
No, Google deliberately forces Wikipedia articles to the top of search results, which in my view must inevitably over-inflate some people's perceptions of the relevance and reliability of this material.
As to why Google does this, I doubt it is for the general benefit of humanity! There is likely some self-serving interest somewhere in the background.
It is telling that many academic institutions penalise student essays that cite Wikipedia.
I don't think you understand how google search works. It doesn't force anything. It has two tracks, one that is paid advertising and the other is based on how popular and how many back links that a web site has and a bunch of other parameters... When a page gets high page rank, it is due to those factors. Google implements the algorithm and modify them periodically but it can't force anything.
BTW, I've written extensively on the topic of climate change along with Doc Snow. You are welcome to read our opposing opinions. We recently just conducted a hub to hub challenge (a first on HubPages I believe).
I understand Google well.
Actually, among other things I have a postgraduate diploma in library and information studies, much of which focused on finding, evaluating and organising information. I subsequently worked for fifteen years as an information specialist, during which time I was responsible in helping to develop information strategies at an international level in my field, speaking on the subject at conferences, training scientists and civil servants in search techniques. You have selected the wrong person to target with a patronising, condescending response.
Have you not noticed the box on the right-hand side of Google searches, which inevitably displays Wikipedia results? The only way I can get rid of that and clean up search results overall is to use -wikipedia as a search parameter; something I am increasingly doing these days.
I'm sorry If I offended you but you are not the only one with experience in this area. I've also worked in this field for over 20 years in both hardware and software and systems. I've worked on numerous projects with museums and libraries worldwide on content management, multimedia and rights management. I don't trust google or any search engine for that matter. The internet is a sewer with many inaccuracies and no machine can sort them out. Only a human can distingush truth from spin. Not all humans are honest. Having said that, wikipedia is pretty good for most information. Nothing is completely trustworthy as we found with climate scientists and some main street media.
All in all, it doesn't matter whether you believe in global climate change or not. What matters is if you believe that a rise in temperature will affect water supply, droughts, growing of crops, humankind's ability to live through intense periods of heat, etc. etc. If you cannot see that correlation, even if occurring on a short term basis or, if you DO see the correlation and say it is out of our hands to change, you become a factor that those who DO see the correlation have to respectfully ignore.
As in all potential dangers, we take precautions to prevent those dangers from occurring. That's the reason we purchase fire sensors, flood insurance, and on and on. It would be against our self-interest to deny that a fire in our home COULD occur and for us to be careless about leaving the stove on, leaving our campfire blazing all night long, falling asleep with a lighted cigarette, putting a Christmas tree near a space heater and on and on merely because we didn't want to spend the money on a fire sensor and other safety devices. We don't want to RISK the outcome, so we spend money to reduce that risk. We can't be careless about the possibility - plain and simple.
Will a rise in temperature affect water evaporation if that rise is only for one year? Of course, it will, if only on a small scale.(One year of lack of snow, for example, can wipe out a ski resort business.) But those who look at global climate change are not that narrow-minded. They see the big picture and understand how drought affects societies and leads to war and social unrest. Do we know that certain activities CAUSE a rise in temperature? Of course, we do. So whether or not one believes in global climate change, (unless a person is hell-bent on believing in Apocalyptical endings of humankind - pardon the pun ) those who DO see the correlations are begging that at the very least (as the physician's code states) you do no harm. If you don't want to help in the prevention of what others want to prevent, no worries. We will pay for it. Let us work for it. Just don't get in our way. If you're worried about your oil stocks, just transition to stocks that in other areas. If you are worried you'll lose your job or your children won't have jobs, start looking 5 years ahead toward training for something you can be more sure of.
So whether or not you believe that the cause, effect, the on-going nature of global climate change is a reality or not, please believe in the POSSIBILITY that it COULD be a reality and that we need to insure against that POSSIBILITY just like we insure ourselves against all potential dangers. And if you prefer NOT to believe in even the POSSIBILITY, just stand back and let those who do work toward reasonable solutions continue to work. They are honorable people and will try not to upset any aspect of your life as they work around you.
I agree this subject went off topic and it is unfortunate. I must say your long reply touched on the very heart of this debate. I wrote a long hub on this topic and wish you would check it out before making assumptions about skeptics. The title of my hub is "Climate change predictions how accurate are they?"
Let me know how you feel after you read the hubs and the discussions that follow. You may learn something.
WOW! Did this ever go off track onto a wild tangent on a topic unrelated to my intended article...which, for obvious reasons, I did not share in my original question. It was deliberately worded 'generically.'
DML, I meant to list my comment under another post- not under your initial question ...opps
LOL, Billie Kelpin--Not aimed only at you--it went astray far back..
It was caused by someone making assumptions about my intended topic, and that person apparently does not know what "ASSUME" spells...
DzyMsLizzy - I apologise for being one of the culprits in taking your topic off at a tangent. It was an interesting discussion though! :-)
by savvydating 8 weeks ago
Is climate change a threat to our existence? If so, how much time do we have left as a civilization? What is your opinion about Biden's policies on climate change? How much does the average person know about climate change policies and basic economics? Do you believe Al Gore? What are your thoughts...
by Holle Abee 6 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Sychophantastic 8 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by emievil 13 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by ThunderKeys 11 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|