Shared publicly  - 
My son Sam says young people should start #OccupyWorldStreet. It is movements like this that will save Antarctica. The science to tackle climate change is clear. Government policies must catch up with the science.
hetal kakaria (ratnaworld)'s profile photoMadhu V (madx)'s profile photoIorver Caleb's profile photoPhil Rarich's profile photo
Not sure if it will save it but it will get more people to take a second look and then over time, it combined with other movements/action change will take place.
Aaagh! "Occupy" anything has become annoying. Need a different name. Otherwise my automatic "annoyance" filter will kick in (filtering out any headline with the word "occupy") and I will miss all the info on THIS, such a great cause.
Is Wallstreet to be blamed for the pollution that is wreaking havoc on our planet Earth? Government policies must catch up! on that I agree with you 100%.
Rubin has a point about the name. The movement here seems lame and powerless. The whole of them should look to revamp and better organize to have better message marketing.
Your son needs an education then.
Elisa T
The ability of apparently intelligent people to bury their heads in the sand is amazing.

You can continue to argue humans didn't cause global warming... if you really must. Just like how cigarettes don't cause cancer. But if you don't believe climate change even exists, you're an idiot.
I'm ignorant on the antarctica issues, but I'm guessing more gov regulation will NOT help. Rarely does it do anything productive.
The OWS movement is not "about" money. It is about responsability. The choice of Wall St. was because of the power there that goes with the money. The OWS manifesto encompasses issue of ecology, human rights, opportunity, and recognizes that we all contributed to this mess. We get criticized for being unfocused but in reality we are all living in a closed environment. Everything is inter-connected. Global warming, unemployment, slavery, war, even earthquakes and droughts are all symptoms of the same underlying problems. Do we ask for too much when we occupy ? Why should we ask for anthing less ?
I wonder if you get a lot of negative feed back from people?
I have followed your carer for fifteen years plus, you have inspired me, thanks
In a world where Greek (and other EU) politicians are unable to impose austerity even when they have no more money, how does anyone think any politician will be able to implement economy-damaging programs for the purpose of combating climate change? Producing less CO2 means doing less. Doing less means less growth, fewer jobs. Absent some advance in technology or some sudden mass willingness to accept lower living standards, we have no path forward.
+Giuliano Maciocci Sr. - I often watch these debates and try to stay open minded. Where is the benefit to faking global warming and spreading propaganda? Assume someone, somewhere makes money?
Nice share.
I see these movements a part of a much broader change. Moreover as long as we have a monetary system, it always comes down to the money.
The problem might be that the move form the industrial age to the digital age requires quite different business models, which also take social and ecological challenges into account. We need economic genius! The traditional model of employed human resource, competition.... is not well adapted. We have automation, robotics....
Huge storage in the cloud and social networks are a quite fundamental game changer. We see quite different work and economic models on the horizon.
Collaboration and collaborative intelligence will be of major importance. Eg in science (my field) there is at the moment a vivid discussion, how we reorganize the social praxis of science (all form University structure, over novel forms of publications on dynamic blogs instead of traditional journals etc)
A very interesting book published about an ongoing revolution in the way we are doing science: Michael Nielsen, Reinventing Discovery, The New Era of Networked Science, Princeton University Press 2012 “Michael Nielsen argues that we are living at the dawn of the most dramatic change in science in more than 300 years. This is being driven by powerful new cognitive tools, enabled by the internet, which are greatly accelerating scientific discovery....this is the first book about something much more fundamental how the internet is transforming the nature of our collective intelligence and how we understand the world” (cover text)
A big question will be, how a fitting business model for these novel form of collaboration will look.
It is correct to call for occupy the world, since we are facing global changes and challenges.
The occupy movements are a part of these ongoing cultural changes.
It would be nice to organize economic experts to analyze the situation and come up with future orientated business models.

In any case I believe, that collaborative intelligence will provide a novel concept, that will e.g. contribute to solve environmental problems.
Well, we've 'fed the world' and everyone knows it's Christmas so this final step will make those who have the power to just realise their folly that keeping all that money, freedom to live as they want and all that power, is just a waste of time. ;-)
I am not sure revolutions solved anything! Some how evil people always come on top: like oil on water! This is not to say that all people in power are evil, but we have lost our ability to feel and recognize good from evil!
The problem with a revolution is it brings you full circle.. what we need is a half revolution to just turn things around...
The problem is indeed one of vested interests. Our interests and goals (along with our values and morals) dictate human behaviour, including inter and intra-species interaction. We seem to be able to overcome these 'selfish' interests in the short term (for example when the world came together to help Haiti after a devastating earthquake). However, in the long term, vested interests take precedence. A paradigm shift is necessary in order to align human interests in a sustainable direction!
Unfortunately, it's hard to focus on environmental issues that would guarantee an impact on my bottom line. The amount of refit and change is an investment that most people, much less nations, can afford. Clean electricity ... costs.

But I would love to do it.

It's easy to point our sights skyward for some goal or achievement, but I think many people are operating at about the survival stage in Maslow's Hierarchy of needs in the current economic frame.
Richard keep on making innovating companies if you make technology governance will continue to catch up but we will be better off. Since science itself occasionally catches up to innovation. Not that the technology is without science simply that very few understand the science that might make the technology. Where as one great invention changes the course of mankind. So keep pushing forth virgin space, and your deep sea missions. Human kind needs people on the envelope whether we know it or not. That and by implementing this new technology you save lives and save the world one innovation at a time, and you also make your own businesses more sustainable.
Thanks for sharing though and your son is right as well and with all of our minds and our hard work we can do something really great.
... +emmanuel kalu, if all problems were that simple to solve. There would be no war, we'd be in a perfect world and... nothing would ever get done. :)

These things are very complicated.
Are they, it is not to say that their is no level of complication or sophistication, yet when you watch a program like the colony and you see people making good with materials that are available to them and you know what or ancestors farmers and people in third world nations are able to do with little I imagine them only having slightly more and their hard work ethic and watch the prosperity they create with their work and their ingenuity.
The wave of movements to #occupythesquare in the Western world began at Puerta del Sol (Madrid) just after the Tahrir Square demonstrations in El Cairo. Since then, tne movements have spread to many other countries. The issue is whether the young and not too young all over the world can unite to make one single movement to fight the lack of ethics of those governing in favour of vested interests. The support of someone like you, a prestigious businessman with a reputation for worthy causes could be a good move in their favour. Greetings from Spain!
Sam the "Ham"! Great picture thanks for sharing all your experiences on your trip! Have a great day!
+Matthew Kowalski, the colony is a group of 7 people working together to survive. Survival is a key point to this. "Necessity is the mother of invention" is a daily occurrence in the situation staged in The Colony.

Multiply that by 100, work out a system of interaction, governing, start specializing groups to do certain tasks, divvy up resources and manufacturing, and make sure that no one... no one gets angry enough at someone else to kill them. :)

A person maybe be smart, but in the right mob, people can be very dumb. Also, with rudimentary tools, we pollute more often without realizing it. People aren't looking at the trailing smoke going skyward from making a "working" (smelting, refining) fire and thinking "I am damaging the environment". The thought never crosses their mind.

Survival is messy, imprecise... and pretty fantastic. :) But it doesn't compare to our intensely bureaucratic societies.
That had to be an amazing trip! I would love to produce a comic book about The Antarctica! It would be a great way to get the message out!
Tell your sons to get out and start it then. They obviously get to experience more of the world than 99% of other young people.
Richard. I'm involved in a totally unique energy source called the Varim project, this was originally picked up and worked on for many years by NASSA, we picked it up and refined the system cracking the genetic code required to the point we have created the sustainable power required to make significant changes with no by product or emissions, we have a working model and video, email me if you are interested on in Canada
Yes! Let do it. I am with you....let go global ..
We should occupy Congress, and the big corporations that do nothing to help America grow and still make more than a profit off of the U.S. economy.
Beg to differ, the science to tackle climate change is anything but clear. There is a fundamental disrespect in the popular media about what comprises "good science", and a tendency to simplify scientific results until they are meaningless. Do we need to make changes to our style of life? Yes, and for many reasons. Do we understand the weather, the climate, or have any idea how to "fix" (Whatever that means!) the problems? Ummm, a resounding NO. Maybe if some well-meaning billionaire (Hint, hint) were to found (And fund) a non-biased group tasked with understanding the problems, we might have a better chance of understanding the problems, and then we might actually be able to put together some meaningful hypothesis...
Anyone know the origin of this type of quote "I find it absolutely arrogant and conceited that we mere humans can be - suddenly - so all powerful as to finally beat nature at her own game" that Peter above just used. I have seen this same quote appear in almost the same form in posts all over the place attacking climate change. As per usual a bunch of mumbo jumbo with zero science to back it up. When you reference science they then attack science as not being trust worthy but useless opinion is suddenly elevated to sacrosanct.
I tend to worry whenever I hear non-scientists harping on hard-science questions, not to mention answers! Most people (Try this at home, kiddies, but no fair just remembering or looking it up!) would have a hard time deriving the Fahrenheit to Celsius conversion, yet they get all cocky and self-assured when describing how man has led to the downfall of the environment! In fact, not respecting the experts has become a large-scale trend. Forget "Occupy World Street", how about a "Respect (And Fund!) the Experts" movement? How about it, wanna jump on the RAFE bandwagon?
+Peter Taylor I don't have a world of confidence in anything Al Gore is behind... But then, I find any popular movement to be immediately suspect. Got to agree with you, as usual the easy answer ("Carbon BAD!!!") is the only thing that makes it's way to the masses. In my not-so-bloody-humble opinion there isn't currently a body of proof or evidence either way, and so no plan forward seems reasonable. Sir Dick's "Let's change the governments" rally cry might get a lot of public approval, but are we sure it's what's appropriate?
+Brian Salter Back this statement up "In my not-so-bloody-humble opinion there isn't currently a body of proof or evidence either way" I would like to see how you came to this conclusion!
+Sean Wetherall Did you know that the caduceus isn't actually the symbol of medicine, but is actually the symbol of BUSINESS? Well, I suspect the world of climate change should adopt the same symbol, it's all about the business. Now, how do I back my statement up? Like the old statement, "climate is what you expect and weather is what you get". Weather is a very complex issue, we don't actually know what to expect. There's very little theory to explain the little ice age, there's no algorithm that will give you realistic data to tell you what jacket to pack for next month's Alaska trip, but yet we feel comfortable in saying that what we're getting isn't right? Until a theory is developed that results in a working algorithm, it's all just guesswork, wishful thinking, and exercises in getting grant-money.
+Fuzz Leonard The problem isn't whether or not Fritz agrees, it's whether or not the Journal writes a summary piece! That isn't journalism, it's rabble-rousing.
+Brian Salter so far you haven't said anything. I am a big boy I have multiple science degrees as you probably do having worked on the space station and subs, rockets etc. I think science is the pursuit of repeatable peer reviewed data. If you have some data to back up what you are saying I am 100% open to hearing and reading this info.
+Brian Salter You are saying that because we cannot predict the weather on a given day that climate science must be unknowable? OK, so what about mass? Where is your algorithm for mass? Prove to me that mass exists. Show me the algorithm? Don't have one? Ouch, that must mean all physical science is unknowable. You might not even exist! The horror! This IS about money--about big, polluting corporations spending millions to fight climate science so they do not have to clean up. I live in a town with a paper mill. EPA cracked down on them, insisted they stop dumping toxic waste. So now the paper mill only dumps their toxic waste when it is raining so the EPA's sensors won't detect it. Not caring about lives to make more money for people who are already rich--yay!
+Sean Wetherall You expect me to find proof of what I find to be a lack of proof? I find (Remember that I said "in my not-so-bloody humble opinion", you may be more easy swayed) that there is no good, predictive model using the available data. So far all that's been presented is charts and graphs showing a trend, which is akin to predicting the next fall of the roulette wheel based on the last two results of 32 black...
+Brian Salter I want one of those tin hats and reading your posts to far I see opinion and because you find the over 3000 peer reviewed climate studies from 2011 a lack of evidence does not make said evidence lacking. I was sure hoping you had data not opinion. So send me my tinfoil-hat award please.
+Sean Wetherall Since I find the studies lacking then I am correct in saying that I find the studies lacking... The number of studies does not affect the outcome, it's the lack of hard numbers producing hard, predictable results that I find troubling. Otherwise it's just 3000 studies of trend data, the same kind of data that predicted the stock market was going up-up-UP in 1929... For instance, if we eliminated the effects of CO2 but did nothing about methane, CO, or NO, what would be the result? Oops, no model will predict that. How about those pesky solar particles, does any model suggest how much they contribute to warming? Nope. Yet weather specialists can do a passing-fair job of predicting the path of a hurricane, or the areas in which a tornado or other storm might arise, so it's not out of keeping to expect a model to be employed in this domain.
Actually there are fine models to predict everything you just stated. I am really getting the feeling you do not read any of the studies. I may be wrong here. As part of a consulting job I did last year I read over 300 of these and had summaries of the rest. Plus discussed the relevant data points with a team of qualified scientists. I am not seeing what you are are stating, I was hoping you had different data. The fact you find the studies lacking after reviewing the data from them is troubling to me. I am trying to understand your methodology here and I cannot seem to fathom it. So using my opinion here I find your analysis of the data lacking.
+Sean Wetherall Which one (or more) of the studies did you find to have a predictive model that was borne out by fact? Because I have yet to see a one that had a testable hypothesis, an accurate model, and an accurate prediction. In fact, most of the data that I've seen doesn't even agree on what factors would need to be measured for a temperature consensus, or a good a surface heat-absorption model.
+Brian Salter sure I would be happy to pass on this info as soon as you tell me which papers and studies you have read? I have a great interest to see which papers you have read.
Yeah +Brian Salter thats what I thought. I often follow comment threads like this to see where people are getting the information they base their comments on. When pressed to cite information sources we usually hit a brick wall in the conversation as they really do not have anything other than reading blogs and news items. Reading the source material is so extremely rare. I often ask because sometimes I will get true cited data sources there I learn something. But general statements of no predictive models no accurate data is just noise to me. Back up your statements but oh yes I remember their is no data you agree with.
+Sean Wetherall So much for your "300 papers" you've reviewed, when you can't name a single one that fits my parameters!
+Brian Salter Its not about naming papers. Fits your parameters? you have to excuse me while I laugh out loud. No amount of papers will suffice as I would suggest that you made up your mind already, I was really fishing to see if you had any data to back up your statements. Now I know you don't, but you say the word I will send you links to the over 3117 papers we covered, yes and I know none will meet your parameters. +Peter Taylor seen almost your exact words used in more than one post maybe you are the source. So you are basing your comments on gut and needing no proof. And wisdom demands no proof. Oh my where to start.......
IN my Screenplay Seven Sisters your character creates a very thin reflective Mylar that gets spread out in space by Virgin Galactic to reflect the suns rays and save Antarctica! lol its a fun read.
K Cloth
Occupy world street is a stupid idea. We have executives at home that get 10 million plus bonuses. Ten million divided by 30000 is 333 people with living wages for a year, Occupy wall street is a fight to prevent the rich from abusing the poor.
+noway never Right, but the math does not really work out. Maybe corporations are too complex. Let's look at a simple example: I am a software developer. Say I come up with a cool new online service, build it all out myself working 80 hours a week and when it is ready I charge $10/mo. I get 100,000 subscribers. Now I am bringing in $1,000,000/mo, or $12m a year. Say my expenses are $2m. So now I am making $10m/year income. You come occupy my front yard and demand I divide my money up between 29,999 other people who have not done any of the work. Or say you do even better than that and get them to pass a law that compels me to do it. OK, so I split the fruits of my hard work evenly with 29,999 other people. But now where is my motivation to continue work on the product? Oops, there goes that $10m/year--now nobody gets it. Or to build new products? It sure would be a lot easier for me to just go occupy something and wait for my handout. This is what happened in the Soviet Union.

There are certainly plenty of executives out there who do get paid more than they are worth. But that is not universally true or even the norm. There is nothing wrong with an executive being paid that much if she brings that much value to the organization. Unlike my example, large corporations actually provide a large number of jobs and that does not happen because the workers all got together and formed and operate the company. It's because of the people at the top. Get rid of them, take away their incentives, those other jobs disappear. By reading what you have read, it seems you are the type of person who WANTS to be given a job by some company rather than starting a company yourself. But if you do not allow the people who run companies to earn incentives for doing so (and bigger incentives the better they do) then there will not be companies to give you a job.
Straw man alert! (Fuzz Leonard)
+Sean Wetherall You claim to have reviewed 3000 studies, yet you seem to have difficulty finding a single one with a working hypothesis. Why is that? Either you didn't actually review them (Likely) or those 3000 papers don't contain a "stand", the fundamental of a good paper.
K Cloth
fuzz, you are missing the point. Why would you want to help people that can't help themselves?

Your post tells me you would rather invest in a yaht to raise awareness about ducks in antartica than invest in your fellow man.

How much would it really cost to raise global awareness?

you aren't a part of the issue because you haven't acknowledged the issue.

What is saddest about your post to me is that you are saying that if you invested 10 million into 300 people for a year that were willing to work for it, that you couldn't break even because all they want is handouts.
+Brian Salter Nah Brian. What we found is that climate scientists are at a consensus on the mechanisms of anthropogenic climate change. The ratio was 97% behind a global temperature increase the rest of the papers were a mix of fringe science. The sun is going though an active period or its going to go through a quite period we will see a mini ice age stuff like. I was just trying to see if you had any hard data. Forget modeling, come on now I was trying to be polite on this one and not call you full of shit. You have not reviewed any of the data. Your comments do not follow the trail of someone who looks at the different data sets. And your use of terminology is refreshing "a "stand", the fundamental of a good paper" If you were actually interested in the science of these processes I would be happy to pass on the info to you. We conduct research on the best possible consensus data and when over 90% of the research is telling us the same thing we say ok until someone comes up with a better model. We follow the science. Yes there are arguments about the degree of the temperature increase, how fast the tip point will happen. But not the underlying cause. If you believe this is the case you are mistaken, and you have zero ability to prove you are mistaken. So its not about finding one with a working hypothesis there were 1000's with the same hypothesis. I am thinking maybe you are reading Fred Singer.
+Sean Wetherall First, you have no idea what or how much data I have reviewed, but you have claimed to be an expert multiple times. Yet, you seem to have no grasp of the value of a good hypothesis, a good model, and the validation of the hypothesis with data. So, looks like the "full of shit" hat belongs to you.
Second, consensus data is nice to have if you want to know what everybody wants for lunch, but it's useless where science is concerned. What you've got is a majority opinion, and it's value may or may not be right up there with phlogiston physics...

Sean, I'm through talking with you. You are an abusive person with no idea how to conduct a discussion, and no idea what goes into good science.
+Brian Salter you presuppose because I do not rise to the bait of your double speak I do not understand validation, hypothesis or good modeling. See this the area I do not rise to the bait. The arguments of terminology and Semantics. I asked you to back up your arguments with examples you state there is no need because no theory or data supports your criterior. I call BS on that one. My job is not climate science(I am not a climate scientist) its the aggregation of data into a coherent message for a client. We hired the experts to present facts and findings. The data and processes passed the sniff test. And asking for clear backup of your position is abuse. Ok guilty as charged. You still haven't posted anything other than opinion.

For those who have an interest here are links to some good sources of data. Bear with me its hard to look through papers take the titles and then find public links to these papers.

You will find links to the original papers and correspondence regarding the papers. Sometimes you will find the peer review correspondence to be of more interest than the original article.

Excellent place to start is Natures climate site:

Nice archive of prediction models:,npg_subject_684

This one is a link to correspondence on uncertainty in climate modeling. Its rather good.

Science Magazine

Nasa Climate Change

Nasa have excellent articles and data sets.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Most peer reviewed docs are sent to a variety of science journals. The one pissy thing is you have to have a subscription to access the source articles. And let me tell that can be pricey. Here is something to be annoyed about. There are many, many more links I can keep posting as I translate paper articles to public links.
Will you please stop bickering on this thread. No. One. Cares. 
We all have become so acquainted with the govt. policies across the globe that we never care , but its high time everyone understands, its not for us but for our next generation that we must start thinking about.
I like the idea of occupy world street. A lot of the major problems are universal. Food, air, water, education, health, environment and peace if these issues are handled in places where they are needed the most we can usher in a new age. If we do not, we will see more and more areas going through harsh shifts in their biosphere and of course more resource wars. As the Apex of the food chain were have a vested interest in keeping it healthy. I do believe charity should start at home. A strong community can do more that a struggling one.
Finally we see your data sources. After posting that Forbes article I would say we now see where you get your data. Case closed for me. Understanding of what goes into good science??? and you post this. Remember you need to post the Washington Post article as well.
+Dustin Willoughby Both sides are playing the publicity game, so it's hard to find out which (if any) players are looking at the situation objectively.
Its a suggestion to all people in position to have an award for any country / organization / people who take care of the environment around them on international basis, that way we can create a macro structure with many micro environment saving initiatives.
I might sound too little too late but might help in the long run.
Save Save Save the Environment around and make this world a happy place to live in for one and all.
Add a comment...