Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at ahmadsitta@gmail.com.

At http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. http://theglobalwarminge.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

Harriet Martineau

Harriet Martineau was born in Norwich, England, 1802. Harriet grew up into a large middle class family. She also grew up as a Unitarian because her mother and father believed in this. Her father was a Textile Manufacturer and her mothers family were sugar refiners. Both her parents though, had held progressive views on girls' education and Harriet and her three sisters received the same education as their three brothers had. Their brothers were sent to a University and the girls were made to stay at home. Harriet thought this was not fair at all, and this is were she started writing and publishing articles in the Unitarian magazine and started writing Religious books.

She was one of the first female British Sociologists and well known English social theorist. Whom studied the social customs of Britain and the United States. Martineau was also very discipline to sociology and even translated various writings of Auguste Comte. She started analyzing the consequences of industrialization and capitalism. She even wrote her own Book, "Society in America" where she explained her examinations of religion, politics, child rearing, slavery, and immigration that happened in the U.S. She believed that society would greater improve when all men and women were treated equally amongst everything. She wanted to see cooperation amongst all social classes no matter the situation.

She began studying our country when she first came to the U.S in 1834. In her two studies she started Society in America. In this specific study, she talks about comparing moral principles and social patterns and this became her well known work of Sociologists in the United States. Harriet was known for believing and one thing she did believe was an analysis of some society should require an understanding of a women's life. Harriet Martineau changed sociological opinions on issues that was ignored like marriage, children, religious life and race relations.

Harriet Martineau died of bronchitis in 1876. She will always be remembered as the first female sociologist who changed the sociologist perspective on treating every man and woman equally.

William Edward Burghardt Du Bois

One of the rare African American sociologists was William Edward Burghardt Du Bois. I like the way he admired the human nature. He had one the greatest perspectives on the American Culture. He also spoke the truth no matter the risk was. He had so much faith and trust in the African American culture.

William Edward Burghardt Du Bois was born in 1868 during the painful period of reconstruction; Du Bois was graduated from Fisk University in 1888 and went on to earn a Ph.D. from Harvard in 1895 before entering the worlds of academe and activism. Using Atlanta University as his base from 1897-1910, he opposed Booker T. Washington's educational views as too limiting, preferring to organize young black intellectuals in the Niagara Movement. In 1909 he founded the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and in 1910 launched its historic magazine, the Crisis. During this period he also published his classic treatise, The Souls of Black Folk (1903), the best known of many passionate and well-argued philosophical and sociological studies of his race, which also included the Philadelphia Negro, John Brown, The Gift of Black Folk, Black Reconstruction, and Color and Democracy: Colonies and Peace.


The Negro speaks rivers to Du Bois, through the N.A.A.C.P. Du Bois was also instrumental in creating opportunities for intellectual and artistic advancement for blacks and ways of rewarding and encouraging excellence, notably his collaboration with the Spingarn’s in creating the prestigious medals which bear that family's name till today. He published a novel, DARK PRINCESS, in 1928, and he continued to edit THE CRISIS from 1910-1934 until he began to reject the conservatism of the N.A.A.C.P.'s political views.

Du Bois' gradual radicalization paralleled that of a number of other black intellectuals and artists, Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson prominently among them. He embraced leftist ideology, was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize in 1958 and formally joined the Communist Party in 1961. In the last year of his life he moved to Ghana and took citizenship in that nation. His memoirs, DUSK OF DAWN, written in 1940, and his posthumously published three volumes of CORRESPONDENCE constitute not only a personal history but also the autobiography of a race in their proud ascent from slavery to freedom and in their courageous quest for equality—a struggle which Du Bois had once described as an unending battle against the forces of hell.

According to

Emile Durkheim's Thoughts

* Social Facts
Generally the most fundamental assumption underlying the Durkheim's approach to sociology is that social phenomena are real and affect the consciousness of other individuals. Social facts can not be reduced to individual facts, but rather have an independent existence at the social level. Durkheim rejected ynag opinions about the social facts on the view that excessive individualism. View of the excessive individualism of social facts has reduced social phenomena only on individual behavior, while in fact, social fact is more than just a collection or summation of individual behavior because a behavior can be called a social fact the perpetrator. In addition, Durkheim also explains that sociology is scientific, therefore, must be studied objectively and causally explained.
Social facts have three characteristics:

   1. Social facts are external to the individual, because since the beginning idividu feel confronts himself with the social facts and assume that the social fact be an a fact that comes from outside himself.
   2. Individual coercive social facts, because an individual is guided, it is believed and encouraged or influenced by the social facts that make them complete.
   3. General social facts, spread in a society, because social facts that are not the sum of several individual facts but rather a collective of more than just the sum of the individual facts.

    * Social Solidarity
Social solidarity is the relationship between individuals and or groups based on the level of intimacy, moral commitment and trust is strengthened by shared emotional experience. Social solidarity at least rely on the level of consensus on the moral principles underlying the relationship. Durkheim distinguishes two forms of solidarity, namely:
a. Solidarity Mekani
Based on the collective consciousness (colletive consiousnes / conscience) which refers to the totality of shared beliefs that exist in that same community. Solidraitas mechanics depends on the individuals who have the same properties and normative patterns of belief and the same.

   1. Organic Solidarity
Arise because of the division of labor increase. Organic Solidraitas didsarkan on timgkat high interdependence. Interdependence that grew as a result of the increased specialization in the division of labor that allows increasing differences among individuals.

    * Suicide (Suicide)
Basic proposition that is affected in a suicide is that suicide rates vary by level of social integration. Durkheim identifies three types of suicide that reflects three types of relationships vary. Three types of suicide:

   1. Egoistic suicide
Egoistic suicide is the result of an excessive pressure on individualism or lack of adequate social ties with social groups.

   1. Altruistic suicide
Altruistic suicide, concerned sedemikain unite themselves with the values of his group and so integrated that aside until he had no identity. Altruistic suicide is the result of some degree of social integration is too strong.

   1. Anomic suicide
Anomic suicide arise from the absence of a statement of goals and aspirations of individuals. Durkheim showed that sudden changes in society, such as a severe economic crisis or periods of economic expansion and prosperity are not uncommon, usually associated with high rates of suicide.

Theory Emile Durkheim

  
1. A. LIVING HISTORY Emile Durkheim

Emile Durkheim (15 April 1858 - November 15, 1917) is known as one of the founder of modern sociology. He founded the first sociology faculty at a university of Europe in 1895, and published one of the first journal devoted to social science, L'Annee Sociologique in 1896. Durkheim is a precocious student. He entered the Ecole Normale Supérieure in 1879. Angkatannya is one of the most brilliant in the 19th century and many of her classmates, such as Jean Jaurès and Henri Bergson later became major figures in French intellectual life. In ENS Durkheim studied under Fustel de Coulanges, an expert on classical science, social scientific outlook. At the same time, he read the works of Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer. Thus, Durkheim was interested in the scientific approach to society since the beginning of his career. This is the first conflict from many other conflicts with the French academic system, which has no social science curriculum at the time. Durkheim felt human sciences do not attract. He graduated with the second ranked last in angkatannya when he agregation exams - the requirement for a teaching position in the general teaching - the science of philosophy in 1882.

Durkheim's interest in social phenomena was also driven by politics. France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War had created a backlash against secular, republican rule. Many people think the Catholic approach, and very nationalistic as the only way to revive France's fading power on the continent. Durkheim, a Jew and socialist, was in the political minority, a situation which galvanized him politically. The Dreyfus affair in 1894 only strengthened his activist stance.

A person who holds such as Durkheim is not possible to obtain the necessary academic appointment in Paris, and so after a year studying sociology in Germany, he went to Bordeaux in 1887, which had just opened the first teacher's training center in France. There he taught pedagogy and social sciences (a new position in France). From this position Durkheim reformed the French school system and introduced the study of social sciences in its curriculum. Again, his tendency to reduce morality and religion into a mere social fact makes it much criticized.

In the 1890s was a time of creative Durkheim. In 1893 he published the "Division of Labour in Society", dasariahnya statement about the nature of human society and its development. In 1895 he published "Rules of Sociological Method, a manifesto stating what sociology was and how it should be done. He also founded the first European Department of Sociology at the University of Bordeaux. In 1896 he published the journal L'Annee Sociologique to issue and publish the writings of an increasing group of students and colleagues (this is the term used for groups of students who developed his sociological program). And finally, in 1897, he published Suicide, a case study that gives examples of how the sociological monograph.

In 1902 Durkheim finally achieved the goal to obtain a respectable position in Paris when he became a professor at the Sorbonne. Because French universities are technically institutions to train teachers for secondary schools, this position provides Durkheim considerable influence - his lectures shall be taken by all students. Whatever people's opinions, in the aftermath of The Dreyfus affair, to get a political appointment, Durkheim strengthen its institutional power in 1912 when he was granted permanent seats and changed his name to the chair of education and sociology. In the same year he published his last major work "Elementary Forms of Religious Life."

Global warming

Global warming is the process of increasing the average temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and the Earth's land.
Global average temperature at Earth's surface has risen 0.74 ° C ± 0:18 (1:33 ± 0:32 ° F) during the last hundred years. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that "most of the increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century most likely caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases due to human activities" [1] via the greenhouse effect. These basic conclusions have been advanced by at least 30 scientific and academic bodies, including all the national science academies of the G8 nations. However, there are still some scientists who disagree with some conclusions that the IPCC noted.
Climate models referenced by the IPCC projects show global surface temperature will rise 1.1 to 6.4 ° C (2.0 to 11.5 ° F) between 1990 and 2100. [1] The difference in estimates was caused by the use of different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions greenhouse gases in the future, as well as models of different climate sensitivities. Although most studies have focused on the period up to 2100, warming and sea level rise is expected to continue for more than a thousand years even if greenhouse gas emission levels have been stable. [1] This reflects the large heat capacity of the oceans.
Increasing global temperatures are expected to lead to other changes such as rising sea levels, increased intensity of extreme weather phenomena, [2] and changes in the number and pattern of precipitation. Consequences of global warming is another character of agricultural output, loss of glaciers, and the extinction of various animal species.
Some of the things that scientists are still doubtful about the amount of warming predicted to occur in the future, and how warming and the changes that occur will vary from one region to another. Until now, there are still political and public debate in the world about what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse further warming or to adapt to the consequences that exist. Most of the governments of the world's countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, which leads to reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases.

You and the global warming debate

And 'concern is not the proper way to active scientific argument on global warming. This application is based on best practices of science, scientific data and evaluation of evidence. In the short term in a context of science, the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere creates a greenhouse effect which helps to keep warm. This is acknowledged by all scientists. Global warming scenario arises because we have a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for our activities - such as burning coal. The more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can lead to abnormally warm temperatures, with potentially devastating consequences. Scientists have spent years trying to find out if this scenario is correct. Environmentalists say that yes, skeptics say no. Among scientists, the majority say 'yes', but a small and vocal minority crying, no! What about this?

The way of working scientists is as follows. We Are Scientists, and I'm one of them, a number of hypotheses, some ideas that we want to control. We make observations and experiments, often supported by calculations. What we are looking for a number of tests, which can, in principle, to show that we are wrong, that we want evidence that potentially can be shown that Our assumption is wrong. It 'important that such evidence exists. If you can get without testing can be done in principle able to demonstrate that your idea is not correct, scientists turn away from you. This may at first seem a bit 'strange, but this is the way we work. What are you doing this to show that neither you nor anyone else can prove that you're so wrong, maybe you're right! Remember, the finding that corresponds to your hypothesis by itself does not prove that your hypothesis is true, because who can say that some other assumptions may not fit the observations?

For example, when they met two competing ideas. A classic example is the Copernican system against the old Ptolemaic system of the Sun and planets. Copernican system, with the sun at the center was not accepted by both scientific and religious op gronden was a time when this vastgesteld Ptolemaic "system works equally well - indeed beter in a way. There was no obvious way to demonstrate whether the system is, at that time.

Another recent example is the problem of the ozone hole in 1980 and 1990. Hypothesis (a) that emissions of chemicals used in refrigerators and hair sprays, etc., can cause destruction of the ozone layer is over the upper atmosphere. Test to prove that the error may be the following. If we take the concentration of ozone in the upper atmosphere for a period of time, and I think it has not fallen, it falsifies the hypothesis That human activity caused the destruction of the ozone layer - because there is nothing to explain. Note that the position in front of the depletion of ozone observation does not prove that human activities are causing the destruction of the ozone layer. Something, but not necessarily of human activity.

Positive feedback is exhausted and then open the question of natural or human activities. All we can do for some is to falsify the hypothesis that human activity has caused the destruction of the ozone layer. What actually happened was the discovery of the ozone layer over the Antarctic ozone hole's mass, with significant ozone depletion. Combined with a healthy observational data of any kind, for which the Nobel Prize, the ozone hole would swift and decisive action in the international form of the Montreal Protocol. Thus, although initially only to distort the situation, a great weight of evidence can be very convincing in the truth of hypotheses. The risk that we are causing the ozone hole was very large.

The same scientific method is not applicable in the case of debate global warming. In fact, this method can not, in my view, be applied. However, discussions are mainly represented as scientific debate, with political and economic consequences that follow relied on the results of objective scientific discussion. I maintain that no objective scientific debate, simply because the rules of science are not met. Instead, I propose that this discussion assumes the risk. What is the risk of climate skeptics wrong? What is the risk to the environment (if it is) that he would not? Instead of continuing in this dry, I justify my position, telling an imaginary conversation between two physicists, Horace, and Twinkle.

Before you begin, remember, there are two kinds of skeptics of climate skeptics who deny the absolute existence of global warming at all, and skeptics of climate relative who agrees that there is global warming but is not blame our introduction of additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is not our fault. Rather, the observed warming is only part of the natural cycle of the earth. Horace is somewhere in between, mostly relatives, but with a touch of absolute.

Enter Horatio and Twinkle, sitting with his coffee in the dining room on the seventh floor of a well-known Department of Physics, who will remain nameless. Dining room overlooking the harbor, and you can change the path to the hills on a day to see clearly how the present. But this is not the position that they are interested. This is an old argument, that focus. Horace is a climate skeptic. Twinkle, his friend, believes that humans cause global warming, and that "something must be done.

"This climate of the Copenhagen meeting began," says Twinkle to get the ball rolling.

"Yes," replies Horatio. "Let's see if a good case for this time to come, rather than simply repeat the catechism faithful defenders of the environment!

And now, "murmurs Twinkle, sipping coffee.

"Well, you know what I mean, says Horace." You can see that these emails from the University of East Anglia say. It 's a bit increased.

"I've read them. I guess I should respond Twinkle. But it is a normal story. Sceptics say that e-mail to change everything, and great people say that nothing will change. You have heard that the Saudi representative to the meeting in Copenhagen. Talk your interests.

"Yes, but you can! Climate change over time, changing a lot. How do we know that, as a result of human activities?

"Look, we know something. Outset weather people tell us that the temperature is rising so fast that it must be unnatural. And all models show that if we have more CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperature rise. We created the CO2 'atmosphere. The temperature is rising. of course!

"Yes, you are basically good. I agree that more or less. I'm not so sure the temperature is increased. But this is not the point.

"What's the point then? Twinkle adds pauses, as Horace with a cup of coffee.

Horace takes her hand.

"You know, like me that the model .....' begins.

"Can I come with you? Socrates, the new professor of Greek, put the tray on the table beside them.

"Yes, yes, of course, says Twinkle." We just talked about the climate in Copenhagen.

"Yes, I'm just saying that climate models are really bad" Horace again. Socrates Horatio nods and continues. 'Biosphere is not bound up, and worst of all, from a physical point of view, the treatment of clouds just totally unrealistic. We simply can not predict the amount of temperature increase due to the presence of a certain amount of CO2' atmosphere.

"These models are really that bad? Socrates asks.

"Clouds are the key, says Horace.

"Then you do not trust any predictions of the model?" Asks Socrates.

"In addition to the overall result of the introduction of CO2 in the atmosphere caused the earth - Horace agree," introduces Twinkle.

"Yes, but like the earth?" Said Horace. "I do not think people came out with figures. There is very little influence. Maybe it does not matter what people Have done. Perhaps the most important changes are very natural. Models proves nothing!

"Oh, God!" Twinkle says. It is unclear whether this is a common expression of anxiety or attention with his friend and colleague of Horace. Three sat in silence a few minutes, drinking coffee. The silence is broken Socrates.

"Can I ask you, Horatio?

"Of course!

'If I ask you, that no evidence would have changed his mind and said it was wrong, what you reply''

"You mean that the observational data?

"If you want answers to Socrates.

"Well, 'says Horace. And then there is a silence, as he reflects on the question." This is an interesting question.

"He wanted to see the growth temperature of 10 degrees, and he knows that he is mistaken," Twinkle introduces cunning.

"I never said that!" Horace said, smiling at his friend.

"Well, we are waiting. What would convince you're wrong? Requests Twinkle.

"Maybe I can ask the same question, Twinkle? Said Socrates. What would convince the skeptics were right all the time?

"The fall of 10 degrees temperature! Horace says, laughing.

There is silence. But this time it's different kinds of silence. Horace and thought Twinkle.

'Well, of course, Twinkle, says over time, "when we went to introduce the current rate of atmospheric CO2 and temperature rise, and then ..... say in the next 50 years .. .. "

"What are you, Horace?" Socrates asked how to stop fading.

I'm not sure that there is one thing to prove to me that people give answers that significant global warming Horace. Maybe a lot of factors, "he adds.

Horace and Twinkle look and frowned. Both know that the theory is a theory, as it is objectionable in principle in an experiment or observation - or at least decent call "thought experiment. Socrates crystallizes their concerns.

"I wonder if you could say that global warming is not so much a theory about how you feel?" It gives you an embarrassed chuckle.

"Well, there are things that can prove one way or another. Want me to say that this is far from proven, says Horace.

"Yes." But asked what would be our position to refute! Twinkle Bulb. In addition, all experiments that do not consider the experiments that we are willing to risk to do, right? How can I do nothing and wait 50 years! This is the problem!

Horace pulls a wry face, but are not actively agree.

"We can not refer to the question of perceived risks? Asks Socrates. It stops time." As global warming seems compelling, "he added.

"You say that with great risk? - I was right, and it is not, and vice versa? Requests Twinkle

"Hey, wait, I. ..." Horace said, see the issue.

"Well, it must be admitted, because none of us are acceptable evidence, or Rather, a refutation, is down on the risks, is not it? Interrupt Twinkle.

"You mean the more serious consequences if the skeptics are wrong? Socrates asked Twinkle.

"I must say, Twinkle says," is not it? "

"Look, it's crazy." Horace is a bit 'crazy. "Therefore, nobody could have predicted the end of the world, but because we can not disprove, we need to place ITS head. This is not science, it's anarchy!

"Yes, this is a good philosophy," says Twinkle. " I totally agree with you that if I have a crazy theory, this is for me to try to prove that is not for you to refute. But there are two things. First, we agree that global warming can not be proved or disproved in a way that satisfies us. Secondly, the theory is not crazy .... in reality, not just a theory, Socrates turned to us. But this is a good qualitative basis, although not quantitative, agree. I think, Socrates asked the right question. Comments that convince you that you're wrong? I have no answer. You do not understand. The risk we are talking about, not worthy of rigorous science. The risk of error is worse, Horatio, than risk my mistakes. "

Horace grumble, but retains his world.

What follows from this conclusion? I suspect most people will look at Twinkle. Adverse effects of environmental misconduct, of course, because we are many resources, human and natural, very effective in combating a nonexistent problem to use. Perhaps global economic growth will be slower than usual. However, as Horace wrong, and we do little or nothing in his opinion, no single package of bank's survival, advertisements, chairman of the Federal Reserve System of wisdom from any source, to save us from a series of disasters, the least that can be major problems. Most people, almost all countries at the meeting in Copenhagen, the defender of the "precautionary principle. They are divided on the side of Twinkle. Precautions should be taken.

Parts of the above vision is a bit 'different from the global warming debate. This is a relief, because the way the discussion tends to believe that it is absolutely impossible for a layman to understand that scientists believe, even when the disputes between environmentalists alone. It is said that sea level rise of 3 feet, others say six feet! How to know who is right? You can not make your mind from the effects of global warming, climate scientists to listen to dissent, that the better the general pattern of atmospheric circulation on Earth! In my opinion, the above is that the global warming debate is not based on science, because the correct application of standard scientific arguments are not sufficient. Thus, the non-scientist simply make their own choices based on how they see the danger, not realizing that their lack of experience prevent them from holding opinions.