An inconvenient truth

[Jesus On Peyote]

I havent done anything directly n dont plan to,i use nothing n same with you.

I STRONGLY suggest that people watch Botanikas link. I couldent help but notice how it says people are so dead set on it that they consider people who disagree with the theory idiots n morally wrong, cant help but notice how Tepa got rowdy when i hinted the slightest possibility of exploitation. 100% if people watched inconvenient truth watch botanikas link to the swindle doco, watch all 8 parts.

[komodo]

thats because the destruction of nature is an emotional issue. notice all the sceptics are dry? if you open your heart to what people are doing to this planet, you'd feel it too. life on earth is crying out and raging about whats going on, so it's only natural that the people that are tuned in to that have got passion as well as argument. its to their credit that they are engaged in this in a deeper way than just talk.

i love what gore has done with this film. look at the change in the debate in australia. howard is fucked on this issue now, its great.

oh and jesus on peyote... those links you posted which attempt to use al gore's power bill to slander the very strong data sets supporting global warming are from US right wing propaganda sites. are you saying this is the camp you're drawing your ideas base from in this discussion?

i suggest that those who adopt the sceptics position on this do so because it allows them to not have to confront the problem.

Edited March 14, 2007 by komodo

[Μορφέας]

Tepa got rowdy

lol, komodo hit the nail with the 2tonne sledge hammer, The earth is dying, the before n afters show us its all around the world, our country has dryed up too... I dont know why ppl would want to denigh it

[husk]

Tepa got rowdy

lol, komodo hit the nail with the 2tonne sledge hammer, The earth is dying, the before n afters show us its all around the world, our country has dryed up too... I dont know why ppl would want to denigh it

yeah and check the other thread on this; http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/inde...c=13819&hl=

the swindle film has already been found out to be a crock!

ok, you don't have to believe any of it it's yr choice of course, BUT can u not see that it is a good thing to take actions towards eliminating the things that COULD be causing 'warming'?

fuck the films, think of the consequences of continuing to live like we are now even on the 'ground level' (not water), land clearing, deforestation, oil drills/tankers spilling, roadkills, person road kills, land fills, waste dumping and run off!!??? WTF??

still not concerned? if u haven't been up to the awesome reef in the north east of this country, go there and ask yrself if u care if it stays or goes... HA! like it would be our fucking choice if it did, we are animals we live on the land we should respect it cos it is the only reason we exist!

x peace, and WAKE UP!!!

[Μορφέας]

*kisses husk*

Well said!

[KanJe]

Couldn't agree more with you Komodo, its inevitable a dark future is ahead...

Edited March 15, 2007 by KanJe

[botanika]

Just because u have an open mind doesnt mean its empty or uncompassionate. We can big note ourselves with green ego or ignore it but current environmental issues ultimately involve ALL of us. Critiquing a film doesnt equate to not caring for mother earth.

[husk]

Just because u have an open mind doesnt mean its empty or uncompassionate. We can big note ourselves with green ego or ignore it but current environmental issues ultimately involve ALL of us. Critiquing a film doesnt equate to not caring for mother earth.

no. but people love conspiracy so much that it is detremental to development. i just reckon that if somthn is going in the 'right' direction for the majority of living things on this planet it's prolly best just to let it run it's course and not cultivate doubt and eventually hopelessness.

yes the truth is important, but in this case its not somthn most of us are going to find easily so we have to take the path of trusting those who are expected to inform us on such issues. i mean the whole history of science is flawed and prolly a lot of it is pure speculation and 'best definiton available'. it just so happen this 'truth' or 'fabrication' has a beneficial effect anyway.

peace to u botanika, i apologise for high-horsing and suggesting u didn't care, i was the victim of ideaology bashing last night and i understand both sides. plus i play devil's advocate regularly so i know or at least hope most of us are on the same 'side' so to speak.

x

[botanika]

Husk, Yeah man i hear u :D swings and roundabouts. Peace

[komodo]

Just because u have an open mind doesnt mean its empty or uncompassionate. We can big note ourselves with green ego or ignore it but current environmental issues ultimately involve ALL of us. Critiquing a film doesnt equate to not caring for mother earth.

ok i wasnt saying that directly, botanika, but yes it was implied. i think that at this point in time, for people living in the first world with associated levels of consumption, land clearing and toxic byproducts, if one isnt using that elevated position of information access and influence to be part of the solution then one is a big part of the problem.

we can big note ourselves with green ego

is that what you think of people who stand up and fight for cultural change on these issues?

Edited March 15, 2007 by komodo

[KanJe]

Yeah, I really I think its important not to overestimate the impact one person can.

Regardless of whether we can impact the outcome of the situation does not mean we should give up within how we act and treat the world.

[chilli]

Yeah, I really I think its important not to overestimate the impact one person can.

Regardless of whether we can impact the outcome of the situation does not mean we should give up within how we act and treat the world.

Yeah, I agree... The adbusters calendar for this month has a bike drawn on one of the days, and says something like "one less car," and it suddenly struck me in the opposite way to which it usually does. Usually, I think "what difference is it going to make anyway?" but I suddenly realized in a real way that it is a difference that is worth something... its one less fucking car!

Hehe, its hard to share epihanies.

[botanika]

ok i wasnt saying that directly, botanika, but yes it was implied. i think that at this point in time, for people living in the first world with associated levels of consumption, land clearing and toxic byproducts, if one isnt using that elevated position of information access and influence to be part of the solution then one is a big part of the problem.

we can big note ourselves with green ego

is that what you think of people who stand up and fight for cultural change on these issues?

No that's not what I meant at all Komodo!

I was thinking that I didn't really want to get into some personal ego battle of 'hey I help the environment more than you' on a forum - I critiqued a couple of films in both positive and negative light, qualifying many things I said including what I have dedicated my professional life too and next minute people are 'indirectly implying' I dont care for the environment or the actions of positive environmental change.

Like many people on this forum I grew up surrounded by australian bush and soaked up a love and respect of nature like a blotter.

I personally believe there is an enourmous amount of hope in environmental restoration, but that shouldn't prevent me from exploring other viewpoints and parameters of the issue, even if they are the dark corners no one else wants to visit or the obvious ones right in front of us, and Im sorry if that has confused or offended you.

Its a big issue - easy for things to be taken out of context...

Peace cousin

[komodo]

No that's not what I meant at all Komodo!

I was thinking that I didn't really want to get into some personal ego battle of 'hey I help the environment more than you' on a forum - I critiqued a couple of films in both positive and negative light, qualifying many things I said including what I have dedicated my professional life too and next minute people are 'indirectly implying' I dont care for the environment or the actions of positive environmental change.

Like many people on this forum I grew up surrounded by australian bush and soaked up a love and respect of nature like a blotter.

I personally believe there is an enourmous amount of hope in environmental restoration, but that shouldn't prevent me from exploring other viewpoints and parameters of the issue, even if they are the dark corners no one else wants to visit or the obvious ones right in front of us, and Im sorry if that has confused or offended you.

Its a big issue - easy for things to be taken out of context...

Peace cousin

ok dude i understand that... bear in mind you jumped in to your own defense, i wasnt pointing any fingers!

and youre right this is a controversial debate... so if you get into it, and especially if you wish to throw doubt on climate change science (this is traditionally the domain of dirty industry and their political and scientific flunkies) you can expect some strong words. i read an advocacy of the 'henderson report' today (which i think qualifies as one of those dark corners you mentioned) in which the author objects to the term 'climate change deniers' because it is similar to 'holocaust deniers', and seems to favour the minority sceptics argument because they are more in tune with his laissez faire idea of moderate discourse. this a kind of conservativism that no longer engages with outcomes but with niceties, and unfortunately, the global cultural and material revolution neccesary to stop environmental destruction means dispensing with some of the niceties.

its good to have hope, but note that quite a few people have made much bleaker assessments of the situation, climate change is only one factor in the overall assessment of the state of the environment.

obviously it is good to keep an open mind, but i dont see your point here anymore, the data and the intentions for action against emissions are stronger and cleaner than those against. it seems to me you (and many others) remain sitting on the fence on a critical environmental issue, and i'm not sure why, whats so great about polluting carbon industries that you wouldnt jump on the bandwagon to lynch them? even if you think you can pick holes in the data sets, dont you see how good this movement could be for the planet?

Edited March 16, 2007 by komodo

[occidentalis]

even if you think you can pick holes in the data sets, dont you see how good this movement could be for the planet?

I don't think I agree.

Climate change is currently driving a new environmentalism - everyone is going green and for many people that means reducing carbon emissions. In this sense you are right, that the sudden movement on climate change will lead to spin offs in other areas of environmental quality. That's great.

But, what if we do manage to make the real, fundamental changes to our society that the climate change challenge demands, and then realise that there wasn't so much to worry about at all, and it was just a bunch of unecessary worry? Changing our society will hurt the economy. John Howard's right. Note that I would be quite happy to strangle the shit out of the economy if it was really going to help, but I think we all want to maintain the maximum levels of environmental and economic health. Essentially, this is going to be an expensive process. We could spend that money on poverty reduction, or salinity, or water quality, or any number of other vital problems, all crises in their own right. And no doubt spending it on climate change issues will have spin offs in those areas. But if climate change is not the problem it is being made out to be, let's spend that money on something else. For this reason alone, although there are others, we need to be objective and analytical in the way we look at the climate change phenomenon and the cultural phenomenon it has created (and that cultural phenomenon needs to be interrogated, but that's another post).

and yes

I ride a bike

I eat local

I have a degree in environmental science.

[komodo]

Essentially, this is going to be an expensive process. We could spend that money on poverty reduction, or salinity, or water quality, or any number of other vital problems, all crises in their own right. And no doubt spending it on climate change issues will have spin offs in those areas. But if climate change is not the problem it is being made out to be, let's spend that money on something else.

hey creach

hmmmm... you seem to be acknowledging that investment in non-carbon energy technologies is a good thing, while at the same time suggesting we shouldnt invest there. the lynchpin is perhaps where you say; "if" climate change is not a problem... well, do you think it is or don't you?

what are we risking? the slowdown of our 'spending'? you think thats a bad thing?

i dont share your enthusiasm for john howard and economic prosperity based on mining. the first world needs to be poorer in consumption terms for the planet to survive. the idea that we can keep up our hyperinflated rate of consumption of resources is corrupt and compromised, a non-starter.

speaking for myself, i think i am both objective and analytical on this issue. the fallacy perpetuated by sceptics is that they hold a more cool headed and balanced position, and that climate change is a domain of hyperbole and corrupt science. i think this is wrong on both counts, but thats just my informed opinion. and i'm not putting eco credentials at the end of this post.. lets just say i dont have a fridge!

Edited March 16, 2007 by komodo

[occidentalis]

hmmmm... you seem to be acknowledging that investment in non-carbon energy technologies is a good thing, while at the same time suggesting we shouldnt invest there. the lynchpin is perhaps where you say; "if" climate change is not a problem... well, do you think it is or don't you?

Yes, the 'if' is the important bit. Personally I don't really hold much of an opinion on whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists, because I am not trained or very knowledgable in climatology. So I put my trust in people who are. I can read climatology papers and possibly find experimental flaws, but I don't know enough to really critique the results. It is a very complex science as you know. My opinion is basically that of the scientific community - and that is overall that anthropogenic climate change is happening and happening fast. This has been suggested for the past 10 years and hinted at for 20, but up until now the only people doing anything about it were you and me riding our bikes and going without fridges (respect!).

So I'm definitely not suggesting we shouldn't invest in no/low-C energy systems or associated technologies. But there will definitely be significant costs to this, and if climate change isn't the problem we think it is, then that money would be better spent elsewhere.

I guess what I'm talking about is all within the capitalist economic framework - the real change that will (probably) need to occur is the fundamental change in the way we see ourselves on a philosophical, cultural, and spiritual level, as members of a global biotic community. This is a more long term revolutionary change that I think you are talking about and I think it's quite different to just investing in different tech - it's a complete paradigm shift (where's wandjina ;) ?) S

what are we risking? the slowdown of our 'spending'? you think thats a bad thing?

No, we are risking spending all we've got on something that isn't a problem.

i dont share your enthusiasm for john howard and economic prosperity based on mining. the first world needs to be poorer in consumption terms for the planet to survive. the idea that we can keep up our hyperinflated rate of consumption of resources is corrupt and compromised, a non-starter.

I agree - however there is a possibility that the system as it stands now can reform itself into 'sustainability' via the high-tech green-capitalism model. I'm not convinced about this, but I am hopeful.

As for John Howard, I can think of 101 uses for him, but none of them are PM.

the fallacy perpetuated by sceptics is that they hold a more cool headed and balanced position, and that climate change is a domain of hyperbole and corrupt science.

You're right about that. I do consider myself a skeptical environmentalist - but only because the environmental movement is capable of making the same mistakes as anyone else. I have seen uninformed activists get worked up about nothing because someone told them it was bad many times. So I am skeptical, but I don't see myself as a skeptic. I believe in the precautionary principle and I believe it applies in this case. However I don't think that should stop us from rigorously interrogating both the data and our beliefs and expectations.

[husk]

what are we risking? the slowdown of our 'spending'? you think thats a bad thing?

No, we are risking spending all we've got on something that isn't a problem.

what like defense from 'terrorists'? or more tax payer money to private schools?

I guess what I'm talking about is all within the capitalist economic framework - the real change that will (probably) need to occur is the fundamental change in the way we see ourselves on a philosophical, cultural, and spiritual level, as members of a global biotic community. This is a more long term revolutionary change that I think you are talking about and I think it's quite different to just investing in different tech - it's a complete paradigm shift (where's wandjina ;) ?) S

No, we are risking spending all we've got on something that isn't a problem.

It will hardly be all we've got, cos the only ppl that would even attempt to make a change are the greens (at present) and they are also the only ppl that would fund public schools and psych wards aswell.

John Howard has, and will fuck up everything. as it was said the only reason we or any other nation can play big time on a global level is by getting capital from raping and destroying our land and selling the product to larger nations.

I do consider myself a skeptical environmentalist - but only because the environmental movement is capable of making the same mistakes as anyone else. I have seen uninformed activists get worked up about nothing because someone told them it was bad many times. So I am skeptical, but I don't see myself as a skeptic. I believe in the precautionary principle and I believe it applies in this case. However I don't think that should stop us from rigorously interrogating both the data and our beliefs and expectations.

anyone or any group of ppl associated with any area of society can create a fucked up image of it.

but you're not skeptical about enthogens if they are used by drug abusers are u?

or people who like to watch soccer matches and then beat the living shit out of each other? u wouldn't be skeptical of soccer?

would u?

x peace and respect to u creach

Edited March 17, 2007 by husk

[occidentalis]

Either you're misinterpreting me or I'm misinterpreting you - but I don't understand much of your post. I think you'll find we actually agree on almost everything here so I'm not going to bother responding point by point.

anyone or any group of ppl associated with any area of society can create a fucked up image of it.

but you're not skeptical about enthogens if they are used by drug abusers are u?

or people who like to watch soccer matches and then beat the living shit out of each other? u wouldn't be skeptical of soccer?

would u?

I'm not talking about an 'image', I'm talking about the real thing (which is of course my perception of the real thing, and so an image of sorts, but anyway...). I have been involved in environmental and social activism; many of my friends are committed, full time activists. People who are walking the walk in every way. And to be honest I don't find them to be all that knowledgable on many issues. They come from a place of deepest passion and and great integrity and I respect them for that but sometimes I think that if they just looked at things a bit more deeply they would see them differently.

And then there are many people who call themselves activists but are really just acting out some internal darkness on the rest of the world - these people will align themselves with anything that seems to oppose the dominant paradigm/mainstream society.... and from my observations it's these people who are often driving on-ground grassroots activism. That's what I'm worried about.

Of course there are many activists who are passionate and committed and also have deep understandings of the issues... and I know that these people are doing great things. It's just that some campaigns are hijacked by the other group. When a movement gets to the level of energy that is now in the climate change meme, it is very open to be exploited. Just like Howard is trying to do with nuclear. I'm just saying we should be careful of this.

As for your other comments on skepticism, I have a feeling you don't quite understand the word - it doesn't really make sense in that context. However, yes, I am skeptical of soccer and all other organised religions ;).

[husk]

yeah i do know what it means, being dubious, well skeptical, the adjective does.

skepiticism, which i did not use, would pertain to the theory of being skeptical and in yr case u said;

"So I am skeptical, but I don't see myself as a skeptic."

but before that u said;

"I do consider myself a skeptical environmentalist ..."

so if i was to poke holes, u did specify that u are skeptical but not a skeptic but indeed a skeptic(al?) environmentalist.

?

yes petty i know, but yr passive aggressive attempt to infer that i didn't know the meaning of a word i used, is an insult.

and it seems u have different definiton to the term 'environmentalist' if u can believe this;

"Changing our society will hurt the economy. John Howard's right."

the economy hurts the environment. the environment doesn't need money, well not until now anyway.

it certainly doesn't need humanity sacrificing it for it's over indulgent lifestyle. fuck the economy if this is what needs.

x

-edit- i was questioning yr written word not u. yr insult spans to all aspects of my (untrue) misuse of a word.

Edited March 17, 2007 by husk

[husk]

yes, yes i know.

don't worry i will now be just sticking to the specific plant threads.

i never seem to become any more philosophical or spiritual or 'chilled' in these exchanges.

is it stupid to have thought so?

sorry. truely.

i forgot how much i dislike 'living' and conversing on computers.

my real life is out there.

x peace, and i mean it, i don't hate u.

i don't even know u!!

[occidentalis]

Husk, I think you are just trying to start an argument for the sake of it.

yeah i do know what it means, being dubious, well skeptical, the adjective does.

skepiticism, which i did not use, would pertain to the theory of being skeptical and in yr case u said;

"So I am skeptical, but I don't see myself as a skeptic."

but before that u said;

"I do consider myself a skeptical environmentalist ..."

so if i was to poke holes, u did specify that u are skeptical but not a skeptic but indeed a skeptic(al?) environmentalist.

Skepticism

Skeptic: someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

Skepticism can mean: Philosophical skepticism - a philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge; or Scientific skepticism - a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method.

My point was that while I use skepticism to interrogate entrenched and accepted ideas, I would not like to define my entire worldview and indeed myself as 'a skeptic' - because there are some things which I don't think science or even rationality can understand. So I describe myself as skeptical, but not a skeptic. My use of the term 'skeptical environmentalist' was a reference to a well known book entitled "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. (I haven't read it all, btw, but it is interesting).

and it seems u have different definiton to the term 'environmentalist' if u can believe this;

"Changing our society will hurt the economy. John Howard's right."

John Howard is right about that. The thing that separates me from him is that I don't think that's a big problem - he does. I am happy to accept very significant reductions in economic prosperity if it means a truly sustainable society, because I don't believe 'quality of life' consists purely of how many plasma TVs one can afford. John Howard believes that it does. (If you think I am in any way supportive of John Howard, read back over some of my old posts).

However, I don't think that a reduction in economic prosperity on it's own will per se increase the sustainability of our society. In fact I am more inclined to believe the opposite. 20 million Australians living in poverty would cause absolute environmental catastrophe in a few years. However, if that economic prosperity is reduced in the right ways, such as reduction in fossil fuel use, then we will see improvements in environmental quality.

the economy hurts the environment.

well... that's not exactly true. Poor nations cause significant environmental damage, because they lack the technology to reduce their impact or the political ability to regulate their industries. It's just that most of the damage they cause is localised, while we export much of ours. People in many African countries for example, can't get gas to heat their homes or cook. So they use wood, which is collected from the local forest. There is no regulations on how much wood can be collected or where from, so forests are destroyed. Gas is a much better resource for this environmentally, but without the delivery infrastructure and the per capita ability to pay for it they will have to keep using wood.

A strong and global economy is also responsible for another thing that I think is really quite amazing - the internet. Without the economic prosperity to support the industrial and technological infrastructure that the internet requires, we would not be having this conversation, and many of us would not have been able to discover the joy of ethnobotany. The internet is also a powerful tool for social change and reduces the ability of governments and corporations to lie to us.

However, an over-focus on the economy as the primary indicator of our 'progress', and the autism present in the way that indicator is measured, does hurt the environment, and our society.

yr insult spans to all aspects of my (untrue) misuse of a word.

I'm sorry for insulting you, but I think most people would agree with me, that those comments didn't really make sense. You are welcome to explain them if you think it's important.

I stayed out of this thread until now because I couldn't be bothered arguing, and I won't argue further with you on this, because as I said, I think we actually agree on most points.

[husk]

yes im sure we prolly agree too, ultimately. i think that's what led to this, that i expected u, being on the same wavelength as me to agree with me and support the general cause and not add to any arguments against it.

i doubt things too. a lot! myself included!

just want somethings to be settled upon so we can move forward and not stay in one pointless circle.

i takes too long these days for issues to be dealt with and changed.

x peace creach.

Edited March 17, 2007 by husk

[komodo]

After Lomborg, the environmental movement will begin to wither.

National Post

of course the book wasnt good enough for that, but it definitely gave it a shot. this is what worries me creach... that those taking a sceptical position on the environmental movement are, intentionally or not, working to prevent a green revolution. its clear to me we are in the midst of an ecological catastrophe, so we dont have time to work out, for example, every fine detail of the meteorological history of the planet so as to demolish every objection that could possibly be raised by every nitpicking right wing scientist. the game now is to round up all the cattle and get them into the green pasture. plug their arses to stop methane getting out too.

my point being its hard enough to get the herd headed in the right direction without dudes like lomborg giving people an excuse to keep up business as usual. people will grasp any shred of evidence that says its all ok, rather than face the hard truth that its in fact not ok at all.

i agree with you that there is a bad body politic within environmentalism, and with botanikas objection to green ego, but also the point husk was making that just because there are some hooligans around doesnt mean the game itself is bad. no political movement is perfect - in terms of political outcomes, id take angry egotistical environmental activists over greedy sinister capitalists any day.

[Μορφέας]

those taking a sceptical position on the environmental movement are, intentionally or not,working to prevent a green revolution IMO act the same as a bystander that watches a crime, such as a woman being hurt and does nothing. just as evil

Edited March 18, 2007 by tepa