The great global warming swindle

[chilli]

all comes down to personal values. right and wrong is just a decision.

if we dont value complicated ecology, we dont mind when it gets fucked up. if we do value it, we do mind. personal choice of values.

that relates to botanikas idea of robust nature not being something to worry about... depends if you like it the way it is or dont really mind if it changes drastically

The conclusion I reach from this with respect to environmental issues is that whoever has the most support, influence, and power is 'right'? Doesn't it follow that seeking environmental change is then largely a matter of forcing our values onto others?

[gomaos]

"You are not owed anything by God; you already have the gift of this body, and the gift that you are receiving is to be having the human experience, in all its shades of love and suffering." - Bruce

yeah I wish god would stick the suffering bit up his ass and get hemorrhoids!

[komodo]

The conclusion I reach from this with respect to environmental issues is that whoever has the most support, influence, and power is 'right'?

not sure what the q mark is for, if youve already reached a conclusion. also, not sure where you got that reasoning from. i'm talking about unilateral personal judgement, whether or not someone has a mob on their side or not has no bearing on individual evaluations, unless you happen to be a follower, in which case you opt out of free choice in favour of mob psychology. that isn't the kind of thinking i'd necessarily associate with moral relativism.

[chilli]

yeah I wish god would stick the suffering bit up his ass and get hemorrhoids!

This is a common feeling, usually due to the idea that God (or the Universe or whatever) owes you something.

[chilli]

not sure what the q mark is for, if youve already reached a conclusion.

Hehe, it was not intended to be read that way, I was asking if that is a reasonable outcome, like "based on these vectors, I arrive here..." Its not my personal conclusion.

The reasoning behind it was that when we are seeking environmental or any other kind of change in society/the world, we seek support and influence from others... this is how change occurs.

Thus, when we seek to carry out change in the attitudes of people towards the environment for instance, our appeal can be based on almost universally accepted values, which I would consider to be morals... this seems to be part of Gore's approach.

Or, it can be based on our own personal values, but which must then be essentially pushed on others who do not share our values... this requires power and influence, and a basic belief that our values are better than those of those we seek to change.

Edited June 17, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

Or, it can be based on our own personal values, but which must then be essentially pushed on others who do not share our values... this requires power and influence, and a basic belief that our values are better than those of those we seek to change.

its the pusher part that isnt neccesary. you can teach by example, which is a lot more effective than pushing your ideas on people. you don't need 'power and influence' in terms of social energy to set an example for others.

i'm not sure 'universally accepted values', or some kind of strategic game-playing based on such values, are of interest to me, in terms of either being effective at creating a world with more of what i value in it, or of being consistent and true to myself. better i think to be simple and direct and patient with people, and then if your ideas and values have worth beyond your own head they will spread.

[chilli]

i'm not sure 'universally accepted values', or some kind of strategic game-playing based on such values, are of interest to me, in terms of either being effective at creating a world with more of what i value in it, or of being consistent and true to myself.

Well I think the strategic game playing remark is derived more from a misperception on your part than from anything I've said, and I wasn't suggesting either course was right, just exploring the options.

Personally I like the idea that it is "better... to be simple and direct and patient with people, and then if your ideas and values have worth beyond your own head they will spread.", but I also think history tells a different story and its naive to expect the world will operate in this way.

[komodo]

ts naive to expect the world will operate in this way

i think many changes in philosophy and lifestyle can be effected through leading by example, the life of great teachers like jesus or buddha are testimony to this. all of the best teachers in my life have taught in this way, i respect it and have solid personal proof that it is effective. if you don't share this idea that's fine, but don't quote me and call what i said naive, that's patronising and unhelpful.

Edited June 19, 2007 by komodo

[chilli]

ts naive to expect the world will operate in this way

i think many changes in philosophy and lifestyle can be effected through leading by example, the life of great teachers like jesus or buddha are testimony to this. all of the best teachers in my life have taught in this way, i respect it and have solid personal proof that it is effective. if you don't share this idea that's fine, but don't quote me and call what i said naive, that's patronising and unhelpful.

Uh, you left out the part where I said I personally like your idea, I was trying to say that it was an ideal I shared but found impractical... actually, not exactly impractical, just not an accurate reflection of how change happens in society.

More to the point though, I think its legitimate to express my opinion about your ideas... and what happened to discussing ideas dispassionately? Besides, who are you to tell me what I can and can't say? I often find the way you talk to me extremely patronizing but am trying to keep the whingeing to a minimum.

*edit* "I... have solid personal proof that it is effective"

LOL, yeah I've got that kind of 'proof' for lots of things I believe too.

Edited June 19, 2007 by IllegalBrain

[komodo]

*shrugs*

[chilli]

*shrugs*

*illegalbrain also feigns indifference*

[botanika]

*shrugs* (mockingly)

[chilli]

*shrugs* (mockingly)

LMAO... now you know I will be trying to do a mocking shrug constantly, its very difficult.

So much for sleep.

*keeps practicing*

[No_One]

[chilli]

Thanks Shiva, now I really can't sleep.

[Hagakure]

the science show on ABC radio national got stuck into the "the great global waarming swindle" recently

pack of lies apparently

here are the transcripts for the whole show on global warming

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...007/1962188.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...007/1965996.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...007/1966003.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...007/1966022.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...007/1966036.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stori...007/1966096.htm

[chilli]

Yes it seems like that movie is as I said a crock of shit.

I would assume those journalists did at least a cursory investigation before they came to that conclusion though.

[teonanacatl]

This s just my opinion and you dont have to believe it.

After doing some reading on pleistocene climates in relation to how they effected the flora of the world Im more skeptical on global warming. We are in an interglacial period at the moment and it will change to glacial within the next 20000 years, nothing we do will stop this infact I can imagine a movement of greenies lobbying to increase greenhouse gas emissions to increase the temperature.

When it comes down to it we are animals and all we care about is spreading out genes. I love and respect nature and I know it will be here long after we have risen and fallen, we are just part of the scheme of things. No political parties are seriously considering global warming and I agree that we cannot continue with sustainable practices, it is this I believe that everyone is truly worried about. Afterall majority of people deep down only care about themselves (who would sacrifice themselves for a single animal or plants life without discriminating against species?). It is a swindle because the simple things that would reduce greenhouse emissions are not being done, new processes for energy still rely on supply and demand, they are get rich schemes. Gobal warming is now also a political tool, should we really elect a government based only on their environmental policy?

Its easy to take a hardline on life and what should be done but in most cases this is unappropriate. Every point is somones perspective, science is based on assumptions who says they are right? The average joe places more faith in science then I would and they dont really understand the problems nor the processes used to come to the conclusions.

The CO2 conc has been much much higher at previous times in earths history and geological events can cause much greater effect on the CO2 level then we can.

Just be grateful that you can decide to use petrol or not, some people dont have the choice. Likewise for everything in life i guess.

My advise is believe what you want as you cannot be wrong, and in the end none of this really matters. Live your life how it makes you happy but dont get heirachial on somones ass cos they dont believe the same as you, as i said neither can be wrong and it doesnt really matter anyway.

Edited July 7, 2007 by teonanacatl

[gamma.goblin]

You dont think the scientific community have taken long term natural enviromental changes into consideration? The accepted view is that yes, there is a warming we can do nothing about, but the temperatures are higher than they should be, and that problem is us. The problem is an exponential one as well. We are getting more populated, not less, and a hell of a lot of the earths population live in what is termed poverty. How do these people get out of poverty in our modern world without power? More and more people are being wired into the grid every day.

[teonanacatl]

Ofcourse they have taken that into consideration, but how can the temperature be higher then it should be? How can one predict the future and say that this temp is not right it should be lower? It has become a problem now because we fear for our society yes but really its part of life, we are not detached from natural selection. Do you think cows care that they produce so much methane that it will be a problem for us? Wont affect them much so should they care? Birds shit on our cars, do they think about the excess water we use to clean that shit off? Every species is only in it for themselves its nature.

Sure high temps will kill the reef close to surface, but deeper reefs will survive and eventually the reef will be back in the shallows when they adapt back to the temperature etc. This world is all about change and I think most things would fall apart if there was none. We are truely and odd species that worries about saving evolutionary dead ends like koalas whilst we plunder high diversity. Things were ment to become extinct, ment they couldnt handle change and how is change by us different to change by any other species?

Unfortunatly there cannot be equality, try and picture it, if everyone has a uni degree then a uni degree becomes worthless, we need people to do the jobs other people wouldnt do like clean or extract natural resorces, if everyone had a unidegree how would you convince them that your 3 years of study now intitles you to clean up after people. I think perhaps these people dont need power, were they not dragged into making this world better for us then they would not be in poverty and would probably be happy as they were. How are you to convience these people that instead of burning wood to make steam to power their homes they should fork out 1000's of $ to get solar panels. Its a growth process we will get solar and in the future they to will get solar.

Im sure global warming does have somthing to do with us and in a perfect world we wouldnt have done what we have done, but its far from perfect. Im also not saying we shouldnt protect rainforests and that we shouldnt try to limit our greenhouse emissions, we should try and live in equilibrium with our suroundings.

You know what the biggest problem is? Over population. I think if you consider every problem facing us today you will see that the reason it is as it is is because we have to supply such a population. One could therefore assume that the best way to save the planet and ourrace is to have no children.

Edited July 8, 2007 by teonanacatl

[gamma.goblin]

Things change, things become extinct yes, though Im sure most of us are selfish enough to not want to make the human race perish. Now thats not trying to be alarmist and say we are all about to die, its saying that we are capable of aknowledging things which are bad for us and taking steps to improve the situation. Yes things change and things adapt, the question is what changes are we repsonsible for, and how do they effect us.

Im no enviromental scientist, so I dont know how they calculate human contribution to heat vs nature, though I have no doubt that those who do, have researched and debated it at great length. I dont believe in some kind of mass conspiracy amongst the scientific community to deulde us all on this. In my opinion, the vast majority of spin(on both sides of the argument) comes from people who are really not qualified to back up their statements. The cows methane is pollution mostly caused by humans, as we farm them for food, so it gets tacked onto our tally, not the rest of nature. I agree with you in the sense that people can get far too carried away in removing mankind from the rest of the natural world, we are animals after all, however, as a species, we can certainly isolate ourselves for the purpose of analysis of our impact on the enviroment, just as we do when studying anything else.

And yeah, I realise overpopulation is a contributing factor, which is why I mentioned that the world is growing, and how the worlds population is also becoming more and more power hungry, less people living in the dark ages means more people driving cars, using more electrical appliances, eating more food...so its not just the number of people, its technological and economic advancement as well. I never said anything about equality, but if you havent already, then I think you should probably have a look at some overpopulated third world countries, where they wash bathe and drink from the same water that the villiage upstream shit into. You say they dont need power? How about things like sanitation? Refrigeration? They didnt get there making the world a better place for us, they got there because people reproduce. Im not going to try to argue them to put up solar panels, their governments will build coal and nuclear plants while they are the only viable alternatives for them, though I bet you wont be convincing them to have no children either ;)

[teonanacatl]

I think almost all scientists would agree that yes the earth is warming and that some of it is due to us, we know why aswell. So there are two ways the scientist can look at it, the first is ok its warming and changing we will get some adaptation going on and it will be an interesting time to be alive, or the oh shit my whole lifes work is on the coral reef what will happen when its gone. Not to mention that we have cities built along major coast lines which would be at risk (imagine if they had of built during the glacials when sea levels were 100m lower then now, we would be fucked). So I think its more the second approach that has been taken. So its a response to temperatures increasing regardless of cause I think

The people in 3rd world countries have been dragged into poverty by our actions, cities grow pushing people out of original homes and practices they were good at are no longer required, they have no choice where to live, they never did need power but as you said they do now.

Now thats not trying to be alarmist and say we are all about to die, its saying that we are capable of aknowledging things which are bad for us and taking steps to improve the situation.

Thats what I mean, its not about the environment its about us.

wouldnt population control be interesting.

hmm im lost cant remember what I was getting at lol, I should stop procrastinating :D

[gamma.goblin]

Like most things that involve my own mortality, I prefer to err on the side on the side of caution, and while the possible outcomes are indeed interesting, 'may you live in interesting times' is not generally considered a blessing ;)

I think that these days in the developed world we should be looking at 'weight' control before population control Less food needed, less petrol needed, less wear and tear on stuff(well, thats debatable as people get more active heh), less electricity use, for all kinds of things from cooking to cooling, Im sure theres more but Im too blazed atm to think

Edited July 8, 2007 by gamma.goblin

[teonanacatl]

lol so to get people fit you get them outdoors, this means more people who dont care are inflicted upon the places you love, littering destroying whats left.

[dqd]

lol so to get people fit you get them outdoors, this means more people who dont care are inflicted upon the places you love, littering destroying whats left.

Though imo those who already don't like the great outdoors would be more likely to go to a gym/use indoor fitness equipment... guess it'd depend on what you get off on more... sweaty bodies in a room, or sweaty bodies in a forest ... make mine the latter