+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 33

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Environmental Confusion....???

    Read below, and tell me whether or not you agree with the piece? :confused:


    Global warming has saved mankind
    February 5, 2007
    Source:
    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index....=514&WT.srch=1
    Climate change is a fact – and we’d be in a deep-freeze without it,
    says robert matthews

    If the sight of an 80-year-old undergoing self-flagellation doesn't
    float your boat, you probably gave BBC1 a miss last night. In his
    programme Are We Changing Planet Earth? Sir David Attenborough gave
    himself a sound thrashing for damaging the environment while making all
    those nature programmes.

    Former wannabe president Al Gore is at it too, inviting all Americans
    to get the flagellation habit by watching An Inconvenient Truth, his
    new documentary about how we're all to blame for changing the planet.

    Both he and Sir David are singing from the same hymn-sheet - and it is
    the one that harps on about how mankind has sinned by wresting control
    of the environment from Mother Nature. Its chorus features in the
    trailer to Gore's film: "Did the planet betray us - or did we betray
    the planet?"

    Left to its own devices, our planet would have long since reverted to
    its preferred state: a frigid Ice Age


    As a false dichotomy, this is right up there with Dubya's: "You're
    either with us or against us in the fight against terror." The mere
    fact that Gore and Attenborough are even around to feel bad shows the
    central flaw at the heart of their guilt-fests:
    the idea that we'd all
    be better off if we left the environment alone.

    Left to its own devices, our planet would have long since reverted to
    its preferred state of the last 40 million years: a frigid Ice Age.
    Fortunately, a new climatic influence kicked in around 8,000 years ago
    to stop the Ice Age from reasserting itself. It's called H. sapiens. By
    indulging in the sinful practices of crop-planting, tree-clearing and
    biomass-burning, we have boosted levels of greenhouse gases and
    darkened the surface of our planet, thus increasing the amount of
    sunlight trapped by the Earth.

    Of course, we should take care not to over-egg things - but so should
    the eco-doomsters. Have we changed the planet? You bet. And it's all
    the better for it.
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    I like this scenario better than Al Gore's.
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Planet Gong
    Posts
    1,032

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I've tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Robert Frost- Fire and Ice

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    I like this scenario better than Al Gore's.
    Because you beleive it true, or because to be 'environmentally friendly' is seen by you as somehow 'faddy'..?
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Because you beleive it true, or because to be 'environmentally friendly' is seen by you as somehow 'faddy'..?
    Nobody has a clue what's true anyway so I'll chose the most fun outlook. :cool:
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Do you think that a damaging hole has developed in the Ozone Layer, one that has been acceleratd in growth by the industrial methods of mankind?
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Do you think that a damaging hole has developed in the Ozone Layer, one that has been acceleratd in growth by the industrial methods of mankind?
    That's the theory. Unlike a theory like evolution though there is much less of a consensus among scientist it seems. So I'm still listening to both sides and waiting for something more definitive before I take one side as the most plausible. I'll be called a fence sitter for that but I don't regard thinking about an issue as being dumb. I'll let others dig their heels in and defend their position to the death regardless of what little anybody actually knows.

    But I have often considered that mankind may have done more good than harm. Good for mankind that is. What's good for humans may not be good for other species. But again, these thoughts are simply part of the way my brain works to explore for answers. Not for trying to convince anybody the way things are.
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by bogie
    That's the theory. Unlike a theory like evolution though there is much less of a consensus among scientist it seems. So I'm still listening to both sides and waiting for something more definitive before I take one side as the most plausible. I'll be called a fence sitter for that but I don't regard thinking about an issue as being dumb. I'll let others dig their heels in and defend their position to the death regardless of what little anybody actually knows.

    But I have often considered that mankind may have done more good than harm. Good for mankind that is. What's good for humans may not be good for other species. But again, these thoughts are simply part of the way my brain works to explore for answers. Not for trying to convince anybody the way things are.
    Fair enough, I can see why you want to wait for more definitive data, however, what if the plethora of experts are right, they are telling us to change our ways, and do it NOW, otherwise, there may be no luxury to wait, at least not for your grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

    Steve
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by enlightenment
    Fair enough, I can see why you want to wait for more definitive data, however, what if the plethora of experts are right, they are telling us to change our ways, and do it NOW, otherwise, there may be no luxury to wait, at least not for your grandchildren, and great grandchildren.

    Steve
    You know me and the hypothetical but OK I'll bite this one time. I suppose that I see such a scenario similar to an astroid headed for the earth but we just haven't picked it up yet. We can start running around doing a whole bunch of crap that may or may not work depending on the tragectory. Then when it finally pops out from behind the sun we got all the missles pointed the wrong way so we're dead because we don't have time to start over. Maybe had we waited to solve the real problem, not just one we imagined could happen, we could have worked on a real solution to a real problem that nobody argues is on it's way.

    Now, politics are envolved more than science in discussions about the environment. So we have politicions shouting "Elect me and flowing streams with a water wheel in every home and you'll never pay for electricity again." He gets elected and buddies up with the senator in the next state and trades his vote for a 20 million dollar bridge to nowhere. In other words, we're pissing into the wind.

    No. Let's wait and spend our valuable resourses solving the right problem.
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    I think our biggest problem is that you and I are expected to make the decision. Not directly of course, through our elected representatives. Everyone seems to have an opinion on global warming, but very few of them mean anything. I know I'm certainly not an expert on the environment, I'd consider myself more educated on it than most, but I still have no idea what should or should not be done.

    Turn it over to the scientists I say. There is currently far too much politics involved in something this important. Let the people that know what they are talking about make the decisions. There is much more of a consensus among scientists than you might think.

    The showdown: science versus the free market

    WITH the heat rising in the global warming debate, I foresee a protracted battle emerging that will have many similarities with the epic battle between science and religion that began in the 17th century and, in the case of many religious fundamentalists, is still continuing.

    On the one hand, we have the scientists who dedicate their lives to discovering how complex environmental systems work and understanding the long-term impacts of human activity on those systems. On the other hand, we have the free-market capitalists and their apologists — including economists, business executives, corporate shareholders and conservative politicians — who will do anything to protect their own short-term interests and dogmas, regardless of scientific evidence or concern for the wellbeing of future generations.

    Unfortunately, the status of science in the community is now well below that of free-market capitalism.

    This "dumbing down" of society has occurred over the past 30 years or so. Partly because politicians are now more concerned with surplus budgets and lowering tax rates than educating young people who can solve difficult problems such as global warming. And partly because commercial media are more concerned with playing corporate games, their ratings and circulation figures, reporting trivia and sensationalising news than educating the public about important issues facing humanity.

    We have already seen instances where Bush Administration officials have interfered with the reporting of scientific evidence related to the causes of global warming. We have also seen big mining and energy companies supporting the development of nuclear and "clean coal" technologies as solutions to global warming, while ignoring the obvious alternatives of reducing the demand for power and developing solar technologies.

    I believe that effective solutions to the global warming problem will only come from the scientific community, not from supporters of free-market capitalism who will not voluntarily do anything that threatens their obsession with ever-growing wealth, consumption, cash flows, share prices and corporate profits. We, the public, need to decide which side we can really trust in the battle for the future of our planet: the scientists or the free-market capitalists.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Hmm, this is about the author of that original piece, regarding another article he wrote on why M-theory is a terrible theory in physics. Its disturbing that newspapers publish articles like these from authors that know absolutely nothing at all. They may as well be publishing children's stories and claiming them to be fact. I can see the sports headlines now - "Tortise beats Hare in surprise upset".

    A senior physicist who is not a string theorist has sent me a piece of text that he or she called "a tendentious, malicious attack on scientists and through that on science itself".

    So I looked at it. Indeed, it was the kind of anti-scientific rant that people with IQ around 80 often write when they become desperate that they can't become scientists themselves and when they want to fool themselves into believing that their ignorance is a virtue - an equivalent of someone's knowledge (or something better).

    It was a text full of comparisons of science with the medieval Church, calls to stop funding of XY, very bitter emotions, denial of science including rigorously established mathematical theorems, the opinion that no one should care about certain questions in science, and references to opinions of "authorities" who are crackpots or semi-crackpots themselves.

    It was obviously a kind of text written by someone whom you definitely don't want meet on the street. Someone whom very serious colleagues of mine would never talk to. Someone whom we should not even think about. Someone who is definitely going to be irrelevant because the society has built-in mechanisms to suppress intellectual dwarves of this magnitude, as famous colleagues always say.

    It was a text that tells the readers not to ask what supersymmetry is because the author has no clue - and no one else should have a clue either, he thinks. A truly dumb text that criticizes M-theory for the fact that no one has a unique answer what it stands for.

    ...

    The author is called Robert Matthews and he is apparently a kind of writer who writes about everything but does not understand anything - a new, "improved" generation of Paul Boutin. Our scientific picture of reality has simply become so complex that people who are just a little bit outside the field - science journalists and even professors of different disciplines of mathematics and physics - just can't distinguish a text with a scientific merit from a completely vacuous ranting.

    ...

    I think that it is important to emphasize that Robert Matthews, among many others, has absolutely no idea about high-energy physics and his article in the Financial Times is a malicious, tendentious, and scientifically unsubstantiated and unjustifiable rant that should not influence reasonable readers of the newspapers. It is complete junk. I am not foolish to think that one article will diminish the good name of the Financial Times, but at any rate, it proves that even the Financial Times can sometimes publish a complete junk. I am sure that they have even payed for this article.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by kazza
    I think our biggest problem is that you and I are expected to make the decision. Not directly of course, through our elected representatives. Everyone seems to have an opinion on global warming, but very few of them mean anything. I know I'm certainly not an expert on the environment, I'd consider myself more educated on it than most, but I still have no idea what should or should not be done.

    Turn it over to the scientists I say. There is currently far too much politics involved in something this important. Let the people that know what they are talking about make the decisions. There is much more of a consensus among scientists than you might think.
    I'm with you kazza. All this shouting about global warming and even if it's true that humans contribute to it, and I have no reason to doubt that, even science cannot aggree on what to do about it. So when politicians start using it as a hot button to get elected I can see some real troble on the horizon. Even the sciences seem to be dollar driven today so the politicking goes on even there. I don't know the answer. If I start spouting off here that I do somebody grab ahold of me and punch some sense back into me. :cool:
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    hot button to get elected, what a terribly incorrect thought. the environment ranks so low on the list of reasons people chose a candidate that there is no button.

    second, your wrong, science agrees on it, a study, published in the magazine 'science', written by a data researcher named 'naomi oreskes' clearly proves that no peer-reviewed or government sponsored institution has written anything but support for the theory of anthropogenic global warming [human caused].

    go read some science and get your head out of the tabloids.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    838

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by benn05
    ..
    second, your wrong, science agrees on it, a study, published in the magazine 'science', written by a data researcher named 'naomi oreskes' clearly proves that no peer-reviewed or government sponsored institution has written anything but support for the theory of anthropogenic global warming [human caused].

    go read some science and get your head out of the tabloids.
    Actually, that statment is misleading. The whole Global Warming/Ozone Hole is so politically charged that the old saying in academia "publish or perish", meaning: "To keep your professorship at a university, you must publish articles and books, or we'll throw you out", has been changed to "publish and perish", meaning: "If you dare publish anything challenging our view regarding Global Warming, we'll throw you out." There are thousands of scientists who believe, as I do, that the currently available data does not support the theory that man caused the slight change in temperature in the last 100 years. You can blame the Sun for that. The sun's magnetic field and the solar wind modulates the amount of high energy cosmic radiation that the earth receives. This in turn affects the low altitude cloud cover and how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere and thus regulates the climate.
    If you noticed, we hear very little about the inpending doom due to the ozone hole that we humans "caused"--why? It is because it's not the current BS du jour. What the far left wants you to be concerned about, you'll see on the front pages of your local newspaper. It's just that the lonely ozone hole alarmists are not currently in vogue.
    The GW debate is all about taxing Western governments for their "sins" so money can flow into the pockets of left-winged special intrest groups and governments.
    Last edited by phlipper; 02-28-2007 at 05:38 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,753

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    I think that many scientists are prohibited from investigating a lot of areas, that may be of interest, to humanity, as they are regarded as a little off beat.

    Because that label is placed upon them, it would be seen as bad for their career to stray to deep into certain areas, imo.

    Shame.

    :(
    "Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
    orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
    through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
    new technologies.
    There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
    it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,548

    Re: Environmental Confusion....???

    Quote Originally Posted by benn05
    hot button to get elected, what a terribly incorrect thought. the environment ranks so low on the list of reasons people chose a candidate that there is no button.

    second, your wrong, science agrees on it, a study, published in the magazine 'science', written by a data researcher named 'naomi oreskes' clearly proves that no peer-reviewed or government sponsored institution has written anything but support for the theory of anthropogenic global warming [human caused].

    go read some science and get your head out of the tabloids.
    Not deserving of a response so I won't.
    The terminally stupid and certifiably insane.

Similar Threads

  1. Eight Botched Environmental Forecasts
    By DoubleP in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-30-2010, 07:11 PM
  2. What Happens When GOP Scum Gut Environmental Laws?
    By dchristie in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-20-2010, 12:14 PM
  3. Liberal Environmental Update!
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-29-2010, 11:49 PM
  4. European chaos and confusion prepares the way...
    By David Ben-Ariel in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 07:30 AM
  5. confusion about fusion ats
    By still lookn in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 09:20 AM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •