We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
The problem is, one side of the argument is disingenuous concerning their actual agenda and goals. "Climate change" is not about saving the earth or species of much else... it's about statism and global socialist statism at that.
Climate change and the various accommodating disasters, attributed and predicted, are simply the vehicle chosen to implement statism. It has evolved to for that purpose (global warming --> climate change) and will continue to do so as needed.
The greens are the "Party".1) Governments must push the "truth" of the Party and nothing else. It goes without saying that government should surprises anything the Party does not acknowledge as "truth".
2) Government must implement ALL the policies the Party demands. It goes without saying that policies of others should be ignored or at least take a back seat.
3) Government must acquiesce all power to the Party; agreeing to obey it at all times and without question.
Sound like any Party or any ideology we've seen before?
In some ways, I think it's closer to fascist than socialist, Lynn. For example, their hatred of older people. (Probably because they know that older people have better bullshit meters than the young, so are far more likely to see through their ruses).
Probably because they know that older people have better bullshit meters than the young, so are far more likely to see through their ruses.
There does seem to be an exception to every rule though. :) This thread being a perfect example.
We have to protect our environment logically, not emotionally.
Right you are, Dino; we have to protect our environment. I'm sorry, I'll read that again:
We have to protect our environment. The environment for human beings. That's exactly one of the points I made in the article.
Neil - we are totally dependent on a complex ecosystem. It is resilient but is now being dramatically changed by our activities.It is in our interests to respect and maintain the ecosystem that provides our very existence.Nature is worthy of respect and nurturing.
A thought on this point Neil, though I know it has been raise by myself and hundreds of others many thousands of times:“human CO2 emissions cause catastrophic climate change"Can any of th Warmageddonist 'experts' or 'scientists' explain how nature differentites
between CO2 emitted from human activity and CO2 emitted by natural phenomena such as photosynthesis, volcanic activity, termite farts (apparently the little buggers are always farting and as there are so many of them in a colony it adds up to a significant amount of CO2,) or decaying matter?The only answers I have seen to this question have been along the lines of, "You're not a scientist so you're not capable of understanding the science."To which I point out that science is an indefinite object thus 'the science' is ungrammatical.
"...The only answers I have seen to this question have been along the lines of, "You're not a scientist so you're not capable of understanding the science...."
To which I inevitably reply: Show me your scientific credentials.
Be careful Owl, every one of them has an awful lot of BS!
Yes indeed, termites do account for a significant proportion of world-wide CO2 emissions.
Oh, but I'd disagree with you on one thing. There is, of course, no difference at all between CO2 emitted from human activity and CO2 emitted by natural phenomena. That's because human activity is a natural phenomenon! When greenies moan that "we" and the things we do are un-natural, a blight on the planet or some other scold du jour, I tend to reply: "Yes, you're right. You are un-natural, or a blight on the planet (or whatever)."
I'm only repeating what I've been told Neil, and I pass it on in good faith as the people who told me this said they were scientists, a breed who cannot be wrong apparently. I'll have to break off there before my tongue gets permanently stuck in my cheek.
BTW making species extinct is quite hard, I have worked on engineering the extinction of slugs in my garden for 19 years and there are just as many now as when I started. Life has a knack of surviving.
That's trouble with attorneys, isn't it? You let one in and <poof> next thing you know you're polluted with them.
Your failure is because your neighbor has a breeding program for the little buggers.
Opher is the Science Advisor for the project.
The language and tone sounds eerily similar to the proclamations of the early Soviets. I meant that in the political sense, but also purely in the linguistic sense. It shares the same declarative tone, the same assertion of absolutist authority and the ever present shield of the common good. I'd bet our friend Webmaster could translate and spoken in Russian this would probably very closely resemble something uttered by a pioneering commissar of the people's revolution.
I would think that with the Brit's recent experience with a plebiscite, they might have been a little more cautious.
I, too, caught the echo of "Pravda" in their use of the word "truth."
Well Neil you are wrong on this one. You do not seem to grasp the enormity of the problem at all.All 8 billion of us on this planet are guilty of causing mass extinctions and climate change.You eat. You use machines. You live in a house and use power.That means you are requiring polluting energy production, transport, mining and destroying habitat.The sheer numbers of humans on the planet is the biggest problem. You are one of them.Individually none of us have wiped out a single species. Collectively we have wiped out many thousands.Individually none of us are capable of saving a species. Collectively we can.I fear you just don't get it. I am afraid that your list of questions is puerile.Nature is wonderful. Life is incredible. It should be protected and nurtured.
And unicorns were wonderful. Their feces had remarkable medicinal properties. Pygmy tribes from sub-Saharan Africa hunted them to extinction, thereby depriving caucasians of the health benefits. I DEMAND reparations!
An interesting theory about the unicorns. I had thought they died out because they made a mutual suicide pact with the honest politicians. But I'll defer to your superior knowledge of the science of unicorniology.
Opher, if you do not accept the idea of individual responsibility, there is little point trying to argue with you about anything. We all have individual responsibilities towards those around us - such as not attacking other people, not stealing their resources, and so on. But a collective responsibility can only exist when someone has agreed, by word or deed, to take on such a responsibility - for example, by taking on a management job with responsibility for what other people do, or by having children.
If it really were, as you say, that "the sheer numbers of humans on the planet is the problem," then I am not responsible for any part of this "problem" at all, since I have never had children. You, on the other hand, have had four children, not to mention grandchildren. You are among those responsible for this (putative) problem, I am not; you should be paying to "solve" it, I should not.
To call my list of questions "puerile" is a cop-out. It's a typical ad hominem from someone unable to put forward any proper argument. To use a metaphor, it is playing the man, not the ball. I, and I suspect most others here, can see this ruse for what it is, an admission that you have no case.
As to "nature is wonderful," yes, we can agree on something. And human beings are part of nature. So, are human beings not wonderful, too?
Of course I accept individual responsibility. But even in largish numbers we cannot individually make any difference.The food you eat comes from land that was cleared from natural habitat. It was sprayed with herbicides and pesticides. The metal in your home and possessions was mined and processed using large amounts of energy and creating pollution.The plastics came from oil.The power you use comes from power stations.Just by living you are adding to the destruction of habitats, the pollution of the environment and the death of many organisms.Bit by bit trees are cut down, areas cleared, streams polluted and culverted, hedges scrubbed up.With 8 billion people the effects build up. No one person is responsible. It is the accumulated result of 8 billion.You are every bit as guilty as every one of us. No one person can do much about it. It has to be a collective response of all of us.To turn a blind eye and pretend it isn't happening is foolish and morally irresponsible.I wrote you a little story.
But Neil,Think of all the new life forms we are (or may be) creating with all our environmental toxins, and all the plant life stimulated by increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. There are those little microorganisms that feed off plastic, and all those mutant life forms from radioactivity.
It occurred to me that no one seems to comment on all the ways we are dependent on the fossil fuel industry. People think only of cars and power plants, but that is just the beginning. All transportation machines--trucks, trains, airplanes, ships, helicopters, drones, subways, buses--to name a few, run on petroleum products. Plastic is a petroleum product. Fabrics like acrylic are petroleum products. Agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, are based on petroleum. Agricultural equipment like tractors. Construction materials and equipment, like bulldozers and backhoes.
It amazes me how dependent we've become on petroleum products in such a short time The Green New Dealers should do a little homework to better understand the comprehensive nature of their agendas.
CO2 and CH4 (methane) are part of the natural life cycle for the planet as a whole. Animals (including the human ones) breathe 02 and emit CO2 and CH4. Life is an organizing force, defying entropy. When an animal dies, and begins to decay, these molecules are released. Plants are also organizing forces, absorbing CO2 and releasing O2. When plants die and begin to decay, they emit CO2 and CH4 as part of the decomposition cycle. Because the components are elements, they cannot be created or destroyed, just re-arranged in different combinations.
I know this is obvious, but it's basic science that many people seem to have forgotten. CO2 comprises less than one percent of the atmosphere.
Good points, Katharine. Leading me on to the thought that every species extinction represents an opportunity, a habitat for a new species. Nature is dynamic, not static as Opher and his green buddies would have us believe.
As to the green-new-dealers, I think you underestimate the nastiness and the underhanded nature of what they are doing. The green agenda ultimately seeks to destroy - not just to curb, but to destroy the industrial civilization which has brought us human beings so many benefits over the last 200 or so years. I'll remind you of a quote from Maurice Strong, first director of the UN environment program: “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
As I see it, all those that peddle the green agenda are enemies of civilization, and so enemies of humanity. They are traitors to our civilization, and they deserve to be expelled from it and denied all its benefits.
Yes....they seem to think that nature follows their ridiculous economic models too
Aah but Katharine - all of those things can be made using genetically modified bacteria in vats. All those machines can run on alternative fuel. Fabrics, plastics and sweeteners can all be made efficiently through microbes.We have no need for oil.The age of fossil fuels is over. We're in the death-throes.
https://theworldelsewhere.c...Here’s an article that you maybe need to read Neil. It might even chill your blood and waken some degree of empathy for the creatures we are so wantonly and cruelly destroying in such a barbarous fashion.I travelling to South America a few years back. I read the tales from the whalers from a couple of centuries back. It was teeming with life. They killed everything and took tons of fresh meat aboard. They went to the breeding grounds and slaughtered the young for fun. What is left is a barren vestige of what it had been two hundred years ago.But of course that is not true is it?
Opher, I skimmed the article, and it's just a bunch of polemics. If some people in the Amazon a hundred or more years ago did unnecessarily bad things to turtles, well, they shouldn't have. But that's not my problem, because I'm not one of them - and I haven't benefited from what they did.
You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that the only thing you can possibly convince me with in a matter like this is evidence. Clear and specific evidence of bad things I have done to wildlife. You claim to be an atheist, but you are behaving like a crazy religionist - wanting to use "the collective" to browbeat or even force other people into following your particular religion.
Neil, Are you familiar with the Tragedy of the Commons? You should be. The gist of the idea is that unrestricted freedom to exploit a "common" resource will inevitably lead to the ruination of the resource. While your individual "contribution" to the ruination is small, the collective contribution is what causes the ruination. This is NOT a religious concept; it is a fact about the way the world works, as has been demonstrated repeatedly through time. And its implications are ominous environmentally as we are seeing in the case of global warming, ocean acidification, oceanic plastic pollution, species extinction, etc. So, fine, say the free-marketers: establish regulation by private ownership. But this approach is badly flawed in several respects, not limited to the fallacy that owning something necessarily implies the best stewardship. As an example, your suggestion of saving species from extinction by establishing, in effect, game preserves is unworkable for most species - really a cartoonish proposal. (Do YOU belong to Nature Conservancy, or support their work?) How would you propose to "save" an individual blue whale? An individual orca?You seem to be totally oblivious to the fact that 8 billion humans are wreaking ecological havoc on the planet. You yourself are certainly NOT blameless, particularly if you have used pesticides or herbicides in your "garden", or have ever eaten food grown with pesticides or herbicides, etc. The evidence is all around you, Neil; open your eyes..
Neil: In America there is a federal law called the Federal Migratory Bird Act. Almost all birds in North America are considered endangered, other than pigeons and the like. It is thus proscribed by federal law to remove a nesting bird. Okay Dodo birds became extinct after British colonialism in Mauritius. The last free ranging White tiger was shot in 1858 after colonialism. Indians considered them sacred and had records of them dating back to the 1500's hundreds. But, this is more important because colonialism left a trail of destructions.The Buffalo in North America were shot by those trying to conquer the Native Americans. Lake Gitchi Gummi, and Lake Michi Gummi: Lake Superior and Lake Michigan, almost all of Northen America had been named and settled by Indigineous Natives, though less advanced, the Lord would eventually have advanced them. We retained most of the names given by Native Americans who almost were driven to extinction. George Washington, whom I admire, stated the One Path policy.
Opher: Whales were hunted for oil. Baleen whales and humpbacks and other species of whales are endangered. But, why do people starve? Why don't they raise more cattle? Cows make milk, cream is a rich food that goes well with fruits. Surely countries can afford to raise more cattle, they only need water and grass, you can take milk from a cow she'll make more. It's a renewable food resource. Water shortage,and drought like in Australia? (They were mad because the Indian monsoon came early. The Lord gave the Indians their rain.) Give the cows the water and take the milk. Cream is more valuable than corn or wheat.
Nigeria produces good flour. Cows produce milk. So why do people in Ethiopia starve?They have a saying,"If you have good flour and milk cream you never have to eat rice and tamarind" or you are always a wealthy person.
Barath - the list goes on and on of our callous butchery towards nature and its creatures.
It's a simple system, you don't kill milk giving cows. The farmers sell milk at market for a profit. If they need money they sell some dairy cows, if they are making money they buy more cows. And,After all the children are dying of hunger, so why be worried if a few cows get killed for food? The supply has to go where the demand is; starving children should be the priority. Milk cream has protein, rice and tomatoes don't.
Over 99.99999999999% of everything that ever lived is extinct.
And we will join them soon.We're doing our best to make it 100%.
No, Opher, I am not trying to extinguish any species.
Was that "we" in your statement by any chance a royal we?
A generous example of survival of the fittest so let the extinctions continue on.
We can do with less socialism to start off.
Taking into account that no human remains older than forty thousand years have been found on the Earth, as well as the fact that people do not have biological brothers on Earth, it can be argued that Homo Sapiens is an artificial biological species. It did not appear due to evolution, but by genetic engineering, or was brought here from other planets.
So, it is not right for Homo Sapiens to call Earth his planet, for this does not correspond to reality. The man was immediately put here in adverse conditions, which he began to adapt for himself. With a great mind, he became the dominant species on this planet. Realizing that he is a guest here, he should just start exploring space in order to move huge cities into the orbit.
3/4 of Earth`s surface is not earth but water. No wonder that there are already projects of oceanic cities that will drift over the waves, and cruise liners are their prototypes.
On Earth, there is less room for life, and in space it is enough of it. People can happily live in the orbit of the Earth and other planets. So the next step after building ocean cities is moving to space, and Earth will get back its native biosphere with all the animals and plants.
In any way, the Milky Way with its 250 billion +- 150 billion stars is too large and attractive so to stay here all the time and raise chickens, pigs and cows.
An interesting idea that I explored in my Sci-fi novel Conexion -https://www.amazon.com/Cone...However we do now have an extensive record of human evolution backed up with DNA.I reckon we will undoubtedly move out to colonise outer space.
Opher, please, name at least one relative of a man on Earth except his closest relative macaque (or some other monkey which is still monkey but not a human being). Science knows only human brother yeti who is a strange creature hiding all the time. There is no usual scientific basis to consider the Earth as a human planet. But there are interesting remains of some humanoid giants who lived on the territory of Asia. Earth is full of pyramids and other stone structures which Homo Sapiens cannot built even today with all his technical progress achievements.
The true history is hidden so don`t believe too much those history books which tell about human evolution as they are the same science fiction as that which you write yourself. Now it is clear that there was no any evolution of Homo Sapiens at all. He just suddenly appeared on Earth 40 000 years ago and all the time needs shelter, forks, plates, clothes, hats, scissors, cookers and so on. Can you catch the antelope and kill it with your claws, then tear apart with sharp teeth, grind her bones while eating, then swallow and go to have a rest while digestion is going on? Can you catch a fish with claws like cats and bears do and eat it whole with bejesus and not cooking on fire? Can you eat the raw meat? No, and don`t try, as there was no any evolution behind you allowing to do it like cats and dogs do.
BTW a cat has on Earth about 30 brothers and sisters who are very close to him in genetic structure and look very similar. Where are the man`s biological brothers except those apes who differ from him very much and in fact are not his brothers but very distant relatives?
" It did not appear due to evolution, but by genetic engineering, or was brought here from other planets."
The other species seem to be able to take a reasonable and modest dump in the forest, but we cannot it seems. Other animals have sufficient skin or coverings and we do not.
We are distinctly different from the others here. But, we cannot live in space nor can we go elsewhere so we are stuck with our wits instead of thick skins and lubricated droppings.
We can live in space on space stations and the space exploration history proved it. There was even a historical anecdote with a Soviet cosmonaut Krikalev who flew away into orbit from USSR and spent in space it seems more than a year as USSR collapsed and everything changed so quickly on earth that there was no time to deal with his return. It was so unusual that some Italian activists took the initiative to return Krikalev from space.
Bravo Neil, tell them!They use misplaced sentiment to get finances just to irritate us more.
Now, perhaps, is the moment to respond to what Opher said, on this thread, in a comment so deeply buried in Disqus' pages-within-pages-within-pages that finding it again requires almost a lifetime's journey. And there are only 65 comments here so far!
What Opher said was: Of course I accept individual responsibility.
OK Opher, so... what if it turns out that your green policies are wrong? What if the collective measures you propose to "fix" our planet are implemented, and turn out to have made things worse? What if getting rid of landfills, for example, extinguishes "Michael's flycatcher," a tiny bird which circles above rubbish tips feeding on the flies that congregate there? Will you accept your share of the responsibility for that extinction? And if human beings suffer because of your bad policies, how will you compensate them?
As I see it, if you do something that causes risks to others, you must ensure that you have the resources to compensate them if things go wrong. That's why we must have insurance in order to drive a car, no? So, Opher, how can you reasonably propose that people make sacrifices for some cause, without having the resources to compensate them if the cause turns out to have been wrong?
"OK Opher, so... what if it turns out that your green policies are wrong?"
Opher is an ideological automaton so he is never wrong.
"(1) “Government must tell the truth by declaring a climate and ecological emergency, working with other institutions to communicate the urgency for change.”"
What is the truth and by the way cui bono or who profits by this action?? The left gets more money??
The truth is that the drooling left will do any thing and tell any lie to get money from honest people.