Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   The Sixth Extinction (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19851)

vtflyfish 04-29-2014 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 216806)
I guess I'm out of step with most. Perhaps it's cultural. I was taught to nurture the Mother (Earth) and to never take more than what was needed. Today that translate that we shoud not be putting all of the things into the air, land and water that we do. Nor should we be stripping the land of it's resources. It make no difference whether it can lead to a catastrophic event or not. It has to do with having respect for the world that we and billions of others live in. It's about respect and decency as well as all the other implications.

Hawk, you are spot-on. All of us would be wise to emulate you.

Have you read the book? I think you'd appreciate it.

cityboy 04-29-2014 04:23 PM

Since I'm waiting for the book I've read some reviews. Sounds like human overpopulation and the resulting habitat destruction plays a key role. Just another problem caused by Developing countries in their quest to raise their standard of living at any cost.

HappyHiker 04-29-2014 05:22 PM

We need space aliens to come down here and help us.

Glen 04-29-2014 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216818)
Since I'm waiting for the book I've read some reviews. Sounds like human overpopulation and the resulting habitat destruction plays a key role. Just another problem caused by Developing countries in their quest to raise their standard of living at any cost.


I know, the nerve of some people wanting at least a 19th century standard of living!

Hobbitling 04-29-2014 05:48 PM

It's not a matter of our standard of living being wrong, it's that it's un-sustainable.
Simple math: If we use a resource faster than it can renew itself, .... what do we expect to happen?

It's like we're living off our credit card and never paying off the bill. It can't continue forever, no matter how much we love the "standard of living" that it temporarily provides.
Except in this case it's future generations who'll end up paying the bill.

Hey, that's a great idea, a credit card that uses your descendents future earnings as collateral. Wall Street should totally do that!

cityboy 04-29-2014 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 216825)
I know, the nerve of some people wanting at least a 19th century standard of living!

I don't blame them. Poverty causes death too. But if you believe the Alarmists everyone needs to stop and go back to the Stone age to save the world.

So turn off a light and save a species!

vtflyfish 04-29-2014 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216818)
Since I'm waiting for the book I've read some reviews. Sounds like human overpopulation and the resulting habitat destruction plays a key role. Just another problem caused by Developing countries in their quest to raise their standard of living at any cost.

Gross over-simplification and not the point of the book at all. Can you at least read it before pontificating on what it means?

randomscooter 04-29-2014 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216828)
I don't blame them. Poverty causes death too. But if you believe the Alarmists everyone needs to stop and go back to the Stone age to save the world.

So turn off a light and save a species!

Okay, so now I know that you define Alarmists as those who believe that everyone needs to stop and go back to the Stone age to save the world.

I'm sure there are some who promote that "solution". But very few, and the absurdity of their position marginalizes them quite effectively. Most who see a need for change also believe that all nations should raise their respective standards of living to whatever level is appropriate for them.

But nobody who wants to be taken seriously is promoting that developed nations lower their standards of living. That would be a non-starter. That's not to say that developed nations shouldn't change. Just that there is no need to make changes that lower their standard of living.

One big problem is the widespread disinformation that portrays anyone who believes AGW is real must be an alarmist and want us to go back to the stone age. Just isn't true.

Hobbitling 04-29-2014 08:23 PM

Yeah, but why limit yourself to debating an opponent's actual arguments when you can debate the absurd arguments that your own imagination dreams up.

It's a slippery slope folks. First they make us use energy efficient light bulbs, and before you know it we're living in caves and burning the elderly for fuel.

vtflyfish 04-29-2014 08:49 PM

Burning the elderly??? I represent that!!!

randomscooter 04-30-2014 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216837)
One big problem is the widespread disinformation that portrays anyone who believes AGW is real must be an alarmist and want us to go back to the stone age. Just isn't true.

Here's the line of reasoning...
  1. Alarmist = "back to stone age"
  2. and... AGW = Alarmist
  3. therefore... AGW = "back to stone age"
The problem with the line of reasoning is #2. Truth is that AGW isn't the work of the Alarmists. It's the work of an overwhelming (97%) consensus of scientists.

Unfortunately the alarmists are using AGW to promote their agenda. In the eyes of the general public this taints the work of the AGW consensus, providing fertile ground for the Deniers (i.e., alarmists at the other end of the spectrum) to plant their own seeds of disinformation.

A vicious cycle that can only be broken by actually taking the time and effort to THINK about it. Unlike many people, I hold out hope that we are still capable of thinking. I hold out this hope because if I can think, anybody can. I was a skeptic not long ago. I decided it was too important an issue to simply believe my "sources", so I delved into it. That's why I currently have 4500 pages of literature sitting on my nightstand. I came back believing there is very likely something to this AGW stuff. And, perhaps more importantly, we absolutely must begin weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, for reasons independent of AGW.

cityboy 04-30-2014 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randomscooter (Post 216851)
Here's the line of reasoning...
  1. Alarmist = "back to stone age"
  2. and... AGW = Alarmist
  3. therefore... AGW = "back to stone age"
The problem with the line of reasoning is #2. Truth is that AGW isn't the work of the Alarmists. It's the work of an overwhelming (97%) consensus of scientists.

Unfortunately the alarmists are using AGW to promote their agenda. In the eyes of the general public this taints the work of the AGW consensus, providing fertile ground for the Deniers (i.e., alarmists at the other end of the spectrum) to plant their own seeds of disinformation.

A vicious cycle that can only be broken by actually taking the time and effort to THINK about it. Unlike many people, I hold out hope that we are still capable of thinking. I hold out this hope because if I can think, anybody can. I was a skeptic not long ago. I decided it was too important an issue to simply believe my "sources", so I delved into it. That's why I currently have 4500 pages of literature sitting on my nightstand. I came back believing there is very likely something to this AGW stuff. And, perhaps more importantly, we absolutely must begin weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, for reasons independent of AGW.

"It's the work of an overwhelming (97%) consensus of scientists."

When I hear that line of reasoning I know I'm usually dealing with a "Climateer".
That's different from an Alarmist. They share many similarities but the former is a low information intellectual who for whatever reason relies on scientific opinion rather than do any real analysis on their own. You sound like a Hybrid since you at least have 4500 pages of literature. Its not all from Mother Jones is it?

Another trait of both types is the inability to understand that someone equally as intelligent and also analyzing the very same data might arrive at a different conclusion. They just can't accept it and either attribute it to low intelligence or a person representing the interests of big oil.

I just read an interview with the author Elizabeth Kolbert. Here is a quote.

"Even very smart people can try to shoehorn new information that just doesn't fit into an existing paradigm."

I feel this is directly applicable to Alarmists. They just don't want to hear anything that might call their beliefs into question, hence they say "the science is settled" and "the debate is over".

I've read enough about this book online to know I'm not interested and have cancelled my library request.

Time is precious and not to be wasted. Now if it was by Steven Colbert at least it would be funny.

Hobbitling 04-30-2014 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216855)
I feel this is directly applicable to Alarmists. They just don't want to hear anything that might call their beliefs into question....

Quote:

Originally Posted by cityboy (Post 216855)
I've read enough about this book online to know I'm not interested and have cancelled my library request.

Wow. just....wow.
:banghead:

backwoodsman 04-30-2014 07:46 AM

Welcome to the ADK Climate Change Forum. Have a nice nap.

Neil 04-30-2014 08:21 AM

I have a problem with an outdoors (hiking, paddling, fishing etc.) discussion forum format being co-opted to discuss issues as weighty and complex as climate change and species extinctions.

Not only do most of the participants lack sufficient training and background to discuss the subject in a meaningful and informative manner but the moderation is pretty much impossible. I have a strong background in science and biology and do a lot of reading. (Yes, I actually read the books, even the ones I don't agree with!) Nevertheless, due to a lack of deep intimacy with the subjects under discussion it is pretty much impossible for me to moderate these discussions beyond applying the rules of decent behavior.


What we wind up with are a few people going back and forth picking away at each other's opinions, trying to convince the other person that they are wrong, polarizing the debate, name-calling, cherry picking from (probably) already biased literature and so on.

As a result I am closing off this potentially interesting and informative thread. If you have something you would like to post that you feel is of significance by all means shoot me a PM and either I'll re-open this thread or start another.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.